*1 Plaintiffs-Appellees, al., et Burgner, D. Robert Coun of Peoria Trustees School of Richwoods of Education and Board Illinois, ty, Number District School Community High Defendants. District High

Board of Education Defendant-Appellant. Number No. 64-55. Gen.

Third District.

May 27, 1965. *2 Morgan appellant. Davis, & of for Withered, Peoria, James S. and & Swain, Johnson Dixon, of Hard, appellees. for Peoria, J.

COEYN, plaintiffs, Burgner, peti Robert D. et filed a al., pursuant (1963), § tion to c 122, 7-6, Rev Stats County with the Board of School Trustees Peoria County seeking territory to detach certain from Dun lap High School District hereinafter called Dun lap, territory and annex same to Eichwoods Community High School District hereinafter called hearing pursuant Eichwoods. After a to said statute, petition County was denied Board of plaintiffs sought School Trustees. The then adminis thorough trative in a review, review such ac County tion of the of School Board County Circuit Court Peoria reversed order County granted School Board of Trustees and Dunlap detachment from and annexation to Eich Dunlap appealing woods. from that decision of the

268 contending County that Circuit Peoria Court finding Circuit that the decision Court erred contrary School Trustees was weight of and that the Circuit manifest improperly judgment for substituted its Richwoods and Board of School Trustees. made no Trustees have appeal. appearance in this 2,045 evidence discloses that Richwoods has

pupils pupils; there are Dunlap; teachers at Richwoods and 16 at teachers study that there are courses of at Rich- offered Dunlap. woods and 40 offered courses at Richwoods typical high ais suburban while is a school, high small rural school. Richwoods’ facilities are more complete Dunlap. diversified and than Richwoods *3 library containing compared has a 15,500 volumes Dunlap’s library 2,500 volumes. Richwoods has a Dunlap full time cafeteria, while has limited eating facilities. Richwoods has a more diversified sports program Dunlap, physical than and also has a physically handicapped education class for children. Also, Richwoods furnishes adult education classes and Dunlap does not. property question approximately in constitutes

per5 cent of the total assessed valuation of the Dun- lap per district, less than cent of the assessed valuation the Richwoods district. Richwoods is at building its maximum tax rate for both the Dunlap educational funds, while is at its maximum only. tax rate for the educational fund The total tax rate in Richwoods $1.47, is and the total tax rate in Dunlap presented by is plain- $1.20. Evidence was indicating tiffs property that the value of the in the question area in would be increased if annexed to question Richwoods. The area in is either residential undeveloped, immediately or and lies north of and high

adjacent upon to the land which the Richwoods the Dun- school is while it is nine miles from located, lap high in area school. There are students Dunlap. presently attending Some of these who are pupils approved, change if in are boundaries walking within while others Richwoods, distance Both districts offer bus would have to ride the bus. although only has bus service for Richwoods service, varsity participating in those students athletics. Most their business, social, the families this area have religious, community greater contacts Peoria part, of which Richwoods is a rather than in the area, area district. None of the families in this petition by objected original filed herein Dunlap being objector. plaintiffs, the sole adjoining high school, addition to Richwoods sought the area to be detached and annexed to Rich- woods is urban in character. Richwoods’ facilities are planned for education, oriented and urban whereas community. heart is located of a rural emphasized by This factor is in the record before us community planning survey evidence that a conducted county planning a three which includes commission, County Superintendent in its number the Peoria Schools, made recommendations Supervisors dividing that the line of Peoria high Dunlap high Between Richwoods school and recognition school be moved to the north in true community boundary developed. which lines recommended movement would include area under *4 in consideration this case. petition a for detachment from one

When is filed, school district and annexation another County pub of Trustees shall conduct a Board School petition, hearing and shall hear evidence lic on said conditions, as needs and “and shall take to the school the division of funds and assets into consideration

270 change which in will result from the boundaries shall interests determine whether is to the best area welfare of schools and the educational pupils change granted.” that such in boundaries he effecting (1963). § Ill 122, Ch Rev Stats “Orders 7-6, change boundary conformity a must he made prescribed by legislature with the standards designed eye with an welfare the educational residing territory all children to he affected.” County 1 Oakdale School No. District v. Randolph County,

