Brief of Aurora East Public School District v. Cronin
written by
for
EOL 469
AURORA EAST PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 131 et al., Appellees, v. JOSEPH M. CRONIN, State Superintendent of Education, et al., Appellants. -- THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 170 et al., Appellees, v. JOSEPH M. CRONIN, State Superintendent of Education et al., Appellants
Nos. 54738, 55134 cons.
Supreme Court of Illinois
92 Ill. 2d 313; 442 N.E.2d 511; 1982 Ill. LEXIS 338; 66 Ill. Dec. 85
October 22, 1982, Filed
FACTS:
Aurora East Public School District No. 131, et al. and The Board of Education of School District No. 170 (Chicago Heights),et al. brought suits against Joseph Cronin, State Superintendent of Education, et al. These cases were consolidated for purposes of review. The school districts challenge the validity of the Rules Establishing Requirements and Procedures for the Elimination and Prevention of Racial Segregation in Schools (Rules), which were promulgated in 1971 by the Superintendent and adopted by the Board. In both cases, the circuit courts declared the Rules void, arbitrary, capricious and illegal.
The Superintendent notified the Aurora East Public School District to submit a desegregation plan due to a perceived condition of racial imbalance. The school district did pool its resources to write a desegregation plan, which was deemed unacceptable by the Board. Although the Superintendent was eager to encourage the district to implement a plan that would involve the busing of students, this was not feasible to Aurora. A reassigning of students was considered but rejected because it would require busing and there was a lack of available space in which to relocate the students. Their final plan provided for voluntary student transfers, which was unacceptable to the board as well. Aurora was informed of its impending probationary status for failing to comply with the Rules. At one point, a former member of the Board recommended that Aurora be granted a waiver under Rule 6.1, but this too was rejected. Aurora then brought suit against the Superintendent et al. in the circuit court of Kane County for declaratory judgement and injunctive relief. The Superintendent, et al. filed a countercomplaint alleging Aurora's noncompliance with the Armstrong Act. Aurora won this case, and the Superintendent, et al. appealed this decision.
In the case involving The Board of Education of School District No. 170 (Chicago Heights), after being informally told that it was not in compliance with the Rules, it alluded to the incapability of compliance due to the large-scale busing that would be required. After being formally deemed to be in noncompliance, it submitted two plans, both judged to be deficient. At this point Chicago Heights filed suit. The Chicago Heights won this case, and the Superintendent, et al. appealed this decision.
ISSUE:
1) Does the Board have the authority to enforce the Rules upon these two districts?
2) Has Aurora failed to comply with the requirements of the Armstrong Act?
THE RULE:
School Code 10--21.3, the Armstrong Act, provides, in part "As soon as practicable, and from time to time thereafter, the [local] board shall change or revise existing [attendance centers] or create new [attendance centers] in a manner which will take into consideration the prevention of segregation and the elimination of separation of children in public schools because of color, race or nationality."
Moore Amendment "Nothing herein shall be construed to permit or empower the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to order mandate or require busing or other transportation of pupils for the purpose of achieving racial balance in any school.
School Code 34--18 further supports the district's duty to to prevent segregation and limits the Board's power to do so.
HOLDING:
No, the Board is not authorized to enforce its self-adopted Rules upon these districts.
No, the circuit court declared the Rules unreasonable and arbitrary and determined that Aurora's practices did not violate the Armstrong Act, as the Superintendent et al. contended.
COURT'S REASONING:
1) In passing the Moore Amendment, the legislature places a clear limit on the Board's power regarding segregation and busing by emphasizing that the methods of achieving desegregation are the obligation of the local boards..
2) Section 22--19 authorizes the Board to investigate districts suspected of maintaining segregation and to refer complaints to the Attorney General for prosecution. The Board does not have the authority to bypass the statutory procedure in order to invoke its own solution.
3) In Coates v. Illinois State Board of Education, the court noted that the Board has the duty "[t]o supervise all the public schools in the State" and "[t]o make rules necessary to carry into efficient and uniform effect all laws for establishing and maintaining free schools in the State." The Board argued that the Armstrong Act is such a law, yet the term "free" is used in a monetary sense, not as a reference to racial equality.
4) The appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the Rules were unreasonable and arbitrary, and that the circuit court's ruling with respect to Aurora's alleged violation of the Armstrong Act was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
5) According to the School Code, the Board could have recommended of the General Assembly a modification of the current law. The Board, instead, decided to forego this legislative approval before pursuing its own policies (the Rules).
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The Superintendent, et al. maintained that the trial and appellate courts erred in concluding that Aurora has complied with the Armstrong Act or not. In response to this assertion, the Board is reminded that it is their obligation to conduct a hearing and refer any findings of discrimination to the Attorney General. Perhaps this is an attempt by the appellate court to solicit proper action by the Board in this matter.
Acts and amendments have been legislated to aid the desegregation efforts of public schools. It seems that, resulting from efforts to not deny students' attendance based on race, color or nationality, that the Board maintains an implied notion that each school's student population must reflect that of the the minority racial composition of the pupils in all attendance centers under a given school authority. The sponsor of the Moore Amendment stated that "..guidelines which mandate a fifteen percent mixing of children because of race, color, nationality...wherever this has happened there has been tremendous resentment from the people." I think that the Superintendent has failed to consider how the citizens of these districts may respond when they are not intentionally practicing noncompliance but made to feel as if they are due to specific number games.