2021 IL App (3d) 200306
Opinion filed May 14, 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
JOHN R. BURLE and AMY SUE BURLE, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) Marshall County, Illinois. ) v. ) ) REGIONAL BOARD OF SCHOOL ) TRUSTEES OF EDUCATION NO.35 ) LA SALLE, MARSHALL & PUTNAM ) COUNTIES; RICHARD BAZYN, in His ) Official Capacity; JOHN GLASCOCK, in His ) Appeal No. 3-20-0306 Official Capacity; VICKY GARRISON, in Her ) Circuit No. 19-MR-15 Official Capacity; LARRY WALKER, in His ) Official Capacity; DAVE HAGENBUCH, in ) His Official Capacity; KATHY RENO, in Her ) Official Capacity; LLOYD VOGEL, in His ) Official Capacity; LOWPOINT WASHBURN ) COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT ) NO. 21; and MIDLAND COMMUNITY ) SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, ) Honorable ) Bruce Phillip Fehrenbacher, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Lytton and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion. ____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 The plaintiffs, John R. and Amy Sue Burle, appeal from a circuit court order upholding on
administrative review a decision of the defendant, the Regional Board of School Trustees of Education No. 35, La Salle, Marshall, & Putnam Counties (Regional Board), denying the Burles’
petition to detach territory from one school district and annex it to another school district pursuant
to section 7-6 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/7-6 (West 2018)).
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 The Burles, along with three other landowners not relevant to this appeal, filed a petition
on March 12, 2018, with the Regional Board, seeking to detach territory from the defendant,
Midland Community School District No.7 (Midland School District), and to annex the territory to
the defendant, Lowpoint Washburn Community Unit School District No. 21 (Lowpoint Washburn
School District). Midland School District opposed the petition, while Lowpoint Washburn School
District supported the petition.
¶4 A hearing on the Burles’ petition was held before the Regional Board on July 12, 2018. A
report prepared by Chris Dvorak, the Regional Superintendent of Schools, indicated that the
subject territory consisted of six parcels of land in Marshall County, within the boundaries of the
Midland School District but contiguous to the Lowpoint Washburn School District. The tax
amount to the Midland School District from the six parcels of land was $2790.17. The territory
included 217 acres of agricultural land and the Burles’ single-family home. Amy Burle testified
that she and her husband, John, purchased the subject property from Amy’s family in October
2015 and built a house on the property. Prior to building the house, the Burles moved to the area
in July 2015 and lived temporarily with Amy’s mother. Amy testified that their two oldest children
had attended school in Loami, Illinois, prior to the move. Upon moving to the area, Amy and her
husband enrolled them in school in the Midland School District, since that was the district where
their home was to be located. The two oldest children attended first and third grade in the Midland
School District for four days in the fall of 2015. Amy testified that she received a telephone call
2 from the principal of the elementary school in the Midland School District, who informed Amy
that since Amy’s mother’s home was located in the Lowpoint Washburn School District, and the
home on the Burles’ property was being torn down and rebuilt, the children could not attend the
Midland School District without paying tuition. Amy did not speak to anyone else in the Midland
School District about the attendance policy; rather, the Burles immediately enrolled the two older
children in the Lowpoint Washburn School District.
¶5 Amy testified that, at the time of the hearing in July 2018, all four of their children attended
school in the Lowpoint Washburn School District, and the children had just completed fifth grade,
third grade, first grade, and kindergarten. Amy identified her children’s individual report cards and
testified that they were doing well in school. Amy testified that the children were dropped off at
her mother’s home in the morning on school days and her mother was responsible for getting the
children on the bus in the morning and off the bus in the afternoon. The Burles would pick up the
children from Amy’s mother’s house after work. According to Amy, if the children attended
Midland School District schools, the children would be left unsupervised at home before and after
school. Amy testified that she attended Lowpoint Washburn School District schools. The Burles
had a number of friends in the Lowpoint Washburn School District, many who helped out with the
children. Amy testified that the Burles did not have any friends in the Midland School District with
whom they regularly socialized.
¶6 Amy testified that, at the children’s current school in the Lowpoint Washburn School
District, she and John chaperoned field trips when they could and participated in reading and movie
nights at the school. John is the basketball coach for the fourth and fifth grade boys. The three boys
participate in recreational baseball, and John is the assistant baseball coach. Amy was not sure of
the requirements to play recreational ball and if attending school in the Midland School District
3 would affect that. All four children use the Washburn library, but that was a public library that
they could continue to use.
