Merchant v. Regional Board of School Trustees of Lake County, Illinois , 2014 IL App (2d) 131277 ( 2014 )

2014 IL App (2d) 131277
No. 2-13-1277
Opinion filed September 30, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
AYAZ MERCHANT, CHARLES T. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
TAYLOR, CHERYL D. TAYLOR, ELSIE I. ) of Lake County.
DIETZ, DOROTHY B. TAYLOR, THOMAS )
F. EARTH, MARIA G. EARTH, ANAND K. )
PATEL, PINAL PATEL, and DAWN DAHL, )
as the Statutory “Committee of 10,” )
)
Petitioners-Appellees, )
)
v. ) No. 13-MR-237
)
REGIONAL BOARD OF SCHOOL )
TRUSTEES OF LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS; )
ALLISON BAKER-FRANK, Board President; )
DON FONTANA, Trustee; JULIE GONKA, )
Trustee; LARRY McSHANE, Trustee; )
BARRY J. CARROL, Trustee; ROY )
E. LUCKE, Trustee; JAMES C. MITCHELL, )
JR., Trustee; ROYCEALEE J. WOOD, )
ex officio Member, All in Their Official )
Capacities, )
)
Respondents )
)
(Woodland Community Consolidated School )
District 50, Oak Grove School District 68, )
Warren Township High School District 121, ) Honorable
and Libertyville Community High School ) Diane E. Winter,
District 128, Respondents-Appellants). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices McLaren and Spence concurred in the judgment and opinion.
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
OPINION
¶1 Petitioners, Ayaz Merchant, Charles T. Taylor, Cheryl D. Taylor, Elsie I. Dietz, Dorothy
B. Taylor, Thomas F. Earth, Maria G. Earth, Anand K. Patel, Pinal Patel, and Dawn Dahl, as a
“Committee of 10” pursuant to section 7-6(c) of the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/7-6(c)
(West 2012)), sought to detach their territory, commonly known as the Lancaster subdivision,
from the boundaries of respondents Woodland Community Consolidated School District 50
(Woodland) and Warren Township High School District 121 (Warren) and annex it into the
boundaries of respondents Oak Grove School District 68 (Oak Grove) and Libertyville
Community High School District 128 (Libertyville). Pursuant to section 7-1 of the School
Code (105 ILCS 5/7-1 (West 2012)), petitioners filed a petition with respondent the Regional
Board of School Trustees of Lake County (Regional Board or Board). The Regional Board
conducted a hearing over five evenings. Woodland, Warren, Oak Grove, and Libertyville
(school districts or districts) opposed the petition. The Regional Board denied the petition.
¶2 On administrative review, the trial court reversed the Regional Board’s decision. The
school districts appeal, arguing that the Regional Board correctly denied the petition. We
affirm the trial court’s order reversing the Regional Board’s decision.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The Lancaster subdivision is located in the southeastern part of Warren Township and,
although it has a Libertyville mailing address, is part of the City of Waukegan. Lancaster, which
is triangular, is bounded on the east by the Tri-State Tollway (I-94) and on the west by O’Plaine
Road. The southern boundary of the territory is the Warren Township boundary line, and on the
other side of that line is the Regency Woods subdivision, which is located within the boundaries of
Oak Grove and Libertyville.
-2-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶5 Lancaster contains approximately 80 single-family homes. There are 95 children in the
subdivision, with 24 attending kindergarten through eighth grade at the Woodland schools and 15
attending Warren Township High School (WHS).
¶6 Woodland has an enrollment of 6,713 students in four schools: primary (pre-kindergarten
and kindergarten), elementary (grades one through three), intermediate (grades four and five),
and middle (grades six through eight). Oak Grove has one school building (Oak Grove school),
serving students in kindergarten through grade eight. Its student enrollment has declined from
1,081 in 2005 to 838 in 2012. WHS is a two-campus high school (O’Plaine for freshmen and
sophomores and Almond for the older students) and has about 4,500 students. Libertyville
High School’s (LHS’s) enrollment at its single campus is about 2,000 students.
¶7 On June 25, 2012, petitioners filed their petition seeking detachment from Woodland and
Warren and annexation to Oak Grove and Libertyville, all in Lake County. 105 ILCS 5/7-1
(West 2012) (providing for alteration of school district boundaries lying entirely within one
educational service region). The petition was signed by at least two-thirds of Lancaster’s
registered voters, and the signers were represented by petitioners.
¶8 The hearing on the petition was conducted before the Regional Board on October 1 and 30,
November 13 and 26, and December 4, 2012. At the hearing, petitioners presented evidence on
five issues: (1) whether there would be an educational advantage to the Lancaster students if they
went to Oak Grove school and LHS; (2) travel distances and times from Lancaster to the desired
schools; (3) whether Lancaster has a community of interest with the City of Libertyville; (4) the
potential increase in Lancaster home values if the petition were granted; and (5) petitioners’ school
preferences. The school districts presented evidence on the first three issues and stipulated that
there would be no financial detriment to any of the school districts if the petition were granted.
-3-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶9 A. Educational Advantage
¶ 10 Petitioners presented Timothy F. Brown’s testimony and report. Brown is chair of the
department of education at Argosy University’s Chicago campus and has a doctorate in
secondary education and curriculum from Indiana University. He opined that the Lancaster
students would receive a better education at Oak Grove school and LHS than at the Woodland
schools and WHS. He based his opinion on “data the literature shows as being indicative of
school quality: student mathematics achievement scores, student cohort size and student
engagement.” Brown testified that studies have concluded that mathematics achievement is
influenced more by teacher instruction than is achievement in other academic areas; in other
words, mathematics achievement is not as influenced by socioeconomic conditions. He
compared the percentages of students who over a four-year period met or exceeded state
standards for mathematics at the Woodland schools and Oak Grove school, and he testified that
Oak Grove’s percentages were higher.
¶ 11 Brown further stated that studies of the connection of class and school size to student
achievement have been inconclusive but that there is growing evidence that student cohort size
(i.e., the number of students in the same grade housed in the same school) impacts student
achievement. In elementary school, he noted, the primary relationship is between the teacher
and the student and, thus, class size is very important. Cohort size becomes more important as
students approach middle school, because the curriculum is departmentalized and students move
about their schools in the course of the day. The larger the cohort, the less opportunity for
students to engage with adults. Brown concluded that the cohorts for the Woodland schools
and WHS were significantly larger than those for Oak Grove school and LHS.
-4-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 12 Regarding student engagement (i.e., student involvement with adults and other students
in the school, including academic, cocurricular, and extra classroom engagement), Brown opined
that studies reflected that this factor predicts school safety, student achievement, and, possibly,
postsecondary school success. He explained that there are three elements of student
engagement: teacher experience (faculty stability and educational level and adult-to-child ratio),
delinquent behavior, and parental involvement.
¶ 13 He testified that, at Oak Grove school and LHS, teachers have more teaching experience
and a higher percentage of master’s degrees and there are fewer students per adult than at
Woodland and WHS. WHS has a higher chronic truancy rate (i.e., the percentage of the student
body that has been absent from school for 10% or more of the time) than LHS, as reflected in the
schools’ state report cards. This is an indicator of lack of engagement. The four-year (2008
through 2011) average chronic truancy rate was 10.9% for WHS and 0.4% for LHS; the state
average was 3.3%.
¶ 14 He opined that, based on the three indicators of school quality (math scores, cohort size,
and student engagement), there would be “higher expectations for quality” at Oak Grove and
LHS than at the Woodland schools and WHS. However, Brown also testified that petitioners
were highly committed, which trumped all other indicators of student success. He noted that
petitioners initiated the present (and one previous) detachment petition, and, in his report, he
stated that petitioners “feel passionately” about their children’s education and that parents “who
choose the school for their children have an investment that is powerful.”
¶ 15 Brown further testified that most teachers earn their master’s degrees by going to school
at night during the school year and that this “creates an environment where they can be
-5-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
bifurcated in their responsibilities.” Thus, teachers who have already earned their master’s
degrees can give more attention to the school and their students.
¶ 16 On cross-examination, Brown explained that, in forming his opinions, he did not focus on
“Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) 1 ratings as an indicator of school success, because one
subgroup’s failure to meet AYP criteria can cause an entire school not to meet them and “that
may or may not be reflective of the whole school.” Brown also denied that he based his
conclusions on the differences in test scores between the subject schools; he explained that this
was only one factor and that he focused on a pattern of differences in only math scores. He
further explained that one cannot draw statistical comparisons, because the numbers of subjects
in the relevant groups is different.
