OPRF will allow juniors, seniors off campus

Some upperclassman allowed out with conditions


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Terry Dean

Staff reporter

The Oak Park and River Forest High School campus will remain open to juniors and seniors next fall — with conditions.

The high school board made that decision on May 26, following more than two hours of discussion, motions offered, motions amended and much public comment. The other option members considered was closing the campus entirely to all students during daily lunch periods, but that option was not supported by a majority of the board.

The conditions the board agreed on include allowing upperclassmen off campus with parental permission if they are in "good academic standing," which the administration will determine.

In the end, and after much discussion, the board voted on two separate motions. The first was to close the campus to juniors and seniors with conditions. That measure was approved 4-3, with Amy McCormack, Jacques Conway and Sharon Patchak-Layman voting against it. Patchak-Layman actually made the motion, but it was amended. Her original measure called for a two-year phase-in of closing the campus. Juniors and seniors with parental permission as the only requirement would have been allowed off campus, starting with the 2011-2012 school year. The following year, it would be seniors only.

The administration would have also been required to "refine the current security infrastructure to tighten the in/out policy" and "fix inadequacies of the ID program." Other requirements included increasing the adult presence in the cafeterias and directing administration to create a "lunchtime environment that supports the educational goals" of OPRF students and "promotes the social, emotional and physical health of students."

Board President Dietra Millard was among several members, though, who felt the motion shouldn't dictate specifically how administration should do their jobs. Millard and other members generally hold that view with respect to policies the board approves.

She and other members believe the administration would address security and ID procedures in any case. Some members also insisted that students also be in "good academic standing" before being allowed open-campus privileges.

Patchak-Layman ultimately voted against the changes to her original motion. One of her concerns was with administration deciding what "good academic standing" is.

"I think that when it comes to the board, there is opportunity for the community to give us information, much as how this conversation has grown in over a year," she said. "It hasn't been because of the internal conversation that the board has had; it has been because we've been challenged by the community to think about things differently. And anytime we move things to a decision by the administration ... we run the risk of missing out on that rich conversation that helps guide the administration."

In response, Millard argued that the current administration has shown a willingness to incorporate the broader community in its decision making.

In terms of the amended motion, Millard said her preference was for seniors only to be allowed to leave campus but was open to extending that to juniors as well. And though the two-year phase-in process was taken out, Millard said she was open to that idea also, adding, however, that closing the entire campus was not her ultimate goal.

"I originally did not intend to allow all juniors and seniors to leave, but I accept the suggestion that a two-year process might yield at least a year to look more carefully at what we're doing," she said.

Conway, who also announced his resignation from the board that evening, favored a completely closed campus, citing the safety of students as his main reason. McCormack said her goal would be a completely closed campus though she would be open to some modified alternative.

The board then voted on a second motion, which also included wording from Patchak-Layman's original measure. The motion directs administration to provide safety and support to students and to improve the school environment during lunchtime. That measure, which also passed, went through several amended versions and much discussion. Millard was the only member to vote no, believing that it was dictating specifically how administration should do their jobs. She insisted that was not the board's place. The other members described the motion as a "broad policy statement" that the board wanted administration to put extra effort into achieving.

Closed campus motions approved by the board

District 200 will implement a modified closed campus for the 2011-2012 school year. Juniors and seniors, in good standing as defined by the administration, with parental permission may be allowed to leave campus at lunchtime.

During the 2011-2012 school year, District 200 will plan with students, staff and faculty to create a lunchtime environment that supports the educational goals of this high school and promotes social, emotional and physical health of students.

Reader Comments

63 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

OP Parent  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 1:03 PM

Anything kids can do during lunch can (and is) also done before and after school. So should we lock the kids in their homes and not even let them out the door? Or keep them locked in school and not let them go home? The kids who congregate near the school to smoke etc etc are there before school every day so whatever problem exists isn't just at lunch. Closed lunch is a poor bandaid, not a solution.


Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:47 PM

The "drama" seems to be over all the trouble they'd get into with an open campus. CLEARLY if they could get into trouble with an open campus, it is giving them an opportunity to exercise a little responsibility. To go back to school, or to go home and stay for the rest of the day, etc etc. The friend I mentioned previously was a pothead in high school. Locking them in didn't make a bit of a difference. I had open campus and never once used it to drink, smoke, or use drugs.


Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:43 PM

I graduated in 99. I remember very, very well how much I enjoyed getting out of that building if only for a bit. If 45 min isn't a big deal to get some fresh air, then it's clearly not a big deal for "getting into trouble". Just the other day a friend was telling me how they were trapped in their school, and the stunts they pulled to get off campus. Imagine if you worked in an office which wouldn't even allow you to leave. Small children is one thing, but for teens with no recess?

OPRF Parent  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:02 PM

@OPRF Parent from OP: Is it working at other schools? Are there no drug problems in any other West Suburban Conference schools? And did we ask those schools if closing the campus made the difference for them? You have fallen victim to the absurdity of the argument that this has anything to do with the drug/alcohol problem at the high school. Go there at 8 a.m and tell me there aren't kids high at that time of the day. They don't need to leave the campus for that!

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 5:01 PM

Do you truly believe that requiring students to remain on campus for the school day is "locking them up"? Do you see those 45 minutes per school day as their only opportunity to "have responsibilities"? The Sun-Times rated OPRFHS 7th out of the 12 schools in conference (48th in state), and our students self-report substance abuse at twice the nat'l average. Why not try what other schools are doing, if it's successful?

J.G.Morales from Oak Park  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 10:42 PM

High School kids are minors being prepared for college life... out in the world ALONE. People learn from experience. Caging them up and then setting them totally free will teach them nothing of responsible decision making. It will teach them nothing of dealing with peer pressure. It will not prepare them for life outside of this excessive supervision. You guys need to cut the apron strings. Let them have responsibilities. Kids who want to experiment do. Closed campus won't change that.

OP Parent  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 10:10 PM

Its not the kids who can't handle closed campus - its the authoritarian crazed zero tolerance adults that will be the problem. Most kids handle open campus just fine. And if they don't, locking them up is not necessarily the best answer. After all, many of the kids will be voting age before they leave high school, shouldn't we be teaching them to be responsible adults? Why not get them involved in developing a solution? Why won't it happen? because it is easier to just turn the lock.

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 12:50 PM

It's because many students were not responsibly handling open campus that this discussion started in the first place. When the issue was discussed by the community at open forums, neighbors of OPRFHS had a long list of complaints about student behavior at lunch. Dealing and using drugs were only part of it. Unsupervised teenagers often make bad decisions. Closing campus provides supervision. There is no educational benefit from an open campus. There are benefits from closing it.

OPRF Parent  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 12:35 PM

@OPRF Parent from Oak Park -- what are YOU saying about our kids that they can't handle an open campus? You are making our point -- most of our students handle this privilege very well and have no problems. Because of some who misbehave and because of the administration not dealing with that issue (security, police, whatever), the responsible, hard-working students are losing something they enjoy. Many have proven they are very capable of having an open campus.

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 11:03 AM

I'll remind you that every single school in our conference has at least this level of closed campus. Most are completely closed. I'm bewildered by the suggestion that our children alone are incapable of this, even though their peers in the west suburbs have been managing it for years. What do you suggest is so wrong with OPRF students that they are the only kids in their conference who can't handle this?

OP Parent  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 10:29 PM

Regarding the potential for fights at lunch - please don't forget to add in the number of kids who will get in trouble because they are goofing off in typical teenage boy ways - which will be perceived as "threats to safety" etc.

OPRF Achievement Gap  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 9:30 PM

@OPRF Parent - I too hope this can work. Do not take my comments as anything but facts. We all would love this to be the silver bullet. Facts however point differently. Fights and problems happen now. Talk to YOUR kids - and really press them. Kids are smoking in old closets and under bleachers by the boiler room. The SECURITY Guards are TURNING their backs. Why - either they are friends or they are getting paid off. The School Admin has to Know. As the Principal and Super about this.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 7:37 PM

And to OPRF Parent from Oak Park, do you know how many fights break out in the lunchroom now? Ask your student (unless they are off campus during lunch), they know. And the administration knows too. For that matter, ask security what they think of this idea of closed campus. Good luck to them -- their already tough job just got tougher.