¶7 The superintendent of the Lowpoint Washburn School District, Duane Schupp, testified
that students who are moved around have more difficulty adapting, maybe not academically but
definitely socially and/or emotionally. Schupp noted the additional work that staff often has to
undertake to bring up to speed educationally the students who transfer in. According to Schupp,
due to differences in what subjects are emphasized by different school districts, and the order in
which topics are taught, students who move school districts could be hindered academically and
potentially could take four to six months to catch up. However, Schupp testified that both the
Lowpoint Washburn and Midland School Districts were good school districts, and he could not
say that better students, like the Burle children, were more likely to have an educational detriment
if switched to another school district. Schupp testified that it was best socially and emotionally for
the Burle children to stay in the Lowpoint Washburn School District. Schupp testified that the
Lowpoint Washburn School District had a higher percentage of low-income students than the
Midland School District and the Burle children leaving the district would cause the percentage to
go up slightly.
¶8 Bill Wrenn, the superintendent of the Midland School District, testified as to the
administrative policies and curriculum of the Midland School District. He testified that he did not
have data to support a four to six month academic delay in transfer students, but he had observed
difficulties with students who moved frequently. Wrenn reiterated Schupp’s opinion that there was
the potential for a gap or disruption in learning when switching schools, due to differences in
curriculums. Wrenn testified that his staff was trained and capable of addressing any curriculum
gap and that the school district had programs that, at least in part, countered the negative effects
4 on academics from students changing schools. Wrenn answered “yes” to the question of whether
those programs were trying to correct a “direct significant educational detriment.” Wrenn opined
that students coming into Midland School District would receive an educational benefit.
¶9 The Regional Board voted to deny the petition, relying on its finding that a significant
direct educational benefit to the Burles’ children was not proven, so the Regional Board was unable
to consider the Burles’ community of interest or the effect of detachment on the whole child. The
Burles’ petition for rehearing was denied and they filed a complaint for administrative review in
La Salle County circuit court. The matter was transferred to the Marshall County circuit court. The
circuit court found that there was evidence in the record supporting the Regional Board’s decision,
concluded that decision was not clearly erroneous, and upheld the Regional Board’s decision. The
Burles appealed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 The Burles argue that the Regional Board erred in concluding that they had to show a
significant direct educational benefit for their petition to be granted. The Burles acknowledge that
section 7-6 of the School Code was amended in 2016 but contend that evidence of a “significant
direct education benefit” is only necessary before consideration of community-of-interest or
whole-child factors. They recognize that the overall standard is to consider the direct educational
welfare of the students. The Burles also acknowledge that the sole reported case analyzing the
effect of the amendment, Shephard v. Regional Board of School Trustees of De Kalb County, 2018
IL App (2d) 170407, seems to conclude that the amendment requires a regional board to first
determine that there would be a significant direct educational benefit to the plaintiffs’ children.
Absent such a finding, the regional board is not to consider other factors, such as the community-
of-interest and whole-child factors. Id. ¶ 23. The Burles argue that this case was wrongly decided
5 and that the Regional Board could consider all factors, although it could only consider community
of interest and the whole child if a significant direct educational benefit was shown first. The
Burles contend that the continuation of the educational experience was a significant direct
educational benefit to the Burle children, so the Regional Board could consider the other factors.
However, even if it were not such a benefit, the Burles assert that continuation of the educational
experience was a factor to consider in the direct educational welfare of their children.
¶ 12 Midland School District and the Regional Board argue that we should uphold the Regional
Board’s decision, contending that the Burles’ primary evidence revolved around the whole child
and community-of-interest factors, while the amended statute dictated that those could not be
considered without a showing of significant direct educational benefit, which the Burles did not
show.
¶ 13 A regional board’s decision on a petition pursuant to section 7-6 of the School Code (105
ILCS 5/7-6 (West 2018)) is an administrative decision for purposes of the Administrative Review
Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018)). Thus, we review the ruling of the board rather than
the judgment of the circuit court. Shephard, 2018 IL App (2d) 170407, ¶ 16. Findings of fact by a
regional board will not be set aside on administrative review unless they are shown to be contrary
to the manifest weight of the evidence. Board of Education of Golf School District No. 67 v.
Regional Board of School Trustees of Cook County, 89 Ill. 2d 392, 396 (1982). We apply a clearly
erroneous standard of review to mixed questions of law and fact, and we review de novo any
questions of law. Shephard, 2018 IL App (2d) 170407, ¶ 16. The petitioners must prove their case
by a preponderance of the evidence. See 5 ILCS 100/10-15 (West 2018). “ ‘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’ .” Merchant v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 2014 IL
6 App (2d) 131277, ¶ 70 (quoting Board of Education of Marquardt School District No. 15 v.
Regional Board of Trustees, 2012 IL App (2d) 110360, ¶ 19).