¶ 17 Petitioners presented the four districts’ 2008 to 2011 state report cards on criteria
including student performance, pupil-to-teacher ratio, pupil-to-administrator ratio, teacher
experience, and number of teachers with advanced degrees. Ayaz Merchant prepared
petitioners’ exhibit Nos. 14 and 15, which summarized this data. He testified that Oak Grove
school performed better than the Woodland schools on all of the criteria and that LHS performed
better than WHS on all of the criteria. Arand Patel conducted an Internet search of the schools’
ratings (presented in petitioners’ exhibit No. 16) from sources such as greatschools.org,
chicagomag.com, usnews.com, thedailybeast.com, schooldigger.com, suntimes.com, and
1
Under title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2012)),
“Adequate Yearly Progress,” as measured by federally approved standardized tests, is the
benchmark by which schools and school districts are held accountable for student performance.
The Woodland schools have never met the AYP criteria, whereas Oak Grove school has done so
every year. WHS has never met the criteria, whereas LHS has done so every year but one.
-6-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
chicagotribune.com. He testified that overall Oak Grove school is ranked higher than the
Woodland schools and that LHS is ranked higher than WHS.
¶ 18 The school districts’ evidence on educational advantage was as follows. Mary
Perry-Bates, the interim superintendent for WHS, testified that she took courses on academic
research and conducted such research during her master’s and doctoral studies. She reviewed
Brown’s report and the abstracts of the studies cited therein. Perry-Bates opined that a
significant number of Brown’s opinions were unsupported or contradicted by the research he
cited. Specifically, she challenged his statement that mathematics achievement is influenced
more by teacher instruction than is achievement in other subjects. According to Perry-Bates,
Brown cited only one study, which actually examined how socioeconomic status is associated
with continued learning over the summer. She also pointed to Brown’s statement that student
engagement is an indicator of reduced student victimization, increased student achievement, and
post-secondary student success. Perry-Bates opined that Brown’s cited studies did not draw
this conclusion. She stated in her report that the authors of one study noted that mathematics
achievement and school and cohort size are related to student engagement, not student
performance, as Brown had represented. She also noted that several of his statements were
unsubstantiated personal opinions, including that larger cohorts increase the chances of student
anonymity and lack of school involvement and that student anonymity and lack of involvement
are indicators of poor student engagement. Perry-Bates did not offer her own opinions on the
issues Brown presented, and petitioners were not permitted to question her on this topic.
¶ 19 Prentiss Lea, superintendent of Libertyville, testified that he disagreed with petitioners’
assertion that the Lancaster children would receive a better education at LHS than they would at
WHS; in his view, the education provided at WHS was “similarly excellent.” WHS and LHS,
-7-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Lea stated, have very similar program offerings. He noted that 9 of the 15 Lancaster students at
WHS are in advanced placement (AP) courses and that WHS has a pass rate (i.e., scoring a 3, 4,
or 5 on a national test) of 89% versus 91% at LHS. The 89% pass rate places WHS in the top
10% of Illinois schools.
¶ 20 Lea testified that the schools’ state report cards cannot be read to reflect that LHS
students receive a better education than WHS students. In his view, the differences in the
teacher-to-student ratios are not significant, there is no research that defines how such
differences affect education quality, and the average scores on all criteria show that the
differences have no effect. Lea noted that, in the high school report card data summarized in
petitioners’ exhibit No. 15, demographic data, a critical factor, was missing from the summary.
He explained that 16% of the students at WHS are of low socioeconomic status (SES) and that
2% have limited English-language proficiency. Historically, students of low SES and with
limited English proficiency do not perform as well on standardized tests as do other students.
At LHS, only 5% of students are of low SES, and only 0.4% have limited English proficiency.
Lea noted that it is very difficult to compare the schools, given the demographic differences.
¶ 21 Lea testified that, to determine whether WHS’s teachers were doing as good a job as
LHS’s teachers, one should look at how individual students’ needs are being met. This data is
not reflected, Lea stated, in petitioners’ exhibit. Lea pointed to the state report cards’ data in
mathematics and reading. He agreed that one also could look at the Prairie State Achievement
Examination (PSAE) test results. Petitioners’ exhibit No. 13 reflected that the 2010-11 PSAE
reading score for WHS was 160, whereas for LHS it was 167. The mathematics score for WHS
was 162, whereas LHS had a score of 169. WHS’s science score was 163 and LHS’s score was
-8-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
169. Lea opined that the test results reflect that there is not a lot of difference between the
schools.
¶ 22 Lea also testified to the PSAE scores showing the percentages of students meeting or
exceeding standards. For the 2009-10 school year, in reading, WHS scored 64.1% and LHS
scored 81.2%; in mathematics, WHS scored 63.9% and LHS scored 83%; and in science, WHS
scored 65.3% and LHS scored 83.1%. For the 2010-11 school year, the reading score for WHS
was 65.9% and for LHS it was 79.5%; in mathematics, WHS scored 68.2% and LHS scored
80.9%; and in science, WHS scored 65.2% and LHS scored 81.3%.
¶ 23 Lea further testified that, since 2003 and until two or three years ago, all Libertyville
schools met AYP criteria. (The standards have gone up every year.) WHS has never met
them. As to Internet rankings, Lea does not find them reliable, because the qualifications of the
rankers are unknown, the criteria are unspecified, and it is unclear if the criteria are valid. He
also noted that no one from the websites made any official visits to the district or contacted him
or other Libertyville school personnel to obtain information about the district.
¶ 24 As to pupil-to-teacher ratios, Lea noted that the data (in petitioners’ exhibit No. 15)
reflected that, for 2008 through 2011, the average ratio was 19.83 to 1 for WHS and 16.88 to 1 for
LHS. Lea opined that the three-student difference was not significant at the high school level.
As to teacher experience, the data showed that teachers had an average of 10.65 years at WHS and
12.95 at LHS. Again, Lea opined that this did not imply that LHS students receive a better
education than WHS students. Teachers with either level of experience have gone through the
evaluation and tenure process, so the difference should not affect the quality of teaching. As to
the fact that more teachers at LHS have master’s degrees, Lea testified that the degree does not
alone make a better teacher. Also, the data does not reflect the subject areas (e.g., administration
-9-
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
or mathematics) in which the master’s degrees were earned. Similarly, he opined that higher
teacher salaries do not reflect that students receive a better education. “The bottom line with
teachers is the quality of the teacher you have, the commitment to their students, and the work that
they do to help their students grow and increase their achievement.”
¶ 25 The U.S. News & World Report magazine ranks LHS as the seventeenth best high school in
the State. Lea stated that, although the ranking is good and LHS is ranked higher than WHS, he
does not believe that the Lancaster students would get a better education at LHS. The quality of
the education a student receives depends on that student and what the school does to meet that
student’s needs. When asked “So other than that, it doesn’t matter what school you go to?” Lea
responded, “I would say correct.”
¶ 26 Mark Clement, assistant superintendent for teaching and learning at Oak Grove, agreed
with Lea that the school report cards for Woodland and Oak Grove cannot be compared to assess
which schools are better, because the schools and the school districts have different populations.
Clement testified that about 29% of Woodland’s students are of low SES whereas about 0.1% of
Oak Grove’s students are. He agreed with Lea that low SES students historically do not
perform as well on standardized exams as do other students. He also noted that 12.5% of
Woodland’s students have limited English proficiency compared to only 2.2% at Oak Grove.
¶ 27 To address Brown’s report, Clement helped prepare respondents’ exhibit Nos. 3 and 4,
which contain data from the Illinois Interactive Report Card. The exhibits compare data for
Woodland and Oak Grove, including demographics and student performance. Exhibit No. 4
shows the 2007 to 2012 mathematics performance scores of students in grades three through eight
at both districts, with the scores of low SES students excluded. (There are no low SES students in
the Lancaster subdivision.) Clement testified that all of the scores are over 90 and are in similar
- 10 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
ranges. 2 Clement opined that this data is a more “apples to apples” comparison than Brown’s
data, because it compares like populations within the districts. Clement concluded that the
Lancaster students would receive a similar education in either Oak Grove or Woodland.
¶ 28 Steve Thomas, director of teaching and learning at Woodland, testified that he disagreed
with Brown’s estimate that Woodland’s cohort size for grades six through eight is about 780
students. He explained that Woodland uses a “house” system to reduce the cohort into smaller
groups called houses. There are four houses for the first through fifth grades, with about 165
students in each house. There are three houses for the sixth through eighth grades, with about
210 to 320 students in each house. Each house has its own section of the school building, and
students conduct their daily school activities with only their house members. He further
testified that, although playing interscholastic athletics is more difficult at a larger school district
such as Woodland, there is a larger array of other options, such as intramurals and clubs.
¶ 29 Wileen Gehrig, assistant superintendent for instructional services at WHS, testified that
the Lancaster students would not receive a better education at LHS than at WHS, because the
schools’ curricula and AP pass rates are very similar. Gehrig testified that the curricula at WHS
and LHS are very similar because they are aligned with the College Readiness Standards and the
Common Core Standards. Thus, the two schools teach the same content area skills to students.
