Find Legal Information

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Drew D. Dukett and Laura J. Dukett(Duketts), seek administrative review of the decision of defendant, the Regional Board of School Trustees of Calhoun, Greene,Jersey, and Macoupin Counties (Regional Board), denying theirpetition to detach land from one school district and attach it toanother pursuant to section 7-6 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/7-6 (West 2000)).

I. BACKGROUND

The Duketts filed a petition, requesting that theirparcel and two adjacent parcels be detached from the North Greeneschool district (North Greene) and annexed to the Winchesterschool district (Winchester). They claim it would be moreconvenient for the family and more beneficial to the children ifthey were allowed to be annexed to Winchester. The Duketts'social, religious, educational, and economic activities are inWinchester. They have minimal ties to North Greene.

At the hearing on their petition, Laura Dukett providedtestimony regarding her desire to be annexed into Winchester. The Duketts have three children, aged 13, 14, and 15. Theypurchased their home, which is situated on 30 acres, in 1993. The petition includes their property and that of their neighbors. Laura has worked in the Winchester school district for eightyears and is currently the sponsor for the student council. Thefamily is very involved with their church and the 4-H Club, bothlocated in Winchester. Through those affiliations, they spend alot of time volunteering in the Winchester community. They arenot involved in any community activities within the North Greeneschool district. Having the children attend the same schoolwhere Laura teaches would be convenient for the family and abenefit for the children. The children would ride to and fromschool with Laura, she would have direct contact with the children's teachers, and she would be able to catch up with thechildren regarding their day immediately after school. Theycould come to her room after school and do their homework whileshe was finishing up. If the children attended North Greene,they would not be able to get to their activities in Winchesterafter school.

Drew Dukett would also be more involved in the children's activities since he travels through Winchester to his jobin Springfield. He would be able to stop in Winchester on hisway home to watch the boys' football practice. If the childrenattended North Greene, they would have to ride the school bus,which stops one mile from their home. The family goes to thedoctor and dentist in Springfield. If the children attendedNorth Greene, Laura and the children would miss more of theirschool day for medical appointments due to the travel time. TheDuketts do their grocery shopping, other household shopping, andbanking in Winchester. Laura estimated that the family travelsto the Winchester community up to 10 times a week and to theNorth Greene community maybe 3 times a month.

The children attended middle school at the WinchesterChristian School. Because their daughter did not want to leaveher friends to attend high school, the Duketts enrolled Bethanyin the public high school in Winchester despite the requirementthat they pay tuition for her to do so. Bethany is very involvedin their church and 4-H Club in Winchester. She is also veryinvolved in band. She is in the concert, marching, and jazzbands at Winchester. Bethany does not socialize with anyone fromthe North Greene schools.

The Duketts son, Christopher, is also attending Winchester schools and is planning to start high school there in thefall. Christopher is involved in their church, 4-H Club, and BoyScouts in Winchester. He is currently working on attaining EagleScout status. He plays the trombone in the concert band and thedrums in the jazz band. According to Laura, Winchester's bandprogram is superior to that of North Greene--North Greene doesnot have a jazz band.

The Duketts' youngest son, Joshua, is interested ingoing into the field of auto mechanics. Winchester has mechanicstraining facilities within the district through the school'sindustrial arts program. Other school districts bus theirstudents to Winchester to receive auto mechanics training.

In opposition to the detachment, James Whiteside, thesuperintendent at North Greene, testified that in his opinion theacademic offerings of North Greene were of "great quality." There was no evidence presented as to any detriment that NorthGreene would suffer. North Greene argues that it would notreceive the $3,500 per student per year in aid should the detachment occur. Section 7-6(i) requires that the Regional Boardconsider the "division of funds and assets" that will result froma detachment and annexation. 105 ILCS 5/7-6(i) (West 2000). However, we do not find that state aid awarded on a per-pupilbasis that the detached district may not receive constitutes a"fund or asset" within the meaning of the statute and is not aproper factor for consideration, especially where, as here, it isnot currently received by the district.

On June 27, 2002, after considering the evidence, theRegional Board denied the Duketts' petition because (1) noevidence was presented to indicate that there was a significantdifference in the academic programs between the two districts,(2) the annexation would require the students in the Winchesterschool district to spend more time on the school bus, and (3)North Greene would suffer financial harm.

On August 6, 2002, the Duketts filed a complaint foradministrative review, arguing that the Regional Board's findingsand decision were clearly erroneous. On December 12, 2002, thecircuit court entered an order finding that (1) the RegionalBoard's decision to deny the Duketts' petition was not contraryto the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the RegionalBoard's findings and conclusions were supported by the evidenceand the record. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

We first must determine which standard of reviewapplies to this case. The Duketts claim that we should apply a"clearly erroneous" standard because the question at issueinvolves mixed questions of law and fact. City of Belvidere v.Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 692 N.E.2d295 (1998). Defendants claim that we should apply a "manifestweight of the evidence" standard, the standard applied by thecircuit court in its order affirming the Regional Board. Weagree with the Duketts and hold that review of an administrativeorder that involves mixed questions of fact and law should bereversed only if it is clearly erroneous.