@Parent from River Forest  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 7:34 PM

cont. The surveys could easily be done during a selected period, the teachers pick them up and hand them in to the administration. Saying we have a survey if you are interested during a morning announcement that more than half the students don't hear, is not trying to listen to the students. I didn't receive anything in my home which would have been another option if they really wanted EVERY parent and student heard (and not just those select loud parents).

@Parent from River Forest  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 7:32 PM

Was that survey selectively distributed because I asked several students and they knew nothing about it. Just like Rouse had lunch meetings & most of the students knew nothing about that.Maybe the surveys were only distributed to this select student group? Either way, the bottom line is that the students have some great ideas, they know more than anybody who is using or selling and their views are not being heard. If the adm. really wanted a survey, they would do it in school and pick it up

Parent from RIver Forest  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 6:58 PM

@ Thank You Board- Actually, a survey was presented to ALL the students of OPRFHS many months ago regarding closing the campus. Guess how many completed it? Just over 100. Also, The grass root effort of 100's of concerned members of this community included a student group. Giving them a voice has been part of the greater efforts of many.

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 6:11 PM

I was at the Thursday night meeting, and neither the principal nor the superintendent expressed that the school could not be closed. I'm guessing that they would have a better picture of that than you do. Over the years, every other school in our conference has closed its campus, possibly with the same dire predictions of lunchroom fights and mass dropouts. They've all survived the change, just as we will. Open campus serves no educational goal. Closing makes sense.

OPRF Achievement Gap  

Posted: May 31st, 2011 4:22 PM

OPRF can not have closed lunch for all - due to size of student population and small footprint. School is vastly over populated! This is not Highland Park - where they have less than 2000 students. OPRF is at 3200!

Proactive parent from River Forest  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 11:20 PM

@Thank you Board and Ruth... What you fail to acknowledge is the open campus poses more problems than just drug and alcohol use during the school day, which is in of itself a huge issue and does negatively impact every student in the classroom. It also poses safety concerns. The Highland Park High School closed overnight in the mid-90's when a student was severely injured in a car crash during lunch. OPRF has the opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive. Close the campus already!

At last  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 11:06 PM

Thank you "Common sense" for making this discussion about the kids. Thank you for not being like all the other over opinionated people who will not spend the time to attend the meetings which try to make the school part of the community and the community part of the school's solution to the serious problems we are facing.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 8:00 PM

And for your information, teens drop out of school because their voices are not heard and are disconnected from school. None of the 3200 plus students in that building were heard about closing the campus. Therefore, for students already disenfranchised, this will not encourage them to change their belief about school. This was an easy out to feel "good." That holds true for this committee, the Board and the administration. It's ridiculous.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 7:56 PM

You have your opinion, I have mine. Drugs and alcohol are a huge issue in society, not just our high school. If this committee truly wanted to do "good" they would have kept the focus on drugs/alcohol and not taken the easy route of closing the campus as their main issue. I also know that they and the Board did not even credit any dissenting opinions. If you went to a meeting, you either agreed with them or you were ignored. So my opinion of her and the committee stands.

OPRF Parent  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 7:34 PM

@BTW, that's what some of us have been saying all along. This has virtually nothing to do with the drug/alcohol issue and to me, more importantly than closing the campus, is working toward helping those students and starting to understand why our students are abusing drugs and alcohol. And yes, that includes the honor students.

@ Thank you Board  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 7:34 PM

I find your comments regarding Ms. Lowry offensive. This is a woman that has dedicated her life to working with teens at risk. This past year she has done a tremendous job educating parents, teens and middle school children on the drug and alcohol issue in our community, in our homes and in our schools. She and her group have been instrumental in bring this issue out in the open and they should be congratulated. So, for you to say "the dropout rate will definitely go up" is inexcusable. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Posted: May 29th, 2011 7:14 PM

The school board changed very little. In my opinion they took the easy path to please all. For the parents that wanted closed campus they got it closed for the sophomores and for parents that wanted open campus well it's still open for juniors and seniors, it's just now you as a parent are responsible for giving their teen permission to go off campus. I don't believe this compromise will have any measurable effect on the drug alcohol issue. So everyone let's stop arguing about closed or open campus and let's start talking about a solution to the drug and alcohol issue facing our community.