¶ 30 Gehrig further testified that 9 of the 15 Lancaster students at WHS take AP classes.
Because WHS is larger than LHS, WHS offers more courses and more sections of the same
courses, which make scheduling easier. The courses that WHS offers that LHS does not
2
For example, the five-year average math scores for third graders are 94.6 at Woodland
and 98.6 at Oak Grove. The scores for fifth graders are 91.6 at Woodland and 97.2 at Oak Grove.
The scores for eighth graders are 92.8 at Woodland and 94.8 at Oak Grove.
- 11 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
include: Accounting II, Acting II, World History, Human Geography, Website Development,
Outdoor Education/Outdoor P.E., History of Rock and Roll, Biology II, Chemistry II, and
Microeconomics. Gehrig explained that students enrolled in AP classes can earn college credit
if they attain a sufficient score on a national exam. WHS’s AP pass rate is 89%, and LHS’s is
91%. Gehrig opined that these results are very similar.
¶ 31 Al Fleming, associate superintendent for curriculum and instruction at Libertyville,
agreed with Gehrig that there are only very minor differences in the curricula at WHS and LHS,
such as the electives offered and the number of sections offered. Fleming opined that the
Lancaster students in AP classes at WHS would not receive a better education at LHS; they
would receive the same education because the exam is a standardized national exam.
¶ 32 As detailed below, the Regional Board found that there would be no discernible academic
detriment or benefit to the Lancaster students if the petition were granted, and the trial court
upheld this finding, noting that the evidence was conflicting.
¶ 33 B. Travel Distance and Time
¶ 34 As to travel distance and time, Merchant testified that he prepared petitioners’ exhibit No.
11, which showed driving distances and times from Lancaster to the subject schools. He
explained that several petitioners drove the specified routes; Merchant did not know if the routes
were the same routes that the buses took. The exhibit reflects that the one-way distance and
time from Lancaster to the Woodland primary/elementary campus are 5.3 miles and 12 minutes;
to the intermediate school are 6.8 miles and 19 minutes; and to the middle school are 6.1 miles
and 18 minutes. In contrast, the distance and time from Lancaster to Oak Grove school are 2.1
miles and 5 minutes. The distance and time to WHS’s O’Plaine campus are 2.7 miles and 6
- 12 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
minutes and to the Almond campus are 5.8 miles and 14 minutes, whereas the distance and time
to LHS are 5.9 miles and 13 minutes.
¶ 35 Maria Earth testified that a roundtrip to Woodland’s primary/elementary campus took 15
to 20 minutes. Richard Dahl testified that he drove his sons to school half the days for five
years and that it took 15 to 20 minutes roundtrip to the Woodland schools. Joshua Braus
testified that the commute to the primary school took 15 minutes. Merchant testified that the
commute to Oak Grove was 5 minutes, and Dahl testified that it was 5 to 10 minutes.
¶ 36 Arand Patel testified that Lancaster elementary students are bused to the Woodland
schools by four different buses, one for each of the four schools. The buses pick up the students
at different times and return them home at different times. Pickup times range from 6:57 a.m.
for the middle school students to 8:18 a.m. for the elementary school students. The bus trip
from Lancaster to the Woodland schools is about 40 minutes each way. Because there are four
separate Woodland school buildings, a Lancaster family with four elementary-age school
children could load their children onto four different buses over the course of more than one hour
each morning. In contrast, the Oak Grove bus route that serves the Regency Woods
subdivision, immediately south of Lancaster, enters that subdivision at about 7:50 a.m. and
arrives back at the school at about 8:02 a.m. (a total of about 12 minutes).
¶ 37 Robert Leonard, Woodland associate superintendent, is responsible for Woodland’s
transportation services. He prepared respondents’ exhibit No. 8, which lists the distances and
times from Lancaster to Woodland schools, and he traveled the bus routes and recorded the times
with the stopwatch feature of his iPhone. Leonard testified that the distance from Lancaster to
Woodland’s primary/elementary school’s campus is 5.4 miles and takes 8 minutes; to
- 13 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Woodland’s intermediate school is 5 miles and takes 9 minutes; and to the middle schools is 5.3
miles and takes 10 minutes.
¶ 38 Clement testified that, if the petition were granted, the Lancaster students would not be
placed on the Regency Woods bus route, because that bus is at capacity. Instead, they would be
placed on the Nickels and Dimes subdivision bus route, which is not currently at capacity. The
Nickels and Dimes subdivision is farther away than Regency Woods, and the Lancaster students’
ride to Oak Grove would be about 10.6 miles.
¶ 39 The Regional Board resolved this issue in the school districts’ favor. It found that, if the
petition were granted, the only distance that would be significantly shorter would be that from
Lancaster to Oak Grove school. The trial court, however, found in petitioners’ favor on this
issue. The trial court upheld the foregoing finding, but found that the shorter distance from
Lancaster to Oak Grove school “is significant” in that it is less than half the distance to the
Woodland schools. The trial court also found that the route to Oak Grove school was safer than
the routes to the Woodland schools and that the shorter distance to the elementary school was
entitled to greater weight than the longer distance to LHS. In the trial court’s view, the shorter
distance supported a finding that granting the petition would provide an educational benefit to
the Lancaster children.
¶ 40 C. Community of Interest
¶ 41 Although Lancaster is located in Waukegan, the Lancaster homes have a Libertyville
mailing address. The Woodland schools are located in Gurnee and Gages Lake. The two
WHS buildings are located in Gurnee. Oak Grove has a Libertyville mailing address, but is
located in the Village of Green Oaks. LHS is located in Libertyville.
- 14 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 42 The petitioners who testified at the hearing (Ayaz Merchant, Richard Dahl, Joshua
Hornaday, Maria Earth, Joshua Braus, and Dean Vandenbiesen) stated that they consider
Libertyville their community of interest. They presented evidence detailing where their family
activities occur (petitioners’ exhibit No. 11.5, as summarized in exhibit No. 12). 3 Libertyville
was the most popular location for children’s activities, such as art, ballet, camps, dance,
gymnastics, scouting, soccer, library, and preschool/daycare, and Gurnee was second.
Libertyville was also the first choice for pharmacies, dry cleaners, and churches. However, the
most popular location for grocery stores was Vernon Hills (35%), with Libertyville as the second
most frequent destination (21%).
¶ 43 Another exhibit (petitioners’ exhibit No. 5) consists of a map showing the locations of
Lancaster, the subject schools, nonschool activities, and shopping for Lancaster families. It
reflects that no nonschool activity or shopping occurs in the Oak Grove territory.
¶ 44 The school districts presented evidence that there are as many convenient points of interest
that could support a community of interest north of Lancaster as there are in Libertyville.
¶ 45 The Regional Board found that the Lancaster students did not have a demonstrably strong
community of interest with Oak Grove and Libertyville. It determined that there was no
indication that the Lancaster students were declining to participate in academic and extracurricular
activities because they were enrolled at their current schools.
¶ 46 The trial court rejected the Regional Board’s determination that petitioners were required
to show that granting the petition would increase the Lancaster students’ participation in school
3
This evidence was based on a survey of Lancaster residents conducted by Merchant and
in which 60 of the 80 homes participated.
- 15 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
and community activities. It found that petitioners showed a connection with Oak Grove and
Libertyville and that annexation could result in additional opportunities for such activities.
¶ 47 D. Home Values
¶ 48 Petitioners presented evidence that granting the petition would increase home values in
Lancaster. Elizabeth Bryant, a Century 21/Kreuser & Seiler, Ltd., realtor, testified that she
compared Lancaster homes with those in the Regency Woods subdivision. In her report
(petitioners’ exhibit No. 20), dated October 30, 2012, she stated that the houses in the two
subdivisions are comparable for mortgage and refinancing purposes, because they have similar
construction and layouts. Bryant further stated that “[p]otential buyers look at price range,
commute to work and school, test scores and school size.” As to sale prices, Bryant stated that
Regency Woods homes sold for an average of $125,636 more in the last 24 months. She stated
that much of the difference can be attributed to the difference in schools, “as most of the other
services are the same.” She acknowledged that some of the difference was due to the struggling
real estate market, which “hit Gurnee harder than Libertyville.” She noted, however, that, even in
January 2007, there was a difference of $59,000. The school districts did not present any
evidence on this issue.
¶ 49 The Regional Board did not make any findings as to home values. The trial court
determined that home values could be considered in assessing educational welfare. It found that
petitioners presented evidence supporting their claim that Lancaster property values would
increase if the petition were granted, whereas the school districts offered no contrary evidence.
The court determined that the Regional Board erred as a matter of law in disregarding petitioners’
evidence.