School Trustees, of 12 190, Ill2d losing 145 193, NE2d 736. The detriment dis annexing trict, and the benefit to shall district he Community considered. Trico ty School District v. Coun Randolph County, Board of School App2d 8 Trustees of every Ill 131 494, NE2d 829. 497, However, as detachment and annexation results in a loss of tax losing base valuation and tax income to the district, prevent this alone should not detachment and annexa being tion, when the maximum tax rate not levied losing district. v. Calvert of Education, App2d 41 Community Ill 389, NE2d 395, 190 640; Unit County School District v. Board of School Trustees of Sangamon County, App2d 9 Ill 132 116, 127, NE2d personal petitioners, 584. standing wishes justify change will alone, not from one school dis trict another, hut the factor of convenience to the parents and children should he as considered it is an advantage obvious attend school close to home community Burnidge within one’s natural center. v. County, Board of School Trustees of Kane App2d Virginia 25 Ill Community 167 NE2d 21; Unit School District Board of School Trust County, App2d ees Cass NE2d 886. findings and decisions of the Board petitions of this nature, must be supported by findings otherwise such *5 the courts. Trico decisions will be set aside

Community School District v. supra. 1 v. In District No. Oakdale School Randolph Coun Board of School Trustees of Supreme ty, 12 736, NE2d our 195, Ill2d at specifically declared: urged scope not in “It the of review does testimony, weighing and that an clude a upon upheld if must based administrative order be applicable argument here. is not evidence. validity prima a facie The rule which accords court administrative not relieve a decisions does important duty examine evidence impartial an set aside an order manner and to unnecessary unsupported It is which is in fact. dangers for court to advert to the inherent function. . . . Ad a relaxation of this Our judicial require Act ministrative does not Review against recognition mani order which is an weight of ‘nor does law allow fest findings stamp approval placed on to be merely agency such of an because administrative requi agency heard witnesses and made the findings.’ Drezner v. Civil Service Commis site 231.” sion, applicable also case These observations are be- fore us. will the instant case there be no substantial question, if it loses area in nor

detriment will substantial benefit to' Richwoods if an there be Also, nexation to it occurs. is not now utiliz ing Unquestionably, its rate. there maximum tax will appreciable be benefits to families children in as the children will this area if annexed to Richwoods proximity to attend, able to in close their homes, high superior educational, athletic, with school *6 programs. chil These and extracurricular facilities advantage of attend have the additional dren will also they ing high area in which school in the same Burnidge community contacts. their natural County, County of Kane Board of School Trustees App2d it was stated 167 NE2d 503, 509, dis with school “is the fact that an identification community in center will in natural trict a child’s participation evitably ac in school in increased result by parents. increased the child his Such tivities and improvement participation in an cannot but result By picture area. the educational of the entire with a school same an unnatural identification token, opposite district sponding an result with corre would have participation resulting poorer and loss of picture.” educational

For conclude that the the reasons stated we herein, decision of the Board of School Trustees refusing requested Peoria detachment contrary and annexation was to the manifest consequently the order Cir- reversing cuit of Peoria in said is af- decision firmed.

Affirmed. P. J., concurs.

ALLOY, dissenting.

STOUDER, J., Opinion Dissenting majority opin- respectfully from the I must dissent majority opinion entirety oriented in its ion. The was only. This consideration and one consideration to one to the residents is the desires benefits convenience, can con- area to be detached and of the affected statutory only general terms “. . . in the sidered interests the schools of whether it is best pupils.” the area and the educational welfare of the and benefits to the residents desires convenience, affecting factors the affected area is one statutory together other those criteria and with must, by the first be determined factors, instance, legislature Trustees which the purpose. for that has said shall be the instrument progress might enjoy directing Much social as we enjoyment by limited in that area, we must be statutory authority given to the Board court authority. authority construing decisions This have been used in ma- and those constructions jority opinion. their use has However been subverted *7 support to an unwarranted conclusion. heavily My colleagues on have relied Oakdale Com munity School District No. v. Consol. Randolph County, 12

