Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plainfield administrators defend Catalyst and ReFocus as tools that keep students in school
Summary
Plainfield SD 202 administrators told the board that Catalyst (a 3‑day restorative intervention) and ReFocus (an in‑school transition program) reduce expulsions and have low recidivism among participants, but they urged better coding of incidents and more early intervention after a rise in fight counts.
Administrators for Plainfield School District 202 on June 17 told the Curriculum & Technology Committee that the district’s Catalyst and ReFocus programs are designed to keep students in school and reduce repeat high‑level discipline incidents.
Joe O’Brien, the district’s director of high schools and personnel, said Catalyst began as a 2006 pilot aimed at avoiding expulsions and evolved into a 3‑day, voluntary intervention that involves a social worker, dean and parents. “Students accept responsibility, participate in a three‑day intervention and then receive eight follow‑ups with the social worker and triangle team,” O’Brien said. He added that schools also provide supervised academic work during the program so students stay in school while participating.
Administrators presented four years of district data showing roughly 200 students per year went through Catalyst and that recidivism — defined as a subsequent level‑three incident — ranged roughly 7–13 percent depending on the cohort and the follow‑up window. Bill Becker, associate principal for curriculum and instruction at Plainfield South, said early results after Catalyst’s 2007 expansion showed expulsions fell from 58 in one semester to 14 the following year.
The panel also reviewed why students enter Catalyst or ReFocus, noting that fights and THC possession account for many referrals. Ross Traefler, Plainfield North principal, said buildings saw between 18 and 37 students involved in fights without injury this year depending on site; staff cautioned the board that the count is students involved, not necessarily separate incidents.
Board members pressed for deeper analysis. Administrators agreed that COVID‑era disruptions, social‑media amplification of conflicts and transient student inflows appear to have raised some behavior counts since 2020, and they recommended per‑building breakdowns and percentage‑of‑enrollment measures before drawing policy conclusions. They also said discipline coding differences (for example, whether a shove is coded as a ‘‘fight’’) affect trend lines and need standardization across deans and assistant principals.
Administrators urged more upstream work in middle and elementary grades. O’Brien and others said the district will pursue earlier social‑skills instruction (what some staff called “power skills”), expanded refocus‑type interventions for attendance and punctuality, and better transition supports for students new to the district.
The committee thanked the presenters and asked for follow‑up data next year including per‑building fight breakdowns, coding clarifications and, where feasible, qualitative accounts from Catalyst coordinators and students who completed the program.