¶ 50 E. Petitioners’ School Preferences
- 16 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 51 Petitioners testified that they desired to detach from Woodland and WHS and attach to
Oak Grove and LHS.
¶ 52 The Regional Board made no findings on this issue, and the trial court determined that
the Board erred as a matter of law in failing to consider petitioners’ preferences.
¶ 53 F. Regional Board’s Decision
¶ 54 In a January 3, 2013, written order, the Regional Board denied the petition. It found
that: (1) there would be no financial detriment or benefit to any of the school districts if the
petition were granted; (2) there would be no discernible academic detriment or benefit to the
Lancaster students if the petition were granted; (3) the only significantly shorter commute (by car
or bus) would be from Lancaster to Oak Grove school; (4) there was not a demonstrably strong
community of interest between the Lancaster students and the “current students and school and
extracurricular activities associated with the Oak Grove and Libertyville schools”; and there was
no indication that Lancaster students were declining to participate in academic and
extracurricular activities because they were enrolled at their current schools; and (5) despite the
lack of financial detriment to the districts if the petition were granted, petitioners “had not shown
enough educational benefit that would inure” to the Lancaster students to overcome the threshold
in Carver v. Bond/Fayette/Effingham Regional Board of School Trustees, 146 Ill. 2d 347 (1992),
and Pochopien v. Regional Board of School Trustees of the Lake County Educational Service
Region, 322 Ill. App. 3d 185 (2001).
¶ 55 Pursuant to the Administrative Review Law, petitioners appealed to the trial court. 735
ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2012).
¶ 56 G. Trial Court’s Decision
- 17 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 57 On November 13, 2013, the trial court found that the Regional Board’s decision was
clearly erroneous and that the petition should have been granted. In a 35-page memorandum
order, the court noted that, because the school districts had stipulated that granting the petition
would cause no financial harm to any of the districts, the central issue was whether petitioners
sustained their burden of showing that granting the petition would provide “some benefit to the
educational welfare of the students in the detachment area,” a mixed question of law and fact.
Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358. The court noted that the specific factual issues before it were:
educational opportunity, community of interest, travel distance and time, property values, and
petitioners’ school preferences. It also identified two questions of law: whether petitioners
were required to prove that granting the petition would increase the Lancaster students’
participation in school and extracurricular activities; and whether the Regional Board was
required to consider the potential for increased Lancaster property values as an aspect of
educational welfare.
¶ 58 Regarding educational opportunity, the trial court ruled that the Regional Board’s finding
that granting the petition would result in no discernible academic detriment or benefit to the
Lancaster students was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court noted
that petitioners presented evidence of educational benefit but that there was also evidence
showing that there would be no benefit, because the education provided at all the schools was
excellent.
¶ 59 Next, the trial court addressed community of interest. The court initially noted that
evidence of shopping and banking preferences failed to justify detachment and annexation.
However, it noted that information concerning participation in extracurricular activities showed
that the majority of the Lancaster students’ activities occur in Libertyville and that Lancaster
- 18 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
residents also showed “a strong pattern of religious participation in Libertyville.” The court
rejected the school districts’ assertion that petitioners were required to show that granting the
petition would increase the Lancaster students’ participation in school and community activities.
After noting that the case law did not support this claim, the court found that petitioners “offered
substantial evidence to show their connection with the area served by the Oak Grove and
Libertyville school districts, and that the Oak Grove schools are closer for the elementary[-]
school-aged children.” Reviewing the case law, the court determined that a community of
interest with the annexing district must be proved and that proof of specific potential
improvements in student participation is helpful, but not necessary, to prove that a child will
benefit from attending school in his or her community of interest. The court found that the
evidence showed that petitioners actively encouraged their children to pursue extracurricular
activities and that they made efforts to stay involved in their children’s schooling; therefore, the
evidence established that the Lancaster students’ alignment with their community of interest will
likely result in additional opportunities for school and extracurricular activities.
¶ 60 The court also took issue with two aspects of the Regional Board’s findings on this
factor. First, it determined that, to the extent that the Board required proof of current
associations with and participation in activities in Oak Grove and Libertyville, the Board applied
the incorrect standard. The court noted that petitioners were instead required to show that their
natural community of interest was with Oak Grove and Libertyville. It found that they had
done so by showing that their children were currently participating in extracurricular activities in
Oak Grove and Libertyville and “by demonstrating their own personal and commercial ties to the
community.” Accordingly, the court found that, to the extent that the Board determined that
- 19 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
petitioners did not show a community of interest, that determination was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
¶ 61 Second, the trial court addressed the Regional Board’s finding that there was no
indication that the Lancaster students were not participating in academic and extracurricular
activities because they were enrolled in their current schools. The trial court noted that it
appeared that the Regional Board required proof that the Lancaster students are currently
suffering from a specific detriment (instead of proof of a likely or potential benefit from
annexation). Relying on Pochopien, the trial court determined that the “standard is without
basis in law” and further found that proof of a specific, current detriment “is helpful but not
necessary to show community of interest.”
¶ 62 Next, the court addressed travel distance and time. It upheld the Regional Board’s
finding that the only car or bus commute time that would be significantly shorter if the petition
were granted would be from Lancaster to Oak Grove school (although the evidence of bus
commute time was less clear). However, in contrast to the Regional Board’s findings, the
court also determined that the shorter distance to Oak Grove school “is significant” because it is
less than half the distance to the Woodland schools. Further, the court found that the routes to
the “Woodland schools cross through multiple intersections on major streets. The evidence
showed that the route to Oak Grove only crosses one intersection significant enough to have a
traffic signal. Accordingly, it is not only distance and time, but safety that weighs in favor of
granting the petition.” The court determined that the shorter distance to Oak Grove school was
entitled to greater weight than the longer distance to LHS because, pursuant to case law, the
benefit of a shorter and safer commute for younger children is not reduced or negated by a longer
distance for older students. The court found that the shorter, faster, and safer ride to Oak Grove
- 20 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
school supported a finding, which the Regional Board did not make, that granting the petition
would provide an educational benefit to the Lancaster children. The court determined that the
Regional Board did not refer to the shorter distance as an educational benefit or indicate that it
gave weight to that benefit. Thus, although the Regional Board’s finding regarding the
distances to the various schools was accurate as a matter of fact, the Regional Board was
required as a matter of law to consider and give weight to the overall educational benefit of the
younger children’s shorter commute. It noted that, had the Regional “Board properly given
greater weight to the fact that the younger children in the Lancaster subdivision would have a
shorter, faster[,] and safer ride to Oak Grove[,] it is difficult to see how that benefit could be
considered ‘minimal.’ ”
¶ 63 The trial court next addressed the impact on property values if the petition were granted,
noting that the Regional Board made no express findings as to this factor. It acknowledged that
the supreme court had not mentioned property values as a factor to consider when reviewing a
detachment petition. However, the trial court noted that several appellate court cases did do so,
most notably Burnidge v. County Board of School Trustees, 25 Ill. App. 2d 503 (1960), and that
the broad interpretation of educational welfare endorsed by the supreme court in Carver and
Board of Education of Golf School District No. 67 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 89 Ill.
2d 392 (1982), supported the determination that property values may be considered. Thus, it
found that it was contrary to law to ignore evidence on that factor. In this case, the court noted,
petitioners offered evidence supporting their claim that property values would increase if the
petition were granted. The school districts presented no contrary evidence, and the Regional
Board made no findings concerning property values. The court found that the Regional Board
- 21 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
“appears to have disregarded evidence that was relevant to the question of educational welfare,
and in doing so erred as a matter of law.”
¶ 64 Next, the trial court addressed petitioners’ school preferences, noting that the Regional
Board made no findings on this issue though the evidence showed petitioners’ clear preference
for detachment and annexation. The trial court determined that, given the other factors
(namely, the shorter commute to the elementary school and community of interest) that
supported granting the petition, the Regional Board erred as a matter of law in failing to consider
petitioners’ preferences.
¶ 65 Finally, the trial court summarized its findings. It found that the Regional Board
properly determined that granting the petition would not provide the Lancaster children with a
discernible academic benefit. However, it also determined that the Regional Board erred by
giving no weight to petitioners’ school preferences or the impact that granting the petition would
have on their property values. Further, the trial court found that the Regional Board erred in its
assessment of the evidence concerning petitioners’ community of interest and that it gave
insufficient weight to the shorter commute to Oak Grove school. Accordingly, the court
determined that granting the petition would provide some benefit to the Lancaster students’
educational welfare and it reversed the Regional Board’s decision.