In Belvidere, our supreme court held that administrative decisions should not necessarily all be reviewed under themanifest weight of the evidence standard. The standard of reviewdepends on the issues of the particular case. When reviewing anadministrative agency's findings of fact, the reviewing courtshould reverse only if those findings of fact are against themanifest weight of the evidence. On the other hand, when reviewing an administrative agency's conclusions of law, the courtshould do so on a de novo basis. When reviewing an administrative order that involves mixed questions of fact and law, theproper standard of review is somewhere between the two, orclearly erroneous. Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205, 692 N.E.2d at302.

The issue before this court involves a mixed questionof law and fact. The Regional Board's finding is, in part,factual because it involves considering whether the facts in thiscase support a finding that the Duketts' property be detachedfrom North Greene and annexed to Winchester. Nevertheless, theRegional Board's finding also concerns a question of law becausethe terms "best interests of the schools" and "the educationalwelfare of the pupils" found in section 7-6(i) of the School Code(105 ILCS 5/7-6(i) (West 2000)) require interpretation. Thus, aclearly erroneous standard of review is appropriate. Belvidere,181 Ill. 2d at 205, 692 N.E.2d at 302. We now turn to the meritsof the appeal.

Under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101through 3-113 (West 2000)), the findings and conclusions ofregional boards on questions of fact are held to be prima facietrue and correct. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2000). However, thisrule "'does not relieve a court of the important duty to examinethe evidence in an impartial manner and to set aside an orderwhich is unsupported in fact.'" Fosdyck v. Regional Board ofSchool Trustees, Marshall, Putnam, & Woodford Counties, 233 Ill.App. 3d 398, 404, 599 N.E.2d 70, 74 (1992), quoting OakdaleCommunity Consolidate School District No. 1 v. County Board ofTrustees, 12 Ill. 2d 190, 195, 145 N.E.2d 736, 738 (1957). Whendeciding petitions like the present one,

"'local boards [should] weigh the relevantfactors to determine the action best serving[the] entire education system. When theentire record indicates *** that the boardhas considered the applicable statutory standards and is supported in its conclusion bysubstantial evidence, its determination mustbe affirmed.' It is not for a court toreweigh evidence or substitute its judgmentfor that of the Regional Board." Board ofEducation of Golf School District No. 67 v.Regional Board of School Trustees, 89 Ill. 2d392, 396-97, 433 N.E.2d 240, 242 (1982),quoting School Directors of School DistrictNo. 82 v. Wolever, 26 Ill. 2d 264, 268, 186N.E.2d 281, 283 (1962).

It is the role of the Regional Board, not a reviewingcourt, to make findings of fact and to weigh the relevant factors, and the board's determinations and decisions will not berejected on administrative review unless they are clearly erroneous. Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205, 692 N.E.2d at 302. Accordingly, this court will not reweigh the evidence or substitute itsjudgment for that of the Regional Board. We are cognizant,however, of our duty to set aside an order that is clearlyerroneous.

Section 7-6(i) of the School Code provides the following:

"(i) The regional board of school trustees *** shall hear evidence as to the schoolneeds and conditions of the territory in thearea within and adjacent thereto and as tothe ability of the districts affected to meetthe standards of recognition as prescribed bythe State Board of Education, and shall takeinto consideration the division of funds andassets which will result from the change ofboundaries and shall determine whether it isto the best interests of the schools of thearea and the educational welfare of the pupils that such change in boundaries be granted ***." 105 ILCS 5/7-6(i) (West 2000).

Under section 7-6, petitions for detachment and annexation should be granted only where the overall benefit to theannexing district and the detachment area clearly outweighs theresulting detriment to the losing district and the surroundingcommunity as a whole. Carver v. Bond/Fayette/Effingham RegionalBoard of School Trustees, 146 Ill. 2d 347, 356, 586 N.E.2d 1273,1277 (1992).

In applying this benefit-detriment test, reviewingcourts are to consider differences between school facilities andcurricula, the distances from the petitioners' homes to therespective schools, the effect the detachment would have on theability of either district to meet state standards of recognition, and the impact of the proposed boundary change on the taxrevenues of both districts. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356, 586N.E.2d at 1277.

