Donna Lerch
Feitshans 5/6 Grade Center
Springfield, Illinois

UIUC/EOL469
Fall 1999

Tyska v. Board of Education Township High School Dist. 214

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

August 31, 1983

Facts: In April of 1981, the Board asked a Planning Steering Committee (PSC) to develop criteria to determine whether (and which) one of its eight high schools should be closed. The PSC also recommended including the community in this decision. The Board asked 120 students, district citizens, and faculty and staff members to identify and rank order the criteria and to submit recommendations. The PSC's final report included these and other community members' views. All the members of the Board voted to adopt the School Consolidation Criteria in December 1981. The Board's staff gathered pertinent data as to the criteria, and hired a consulting firm for demographic info, which resulted in a report presented on April 27, that said that Arlington was the third least appropriate candidate for closing. The Board then instructed that certain of the criteria be reanalyzed for the three HS that served the oldest part of the district. On May 3rd, the Board ranked Arlington second to John Hersey High for best choice to close. More inspections and follow-ups took place. On May 17th, the Board voted to close Arlington.

Procedural Background: Tyska plus another student, three taxpayers, and an education promotion group in the Arlington area filed a complaint in 11/92 on the basis that (1) the Board implied that the decision would be based on the criteria, and (2) that the decision would harm them. Cook County Circuit Court ruled that the Board acted arbitrarily (when it failed to follow rules or criteria that it led the public to think that it would- that it should have followed the criteria, or given reason why it didn't) and stopped the closure of Arlington. Appealed.

Issue: Was the Board required to abide by the criteria it developed to make a decision?

Rule: A school board has wide discretion in the exercise of its powers (People ex rel. McCollum v. B of ED 1947), and cannot delegate to another or otherwise limit the discretionary powers vested in it by statute. (IL Ed As Local Community HS District 218 v B of ED 1975)

Arguments: Plaintiffs said that the Board adopting the criteria was not improper, but that it became a rule (School Code says that School Board duties include adopting and enforcing all necessary rules for management and government of its district's public schools) Used estoppel doctrine to argue that plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to present arguments for keeping Arlington open -- the board led them to believe that the criteria were binding.

Holding: Justice Medja wrote, with Wilson and Lorenz concurring. Reversed lower court- found in favor of the Board.

Reasoning: Appellate Court said the criteria did not achieve the status of a bylaw, rule or regulation- it was only a guideline. There are no statutory procedures which much be followed by School Boards to close schools. Denied estoppel grounds because no harm was proved. The plaintiffs had no statutory right to participate in the decision, and suffered no loss by being precluded from further participation or opportunity.

Consequences: School Board authority is not undermined by committee decisions. Fewer lawsuits over unpopular actions made by school boards.