¶ 66 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 67 On appeal, the school districts argue that the Regional Board did not err in: (1) finding
that there would be no direct educational advantage to the Lancaster students if the petition were
granted; (2) finding that the commute to Oak Grove school is not significantly shorter than the
commute to the Woodland schools and does not give the Lancaster students an educational
benefit; (3) finding that Lancaster does not have a community of interest with Oak Grove and
- 22 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Libertyville; and (4) failing to consider that granting the petition could cause Lancaster home
values to increase. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Regional Board erred in
denying the petition, where, although it correctly assessed the educational advantage factor, it
erred in assessing (or failed to assess) the distances to the schools, petitioners’ “community of
interest,” the students’ participation in school and extracurricular activities, property values, and
petitioners’ school preferences.
¶ 68 Article 7 of the School Code governs school district boundary changes. Section 7-6(i)
of the School Code provides, in relevant part, that, at a hearing on a petition for detachment and
annexation, the regional board of school trustees:
“shall hear evidence as to the school needs and conditions of the territory in the area
within and adjacent thereto and as to the ability of the districts affected to meet the
standards of recognition as prescribed by the State Board of Education, and shall take
into consideration the division of funds and assets which will result from the change of
boundaries and shall determine whether it is to the best interests of the schools of the area
and the educational welfare of the pupils that such change in boundaries be granted.”
105 ILCS 5/7-6(i) (West 2012).
¶ 69 Under section 7-6, a petition for detachment and annexation should be granted only
where the overall benefit to the annexing district and the detachment area clearly outweighs the
resulting detriment to the losing district and the surrounding community as a whole. Carver,
146 Ill. 2d at 356.
¶ 70 The petitioners must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. See 5 ILCS
100/10-15 (West 2012). “A prima facie case is established by evidence that would enable the
trier of fact to find each element of the cause of action more probably true than not.” Board of
- 23 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Education of Marquardt School District No. 15 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 2012 IL
App (2d) 110360, ¶ 19. Where the opposing party produces no evidence that contradicts or
impeaches the burdened party’s evidence, the trier of fact must rule for the burdened party.
Pochopien, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 193.
¶ 71 A regional board’s decision on a petition for detachment and annexation is an
administrative decision for purposes of the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 5/art. III
(West 2012). The scope of our review of an administrative agency’s decision extends to all
questions of law and fact. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 355. A board’s factual findings are held to be
prima facie true and correct. Id.; see 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2012). However, this rule does
not relieve us of our duties to examine the record and to set aside an order that is unsupported by
the evidence. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 355. Reversal of an administrative agency’s factual
findings is warranted only where they are against the manifest weight of the evidence; that is,
where it is clearly evident that the agency should have reached the opposite conclusion.
Marquardt, 2012 IL App (2d) 110360, ¶ 20. Where administrative orders involve mixed
questions of law and fact, we apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Id. We
review de novo an administrative agency’s decisions on questions of law. Id.
¶ 72 In applying the benefit-detriment test, reviewing courts are to consider: (1) the
differences between school facilities and curricula; (2) the distances from the petitioners’ homes
to the respective schools; (3) the effect that detachment would have on the ability of either
district to meet state standards of recognition (and whether a detaching district will remain
financially healthy and able to meet the standards); and (4) the impact of the proposed boundary
change on the tax revenues of both districts. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356-57. Moreover, courts
may consider: (1) the “community of interest” and “whole child” factors—i.e., the identification
- 24 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
of the petitioning territory with the district to which annexation is sought, and the corresponding
likelihood of students’ participation in school and extracurricular activities; and (2) the personal
desires of the petitioning parents, although more than personal preference is needed to support a
change in boundaries. Id. at 356. “Physical proximity and natural identification with the
community have obvious advantages to a student’s educational welfare.” Board of Education
of St. Charles Community Unit School District No. 303 v. Regional Board of School Trustees of
the Kane County Educational Service Region, 261 Ill. App. 3d 348, 363 (1994). The “whole
child” factor “recognizes that extracurricular participation in social, religious, and even
commercial activities is important in a child’s development as a beneficial supplement to the
child’s academic involvement.” Golf, 89 Ill. 2d at 397. If a child attends school in his or her
natural community, it not only enhances his or her educational opportunity, but encourages his or
her participation in social and other extracurricular activities that figure importantly in the
“whole child” idea. Id. at 398.
¶ 73 The “[m]ere absence of substantial detriment to either district *** is not sufficient to
support a petition for detachment and annexation.” Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358. “ ‘[I]t is the
overall benefit to the annexing district and the detachment area considered together’ that must
outweigh the resulting detriment to the losing district and the surrounding community as a
whole.” (Emphases in original.) Id. (quoting Golf, 89 Ill. 2d at 400-01). In “the absence of
substantial detriment to either school district, some benefit to the educational welfare of the
students in the detachment area is sufficient to [warrant] the granting of a petition for detachment
and annexation.” (Emphasis added.) Id.
¶ 74 “Educational welfare” is broadly interpreted. Id. at 359. Students’ educational welfare
is bettered not just through improved educational programs or facilities. Id. at 359-60.
- 25 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Improvement can occur by way of a shortened distance between students’ homes and their
school. Id.; see Pochopien, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 194; see also Burnidge, 25 Ill. App. 2d at 509
(“In addition to the savings in transportation costs, and diminution in time spent daily by children
riding a bus, there would be a certain safety factor by reason of diminution of exposure and
certainly a lessening of fatigue accompanying a long bus ride to and from school.”). A
reduction in travel time, however, is not sufficient by itself to warrant granting a boundary
change. Pochopien, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 194. Further, although relevant, petitioners’ personal
preferences as to shopping, banking, et cetera are not a sufficient basis for granting a petition.
Id. “Students’ educational welfare can also be improved through an increased identification
with their ‘natural community center,’ which would increase participation in school and
extracurricular activities.” Id. at 194-95. By contrast, “an unnatural identification with a
school district would have an opposite result with a corresponding loss of participation and
resulting poorer educational picture.” Burnidge, 25 Ill. App. 2d at 510.
¶ 75 Here, the school districts stipulated that none of the school districts would suffer
substantial detriment if the petition were granted. Because of the absence of substantial
detriment to any school district, only “some benefit to the educational welfare of the students in
the detachment area is sufficient to [warrant] the granting of a petition for detachment and
annexation.” (Emphasis added.) Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358.
¶ 76 A. Educational Opportunity
¶ 77 The school districts argue first that the Regional Board correctly found (and this finding
was upheld by the trial court) that there would be no academic advantage or detriment for the
Lancaster students if the petition were granted. Specifically, the districts argue that: (1) the
evidence, including Brown’s testimony, showed that state report cards cannot be used to
- 26 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
compare schools; (2) none of the Lancaster students are of low SES, none failed to meet state
standards, and each district’s students who are not in either of these categories have similar
scores; (3) the Internet rankings of the schools are unreliable because no information was
provided about how the rankings were compiled or the bases upon which the schools were
ranked; (4) the schools’ educational programs are the same, except that WHS offers courses that
LHS does not offer; (5) as to the Lancaster students enrolled in AP classes at WHS, the WHS
and LHS AP programs follow a national curriculum, and the programs have similar pass rates;
and (6) more weight was properly given to school district administrators’ testimony than to
nondistrict personnel’s testimony, and district personnel testified that the education Lancaster
students currently receive is equivalent to what they would receive at Oak Grove and
Libertyville.
¶ 78 Petitioners respond that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Oak Grove school and
LHS would provide better educational opportunities for Lancaster students than their current
schools. They contend that the desired schools scored higher on all criteria in the state report
cards (averaged over the four school years from 2008 to 2011). For the elementary and middle
schools, Oak Grove school had better scores than the Woodland schools in 84 categories,
including: pupil-to-teacher ratio, average years of teaching experience, percentage of
expenditures toward instruction and education, and overall testing performance. For the high
schools, LHS had better scores than WHS in all 46 categories, including: pupil-to-teacher ratio,
average years of teaching experience, percentage of expenditures toward instruction and
education, graduation rates, and overall testing performance. Petitioners maintain that the
Regional Board erred in ignoring the foregoing uncontroverted evidence and instead relying
upon the district administrators’ opinions that the schools were essentially equal. Petitioners
- 27 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
contend that the Regional Board (and the trial court) essentially found that, because all the
districts are good districts, the state report cards and the AYP ratings held no value to determine
educational benefit. Regarding the percentages of low SES students at the schools, petitioners
argue that, even if this population is removed from the data, Oak Grove’s four-year averages are,
even by the calculations presented in the districts’ brief, “.4 to 5.6 percent higher than
Woodland’s.” Petitioners further contend that the data reflect that the desired school districts
present a better educational opportunity and that this weighs in favor of finding, in consideration
with all of the other relevant factors, “some benefit” (id.) to Lancaster students’ educational
welfare.
