Dist. 204 wrestles with its policy

Indian Prairie Unit District 204 leaders say they likely will adopt a new policy specifically targeting the rights of victims as they continue to deal with fallout from allegations of a sexual assault of a middle school student by two classmates.

School board members said Tuesday they are in a no-win situation in addressing whether a student charged with sexually assaulting a classmate should remain at Gregory Middle School with the alleged victim or be transferred to one of the district's five other middle schools.

"I imagine how we continue will embody how we wrapped up last night," board President Mark Metzger said, referring to Monday night's often confrontational meeting with roughly 150 residents. "(Board member Curt) Bradshaw is working to redraft his (victim's rights) policy proposal ... and several board members are reviewing other potential changes to the discipline policy. Then we'll go from there."

Two boys - a 12-year-old and an 11-year-old, both from Naperville - have been charged with felony counts of criminal sexual abuse and criminal sexual assault against another boy stemming from a November incident at a home on the city's south side. The 11-year-old also faces a misdemeanor count of battery for a separate incident involving the same alleged victim - this time in the halls of Gregory.

The 12-year-old transferred out of District 204 this week to Lincoln Junior High School in neighboring Naperville Unit District 203.

According to Will County civil court records, the two boys are accused of tying up their 11-year-old classmate and sexually assaulting him on Nov. 11, 2008, in the home of one of the accused students.

The alleged victim's attorney, Larry Oldfield, told the school board Monday the boys took several photos of the incident and distributed them electronically to some classmates and on at least one online social networking site.

In an agreed civil court order filed Friday in Will County, the father of the alleged victim was granted an emergency no-contact order that prohibits the accused student who remains at Gregory from being within 100 feet of his son as long as both remain at the school. The order is in effect through 2011 when both boys are scheduled to enter high school.

Asked why he agreed to such an order after vehemently arguing for moving the accused student out of Gregory, the father said he did the only thing he could for his son.

"Before obtaining that no-contact order, there was nothing in writing that said what the (accused student) was or wasn't allowed to do or how far to stay away," the father said Tuesday. "Today, that 100-foot barrier is the only protection my son has entering that building. I did the only thing a father could to protect my son."

Administrators currently have the authority to reassign students to another attendance center if they believe the change is warranted. But Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said Monday he believes Gregory "is safe and children are learning."

Bradshaw, however, said the district also needs a default reaction in such cases to make it clear to staff members and administrators that there are tools available when the circumstances warrant reassigning a student.

"If it were me, my default response is to move the aggressor to a school away from a victim to give the victim the best opportunity to recover and thrive," Bradshaw said. "I don't know if that's the best response, but we need to have a conversation about it. I have a hard time with a concept of not respecting a victim and leaving an aggressor in the school in all circumstances at all times."

The father of the alleged victim applauded Bradshaw's efforts and said he was pleased other board members are seeking such a clarification. But he still maintains the accused boy needs to be moved out of Gregory.

"There are three groups of people served by removing the offender: the victim, his classmates, and the offenders who would get an opportunity to start over," he said. "If the focus on youthful offenders is to rehabilitate them, do you really think they can successfully rehabilitate under the watchful eyes of 600 of their wary classmates?"

Officials have said the accused boys could not be moved to an alternative school program because the incidents alleged took place off school grounds and they were in no danger of being expelled from District 204.

The school district's attorney, Jack Canna, has warned board members they have little, if any, authority to discipline students for off-campus actions.

"We can't talk about discipline and from a policy standpoint, I believe there is a need for clarification and simplification to make it easier for everyone to move forward," said board member John Stephens. "The board's role is to set policy and the administration's role is to implement it. Anything new that provides everyone with better tools to equip themselves, I think everyone would welcome it."

Board member Alka Tyle said she is looking forward to reviewing Bradshaw's proposal.

"We have the authority to move a student, but are you then shifting the problem somewhere else? I'm still wrestling with that," Tyle said. "And it's very frustrating to have information not available to the public but not be able to explain to our critics why things are the way they are right now. There are a lot of factors and things specific to this issue that not everyone is privy to."

Metzger said board members are trying to communicate better with the public.

"We need to figure out what we can say to help the public understand why we're in the position we're in and what we are allowed to say within the limits of the law when dealing with juvenile offenders," he said.

Wrestles: 'Are you then shifting the problem?'