Clarke v. Community Unit School District 303
36 N.E.3d 838
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Davis and Richmond were K–5 Title I elementary schools in Community Unit School District 303; for 2011–12 the district reconfigured them so Davis served K–2 and Richmond served 3–5 (the 2011 Plan).
- Richmond failed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for multiple years due in part to limited-English-proficient students; parents were offered “choice” transfers, and many left Richmond for other schools before 2011.
- Plaintiffs (parents of Davis students) sued, alleging the 2011 Plan was effectively a School Improvement Plan (SIP) that violated the Illinois School Code’s NCLB-related requirements (e.g., required SIP elements, parental collaboration, choice, remedial strategies).
- On remand from Clarke I, the trial court found the 2011 Plan violated NCLB/School Code (it lacked subgroup remedies, measurable strategies, and preserved choice) but concluded the district’s reconfiguration was a discretionary exercise of authority and declined to undo the boundary change; it ordered a Corrective Action Plan instead.
- While appeal was pending, U.S. Dept. of Education approved Illinois’s 2014 waiver from certain NCLB mandates; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that reconfiguration was discretionary, vacated the mandamus remedy as entered, and remanded for reconsideration of remedy in light of the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 Plan violated NCLB/Illinois School Code SIP requirements | The 2011 Plan functioned as a SIP and failed mandatory NCLB/School Code duties (no measurable subgroup strategies, no parental collaboration, removed choice) | The Plan was a discretionary reconfiguration, not a SIP subject to the specific NCLB-related statutory mandates | Court found the Plan contained elements of a SIP and that the district failed to comply with mandatory NCLB/School Code requirements (trial court finding affirmed) |
| Whether mandamus may be used to undo the reconfiguration (restore prior boundaries) | Mandamus should undo the unlawful reconfiguration because it was part of an unlawful SIP and used to circumvent NCLB duties | Reconfiguration was an exercise of district discretion (general statutory powers); mandamus cannot direct discretionary acts | Reconfiguration was within the district’s discretion; mandamus will not be used to substitute court judgment for discretionary school-board decisions (affirmed) |
| Proper remedy for statutory/regulatory violations (restructuring vs corrective action) | Plaintiffs sought nullification of the Plan and major restructuring under statutory scheme for chronic AYP failure | District argued the trial court exceeded authority and that ISBE control over AYP makes ISBE a necessary party | Trial court’s imposed corrective-action remedy (rather than undoing reconfiguration) was permissible in substance, but appellate court vacated the writ to allow reconsideration in light of the 2014 waiver |
| Mootness/Effect of the 2014 federal waiver on relief | Waiver is prospective; it does not retroactively erase past violations or plaintiffs’ right to relief | Waiver eliminates the statutory mandates at issue, rendering the controversy moot and appeal should be dismissed | Court declined to dismiss as moot; nevertheless it vacated the trial-court writ and remanded for reconsideration of remedy given the new federal 2014 waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill.2d 121 (Ill. 1997) (mandamus enforces nondiscretionary duties of public officers)
- Tyska v. Board of Education of Township High School District 214, 117 Ill. App.3d 917 (Ill. App. 1983) (school-board decisions about closing/reassigning schools are quasi-legislative discretionary acts)
- Turner-El v. West, 349 Ill. App.3d 475 (Ill. App. 2004) (mandamus will not command the manner of discretionary acts)
- 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Healey, 223 Ill.2d 607 (Ill. 2006) (appellate review standard: mandamus grants/reversals reviewed for manifest weight of evidence, legal conclusions de novo)
- Burnidge Brothers Almora Heights, Inc. v. Wiese, 142 Ill. App.3d 486 (Ill. App. 1986) (mandamus does not compel discretionary actions)
- Kermeen v. City of Peoria, 65 Ill. App.3d 969 (Ill. App. 1978) (mandamus may issue when discretionary power is palpably abused)