of School Ill2d authority 45 NE2d as for their decision but in quoting extensively they ignored from the case evidence of the convenience, its substance. Abundant to the residents of the desires and benefits affected support area were found insufficient to the order of In the similar Board. instant case evidence is now to found sufficient reverse the order Board. The says specifically, “The rule which ac Oakdale case validity prima facie cords a to de administrative important duty court of the cisions does not relieve a impartial the evidence in an manner examine and to unsupported is set aside an order which fact.” This very clearly recognizes prima statement facie validity of the Board’s order and that such order will only upon be set aside a determination that it weight against the manifest evidence. To this necessary impartially end it is examine the evidence any disparity weight see whether between the opposing is so manifest as to sides necessitate the opinion Court’s for that of substitution My Board. learned brothers have concluded that since they significant do not consider the evidence adduced by Appellant weight no must therefore have consequently opinion against the the Board’s must be majority opinion manifest the evidence. compare does not examine or states evidence but as a conclusion that there in effect no substantial was competent support finding. evidence to the Board’s certainly agree appre-

I that the evidence no shows ciable benefit to the Richwoods District and that substantial benefit in education and extra-curricular benefits would accrue to the eleven children fami- agree lies of the area affected. I cannot however proximity specula- of the area to Richwoods or the controlling tive increase real estate values should be emphatically agree and I most cannot the evi- dence shows no substantial detriment very argument District. The essence of the of Peti- tioners is that student smaller enrollment and per- assessed valuation of the District does not activity, mit the variation of both educational and larger They otherwise, of the Richwoods District. prefer would therefore their send children to the larger Perhaps school. the decrease in assessed valua- standing tion, alone, would be no substantial detri- ment, however I cannot see how the loss of student present enrollment, and future, could fail to add to *8 problems already complained seriously the handicap of and pupils losing

the district. In view of by application very this and the of authorities cited majority opinion, in the I cannot see how condition which is no benefit or detriment to 2,045 students, of considerable detriment to 269 students and of con- siderable benefit 11, can be said to be one which, annexing “the benefit derived from the and affected weighs resulting losing areas out the detriment to the surrounding community district and the as a whole.”

275 Community Trico School District v. Randolph County, App2d 8 Ill

131 NE2d 829 and Oakdale School District No. Randolph County, of School Trustees of say 12 Ill2d I NE2d 736. Nor can that competent record no discloses substantial, evidence covering points. these

It is unfortunate that all school districts cannot variety offer the same but education this must nec- essarily disparity be true where there is in size be- perhaps tween It districts. is more even unfortunate adjoin again that two such districts should but this power is a matter which it is not within the of this control. part The record discloses evidence on showing district that the education available at met standard of for accreditation State North Illinois and the Central Association of Secondary Colleges. Schools and This evidence is un- disputed. nothing suggest There is in the record to any higher rating by only Bichwoods but that more necessary than is is offered.

School boundaries must be established somewhere patently urge and would be unsound to dis- by locating at trict, its extreme corners could effect boundary change. equally an automatic It is unsound suggest family wishing that a to live within one may change by orienting district its boundaries family interests direction another district. attempting to minimize of the evi- by Appellant, opinion majority adduced dence suggests that “none of the families this area ob- jected original petition Dunlap being . . . objector.” It is not assumed that this Court uphold argument would the number wit- any quality testimony. for nesses substitute *9 testimony for of families Petitioners consisted living Principal and Busi area, within the affected planner Manager ness and a associated of Richwoods Tri-County Planning as Executive Director of the give not Commission. The three latter witnesses did opinion of either dis an as to educational welfare living trict or the affected the families area while only opinion gave within the affected area an as to the effect such annexation would have on families testimony and real of the estate that area. educators and school board members negligible District which this states Court now to be testimony expect is the and best one should under the circumstances. school That which affects a dis trict is the business of the educators and Board of Trustees of that take district. To action on what af they fects that district is what are hired and elected majority plan to do. The fact that the refers Tri-County Planning being Commission as support disregard of its decision illustrates their suggested by the central issue this case. As is plan, boundary between the and Eich plan woods Districts should be moved. However the presupposes the reduction in the number of school dis present tricts in Peoria from the 50 districts ultimately 9to districts and to 7 districts and does purport propose suppose boundary not or that a change presented seriously injure as to us will not losing district. analyzing suggest I record that this is a case

in which could have found either way finding supported by and either would been competent my posi- substantial evidence. Since finding I tion fail to how see which it did make “against can be the manifest of the evidence” and believe that the Circuit Court of Peoria should reversed.