Find Legal Information

Lewis E. v. Spagnolo (Ill. S.Ct.)

Docket No. 83382-Agenda 11-November 1998.

LEWIS E. et al., Appellees, v. JOSEPH A. SPAGNOLO, Superintendent of Education, et al., Appellants.

Opinion filed April 15, 1999.

JUSTICE BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court:

In this appeal, this court is once again asked to enter the arena of Illinois public school policy. A class of schoolchildren residingin East St. Louis School District 189 challenges the adequacy of the education being provided to them in District 189 schools.We now reaffirm our recent holding in Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill. 2d 1 (1996), that questions relatingto the quality of a public school education are for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.

The plaintiffs are a putative class of school-age children residing in East St. Louis School District 189 (the District), actingthrough their parents or guardians. The named plaintiffs are 11 children attending various elementary or secondary schools in thedistrict. The defendants are the Illinois State Board of Education and Superintendent of Education Joseph Spagnolo (the Statedefendants), and the board of education of the East St. Louis School District 189 and Geraldine Jenkins, the superintendent ofDistrict 189 (the District defendants). The plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in the circuit court of St. Clair County onApril 12, 1995.

The complaint alleges the existence of numerous deficiencies in District 189 schools. The complaint charges that the Districtdefendants have, for decades, failed to maintain school buildings and grounds in a manner that protects the safety of Districtstudents, failed to provide rudimentary instructional equipment and qualified teachers, and "otherwise so mismanaged the affairsof the District that children are unsafe and cannot reasonably be expected to learn in District schools."

The complaint alleges that "most" of the District's 31 school buildings are in "wretched disrepair." The plaintiffs cite numerousexamples of unsafe conditions in the schools which, they contend, are the result of the District defendants' neglect, including: firehazards; chronic flooding; structural flaws, such as falling plaster and cracked walls and roofs; malfunctioning heating systems;unsanitary restrooms; rooms sealed-off due to the presence of asbestos; broken windows; burnt-out light bulbs; nonworkingwater fountains; the presence of cockroaches and rats; and cold, nonnutritious lunches in the cafeterias. These examples arealleged to have occurred in various schools at various times since 1989. The complaint further alleges that, due to the Districtdefendants' failure to provide adequate security, violence in the schools is widespread. The complaint lists several examples ofviolence which have occurred in various schools.

The plaintiffs' complaint also charges that, because of the District defendants' neglect and mismanagement, the students in theDistrict are provided with meager instructional equipment, unsupervised, disengaged, and uncertified teachers, and systemicstaffing deficiencies which resulted in some classrooms being without teachers at times. The complaint also cites to high drop-outrates and low test scores among the students in the District and alleges that these poor outcomes are the result of the Districtdefendants' failure to provide an adequate instructional program. Finally, the complaint charges the District defendants withreckless mismanagement of the District's financial affairs.

As to the State defendants, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that they have failed to adequately intervene in the District defendants'administration of the District. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the State Board of Education appointed a financial oversight panelin 1994 to oversee the District's finances. The complaint alleges that the panel's authority is too circumscribed to remedyproblems of student safety and educational quality. The plaintiffs also allege that the State defendants have failed to enforceeducational and safety standards in the District. Specifically, the complaint charges that the State defendants continue to formallyrecognize and otherwise accredit District schools that they know or should know are unreasonably dangerous and educationallyinadequate.

The complaint charges that the State and District defendants have violated the plaintiffs' rights under the education article of theIllinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. X,