Lewis E. v. Spagnolo
| Decision Date | 15 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 83382,83382 |
| Citation | 238 Ill.Dec. 1,710 N.E.2d 798,186 Ill.2d 198 |
| Parties | , 238 Ill.Dec. 1 LEWIS E. et al., Appellees, v. Joseph A. SPAGNOLO, Superintendent of Education, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
David E. Lieberman, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Susan Wishnick, The Roger Baldwin Found. of the ACLU, Inc., Chicago, Thomas E. Kennedy, Alton, for Lewis E.
William A. Morgan, Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Chicago, for Amicus Curiae, Board of Education of the City of Chicago.
Richard J. O'Brien, Jr., Sidley & Austin, Chicago, for Amicus Curiae, NAACP.
In this appeal, this court is once again asked to enter the arena of Illinois public school policy. A class of schoolchildren residing in East St. Louis School District 189 challenges the adequacy of the education being provided to them in District 189 schools. We now reaffirm our recent holding in Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill.2d 1, 220 Ill.Dec. 166, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (1996), that questions relating to the quality of a public school education are for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.
The plaintiffs are a putative class of school-age children residing in East St. Louis School District 189 (the District), acting through their parents or guardians. The named plaintiffs are 11 children attending The complaint alleges the existence of numerous deficiencies in District 189 schools. The complaint charges that the District defendants have, for decades, failed to maintain school buildings and grounds in a manner that protects the safety of District students, failed to provide rudimentary instructional equipment and qualified teachers, and "otherwise so mismanaged the affairs of the District that children are unsafe and cannot reasonably be expected to learn in District schools."
various elementary or secondary schools in the district. The defendants are the Illinois State Board of Education and Superintendent of Education Joseph Spagnolo (the State defendants), and the board of education of the East St. Louis School District 189 and Geraldine Jenkins, the superintendent of District 189 (the District defendants). The plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in the circuit court of St. Clair County on April 12, 1995.
The complaint alleges that "most" of the District's 31 school buildings are in "wretched disrepair." The plaintiffs cite numerous examples of unsafe conditions in the schools which, they contend, are the result of the District defendants' neglect, including: fire hazards; chronic flooding; structural flaws, such as falling plaster and cracked walls and roofs; malfunctioning heating systems; unsanitary restrooms; rooms sealed-off due to the presence of asbestos; broken windows; burnt-out light bulbs; nonworking water fountains; the presence of cockroaches and rats; and cold, nonnutritious lunches in the cafeterias. These examples are alleged to have occurred in various schools at various times since 1989. The complaint further alleges that, due to the District defendants' failure to provide adequate security, violence in the schools is widespread. The complaint lists several examples of violence which have occurred in various schools.
The plaintiffs' complaint also charges that, because of the District defendants' neglect and mismanagement, the students in the District are provided with meager instructional equipment, unsupervised, disengaged, and uncertified teachers, and systemic staffing deficiencies which resulted in some classrooms being without teachers at times. The complaint also cites to high drop-out rates and low test scores among the students in the District and alleges that these poor outcomes are the result of the District defendants' failure to provide an adequate instructional program. Finally, the complaint charges the District defendants with reckless mismanagement of the District's financial affairs.
As to the State defendants, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that they have failed to adequately intervene in the District defendants' administration of the District. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the State Board of Education appointed a financial oversight panel in 1994 to oversee the District's finances. The complaint alleges that the panel's authority is too circumscribed to remedy problems of student safety and educational quality. The plaintiffs also allege that the State defendants have failed to enforce educational and safety standards in the District. Specifically, the complaint charges that the State defendants continue to formally recognize and otherwise accredit District schools that they know or should know are unreasonably dangerous and educationally inadequate.
The complaint charges that the State and District defendants have violated the plaintiffs' rights under the education article of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. X, § 1), the due process clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 2), and various provisions of the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 1996)). In addition, the complaint alleges that the District defendants have violated common law duties owed to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that they "have the right to a safe, adequate education under the Illinois and United States Constitutions, the School Code, and common law." The plaintiffs further seek an order requiring the defendants to submit and implement a plan assuring the provision of safe, adequate public schools and correcting the conditions outlined in the complaint. In the alternative, the plaintiffs request that the State Board be ordered to revoke recognition of District 189 and to direct the reassignment The circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, pursuant to section 2-615 of Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1996)). The plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of each of the plaintiff's claims. 287 Ill.App.3d 822, 223 Ill.Dec. 380, 679 N.E.2d 831. The appellate court, however, did so only on the ground that the plaintiffs had not pled sufficiently detailed facts stating the particular acts and omissions of the defendants that allegedly created the inadequate conditions in the schools. The court held that the plaintiffs could possibly plead facts sufficient to state a claim under each of these theories and remanded to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
of District 189 pupils to other school districts. The plaintiffs also seek an order directing the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with supplemental educational services needed to compensate them for the inadequate education provided to them in the past.