Ruth from Oak park  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 10:20 AM

I've spent my entire professional life working with "at risk" kids, and am thinking about them as well as all kids of OPRF. Trust me, the "at risk" kids are not the only ones using drugs and alcohol at OPRF. I'm not questioning your good intentions, why are you questioning mine?

Ruth from Oak Park  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 10:19 AM

To CS: I'm sorry that I offended you, and perhaps some clarification would help. I didn't at all mean to imply that you don't make your kids your top priority. I was commenting on how this process has not made student INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS a priority, and I think that is a mistake. @Common Sense said it perfectly. We do care, we just have a different take on the problem and how to address it.

@Common Sense  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 8:36 AM

The fact is we ARE concerned about those kids and that's the problem -- this knee-jerk "feel good" reaction of closing the campus is not a solution to "those" kids and their problems. ASK THE STUDENTS -- how does this help the students who have drug/alcohol issues. I too went to meetings and if you weren't in the "close the campus" group, you were not heard. Sad but so very true. There was no discussion!

Common Sense  

Posted: May 29th, 2011 12:35 AM

@ Ruth..The BoE made it clear it will revisit its modified open campus policy at its meeting Thursday night. The fact is an open high school campus is a bad policy in 2011. It does not benefit students or their achievement. I find your comment offensive. My husband and I have always put our children first. Our children are not at-risk, yet we are concerned about those that are vulnerable. Why isn't everyone concerned about these at-risk kids versus their own kids eating lunch at Tasty Dog?

Ruth from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 9:58 PM

@John: Always nice to get a dig in when having a conversation. FYI, I did participate in some meetings, and did not find all views to be welcome. I wouldn't say my view is "opposing" as I would agree our community needs to do more to address these issues, but I could not continue to participate in a process that did not make student involvement the top priority. Your "parent committee", has been too convinced of the righteousness of it's cause to consider other perspectives.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 7:06 PM

To Ruth-It appears from reading these comments you like to have the last word. Beyond that, the BoE decision satisfied no one. Their decision was not common sense. At the BoE meeting, the comment was made that the administration will need support implementing the policy. Parent committees are open and welcome all members with differing views. To everyone commenting pro and con, step up. The power of no gets old.

Ruth from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 5:50 PM

I'm not sure I see the "common sense" in continuing to berate a point when the BOE has made a decision. I'm not crazy about it either, but really, this has been so divisive and not serving the students well. It would be much more helpful, if instead of trying to convince everyone that you are right, you put your energy into your relationship with your children, something the research actually does demonstrate is important.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 5:24 PM

@Common Sense...well said. My children are student athletes and in honors classes. I know where they are after school, at night and on weekends. While they enjoy going out for lunch, I and they understand closing the campus would benefit the majority of students and the school overall. Our children can go out to lunch on weekends. Open lunch should not be part of the school day when it creates so many problems. The school's job is to educate our students in a safe and healthy environment.

Common Sense  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 5:08 PM

The Board of Education's goal is to provide a safe, drug-free environment for learning for all students. All BoE policies should support that goal and all policies should benefit the greater good, that means every student. An open or modified open campus policy does none of that. Any type of open campus poses security risks, increases drug and alcohol use during the school day as well as other dangerous activities, and negatively affects the learning environment. It's common sense.

OP Parent  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 4:05 PM

Limiting access to dealers outside the school will only improve the market share for the dealers inside the school - it will not change student behavior in any meaningful way. The only thing that has happened is that school administrators can now claim bragging rights for having "done something". Of course, no mention of before and after data that will be used to measure the success, failure, or unintended outcomes of closing the campus. Some things never change.

OPRF Achievement GAP  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 1:17 PM

@Ruth using drugs during day @ lunch means even more drugs after school. Those using during the day - are not the same high achieving kids using during weekends. They are different. Same problem yes, but they need to be approached totally different. Those who use during the school day at lunch will still do IN the school without a MASSIVE change in the Administration Policy and approach. @OP Resident is getting close when they say - need to reach out and WORK directly one on one


Posted: May 28th, 2011 12:08 PM

Amen. Nice to see that someone understands the opposing viewpoint. These are extremely bright kids at the high school. @Common, really, you say "why give a marginal student the option to socialize..." I am hoping your comment was sarcastic because if not, that's just insulting. And remember, our students do deserve the break called lunch.

