2011 IL App (1st) 110182
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Southland College Prep Charter School, Inc. applied to District 227 to open a charter high school in 2010; District 227 denied the proposal in February 2010.
- Southland appealed to the ISBE; in June 2010 the ISBE reversed and certified the charter as in compliance and in the best interests of the students.
- District 227 filed for administrative review; the circuit court affirmed the ISBE; Southland began operating in fall 2010.
- The charter proposal sought enrollment up to 1000 initially, later revised to 500 with 100% per capita funding after ISBE review.
- District 227 challenged three statutory elements (economic soundness, goals/objectives/pupil performance standards, and admissions contract) and argued due process concerns in the ISBE process.
- The appellate court affirmed the ISBE, holding the exhaustion of the statutory requirements and best-interests determination were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic soundness under 27A-7(a)(9) | District 227 contends insolvency would result, undermining economic soundness. | ISBE found the 500-student, 100% funding model economically sound for both parties. | Not clearly erroneous; ISBE's economic-soundness finding stands. |
| Goals, objectives, and pupil performance standards under 27A-7(a)(5) | Southland's goals and standards were vague or not measurable in initial submission. | Amended goals and standards were provided and deemed measurable by ISBE. | Measurable goals and standards satisfied. |
| Admissions standard under 27A-7(a)(2) | Contract terms function as an impermissible screening device to exclude students. | Enrollment open to all within district; lottery selects among applicants if oversubscribed. | Not improper screening; admissions terms consistent with statute. |
| Best interests determination | Approval serves District 162 at the expense of District 227’s students; not in best interests of all. | Best interests judgment favored by ISBE; helps at-risk students and raises educational opportunities. | ISBE's best-interests determination was not clearly erroneous. |
| Due process (Administrative Code procedures) | Ex parte-like meeting and information revisions deprived District 227 of process. | Procedures followed; even if ex parte, no prejudice shown; technical assistance allowed. | Forfeited and, on the merits, no reversible due-process violation; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 2005) (economic soundness is a continuum; not to imperil districts; review deference varies by record)
- Village of Hazel Crest v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 385 Ill.App.3d 109 (Ill. App. 2008) (clear weight of the evidence standard for mixed questions)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill.2d 380 (Ill. 2001) (de novo review for mixed questions; deferential to agency expertise)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200 (Ill. 2008) (clear error standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill.2d 76 (Ill. 1992) (review of agency findings under manifest weight standard)
- People v. Crane, 195 Ill.2d 42 (Ill. 2001) (standard for reviewing factual determinations; manifest weight considerations)