Education Law

Petitioners from two subdivisions sought to detach their territory from boundaries of two school districts and to annex it into boundaries of two other school districts. Only the petitioners who submitted the petition could remove petition to State Superintendent. Board erred in its application of "whole child" and "community of interest" factors, as detachment would have effect of allowing affluent homeowners to change school boundaries so their children would attend less integrated districts. Petitioners failed to present evidence showing annexation would increase likelihood of participation in school or extracurricular activities, or would provide sufficient benefit to educational welfare of future students in territory. (BOWMAN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

School District was not required to arbitrate grievance filed by teachers union for District's nonrenewal of nontenured teacher's contract. Teacher had not been employed for four consecutive years, and thus was not entitled to 45-day written notice of dismissal. Parties' agreement does not require District to justify its nonrenewal decision or to provide nontenured teacher with a remediation plan as precondition to nonrenewal. "Just cause" provision in agreement is void under Section 10(b) of Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, as it conflicts with power granted to District under School Code to dismiss probationary teachers. (LAMPKIN, concurring; R. GORDON, dissenting.)

(Court opinion modified upon denial of rehearing 3/26/12.) Plaintiff company had four contracts to lease portable classrooms to school district. School District Finance Authority (created per 2002 legislation) cancelled all leases prior to expiration, but did not pay cancellation fees. School District Finance Authority has power to cancel School District's existing contracts consistent with contractual terms, but does not have power to discharge School District's lawful debt. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Tenured art teacher was dismissed after School Board found he failed to remediate following unsatisfactory evaluation of his teaching. Board violated procedural requirements of Section 24A-5(f) of School Code by failing to create remediation plan within a reasonable time. Board implemented its remediation plan 158 days after teacher's unsatisfactory rating, though per School Code it should have been developed and implemented within 30 days after rating. Although language in Code is directory and not mandatory, Board was required to substantially comply with time requirements or act reasonably under circumstances. Board failed to make diligent search for qualified consulting teacher, as required for remediation plan. (TURNER and POPE, concurring.)

Neither Section 34-18(31) nor Section 34-84 of School Code, considered separately or together, gives laid-off tenured teachers either a substantive right to be rehired after economic layoff or a right to certain procedures during rehiring process. (THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring; THEIS and KILBRIDE, dissenting.)

Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) properly found Charter School's proposal in compliance with requirements of Charter Schools Law and in best interests of students it was designed to serve. Proposal met requirements for economic soundness, clear standard for goals, and proper admissions standard. No due process violation in ISBE staff meeting with Charter School to assist in revising proposal. No evidence that contract for parents and admitted students is a screening mechanism. No showing that establishing Charter School, and its continued existence over five years, would financially imperil school district. (R. GORDON and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Father of minor sued residential private school for children with severe emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities, for teacher's alleged sexual relationship and alcohol and drug use with minor, alleging negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Illinois School Code applies, as school was registered by Illinois State Board of Education, and school is thus immune as Plaintiff did not allege willful or wanton misconduct, and conduct was not within scope of teacher's employment. (LAVIN and STERBA, concurring.)