¶ 14 Section 7-6 of the School Code provides that, in deciding whether to permit a transfer of
territory from one school district to another, the regional board “shall determine whether it is in
the best interests of the schools of the area and the direct educational welfare of the pupils that
such change in boundaries be granted.” 105 ILCS 5/7-6 (West 2018). Petitions for detachment and
annexation should only be granted “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 v. Bond/Fayette/Effingham Regional Board of School Trustees,
146 Ill. 2d 347, 356 (1992). Carver was decided under the law as it existed prior to the 2016
amendment. Under Carver, regional boards were to apply this benefit-detriment test by
considering “differences between school facilities and curricula, the distances from the petitioners’
homes to the respective schools, the effect detachment would have on the ability of either district
to meet State standards of recognition, and the impact of the proposed boundary change on the tax
revenues of both districts.” Id. The regional boards could also consider the “whole child” and
“community of interest” factors. Id. Those factors are closely related and “recognize[ ] 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” and 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.’ ” Board of
Education of Golf School District No. 67, 89 Ill. 2d at 397-98 (quoting Burnidge v. County Board
of School Trustees, 25 Ill. App. 2d 503, 509 (1960)).
¶ 15 The amended section 7-6(i) provides:
7 “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 the effect detachment
will have on those needs and conditions and as to the ability of the detaching or dissolving
and annexing school districts to meet the standards of recognition as prescribed by the State
Board of Education, shall take into consideration the division of funds and assets that will
result from the change of boundaries, and shall determine whether it is in the best interests
of the schools of the area and the direct educational welfare of the pupils that such change
in boundaries be granted. *** In the instance of a change of boundaries through
detachment:
(1) When considering the effect the detachment will have on the direct educational
welfare of the pupils, the regional board of school trustees shall consider a comparison
of the school report cards for the schools of the detaching and annexing districts and
the school district report cards for the detaching and annexing districts only if there is
no more than a 3% difference in the minority, low-income, and English learner student
populations of the relevant schools of the districts.
(2) The community of interest of the petitioners and their children and the effect
detachment will have on the whole child may be considered only if the regional board
of school trustees first determines that there would be a significant direct educational
benefit to the petitioners’ children if the change in boundaries were allowed.
(3) When petitioners cite an annexing district attendance center or centers in the
petition or during testimony, the regional board of school trustees may consider the
difference in the distances from the detaching area to the current attendance centers and
the cited annexing district attendance centers only if the difference is no less than 10
8 miles shorter to one of the cited annexing district attendance centers than it is to the
corresponding current attendance center.
(4) The regional board of school trustees may not grant a petition if doing so will
increase the percentage of minority or low-income students or English learners by more
than 3% at the attendance center where students in the detaching territory currently
attend, provided that if the percentage of any one of those groups also decreases at that
attendance center, the regional board may grant the petition upon consideration of other
factors under this Section and this Article.
(5) The regional board of school trustees may not consider whether changing the
boundaries will increase the property values of the petitioners’ property.” 105 ILCS
5/7-6(i)(1)-(5) (West 2018).
¶ 16 The 2016 amendment specified and limited some of the factors that should be considered
by the regional board in applying Carver’s benefit-detriment test to determine if the petition to
detach and annex should be granted. It also modified the standard for the benefit-detriment test to
limit the consideration of the educational welfare of the pupils to that which is direct. See -id. § 7-
6(i) (West 2018); Shephard, 2018 IL App (2d) 170407, ¶ 23; 99th Gen. Assem., House
Proceedings, May 30, 2015, at 85 (statements of Representative Sente) (the impetus for the bill
was Merchant, 2014 IL App (2d) 131277, which held that property value increase was valid reason
to detach from school district, so the bill created five criteria for detachment). For example, under
Carver, regional boards could consider the distances from the petitioners’ homes to the respective
schools, but the amendment limits that consideration to situations where the distances are greater
than 10 miles. See Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 356; 105 ILCS 5/7-6(i)(3) (West 2018). Also, while
regional boards can still consider the whole-child and community-of-interest factors, the
9 amendment limits that consideration to situations where the regional board first determines that
there would be a significant direct educational benefit to the children. Thus, we agree with the
Burles that the amendment to section 7-6 of the School Code did not modify Carver’s benefit-
detriment test to require an overall significant direct educational benefit; it does, however, limit
some of the factors and modify the test to limit consideration of the educational welfare of the
students to that which is “direct.” See 105 ILCS 5/7-6(i) (West 2018).
¶ 17 The Second District’s holding in Shephard does not necessarily conflict with this
conclusion. The Shephard court specifically concluded, in line with the amendment, that it could
not consider whole-child or community-of-interest factors because there was no showing of a
significant direct educational benefit. See Shephard, 2018 IL App (2d) 170407, ¶¶ 23, 26; 105
ILCS 5/7-6(i)(2) (West 2018). While that court did not discuss educational welfare, the parties had
stipulated that the students were located within 10 miles of both school districts and the school
districts had equally competent curricula. It is possible that the parties had stipulated that the only
evidence offered in favor of the annexation related to whole-child or community-of-interest
factors. If that is not the case, then we disagree with that aspect of Shephard and find that the
factors delineated in the statute are not exhaustive and other factors can, and should, be considered
in determining the direct educational welfare of students, including such factors as convenience to
the parents and their children, continuity of education, and parental preference. Dukett v. Regional
Board of School Trustees, 342 Ill. App. 3d 635, 642 (2003).
¶ 18 In this case, the Burles primarily offered evidence of their community of interest and the
effect detachment would have on the whole child. The Regional Board found that evidence could
not be considered because the Burles failed to show a significant direct educational benefit to their
children if the change in boundaries were allowed. The Burles argue that they did show a
10 significant direct educational benefit in that Wrenn, the superintendent of the Midland School
District, answered affirmatively when asked if changing schools was a significant direct
educational detriment. The Burles contend that establishes the converse—that avoiding a change
of schools is a significant direct educational benefit. However, as the circuit court found, the
evidence of any significant direct educational benefit caused by the move was equivocal at best.
Schupp could not say whether there would be a significant direct educational benefit to allowing
the Burle children to remain at the Lowpoint Washburn School District. Wrenn testified
unequivocally that the Burle children would experience a benefit if they transferred to the Midland
School District. Wrenn did not have any data to support a potential four-to-six-month delay in
learning of transfer students; he observed difficulty with students who moved frequently and some
gaps when the curriculums are different. His testimony regarding whether changing schools was a
significant direct educational detriment was in the context of Midland School District’s tiered
intervention system, which was designed to correct missing skills, not only in students who have
moved. We find that the Regional Board’s conclusion that the evidence did not establish that
continuity of education in this case was a significant direct educational benefit was a mixed
question of law and fact that was not clearly erroneous. As such, the Regional Board correctly did
not consider the evidence related to the community of interest and the whole child.
¶ 19 The Regional Board’s task was to determine whether the Burles proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that the overall benefit to the annexing district and the detachment area clearly
outweighed the resulting detriment to the losing district and the surrounding community as a
whole. The Regional Board concluded that the Burles did not meet that burden, relying primarily
on the finding that most of the evidence offered by the Burles could not be considered because
they failed to show a significant direct educational benefit. See Board of Education of Community
11 Unit School District No. 337 v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 338,
269 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1026 (1995) (a regional board need not make extensive findings of fact in
detachment and annexation proceedings, only sufficient findings to permit adequate judicial
review). Although we agree that other factors can enter the educational welfare analysis, such as
continuity of education and parental preference, we find that the Regional Board was not clearly
erroneous in concluding that the Burles did not prove that those factors affecting their children’s
direct educational welfare clearly outweighed the detriment to the losing district and the
community as a whole. As noted above, the evidence that the continuity of the education of the
Burles’ children would benefit their direct educational welfare was equivocal, and, in fact, there
was evidence that they might benefit educationally from a transfer to the Midland School District.
Thus, we uphold the Regional Board’s denial of the petition and affirm the judgment of the circuit
court.
¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 21 The judgment of the circuit court of Marshall County is affirmed.
¶ 22 Affirmed.
12 No. 3-20-0306
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall County, No. 19-MR- 15; the Hon. Bruce Phillip Fehrenbacher, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys J. Brian Heller, of J. Brian Heller, PC, of Washington, for for appellants. Appellant:
Attorneys Todd L. Martin, LaSalle County State’s Attorney, of Ottawa, for for appellees Regional Board of School Trustees of Education #35 Appellee: LaSalle, Marshall & Putnam Counties, Richard Bazyn, John Glascock, Vicky Garrison, Larry Walker, Dave Hagenbuch, Kathy Reno, and Lloyd Vogel.
Brian R. Bare, of Whitt Law LLC, of Aurora, for appellee Midland Community School District No. 7.
No brief filed for other appellee.