¶ 79 In light of the conflicting evidence on educational advantage, we conclude that the
Regional Board (and the trial court) did not err in finding that granting the petition would result
in no discernible academic benefit to the Lancaster students. Brown identified three factors as
determining school quality, but he conceded that parent commitment trumped all other indicators
of student success and that petitioners were passionate about their children’s education. There
was conflicting testimony on the three factors Brown identified—math scores, cohort size, and
student engagement. Brown himself conceded that math scores alone do not necessarily reflect
a better school environment and are but one factor to assess. The testimony concerning cohort
size reflected that Woodland has a higher student enrollment but tries to offset any negative
consequences of this fact by dividing the students into houses within the schools.
¶ 80 Petitioners’ case relied heavily on the state school report cards. However, the evidence
reflected that the overall scores for the schools could not reasonably be compared, due to the
schools’ diverse populations. Several witnesses testified that the percentage of low SES
students, a population that traditionally does not score as high on standardized exams as other
- 28 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
students, at WHS was 16% and that it was only 5% at LHS. The percentage of low SES
students at the Woodland schools is 29%, whereas it is only 0.1% at Oak Grove school.
Clement analyzed report card data for Woodland and Oak Grove. He testified that, excluding
the low SES students from the data (because there are no low SES students in Lancaster), the
mathematics performance scores are over 90 for grades three through eight. In his view, this is
more of an “apples to apples” comparison, and he opined that Lancaster students would receive a
similar education at either district. Even Brown testified that AYP ratings do not necessarily
reflect an entire school’s success and he stated that he did not focus on this data. He explained
that one cannot draw statistical comparisons from test scores, because there are differences in
each group’s population, although he focused on population size and not economic status.
¶ 81 The testimony concerning AP class availability and enrollment also did not necessarily
demonstrate an educational benefit. (This evidence was relevant because 9 of the 15 Lancaster
students who attend WHS take AP classes.) WHS is a larger school and offers more AP
courses and more sections of the same courses than LHS offers. Gehrig testified that the
school’s AP pass rates are similar: WHS’s is 89% and LHS’s is 91%.
¶ 82 As Lea testified, the PSAE subtest scores for the high schools were also very similar,
although the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the relevant standards was higher at
LHS. Further, the data on pupil-to-teacher ratios also reasonably reflected that there was no
significant difference between the high schools. Lea opined that the three-student difference in
the ratios was not significant at the high school level. Regarding teacher experience, Lea
likewise opined that the two-year average difference for experienced high school teachers did not
imply that the LHS students receive a better education. He explained that, after a certain point,
additional experience does not necessarily correlate with better teaching.
- 29 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 83 In Fosdyck v. Regional Board of School Trustees, Marshall, Putnam, & Woodford
Counties, 233 Ill. App. 3d 398, 409 (1992), the reviewing court reversed, as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence, the regional board’s finding that detachment would enhance the
educational welfare of the children in the detachment area. The court held that the desired
school district was larger, offered a wider curriculum, offered extracurricular activities (i.e.,
sports) not available at the current school and in which the petitioning couple’s children wished
to participate, and had facilities not available at the current school (i.e., a weight-lifting room,
two gymnasiums, and a tennis practice room) and separate buildings for its grade school and
high school. Id. at 402, 410. Here, in contrast, the evidence reflected less stark differences
between petitioners’ current schools and the desired schools.
¶ 84 In summary, we conclude that the Regional Board did not err in finding that there would
be no discernible educational advantage to the Lancaster students if the petition were granted.
¶ 85 B. Travel Times and Distances to Schools
¶ 86 The school districts next argue that the evidence showed that the differences in travel
times and distances to the Woodland schools versus Oak Grove are de minimis and that the
Regional Board’s finding that the differences are not sufficient to show an educational benefit
from detachment is not erroneous. They maintain that the trial court reweighed the evidence
and substituted its judgment in finding that the route to Oak Grove school was safer. For the
following reasons, we reject the school districts’ argument and conclude that the Regional
Board’s finding on this issue is erroneous.
¶ 87 The trial court agreed with one aspect of the Regional Board’s finding: that the only
commute (car or bus) that would be significantly shorter if the petition were granted would be
from Lancaster to Oak Grove school (but it noted that the question of bus commute time was less
- 30 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
clear). Ultimately, the trial court ruled in petitioners’ favor on this issue, determining that the
difference in distance to Oak Grove school is “significant” because it is less than half the
distance to the Woodland schools and because the routes to the Woodland schools cross multiple
intersections on major streets and the route to Oak Grove school crossed only one intersection
significant enough to have a traffic signal. Thus, in addition to distance and time, safety
weighed in petitioners’ favor on this issue. Furthermore, the trial court determined that the
Regional Board erred as a matter of law in that it failed to give weight to the educational benefit
to the younger children of a significantly shorter, faster, and safer commute to school. The
court found that the shorter distance to Oak Grove school was entitled to greater weight than the
longer distance to LHS because the benefit of a shorter and safer commute for younger children
was not reduced or negated by a longer commute for older students (i.e., students who would
attend LHS). Thus, the court determined that the shorter, faster, and safer ride to Oak Grove
school supported a finding, which the Regional Board did not make, that granting the petition
would provide an educational benefit to the Lancaster students.
¶ 88 On appeal, the school districts contend that the Regional Board’s finding as to travel
times and distances is not erroneous and that it could not find that the commute to Oak Grove
school was anything more than nominally shorter. Specifically, they argue that the Lancaster
students would not necessarily take a direct route to Oak Grove school if the petition were
granted. They point to Clement’s testimony that, if the petition were granted, the Lancaster
students would not be added to the Regency Woods subdivision’s bus route, because that bus is
at capacity. Rather, the Lancaster students would be added to the Nickels and Dimes
subdivision’s bus, which is not currently at capacity. That subdivision is farther from Lancaster
than is Regency Woods, and the Lancaster students’ bus ride to Oak Grove school would be
- 31 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
about 10.6 miles in that event. Thus, in the school districts’ view, evidence showed that the
Lancaster students would not take the bus route for which petitioners presented evidence and that
the one that they would take is not shorter than the routes their current buses take.
¶ 89 The school districts also contend that petitioners’ evidence regarding the driving times
was inconsistent and inconclusive. First, they note that none of the witnesses who testified
concerning petitioners’ exhibit No. 11, a chart of the distances and driving times from Lancaster
to the Woodland schools, testified that they traveled the route that the school buses traveled.
Next, they note that Merchant testified that the trip from Lancaster to Oak Grove school was
about 5 minutes, whereas Richard Dahl testified that it was 5 to 10 minutes. They also note that
exhibit No. 11 states that the one-way drive time to the Woodland primary/elementary schools’
campus was 12 minutes, to the Woodland intermediate school was 17 to 19 minutes, and to the
Woodland middle school was 18 minutes. Maria Earth, however, testified that the roundtrip to
Woodland primary/elementary was 15 to 20 minutes (7.5 to 10 minutes one way). Richard
Dahl testified that the roundtrip to the primary school was 15 to 20 minutes, but Joshua Braus
testified that it was 15 minutes.
¶ 90 The districts next address another aspect of the bus travel times. They assert that
petitioners did not meet their burden of showing that the bus travel times to Oak Grove were
significantly shorter than those to the Woodland schools. They maintain that petitioners did not
present any evidence as to the bus travel times to the Woodland schools and note that even the
trial court found that the bus travel time issue was “less clear.” The districts rely on Leonard’s
testimony that, as to respondents’ exhibit No. 8, the bus travel time from Lancaster to
Woodland’s primary/elementary campus is 8 minutes, to the intermediate school is 9 minutes,
and to the middle school is 10 minutes. The districts urge that Leonard’s testimony was more
- 32 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
detailed than petitioners’ witnesses’ testimony. In any event, they contend that Richard Dahl’s
testimony was similar to Leonard’s testimony, in that both testified that the one-way travel time
to the Woodland primary school was from 7.5 to 10 minutes; this testimony was similar to Maria
Earth’s testimony. The districts argue that this time is not significantly greater than the 5 to 10
minutes to Oak Grove school.
¶ 91 We reject the school districts’ argument that any inconsistencies in petitioners’ evidence
as to travel times and distances warrants finding against them on this factor. Notwithstanding
the lack of consistency or precision in the evidence, it is clear that Oak Grove school is about
two miles from Lancaster. By contrast, the driving distance to the three Woodland schools is,
depending on the source, 3.23 to 6.8 miles. Thus, both the Regional Board and the trial court
reasonably found that the distance to Oak Grove school is significantly shorter (by 1.2 to 4.8
miles) than the distances to the Woodland schools. As for the high schools, it is also fairly
straightforward to conclude, regardless of the source, that the distance to LHS is slightly longer
than to either of the WHS campuses.