We granted a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants. 166 Ill.2d R. 315. The plaintiffs are seeking cross-relief from the appellate court's holdings that they did not plead sufficiently detailed facts to avoid the dismissal, albeit without prejudice, of their claims.
We first address whether the plaintiffs may state a cause of action under the education article of our state constitution. Ill. Const.1970, art. X, § 1. Section 1 of article X of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides, in its entirety, as follows:
"A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities.
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be such other free education as the General Assembly provides by law.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." Ill. Const.1970, art. X, § 1.
The plaintiffs argue that this article grants them the right to a "minimally adequate education," and that they may sue state and local officials directly under this article for deprivation of that right. They claim that schoolchildren who are denied the "basic components" of education, which they define as "teachers, textbooks, and reasonably safe school buildings," are denied a free public education in violation of this article. The defendants respond that, under this court's decision in Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill.2d 1, 220 Ill.Dec. 166, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (1996), the quality of public education is a legislative matter and is not justiciable.
We agree with the defendants that Committee for Educational Rights is dispositive of this issue. In that case, a group of plaintiffs consisting of school districts, local boards of education, students and parents brought an action to challenge the state statutory scheme governing the funding of public schools in Illinois. Among other claims, the plaintiffs asserted that the statutory scheme violated the education article of the Illinois Constitution because the system did not provide a "high quality" education, as required by that article, to students in poorer districts. In considering this claim, this court analyzed whether the quality of the public education system was subject to judicial review. We reasoned that we must determine "whether the quality of education is capable of or properly subject to measurement by the courts." Committee for Educational Rights, 174 Ill.2d at 24, 220 Ill.Dec. 166, 672 N.E.2d 1178.
This court in Committee for Educational Rights concluded that "questions relating to the quality of education are solely for the legislative branch to answer." Committee for Educational Rights, 174 Ill.2d at 24, 220 Ill.Dec. 166, 672 N.E.2d 1178. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jane Doe 20 v. Bd. Of Educ. Of The Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 5
... ... Allegations that the ... School Administrators violated those express policies does not make out a claim ... against the School District. Lewis v. City ... of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir ... 2007) ("Misbehaving employees are responsible for their own conduct, 'units of ... local ... condition of the property itself. See cases ... cited above and, for example, Lewis E. v ... Spagnolo, 186 I11.2d 198, 238 Ill.Dec. 1, 710 ... N.E.2d 798 (1999) (rejecting premises liability claim by students based on dilapidated schools because ... ...
-
Ex parte James
...law allocating school funds because the case raised what were purely "questions for lawmakers"); Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill.2d 198, 208, 710 N.E.2d 798, 804, 238 Ill.Dec. 1, 7 (1999) ("`questions relating to the quality of education are solely for the legislative branch to answer'" (quot......
-
LM v. State
...610 N.W.2d 900. The Illinois Supreme Court properly articulated these same constitutional concerns in Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill.2d 198, 209, 238 Ill.Dec. 1, 710 N.E.2d 798 (1999) :Attempting to distinguish “high quality” from “minimally adequate” in this context is nothing more than sem......
-
Neeley v. West Orange-Cove
...182. Ex parte James, 836 So.2d 813 (Ala.2002); Marrero v. Commonwealth, 559 Pa. 14, 739 A.2d 110 (1999); Lewis v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill.2d 198, 238 Ill.Dec. 1, 710 N.E.2d 798 (1999); Committee for Educ. Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill.2d 1, 220 Ill.Dec. 166, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (1996); Coalition for Adequ......
-
Coerced Choice: School Vouchers and Students With Disabilities
...local property taxes unconstitutional under equal protection). Not all states have adopted this posture. See, e.g., Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 710 N.E.2d 798 (Ill. 1999) (holding education was not a fundamental right under Illinois state laws); State ex rel. Shineman v. Bd. of Educ., 42 N.W.2d 1......
-
The Methodological Middle Ground: Finding an Adequacy Standard in Alaska's Education Clause
...as the strongest education clauses have failed to find a constitutional standard of adequacy, see, e.g., Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 710 N.E.2d 798 (Ill. 1999); Comm. for Educ. Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (Ill. 1996), while other states with weaker Education Clauses have found a constitution......