An attorney for the parent advocacy group APPLE (African American Parents for Purposeful Leadership in Education) has accused Oak Park and River Forest High School of unfair discipline practices against some of its special education students.
Attorney Dave Bennett addressed the issue at last Thursday’s District 200 Board of Education meeting. Speaking during public comments, Bennett mentioned a report APPLE conducted last year that detailed some of its claims.
The report was released last October to the high school. Bennett alleged that discipline is imposed too harshly on special needs children, and the disciplinary system is used to segregate some of those students to restrictive environments.
“These two issues tend to violate the laws and educational practices related to educating students in the least restrictive environment,” said Bennett.
He also charged that OPRF outplaced a large number of its special education students to alternative off-campus facilities, costing millions of dollars.
Charges concerning excessive outplacement of special education students have been made against OPRF before by APPLE and other activists. The high school has maintained that some special education students are placed at off-site facilities that are better equipped to handle certain disabilities.
Other charges levied by Bennett included special education students being suspended for weeks or months without receiving alternative placement.
Bennett confirmed that the high school did meet with APPLE after the report’s release. APPLE, according to Bennett, was assured that improvements had been made. The high school, though, failed to schedule a follow-up meeting at APPLE’s request, Bennett said, and has refused to agree to have attorneys from both sides present.
“The reason is that these problems are very complicated and implicate not only educational issues but also legal issues,” he maintained.
Bennett asked the board to take a personal interest in this problem.
Later in the meeting, Weninger responded to Bennett’s claims during his superintendent’s report.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Bennett didn’t bring with him the facts, and many of the statements he made were inaccurate, and quite frankly, they were not truthful.”
Weninger didn’t go into details, but insisted that the issues were discussed with the board, and that communication from the board to Bennett has gone unanswered.
“Those are the two communications that the board authorized me to make and they went unanswered,” Weninger said. “It’s unfortunate that the facts were not available tonight and that they were misconstrued, especially how the process unfolded since October.”
Weninger later declined to discuss what occurred in the October meeting because they were private meetings.