¶ 92 The evidence was less than clear as to the bus routes. The school districts control route
assignments and as noted they presented testimony that the current bus routes from Lancaster to
the Woodland schools are about 5 miles long and take about 8 to 10 minutes and that, if the
petition were granted, the Lancaster students would travel over 10 miles on the bus assigned to
the Nickel and Dimes subdivision. Without any evidence as to the percentage of students
relying on bus versus auto transportation, it is difficult to assess the bus route data. The
Regional Board’s only finding on travel distances and times is that the “only driving or bus
commute time that would be measurably shorter would be from” Lancaster to Oak Grove school.
Thus, it appears that even the Regional Board placed little weight on the school districts’
- 33 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
assertion that the Lancaster students would be taking a longer bus ride to Oak Grove. We
cannot quarrel with its assessment.
¶ 93 We turn next to the central question on this factor, namely, how much weight to place on
the shorter commute to Oak Grove school. The school districts note that case law has stated
that one of the factors to consider when ruling on a detachment petition under section 7-6(i) of
the School Code is the distance from the petitioning area to the respective schools. Carver, 146
Ill. 2d at 356. However, they also note that there is no guidance on how much difference in the
distances and times is necessary to grant a detachment petition. They suggest that it would be
absurd to grant a petition where the travel time to the desired school is only one minute shorter;
the districts urge that the differences in distances and times must, instead, be significant.
¶ 94 We agree with the school districts that there is little case law guidance in analyzing
distances and times. In Fosdyck, the facts were dissimilar to those in this case. There, the
reviewing court reversed the regional board’s denial of a detachment petition, holding that the
petitioners’ six children would benefit from a shorter commute if the petition were granted.
Fosdyck, 233 Ill. App. 3d at 409. The current bus commute was 45 minutes, and the petitioners
lived 8.8 miles from the current school and only 4.1 miles from the desired high school. Also,
the wife had a business 5 minutes from the couple’s home, and the business was only 2.5 blocks
from the desired grade school and 6 blocks from the desired high school. Id. at 400-01.
¶ 95 Nevertheless, we conclude, as did the trial court, that the Regional Board erred in its
analysis of the commute times. The school districts fail to adequately address the point raised
by the trial court concerning the weight to be accorded to the Regional Board’s finding that the
commute to Oak Grove school was significantly shorter. As noted, educational welfare is
broadly interpreted and is bettered not merely through improved educational programs or
- 34 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
facilities. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 359-60. It can also improve by way of shortened distances
between students’ homes and their schools. Id. Although a reduction in travel time is not
sufficient by itself to justify a boundary change (First National Bank of Elgin v. West Aurora
School District 129, 200 Ill. App. 3d 210, 217 (1990)), it is a proper consideration. See, e.g.,
Board of Education of Jonesboro Community Consolidated School District No. 43 v. Regional
Board of School Trustees, 86 Ill. App. 3d 230, 233-34 (1980) (benefit of shorter distance to
school “would be reflected in time, safety, effort, and expense”); see also Golf, 89 Ill. 2d at 400
(in holding that a detachment petition was properly granted, court stated that one of the
educational benefits in that case was that “[s]tudents from the detachment area would benefit by
improved safety conditions in traveling to and from school”). Indeed, improved safety is a
natural benefit of shortened commuting times and distances. Burnidge, 25 Ill. App. 2d at 509
(“In addition to the savings in transportation costs, and diminution in time spent daily by children
riding a bus, there would be a certain safety factor by reason of diminution of exposure and
certainly a lessening of fatigue accompanying a long bus ride to and from school.” (Emphasis
added.)). Furthermore, giving more weight to younger students’ shortened commute and
increased safety, even at older students’ expense, is permissible, even preferred, in analyzing this
factor:
“We note that it has previously been held that it is proper to give greater weight to the
distance issue concerning younger children even if the proposed action increases the
distance traveled by older children. (Board of Education of Community High School
District No. 94 v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1992), 242 Ill. App. 3d 229, 613
N.E.2d 754.) *** Obvious benefits would result from the shorter distance traveled,
including advantages in time, safety, effort, and expense. Board of Education of
- 35 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
Jonesboro Community Consolidated School District No. 43 v. Regional Board of School
Trustees (1980), 86 Ill. App. 3d 230, 407 N.E.2d 1084.” Seelhoefer v. Regional Board
of School Trustees, 266 Ill. App. 3d 516, 521 (1994).
See also Community High School District No. 94, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 242 (upholding the regional
board’s granting petition and placing greater weight on the younger students’ shorter commutes
than the older students’ longer commutes); Board of Education of Avoca School District No. 37,
Cook County v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 82 Ill. App. 3d 1067, 1073-74 (1980)
(upholding grant of detachment petition and the regional board’s “election to have younger
children traveling a shorter distance to and from elementary school and older children traveling
the farther distance to junior high school”).
¶ 96 Here, the Regional Board failed to take into consideration the import of the shorter
commute for the younger Lancaster students and, thus, erred as a matter of law. See Seelhoefer,
266 Ill. App. 3d at 521 (holding that the regional board erred in denying detachment petition
where, if the petition were granted, the elementary school students would be closer to their new
school, even though the high school students would be 1 or 2 miles farther from their school, and
the bus ride would decrease by 30 to 45 minutes in the new territory; shorter distance traveled
would result in “advantages in time, safety, effort, and expense”).
¶ 97 We finally reject the school districts’ claim that the case law required petitioners to show
that the current routes are unsafe. The cases upon which the districts rely do not require such a
showing, even where they rely upon improved safety conditions in holding that detachment
petitions should have been granted. See Pochopien, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 195 (holding that the
regional board’s denial of petition was against manifest weight of the evidence where there was
evidence that commute to current school was “extremely onerous” due to heavy traffic and that
- 36 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
duration of commute prevented some students from participating in after-school activities);
Board of Education of Golf School District No. 67, Cook County v. Regional Board of School
Trustees, 88 Ill. App. 3d 121, 130 (1980) (evidence showed that, while traveling to current
school, students had to cross high-traffic intersection that presented safety concerns), aff’d, 89
Ill. 2d at 400 (holding that “[s]tudents from the detachment area would benefit by improved
safety conditions in traveling to and from school”); Avoca, 82 Ill. App. 3d at 1073-74 (in
upholding the regional board’s grant of detachment petition, reviewing court did not rely on
evidence of accident reports concerning route to current school; instead, it affirmed the regional
board’s determination that the elementary school children’s traveling a shorter distance to the
desired school and avoiding “congested traffic routes” outweighed the increased distance to the
desired junior high school).
¶ 98 In summary, the Regional Board erred in its assessment of the travel times and distances
to the schools at issue and should have resolved this factor in petitioners’ favor.
¶ 99 C. “Community of Interest” and the “Whole Child” Factors
¶ 100 Next, the school districts contend that we should uphold the Regional Board’s findings
that: (1) there was not a demonstrably strong community of interest between the Lancaster
students and the students and school and extracurricular activities located in the communities
served by Oak Grove and LHS; and (2) the Lancaster students were not declining to participate
in academic and extracurricular activities because of their enrollment at their current schools.
We reject the school districts’ arguments.
¶ 101 The trial court disagreed with the Regional Board’s determination that petitioners were
required to show that granting the petition would result in increased student participation in
school and community activities, and it rejected the Regional Board’s determination that
- 37 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
petitioners had to show that their children were currently suffering from a specific detriment
(instead of proof of a likely or potential benefit from annexation). The court found that
petitioners presented substantial evidence showing their connection to the area served by Oak
Grove and Libertyville. It further determined that the Lancaster parents actively encouraged
their children to participate in various activities and made efforts to be involved in their
schooling; thus, the alignment of the Lancaster students with their community of interest would
result in additional opportunities for school and extracurricular activities.
¶ 102 Here, as to their first argument, the school districts assert for the first time on appeal that
none of the Lancaster students’ activities occur in the Oak Grove area and, thus, the Regional
Board’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Marquardt, 2012 IL App (2d) 110360, ¶ 29.
They note that Oak Grove school is located in the Village of Green Oaks and that LHS is located
in Libertyville. Thus, in their view, petitioners had the burden of showing that Lancaster has a
community of interest with both Green Oaks and Libertyville. The evidence, the school
districts argue, showed that most of Lancaster’s community activities occur in Libertyville, that
some of them occur in Gurnee and Vernon Hills, and that none occur in Green Oaks (although
the school districts’ point-of-interest exhibit showed no locations in Green Oaks; instead, it listed
services only in Waukegan and Gurnee). Accordingly, they argue, petitioners failed to establish
a prima facie case as to a community of interest with Green Oaks.
¶ 103 Issues not raised before an administrative agency are forfeited and cannot be raised for
the first time on review. Community High School District No. 94, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 234.
