Appeals Court Sides with School Board, Denies Family’s Bid for Football Transfer
An Illinois state appeals court has reversed a trial court and sided with an administrative body, which ruled against a family that had petitioned to have their sons continue to play football for their old high school, even though they had moved outside that school district.
In a majority decision, the appeals court demonstrated its reluctance to interfere with the administrative decision. And even if it were to rule solely on the merits, it found that the schools, in terms of overall educational experience, “were substantially similar and that any differences were negligible.”
The plaintiffs in the case were Thomas and Jennifer Brady. On May 27, 2011, they filed a petition with the Regional Board of School Trustees of Grundy and Kendall Counties (Regional Board) to detach their property from the Newark School District and annex it to the Morris School District.
At the hearing on the detachment petition, Mr. Brady testified that “football is a very significant sport for the entire family. Mr. Brady’s brother and nephew each received a full scholarship to play college football. Mr. Brady’s brother continued on to play in the National Football League for 13 years. Both Jacob and Samuel (their sons) participated in the youth-organized football league in Morris for the past two years. Neither son can play football at the high school level unless they attend Morris, as Newark does not have a football program. … In Morris, the boys could participate in sports where they could potentially receive a scholarship, whereas in Newark they could not.”
The plaintiffs also claimed their decision went beyond football, since they have “strong ties to the community,” and they believed their “sons’ educational needs would be better met at Morris.”
Subsequent to the plaintiffs filing of the detachment petition, the Morris School Board accepted one of the sons as a tuition-based student for the 2011-2012 school year. Mr. Brady wrote a letter to the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) to determine if his son could participate in sports at Morris immediately. The IHSA ruled that he would be precluded from interscholastic activities at Morris High School for the 2011-2012 school year given his status as a tuition-based student. “The Illinois High School Association’s decision regarding his ineligibility for interscholastic activities is one reason why plaintiffs are seeking detachment,” wrote the court.
After reviewing all detachment petition hearing testimony and exhibits, the Regional Board unanimously voted to issue a resolution and order denying the Bradys’ detachment petition.
The Bradys exhausted their administrative remedies, and then filed a complaint in the Grundy County circuit court, pursuant to the Administrative Review Act. The trial court issued a written order reversing the Regional Board’s decision denying the Bradys’ detachment petition. The defendants appealed.
In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the panel of appeals court judges noted that a trial court should be cautious when it comes to overturning an administrative decision by the Regional Board, “which is empowered to examine detachment petitions and render decisions on the same.”
The panel continued: “In reversing the Regional Board, the trial court held that the Regional Board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find that this was error. The Board clearly weighed the applicable statutory factors; its findings of fact are sufficiently supported by the record.”
Turning to the athletic component of the decision, the panel noted that “the main goal of the Bradys’ petition is for their sons to play high school football at Morris.” Further, “the Bradys may bank, play and attend church in Morris, but again, convenience is not enough to warrant granting a detachment petition.”
The panel added that “reasonable minds may differ as to the application of the ‘whole child’ and ‘community interest’ factors when it comes to the educational welfare of the children in the detachment area. What does remain clear, however, is that it is not the function of this court to act as a ‘super school board’ and impose our judgment over that of the Regional Board. Carver v. Bond/Fayette/Effingham Regional Board of School Trustees, 146 Ill. 2d 347, 355, 586 N.E.2d 1273, 167 Ill. Dec. 1 (1992)). It is apparent from the record before us that the Regional Board carefully considered the facts, weighed the evidence, and made a determination to deny the petition after applying the requisite statutory factors. There was substantial evidence to support such a finding. Having found that Newark and Morris were substantially similar and that any differences were negligible, the Regional Board determined that aside from being able to participate in high school football, there was no cognizable benefit to the educational welfare of the children in the detachment area, and therefore denied the Bradys’ petition.”
The dissenting judge wrote that “the evidence established that the curriculum of each school was comparable, that the distance from the property to each school was relatively equal, and that neither school district would suffer significant detriment if detachment and annexation were allowed. The only factors in the analysis that were not neutrally weighted were the ‘whole child’ and the ‘community of interest’ factors, which weighed entirely in favor of granting the Bradys’ petition. Under those circumstances, in my opinion, it was error for the Regional Board to deny the petition.” See Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358-59
Thomas J. Brady and Jennifer A. Brady v. Regional Board Of School Trustees et al.; App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.; Appeal No. 3-12-0463; 2013 IL App (3d) 120463-U; 2013 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 901; 4/29/13