In addition to the factors enumerated above, courts mayconsider the "whole child" and "community of interest" factors. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356, 586 N.E.2d at 1277. These factorsexplore the identification of the petitioning territory with thedistrict to which annexation is sought and the correspondinglikelihood of participation in school and extracurricular activities. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356, 586 N.E.2d at 1277. The wholechild factor recognizes that extracurricular participation insocial, religious, and even commercial activities is important ina child's development as a beneficial supplement to academics. Moreover, it is appropriate to consider the personal preferencesor convenience of the petitioning parents and their children;however, more than the personal preferences on the part of thepetitioners are required to support a change in school districtboundaries. Board of Education of St. Charles Community UnitSchool District No. 303 v. Regional Board of School Trustees ofthe Kane County Educational Service Region, 261 Ill. App. 3d 348,364, 633 N.E.2d 177, 188 (1994).

Absent substantial detriment to either school district,some benefit to the educational welfare of the students in thedetachment area must be shown to justify the grant of a petitionfor detachment and annexation. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358, 586N.E.2d at 1278.

Uncontradicted testimony revealed that neither schooldistrict would suffer substantial detriment if the petition weregranted. It was undisputed that both school districts offeredacademic curricula and facilities of comparable quality. Becauseof the absence of substantial detriment to either school district, only some benefit to the educational welfare of thestudents in the detachment area is sufficient to justify thegranting of a petition for detachment and annexation. Carver,146 Ill. 2d at 358, 586 N.E.2d at 1278.

Defendants maintain that annexation into Winchesterwould only serve as a convenience for the Duketts. They claim noother positive benefit would result from granting the petitionsince there are no distinguishing academic characteristicsbetween the two districts. They claim the Duketts are seekingthe detachment merely to avoid paying tuition to attendWinchester. Defendants contend that the Duketts failed topresent any evidence of educational welfare. We disagree.

"Educational welfare" has been broadly interpreted. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 359, 586 N.E.2d at 1279. A number offactors have been relied upon to define this concept, such as thedegree to which the child in the detachment area naturallyidentifies with the area to which annexation is sought (GolfSchool District, 89 Ill. 2d at 397-98, 433 N.E.2d at 243);distances from the petitioners' homes to various schools (Virginia Community Unit School District No. 64 v. County Board ofSchool Trustees, 39 Ill. App. 2d 339, 344-45, 188 N.E.2d 886, 889(1963)); convenience to petitioning parents and their children(Oakdale Community Consolidated School District No. 1 v. CountyBoard of School Trustees, 12 Ill. 2d 190, 193-94, 145 N.E.2d 736,737 (1957)); the promotion of continuity in the educationalexperience (School District No. 106, Cook County, Illinois v.County Board of School Trustees, 48 Ill. App. 2d 158, 162-63, 198N.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1964)); and the choice of parents and children in the detachment area (City National Bank of Kankakee v.Schott, 113 Ill. App. 3d 388, 391, 447 N.E.2d 478, 480 (1983)).

Each of the above factors applies to the Duketts. Thetestimony revealed that the Duketts' children naturally identifywith Winchester because they attend school, church, scouts, andthe 4-H Club there. They consider Winchester their community. The fact that Laura teaches at Winchester would be a greatbenefit to the children if they attended Winchester themselves. Not only would it be convenient, but the educational benefitsthat the children would receive from the situation would begreat.

The children have been attending school in Winchesterfor the last several years, and remaining at Winchester wouldallow them to maintain the friendships and familiarity that theyhave in the district. Changing schools and friends would createa disruption. To disrupt the children's lifestyle would notserve to benefit anyone. Admittedly, North Greene would suffersome small detriment in tax revenues should the petition begranted; however, the detrimental effect is de minimus and notsignificant enough to outweigh the benefits that the childrenwould receive by being annexed to Winchester.

Because neither district will be affected in anysubstantial measure, the determination should be made to turnsolely upon the welfare of the children. Burnidge v. CountyBoard of School Trustees, 25 Ill. App. 2d 503, 509, 167 N.E.2d21, 24 (1960). The evidence shows that while detachment fromNorth Greene and attachment to Winchester will neither benefitnor damage the schools or communities significantly, the educational benefit to the Dukett children from this change is likelyto be considerable.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of thecircuit court of Macoupin County.

Reversed.

KNECHT, J., concurs.

TURNER, J., dissents.

JUSTICE TURNER, dissenting:

While I disagree with the majority's general findingthat state aid awarded on a per-pupil basis is not a factor to beconsidered in a detachment petition, I do agree that it was not afactor in this particular case because North Greene was notcurrently receiving the state aid. See slip op. at 4. Nonetheless, I respectfully dissent. "The judiciary is ill[-]equipped to act as a super school board in assaying thecomplex factors involved in determining the best interest of theschools and the pupils affected by a change in boundaries." School Directors, 26 Ill. 2d at 267, 186 N.E.2d at 283. "Whenthe record indicates the boards have considered the applicablestatutory factors and their decision is supported by substantialevidence, the decision must be affirmed." Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at363, 586 N.E.2d at 1280. Like the circuit judge, I find theRegional Board complied with the statutory requirements and thatits decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly,I would affirm the circuit court's judgment.