i the school corner requires a regional boarding school trustees to hear and consider evidence whether it is in the best interests of the schools of the area and the educational welfare of those in the strong community in order to determine whether a change of boundaries is in the best interests of the students the courts and the regional boards typically apply the a benefit detriment test meet states dinner's of recognition the impact of the proposed change on the tax revenues in both districts and whether the detaching district would remain financially healthy and able to meet the standards of recognition residents testified how their lives really revolved around naperville the use nickel park districts their churches their there were communities except for the district two or two schools of that have send their children them they also presented all evidence from the board of education regarding the stay at the scores of both district will for industry to go to as well as the tax implications of detaching this this neighborhood from district  its march twenty ninth two thousand and eleven were only two was the question of whether either school district would suffer substantial detriment the finding was five nothing in favor well i would say that a little ition would be in the best interest of the children to unanimous decisions after analyzing the factors set forth in the case law phone five nothing there would be not be a detriment to district go to and th there appears to be or least based on this decision and i've written under fine unknown standard that doesn't show up in the statute that doesn't show up in the case law they can still defeat a petition six i that requires that the regional board hearings are evidence whether it's in the best interest in the schools in the area and how the how that is done by using the benefit the true test those are the they did everything they could they wrote everything they could and the regional board agreed that they did everything they have to except for the final vote where they said no we didn't and those are logically inconsistent and  with the appellants when they took the position saying that the district that the regional ward agreed that they've proven everything the record reflects otherwise there were four the reach of board level was to show because it is their burden of proof to show that they met all the factors not just the two that they happened to be successful in proving before  that the petition to shell to show that district two zero two was not contiguous and i think you raise that earlier so that was in our favor but what the cases have shell and part of the benefit detriment is  one of the issues is whether the differences between what were the differences between the school facilities and curriculum the regional board had not made a finding on that issue or have not even shown that the contrition that they held that the petitioners met that favorable or a favorable finding in that respect in fact the record show that the regional or the report that they received from the reason the office of education which is a statutory report required to be submitted that showed that the educational curriculum or the school facilities were similar if not almost the same and the courts have held that meticulously when that seems to be the case and no longer are the educational benefit has really comes into play because in terms of education if they're both equal then that don't want or is an issue and that was in test courts are meaningless in addition to that the courts have looked and when they consider test scores they also require the regional doors to look behind us for a look at the diversity issues the social economic issues regarding the students to determine with the value of those test points that was not done that was not that the other thing the distance between another factor the distances between the petitioners phones and the respective schools there was gunfire or that should have shown that the distances are shorter or more favorable if the petition was granted that's missing you're saying that regional  comparisons of the educational programs and facilities were things from the from the school districts that were being the annex away from to the school just i'm sorry to the school district that are being detached from to the school district ever being at it so basically both school districts on both sides had similar school facilities and similar curriculum both that and  you when the comparisons of the school facilities the educational school facilities and the programs the curriculum are the same then that dismisses or that puts away the issue of the educational benefits itself not told not the benefit detriment test but the educational benefits comparison that's the difference it's simply utilizes that as an issue that is correct and remember in neutralizes the issue but also that goes against the a petition because they needed to show that they were the educational the educational benefits outweigh the in favor of and the i wanted to address because one of the other factors is the loss of revenue and how it affects the district even though i understand that the region for me to find th record we had to the school district had to reduce six million dollars from its budget the state is overseeing the school just going to school district and mandating that it reduce its expenses in order to both financial recognition which would mean that the school district would not be receiving or could be sanctioned in terms of any of the revenues it received from the state as well as obviously you can have an effect record deficit as well of the other factors rather than i want to clarify that cultist the heat did when they when the regional or help there was no substantial detriment to the district it was referring to the loss of revenue the other factors that i was addressing with the deficit budget plan is the lack of it's the negative impact of the school recognition that would hurt the playing field school district to up to now governor there were some of these factors that were not an address and sufficiently supported by the petitioner so the regional board just i guess they just said you didn't have sufficient evidence to support your  they might have differences of opinion and that's what they ended up being so the issue is again if you put it as a statutory obligation is to have the verb on the petitioners to show that they have met all conclusions after analyzing the ten factors in the benefit detriment the whole child the community interest test all of those were considered and not their knowledge to be determined true correct at this level from that they entered their unanimous analysis from the whole child from the canadian interest are unanimous it doesn't get to this level it stays either to regional board or possibly at the trial that's why there's like cases visited he says take that next step i find it interesting the argument raise reduction plan i can't i can't correlate that with saying woman keeping this these kids in that district is in the best interest when they're having these problems if we remove these kids it's  hundred ninety seven thousand dollars that's less than one percent of the type total budget six million dollars deficit plan in the world what two hundred thousand dollars and having these kids educated somewhere else wrong make that decision because they didn't file a complaint from history of you or even across complaints at the trial level then finally i think at this level contesting those facts the factual conclusions they reached after analyzing all the factors our that