Cahokia Unit Sch. Dist. No. 187 v. Pritzker

2020 IL App (5th) 180542

156 N.E.3d 510

441 Ill.Dec. 175

CAHOKIA UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 187, Grant Central Consolidated School District No. 110, Pana Community Unit School District No. 8, Bethalto Community Unit School District No. 8, Bond County Community Unit School District No. 2, Brownstown Community Unit School District 201, Bunker Hill Community Unit School District No. 8, Gillespie Community Unit School District No. 7, Illinois Valley Central Community Unit School District No. 321, Meridian Community Unit School District 223, Mt. Olive Community Unit School District No. 5, Mulberry Grove Community Unit School District No. 1, Nokomis Community Unit School District No. 22, Oswego Community Unit School District 308, Oregon Community Unit School District 220, Southwestern Community Unit School District 9, Staunton Community Unit School District No. 6, Streator Township High School District 40, Vandalia Community Unit School District No. 203, Wood River-Hartford School District No. 15, Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1, and Taylorville Community Unit School District No. 3, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.J.B. PRITZKER,^* Governor of the State of Illinois, and the State of Illinois, Defendants-Appellees.

NO. 5-18-0542

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Rule 23 order filed April 17, 2020

Motion to publish granted May 13, 2020

Filed May 13, 2020

JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiffs, comprising 22 school districts, appeal the October 17, 2018, order of the circuit court of St. Clair County, which dismissed with prejudice their complaint against the defendants, J.B. Pritzker, Governor of the State of Illinois, and the State of Illinois. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the defendants on May 21, 2018. We set forth the allegations of this complaint in detail, as they are to be taken as true for the purposes of our analysis. The plaintiffs are school districts located in St. Clair, Bond, Christian, Fayette, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Montgomery, and Peoria Counties. In 1997, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) adopted the Illinois Learning Standards, representing skills that Illinois students must demonstrate at different grade levels, especially in the areas of English and mathematics. According to the complaint, the Learning Standards have been revised and expanded over the years with more specific benchmarks imposed on the plaintiffs to ensure students meet the Learning Standards. This included the adoption of Common Core State Standards for English, language arts, and mathematics, which was required by statute. See 105 ILCS 5/2-3.64a -5 (West 2016). Pursuant to statute, the Learning Standards have been developed with significant public outreach and comment. See id. Accordingly, as per the complaint, the Learning Standards represent "a consensus of the citizens of Illinois as to an appropriate ‘high quality’ education for purposes of Article X, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution." Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, § 1.

¶ 4 The complaint sets forth specific details outlining the ways the plaintiffs are being held accountable for the Learning Standards without adequate funding to meet them. This includes assessments of students, including the use of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) examination for high school students, which is used as one factor to determine whether students are admitted to Illinois colleges and universities. According to the complaint, for all of the plaintiff districts, the combined state and local revenue per pupil is below the average of all districts in the State, and far below that of the districts in the top fifth of local resources per pupil. The complaint sets forth detailed tables illustrating the correlation between this disparity in funding and the disparity between the plaintiffs and other districts in the State in achieving the Learning Standards. According to the complaint, this situation led the General Assembly to enact Public Act 100-465 (eff. Aug. 31, 2017), the "Evidence-Based Funding for Student Success Act" (Funding Act). 105 ILCS 5/18-8.15 (West 2018).

¶ 5 According to the complaint, the Funding Act allows for the calculation of specific additional amounts of funding necessary for underresourced districts to meet or achieve the Learning Standards. Id. The formula set forth in the Funding Act provides for these districts to have the priority in allocating additional funding, although other, more affluent districts retain the same State aid they received before. Id. The complaint sets forth in detail how this formula works to allow ISBE to determine the appropriate share of additional funding that each district shall receive in order to achieve a "high quality" education for students. According to the complaint, the Funding Act expressly adopts a goal of meeting the adequacy targets for the plaintiffs and other underresourced districts by June 30, 2027. Id. The complaint alleges that, at the then-current funding rate of $350 million a year, there is no possibility the State will meet this goal.

¶ 6 Count I of the complaint alleges that ISBE has calculated that the State must spend an additional $7.2 billion, or a total of $15.7 billion, annually, in order to provide students with the "high quality" education required by article X of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. X. Accordingly, count I alleges that, in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs and their students under article X, section 1 (id. § 1), the State has unlawfully failed to provide the funding necessary for the plaintiffs to achieve the Learning Standards. In addition, count I alleges that the Governor has also exceeded his lawful authority by "operating a public education system that operates in an unconstitutional manner." Finally, count I alleges that the plaintiffs and their students will suffer irreparable injury every year that the students of the plaintiffs advance to another grade that denies them the fair opportunity, as determined by the State through ISBE, to achieve the Learning Standards and to enjoy their right to a high quality education under article X, section 1. Id.

¶ 7 Count II of the complaint alleges that the disparities in per pupil expenditures across the school districts of Illinois, ranging as high as $10,000 to $15,000 per student, have no legitimate basis in the law. According to count II of the complaint, such disparities "can no longer be justified as an acceptable consequence of the State's goal of local control over local educational effort when in recent years the State has significantly displaced local control by imposing the Learning Standards." Count II alleges that by operating "such an unconstitutional system of public education," the Governor has exceeded his lawful authority, and the State has deprived the plaintiffs and their students of the right to equal protection of the laws, in violation of article I, section 2 of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. Count I and count II of the complaint set forth identical prayers for relief, which we quote here due to some confusion in the briefing on this issue:

"A. Declare that under Article I, Section 2, as well as under Article X, Section 1, the State defendants have a constitutional obligation to provide to the plaintiff districts the funding determined by ISBE and pursuant to the 2017 Evidence Based Act to be necessary to meet or achieve the Learning Standards and to reach the adequacy targets set forth pursuant to the 2017 Evidence Based Funding Act.

B. Enter judgment on behalf of the plaintiff districts and against the State defendants for the amounts determined to be necessary by ISBE to meet or achieve the Learning Standards and to reach the adequacy targets set forth pursuant to the Evidence Based Funding Act.

C. Retain jurisdiction to enforce such schedule of payments and take additional measures in whatever manner the [c]ourt deems appropriate for the State defendants to comply with this judgment.

D. Grant [the] plaintiffs their legal fees and costs, pursuant to Section 5 of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, for claims arising under the Illinois Constitution."

¶ 8 On July 20, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2018) ). Pursuant to section 2-619(a)(1) of the Code (id. § 2-619(a)(1)), the defendants asserted that this action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the rights of their students. Pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (id. § 2-615), the defendants asserted that both count I and count II fail to state a cause of action for a deprivation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the Governor could not effectuate the relief the plaintiffs requested in the complaint.

¶ 9 On August 24, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Inexplicably, in the response, the plaintiffs stated that they were seeking the following relief, which is different than that set forth in either the original complaint or the amended complaint:

"A. A declaratory judgment that in violation of Article X, section 1 and Article I, section 2 of the Illinois Constitution, the defendants have deprived the plaintiff districts and their students of their rights to a high quality education as specified by the Learning Standards.

B. An [o]rder that the State defendants submit a schedule for additional State aid to the plaintiff districts setting out how the defendants will meet their legislatively stated goal of fully funding the Learning Standards by June 30, 2027.

C. Grant such other relief as may be necessary to ensure that the State sets aside or makes available the necessary funds to adhere to this schedule.

D. Order the State d

...