Board of Education of Rich Township High School District No. 227 v. Illinois State Board of Education
2011 IL App (1st) 110182
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Southland sought to open a charter high school within District 227; the District denied the proposal in Feb. 2010; Southland appealed to ISBE, which reversed in June 2010 and allowed the charter; District 227 filed for administrative review; during 2010–11, the first class of Southland students began attending; ISBE found the proposal complied with the Charter Schools Law and was in the best interests; the circuit court affirmed, and District 227 appeals.
- The Charter Schools Law authorizes ISBE to reverse a local denial if the proposal is in full compliance and in the best interests of the students, with funding tied to district per-capita tuition and potential transition aid; ISBE staff questioned financial feasibility and other statutory requirements during review.
- District 227 argued the final proposal failed three statutory elements—economic soundness, clear goals/objectives/pupil performance standards, and an admissible contract—not meeting 27A-7(a) requirements, and contended the best interests ruling favored District 162 students over the entire district.
- ISBE’s recommendation reduced the enrollment cap to 500 students at 100% funding for five years, finding the smaller scale could keep both Southland and District 227 financially solvent, notwithstanding no state transition aid; District 227 argued this still imperils its finances.
- The circuit court and ISBE concluded the revised, 500-student proposal complied with the Charter Schools Law and was in the best interests of the students; District 227 challenged the process as violating Administrative Code procedures, including alleged ex parte communications, but the court found no reversible error.
- On appeal, the court upheld ISBE’s decision, applying appropriate standards of review to economic soundness, goals and pupil performance standards, admissions contract, and best interests, and declined to overturn based on manifest weight or due process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic soundness requirement met? | District 227 argues projected insolvency shows lack of economic soundness. | ISBE concluded revised 500-student plan is economically sound for both. | Not clearly erroneous; economic soundness satisfied. |
| Goals, objectives, and pupil performance standards adequate? | Southland’s initial vague goals persisted in revision; insufficient measurable standards. | Amended goals/standards were measurable and adequate. | Not clearly erroneous; standards upheld. |
| Admissions contract constitutes impermissible screening? | Contract terms impermissibly screened out certain families. | Enrollment by lottery open to all within district; no screening mechanism. | Not alleged to be improper screening; contract permissible. |
| Best interests determination proper? | Best interests only served District 162; harms all District 227 students. | Best interests weighed against district finances and student opportunities; supported by record. | ISBE’s best interests determination not clearly erroneous. |
| Due process/Administrative Code procedures followed? | ISBE ex parte meetings and revision process without District 227’s direct involvement violated procedures. | Administrative Code procedures were followed; no prejudice shown; revisions permitted. | No reversible due process violation; procedures followed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (economic soundness is a continuum; not absolute; balancing district impact and charter goals)
- Village of Hazel Crest v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 385 Ill. App. 3d 109 (2008) (high deference to agency factual findings; standard of review for mixed questions)
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (1992) (standard for reviewing agency factual findings; deference to agency expertise)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (clear error review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (clear/manifest weight standards for agency conclusions of law and fact)