Ruth from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 11:59 AM

We should ensure that everyone at OPRF, from the security to the administrators to the teachers to the students, have a shared vision of what the drug policy is and what assistance and/or consequences are available. Parents and teachers need ideas on how to talk to teenagers about drug use. Teachers and parents can be useful resources to students who are faced with difficult choices, but only if they feel that we are on their side.

Ruth from Oak park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 11:58 AM

We should also all watch Race to Nowhere, and learn a few things. Most of the kids are OPRF are working very hard and are involved in numerous activities. They are also using drugs and alcohol. They see kids who "look fine", who are using drugs and alcohol, and don't think this is a problem. Some adults in their lives don't either, and the scare tactics used by the committee doesn't work for them either. We need to get on the same page.

Ruth from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 11:56 AM

What do you have against listening to the students? As has already been pointed out, they know who uses drugs, and have ideas about why. Why wouldn't we want to work with them instead of against them? We should stop trying to scare them with bad information about how strong today's marijuana is, or unproven theories on the effectiveness of closing the campus. These are bright kids who know that correlation does not mean causation. We lose credibility when we try to scare them.

Common sense   

Posted: May 28th, 2011 11:14 AM

The other schools in the conference realize what we don't - by closing the campus the kids have no choice but to focus on academics. Why give a marginal student the option to soicalize during the day when they need to hit the books.

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 10:01 AM

Childlike response, multiple questions marks and all. No one believes that closing campus will solve all of our problems. Other schools have closed their campuses as one way to address certain issues. This has proven to be an effective strategy. It could be an effective strategy for us as well. The Sun-Times ranks us in the second half of our own conference, and our students self-report substance abuse at nearly twice the national average. Why not try to improve?

@OPRF Parent  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 9:30 AM

I stand corrected. Closing the campus will cure all the problems and make us the best school in the state! Why didn't we think of this years ago????

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: May 28th, 2011 9:19 AM

The Sun-Times rated OPRFHS the 48th best HS in the state. Six conference schools were rated ahead of us, and none of those six schools have an open campus. We're not even in the top half of our own conference. Evidence-based decision making tells me that we might have something to learn from schools that are outperforming us.


Posted: May 28th, 2011 7:33 AM

Maggie, how long have you lived in Oak Park? And how long have you had a teenager? You sound very naive.

Maggie from Oak Park  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 10:54 PM

I agree with OPRF Parent from Oak Park. I have said it before and will say it again. Most other schools have closed campus without problems. Again we did not rank in the top ten in the State. Good luck to those who drop out. They must not have much parental guidance.

OPRF Alum  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 10:19 PM

You either have the campus open OR closed. There should be no exceptions for anyone. If you do have the campus closed with exceptions to certain students, you will need a security guard at every single exit of the school to ensure that only the "exceptional" students exit. These days students can leave the building at any exit at any time, no questions asked. Good luck with the "modified" closed campus plan...you'll need it.

OPRF Achievement Gap  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 10:05 PM

OPRF Parent should you do what the Jones's do? The thing to do, is the Right thing whatever that is. OPRF will be VERY challenged to pull this off. The main reason they kept open school - is due to the size of the school (kids) and the small footprint. Also, as @Thank you Bd has noted - the Security Guards are in some ones back pocket, as they are complicit in all of this. They could be stopping it and they are not. REPLACE the Security Guards. They must be taken out of the School.

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:53 PM

Nearly all of the schools in our conference have completely closed campuses. Nobody is allowed to leave, even seniors. They've done this for years. It's ridiculous to debate whether it can be done. It has been done. It's done every singe day. Our administration, faculty and staff, and students can do it, just like other schools have. I don't understand why our taxes are so high and our expectations so low.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:30 PM

Frankly to me, it's like everything we do in Oak Park -- we talk about it, we committee it, and in the end, we never really solve anything. Achievement gap, drugs, safety, all issues at OPRF and none of them are getting serious work and consideration. I went to a meeting and frankly, it was clear everyone there -- including the moderators - had their minds made up. Differing opinions were not welcome.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:27 PM

students who are already on drugs? I want the school to address the issue of what is causing so many of our students to abuse drugs/alcohol. The answer is multi-layered but it's worth doing some work to help our students. They know who is using drugs, they know who is selling. Help those kids and if all else fails, at that point, there need to be disciplinary or alternative choices for them. It's amazing to me that so many see this as a good first step. To me, it's unrelated.