The school districts argue that forfeiture is a limitation on the parties and not on a court’s
jurisdiction and that we may relax the rule to maintain a uniform body of precedent or where the
interests of justice require. See Kimble v. Illinois State Board of Education, 2014 IL App (1st)
- 38 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
123436, ¶ 80. Here, the districts’ argument is forfeited. They had the opportunity to raise it
before both the Regional Board and the trial court, but failed to do so. Forfeiture aside, we note
that LHS’s area encompasses Green Oaks.
¶ 104 The school districts’ second argument is that the Regional Board correctly rejected
petitioners’ arguments because petitioners did not present any evidence of a likelihood that
attending Oak Grove school and LHS would increase the Lancaster students’ participation in
school and community activities. They assert that petitioners did not identify any school or
community activity in which the Lancaster students would participate (and in which they do not
already participate) if the petition were granted.
¶ 105 Petitioners respond that case law required them to show only the possibility of increased
participation in extracurricular activities, not to definitively show the likelihood of increased
participation. Petitioners note that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the Lancaster
students participate in activities centered in Libertyville. Although the school districts offered
evidence that Lancaster families could shop, worship, and participate in activities north of
Lancaster, the overwhelming evidence reflected that Lancaster did in fact identify with
Libertyville, not with Waukegan or areas north of Lancaster. In petitioners’ view, the Regional
Board should not be in the business of telling people where to play and worship; it should be
required to democratically respect residents’ actual communities of interest.
¶ 106 Contrary to the school districts’ assertions and the Regional Board’s findings, the case
law did not require a showing that the Lancaster students are currently declining to participate in
any activities or that they will actually increase their participation if they attend their desired
schools. In Carver, the supreme court recited the “whole child” and “community of interest”
factors: “the identification of the petitioning territory with the district to which annexation is
- 39 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
sought, and the corresponding likelihood of participation in school and extracurricular
activities.” (Emphasis added.) Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356, 361 (further determining that there
was no evidence that the children in that case “ha[d] ties to that area or that this in any way
facilitates the students’ involvement in school or extracurricular activities”). In Golf, the
supreme court stated: “If a child attends school in his natural community it enhances not only his
educational opportunity but encourages his participation in social and other extracurricular
activities that figure importantly in the ‘whole child’ idea.” (Emphasis added.) Golf, 89 Ill. 2d
at 398. Elsewhere in the opinion, the Golf court stated that the record reflected that students
“from the detachment area would benefit by improved safety conditions in traveling to and from
school and by enhanced opportunities to participate in school, extracurricular, and community
activities.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 400. The Golf court also quoted the statement from
Burnidge that more important than benefits of increased safety and savings in transportation
costs and time “is the fact that an identification with a school district in a child’s natural
community center will inevitably result in increased participation in school activities by the
child and his parents. Such increased participation cannot but result in an improvement in the
educational picture of the entire area.” (Emphases added.) Burnidge, 25 Ill. App. 2d at
509-10. In Marquardt, the court held that the petitioners failed to present evidence of the
students’ participation in any community or other activities or suggesting that “they *** would
be more likely to participate in school and extracurricular activities in” their desired districts.
(Emphasis added.) Marquardt, 2013 IL App (2d) 110360, ¶ 32; see also Pochopien, 322 Ill.
App. 3d at 194-96 (citing Carver and Burnidge for the proposition that increased identification
with the natural community of interest increases participation in school and extracurricular
activities, and holding that the school board’s decision was against manifest weight of the
- 40 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
evidence where the duration of the students’ commute prevented them from participating in
after-school activities and annexation to the desired district “would facilitate” students’
participation in extracurricular activities).
¶ 107 We conclude that the Regional Board erred in finding that there was not a demonstrably
strong community of interest between the Lancaster students and their desired schools. This
finding resulted from the Board’s erroneous determination that petitioners were required to show
that their children were declining to participate in any activities or that they would actually
increase their activities if the petition were granted. Petitioners were required to show only an
identification with their desired areas, and the evidence that they presented was overwhelming.
The only evidence that the school districts offered to contradict this was their chart showing that
similar services were available in the detachment area, not that petitioners actually patronized
them.
¶ 108 In summary, the Regional Board erred in its assessment of the “community of interest”
and “whole child” factors.
¶ 109 D. Property Values
¶ 110 The school districts’ final argument is that a potential increase in Lancaster property
values, a factor that the Regional Board did not consider, is not a permissible consideration in
determining whether to grant a detachment petition. They urge that property values would not
affect the quality of education the Lancaster students will receive or directly affect the schools in
question. The districts contend that, at most, a potential increase in property values might
reflect the public’s perception of the schools involved, but that perception is most likely based on
the schools’ state report cards. The districts further argue that, although Burnidge, upon which
petitioners rely and which was decided in 1960, considered property values in reviewing a
- 41 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
detachment petition, the supreme court, in both Golf and Carver, did not list property values as a
factor to consider. They further contend that this court did not mention property values in
Marquardt, which was decided in 2012. For the following reasons, we reject the school
districts’ argument.
¶ 111 In Burnidge, this court held that detachment should have been allowed where, among
other reasons, there would have been an appreciation in the value of the territory in question.
Burnidge, 25 Ill. App. 2d at 510. The territory in question was in the Plato school district and
consisted of 110 acres of undeveloped land, and the petitioners sought to have it attached to the
Elgin school district and to subdivide and develop it. Id. at 504. In concluding that the school
board’s denial was erroneous, we considered the potential change in land values in determining
that there was an educational benefit to detachment:
“Not only would the community suffer from an educational standpoint, but the
action of the board would result in a depreciation of value of the territory in question.
This fact has a direct impact on the educational welfare of the community for it is upon
the basis of the value of property that funds are made available for school purposes. ***
[The fact that property values could increase $500 per lot if the property were annexed]
alone would result in a substantial increased assessed valuation available for taxation for
school purposes. Thus, it can be seen that while no detriment can be shown to anyone
by allowance of the petition, in addition to the factors already discussed, there would be a
revenue benefit if the property is annexed to the Elgin District. Then too, the fact of the
appreciation in value is persuasive as demonstrating the soundness of the contention that
this territory is naturally and properly a part of the Elgin District for educational
purposes.” Id. at 510.
- 42 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
¶ 112 In Bloom Township High School District No. 206 v. County Board of School Trustees, 59
Ill. App. 2d 415, 424-25 (1965), the First District considered Burnidge’s language concerning
property values, but it ultimately distinguished the case and upheld the school board’s findings
because there was conflicting testimony concerning property values. See also Board of
Education of Community Unit School District No. 300, Kane, Cook, McHenry & Lake Counties
v. County Board of School Trustees, 60 Ill. App. 3d 415, 421-22 (1978) (without extensive
analysis and without citing Burnidge, holding that evidence was sufficient to support school
board’s grant of petition, including evidence of the effect on the petitioners’ property values).
In Marquardt, this court considered the average home values in the territories at issue in the
context of assessing the detriment• specifically, the impact on tax revenue• to the detaching
districts. Marquardt, 2012 IL App (2d) 110360, ¶¶ 27-28.
¶ 113 We disagree with the school districts’ assertion that the fact that the supreme court did
not explicitly list property values as a proper consideration in detachment proceedings precludes
us from considering this factor. There is no language in either Carver or Golf that the factors
discussed therein are exclusive. Indeed, in Carver, the supreme court stated that educational
welfare is broadly interpreted. Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 359. We note that, if a detachment
petition is granted and property values subsequently increase in the detachment area, this
increases the tax revenues of the annexing district, which impacts its educational programs and
facilities. Id. at 359-60 (discussing broad interpretation of educational welfare and noting that
petitions have been granted where the annexing district had more modern classrooms and better
facilities).
¶ 114 These considerations, in addition to the fact that Burnidge remains good law, lead us to
conclude that the Regional Board erred as a matter of law in failing to consider the evidence
- 43 -
2014 IL App (2d) 131277
concerning property values. Further, petitioners presented uncontroverted evidence that, as
realtor Bryant testified, there was a $125,636 sales price difference between Lancaster and
Regency Woods in the two-year period she reviewed and that much of the difference can be
attributed to the difference in schools (i.e., test scores and school sizes). This difference cannot
reasonably be viewed as de minimis and insufficient to affect the educational welfare of the
Lancaster students, as the school districts suggest.
¶ 115 The Regional Board erred in not considering property values, a factor that weighed in
petitioners’ favor.
¶ 116 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 117 Based on our holdings as to the travel times and distances to the schools at issue, the
“community of interest” and “whole child” factors, and property values, plus the fact that the
evidence on petitioners’ preferences was uncontroverted, and despite the fact that we uphold the
finding against petitioners on the educational advantage factor, we conclude that the evidence
showed that granting the petition will provide some educational benefit to the Lancaster students.
The Regional Board erred in finding otherwise and denying the petition.
¶ 118 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed.
¶ 119 Affirmed.
- 44 -