Clarke v. Community Unit School District 303
2014 IL App (2d) 131016
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Davis and Richmond Elementary (K–5) were reconfigured for 2011–12 into two interdependent campuses: Davis K–2 and Richmond 3–5 (the “2011 Plan”).
- Richmond had failed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) multiple years due to subgroup (LEP) performance; district previously offered "choice" and lost Richmond students to other schools.
- Plaintiffs (parents of Davis students) sued, alleging the 2011 Plan functioned as a School Improvement Plan (SIP) and violated the School Code and NCLB regulations by failing to address failing subgroups and by eliminating required parental choice.
- On remand from an earlier appellate opinion, the trial court found the 2011 Plan failed to comply with NCLB/School Code obligations but held the district’s reconfiguration was a discretionary exercise of its general powers; it issued a writ ordering the district to adopt a Corrective Action Plan (including Choice and Supplemental Educational Services) within six months rather than undoing the reconfiguration.
- While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Department of Education approved Illinois’s waiver from certain NCLB mandates (the 2014 waiver); the appellate court affirmed as to discretion to reconfigure, vacated the mandamus remedy, and remanded for reconsideration of remedy in light of the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district’s reconfiguration had to be undone as mandamus relief | The whole 2011 Plan (including reconfiguration) was a SIP used to evade NCLB duties; mandamus should restore pre-2011 boundaries | Reconfiguration was an exercise of the district’s discretionary, quasi‑legislative powers under the School Code and not prohibited | Reconfiguration was within district discretion; mandamus may not direct discretionary acts, so undoing boundaries was not required |
| Whether the 2011 Plan violated NCLB/School Code SIP requirements | 2011 Plan contained SIP elements but failed to provide measurable strategies for failing subgroups, failed to offer Choice, and thus violated mandatory duties | District argued plan was discretionary and not a SIP subject to NCLB-specific mandates | Trial court (not contested on appeal) found the plan failed to comply with mandatory NCLB/School Code duties; appellate decision accepts that finding |
| Appropriate remedy for statutory violations (restructuring vs corrective action) | Given prolonged AYP failures, plaintiffs sought restructuring/return to pre-2011 configuration | District argued the court exceeded authority ordering a Corrective Action Plan and that ISBE (which determines AYP) is necessary party | Appellate court held trial court erred by ordering remedy without accounting for the later federal waiver; affirmed that court could compel compliance with mandatory duties but vacated the writ and remanded to reconsider remedy under the 2014 waiver |
| Mootness: effect of Illinois’ 2014 waiver of some NCLB requirements | Plaintiffs: waiver is prospective, not retroactive; does not moot relief for 2011–13 violations | District: waiver eliminates the controversy and renders mandamus order unenforceable/moot | Appellate court denied dismissal as moot but vacated the mandamus order and remanded for the trial court to reconsider remedy in light of the 2014 waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121 (Ill. 1997) (mandamus enforces nondiscretionary official duties)
- Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill. 2d 198 (Ill. 1999) (mandamus will not substitute court judgment for discretionary public official acts)
- Tyska v. Board of Education of Township High School District 214, 117 Ill. App. 3d 917 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) (school‑board decisions to close/reassign schools are quasi‑legislative/discretionary)
- Burnidge Brothers Almora Heights, Inc. v. Wiese, 142 Ill. App. 3d 486 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (mandamus does not compel discretionary action)
- 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Healey, 223 Ill. 2d 607 (Ill. 2006) (standard of review for mandamus decisions; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185 (Ill. 2009) (mandamus can provide affirmative relief including undoing an act)
- Turner-El v. West, 349 Ill. App. 3d 475 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (mandamus will not direct how a discretionary act should be performed)
- Kermeen v. City of Peoria, 65 Ill. App. 3d 969 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978) (mandamus may issue where discretion is abused or results in manifest injustice)