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:23 PM

to face the challenge. Students need to be responsible, security guards WATCH students misbehave and do nothing. Police are either not there or again, do nothing. Teachers allow drunk/high students to disrupt class and again, do nothing. As far as students who are abusing alcohol or drugs, are those students and their families being helped within and outside the school. Are parents being involved? Showing a video to an auditorium filled with students is great but what is being done for

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:21 PM

While I am sure that everyone involved in this push is well intentioned, I still believe their intentions are naive at best. You are talking about students who break rules already. And you expect them to suddenly behave because the campus is closed? Meanwhile all the other well-behaved students are deprived of a privilege enjoyed by many. The school does not work enough with the students who need help. It's a huge effort that needs to be made and the adm, teachers and Bd do not seem eager

OPRF Achievement Gap  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:14 PM

@Thank you Bd - you still did not ask the very simple question I asked. What is YOUR suggestion to deal with this issue? While I do agree with some of the points you are making, your conclusion seems very unclear. The School Bd MUST understand that TOO many teachers ignore kids drunk & High in Their classes. For them to pass this policy, the BD MUST now demand teachers to play the game or this thing will never fly. I agree with its intent, as most level headed people but execution is 90%

Frank the Bartender  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 6:26 PM

Where are all these students supposed to smoke who can't go outside? Field house?

OPRF Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 5:55 PM

The school does supervise the students the rest of the day. They can supervise them at lunch. I agree with you that they haven't done a good job supervising the students at lunch in the past, and that they will have to make changes.

Alberg from Oak Park  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 5:10 PM

What a joke! The Board had an opportunity to reverse the decline of OPRF, and they blew it!!! The school can't properly supervise the freshmen now. So we're doubling the number who are expected to remain on-campus and we expect the administration to supervise them too. C'mon!

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 4:06 PM

cont. group of parents get excited over this idea, everyone is all ready to go along with it. Where is the evidence this will help anything at the school. There is none. And are these 50 teachers who probably have ignored drunk or high students suddenly going to help in the lunchroom or help with students in need. I doubt it. This is a ridiculous policy pushed through to make this group of parents and the surrounding neighbors happy. The rest of us who have differing opinions didn't matter

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 4:04 PM

My belief is that many kids at that high school have a huge disconnect from school. Whether they rebel with drugs, alcohol, poor performance, whatever, we are doing nothing to bring in the large group of students who feel lost in that building. I do not believe enough is being done by the school and that includes all personnel to help students with issues. Look the other way (I've heard too many stories about kids in class high to believe otherwise) and not do anything. then when this small

Ms. Lowry from OP  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 9:48 AM

IMPACT is made up of numerous groups with various roles. The High School Action committee deserves credit for their tireless work on the subject of school deterrents. As a member of the Parent Action Committee of IMPACT, I have watched a community become better educated to the risks of drug/alc. w/ teens, the police depts. attempt to agree on ordinances, the OP Health Dept. finding this issue to be their highest priority, OP Youth Services build the Face It program and now OPRF taking action.

OPRF Achievment Gap  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 6:48 AM

@Thank you Board - what would have been your solution. How would you control the out of control drug problem. Now that you have brought in another topic, how would you bring down the drop out rate? On the one hand you seem to say, a closed campus will not work to solve any problems, and on the other seem to say the open lunch is the ONLY thing keeping some kids from dropping out of school? If they are going to drop, the open/closed lunch only speeds up their decision.

Mike Lennox from Oak Park  

Posted: May 27th, 2011 6:09 AM

Nice adult comment! Mike Lennox

Thank you Board  

Posted: May 26th, 2011 11:24 PM

Because none of the students in "good academic standing" use drugs or abuse alcohol. And thanks for making students who already misbehave even more pissed about the school. Good job. Ms. Lowry and your group, keep an eye on the dropout rate as it will definitely go up. Congrats.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad