Bd. of Educ. of Woodland Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. 50 v. Ill. State Charter Sch. Comm'n

60 N.E.3d 107

406 Ill.Dec. 205

The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WOODLAND COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 50, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.The ILLINOIS STATE CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION, The Illinois State Board of Education, and The Board of Directors of Prairie Crossing Charter School, Defendants–Appellants.

Nos. 1–15–1372

1–15–1820.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

July 28, 2016.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Brett E. Legner, Deputy Solicitor General, of counsel), for appellants Illinois State Charter School Commission and Illinois State Board of Education.

Denean K. Sturino and Elizabeth M. Bartolucci, both of O'Hagan LLC, of Chicago, for appellant Board of Directors of Prairie Crossing Charter School.

James A. Petrungaro and Adam Dauksas, both of Scariano, Himes & Petrarca, Chtrd., of Chicago, for appellee.

Caroline A. Roselli and Rachel E. Lutner, both of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., of Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Association of School Boards, Inc., and Illinois Association of School Administrators.

OPINION

Justice HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff, the Board of Education of Woodland Community Consolidated School District 50 (Woodland) filed a complaint for, inter alia, administrative review of the decision of defendant, the Illinois State Charter School Commission (Commission) to renew the charter of Prairie Crossing Charter School pursuant to the Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A–1 et seq. (West 2012)). The complaint named as defendants the Commission and the Illinois State Board of Education (Board) (collectively, “the State defendants”), as well as the Board of Directors of Prairie Crossing Charter School (Prairie Crossing). The circuit court of Cook County granted plaintiff the relief sought and reversed the Commission's decision, which would result in the closing of the school. Defendants filed a motion to reconsider. Prior to ruling on the motion, the State defendants filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider. Thereafter the State defendants filed a second notice of appeal, in which Prairie Crossing joined. We consolidated the appeals. This court allowed the Illinois Association of School Boards, Inc. and the Illinois Association of School Administrators, Inc. to file an amicus curiae brief.

¶ 2 Before the trial court, plaintiff challenged the Commission's findings of fact, its procedures for determining whether to renew a charter, and its decision to renew Prairie Crossing's charter. Defendants attacked plaintiff's standing to challenge the Commission's decision and on appeal argue not only did plaintiff lack standing to challenge the administrative decision to renew the charter, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed under the Administrative Review Law with a review of the Commission's decision. Defendants seek reversal of the trial court's order denying their motion to dismiss. Defendants also seek reversal of the trial court's judgment reversing the Commission's decision, arguing the Commission's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the evidence, it did not abuse its discretion in employing the procedures it did, and its ultimate decision is not clearly erroneous.

¶ 3 We agree with defendants that under the circumstances presented here plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the Commission's decision to renew Prairie Crossing's charter. Accordingly, we have no need to reach any of the parties' other arguments. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The process for opening a charter school requires a proposal to the board or boards of the local school districts covering the area in which the proposed charter school would operate. 105 ILCS 5/27A–7(a) (West 2012). The Charter Schools Law sets forth what is required to be in the proposal. Id. The proposal constitutes a proposed contract between the governing body of the proposed charter school and the authorizer. 105 ILCS 5/27A–6(d) (West 2012). “Authorizer” is a statutorily defined term under the Charter Schools Law. 105 ILCS 5/27A–3 (West 2012). A charter school's “ charter” is a contract between the charter school and the authorizer. 105 ILCS 5/27A–6(a) (West 2012). The charter school must operate under the terms of the contract. Id. If the local school board approves the proposal, the Board determines whether the approved proposal is consistent with the Charter Schools Law and, if it is, the Board certifies the proposal. 105 ILCS 5/ 27A–8(f) (West 2012). If the local school board approves the proposal and the Board certifies it, the local school board becomes the authorizer of the charter school. 105 ILCS 5/27A–7.10, 27A–9(f) (West 2012). The Charter Schools Law affords an entity seeking to open a charter school whose proposal is rejected by a local school board an opportunity to appeal to the Commission. 105 ILCS 5/27A–8(g) (West 2012). If the Commission reverses the local school board's decision and the charter is later certified the Commission becomes the authorizer of the school. 105 ILCS 5/27A–9(f) (West 2012). (At the time Prairie Crossing submitted its proposal the appeal was to the Board. The Commission was created in July 2011, and the Board's functions with regard to proposals to open charter schools were transferred to the Commission, including acting as the school's authorizer. 105 ILCS 5/27A–7.5(k) (West 2012).)

¶ 6 A charter may be granted for a period of not less than 5 but no more than 10 school years. 105 ILCS 5/27A–9(a) (West 2012). A charter may be renewed for a period of no more than 5 years. Id. The charter school must submit a renewal application to its authorizer. 105 ILCS 5/27A–9(b) (West 2012). The Charter Schools Law specifies what must be in a renewal application. Id. The Charter Schools Law also specifies under what circumstances a charter may be revoked or not renewed. 105 ILCS 5/27A–9(c) (West 2012). If a local school board is the authorizer a charter school may appeal a decision to revoke or not renew a charter to the Commission. 105 ILCS 5/27A–9(e) (West 2012). The Charter Schools Law specifies what the Commission must find to reverse a local school board's decision to revoke or not renew a charter. Id. Authorizers are required to develop policies and practices for charter renewal decision-making. 105 ILCS 5/27A–7.10(e)(5) (West 2012).

¶ 7 In this case, the area Prairie Crossing Charter School would serve covered Woodlawn Community Consolidated School District 50 and Fremont School District 79 (Fremont). Both Woodlawn and the Fremont board of directors rejected Prairie Crossing's proposal. (Fremont is not a party to this appeal.) Prairie Crossing appealed to the Board. The Board reversed and granted the school its charter. Thus the Board became the authorizer for Prairie Crossing Charter School. The Board renewed Prairie Crossing Charter School's charter in 2004 and 2009. In 2011, plaintiff petitioned the Board to revoke Prairie Crossing's charter. The Board did not revoke the school's charter. After the Commission was formed, the Board transferred its duties as authorizer of Prairie Crossing Charter School to the Commission. Shortly thereafter the Commission adopted a policy for evaluating charter-renewal proposals which it called its Accountability System. Prairie Crossing Charter School and the Commission entered into a new charter school agreement.

¶ 8 Pursuant to its Accountability System, the Commission began “due diligence activities” before Prairie Crossing submitted its most recent renewal application. This resulted in initial renewal findings based on the application of the Accountability System to the school's performance over the past five years in three key “domains” as they are called in the Accountability System: academic, financial, and organizational. The initial renewal findings are published before the school submits is renewal application. The school submitted its renewal application in November 2013. In January 2014 Woodland's attorney, on behalf of Woodland, delivered a letter and supporting exhibits to the Commission. Woodland's attorney stated the letter “serves as a response” to the school's renewal application and asked that it be delivered to anyone who would participate in the recommendation or decision concerning the renewal application. The letter asked the Commission to deny the renewal application “for material violations of the Charter Schools Law and because the charter is not in the best interests of Woodland taxpayers” or, alternatively, for the school's funding to be reduced.

¶ 9 During the Accountability System process the Commission's staff (1) conducted a site visit that included classroom observations and interviews with stakeholders, (2) held a community forum at the school to accept public comment on the renewal proposal, (3) interviewed school administration, (4) collected additional data from the school, (5) retained an expert to analyze the school's facilities, and (6) retained an expert to analyze the school's finances and conduct an “economic soundness assessment.” At the conclusion of this process the Commission's staff prepared a recommendation that the Commission renew the charter only if the school satisfied two conditions. First that the school “develop a detailed plan for robust outreach to the educationally disadvantaged” and second that the school “develop an evaluation system for management.” Concerns about the demographics of the school's student population had been raised during the prior renewal process. In April 2014 the Commission met to consider the recommendation. At that meeting, the Commission heard from Commission staff, representatives of the school, and from representatives of Woodland and Fremont. The Commission voted to renew the charter by a vote of...