Opinion ID: 3134250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ill 2d 612, 613-14 (1964). As explained in People ex rel. Leighty

Text: v. Young, 301 Ill. 67, 71 (1921), [i]t cannot be said that a system which places the school house at a point so remote that the children of school age cannot reach it conveniently is either thorough or efficient. School districts organized in contravention of the requirements of compactness and contiguity have been held invalid. See, e.g., Decatur School District, 31 Ill. 2d 612; People ex rel. Goelzer v. Crawford, 310 Ill. 205 (1923) (finding district invalid under both the constitution and the applicable statute). The framers of the 1970 Constitution embraced this limited construction that the constitutional efficiency requirement authorized judicial review of school district boundaries, but they did not intend to otherwise limit legislative discretion. The education committee's report accompanying the proposed education article specifically states, The concept of the efficiency of the system (already contained in the present Constitution) has been used by the courts as a guide to the validation of district boundary changes. The Committee believes it useful to continue this concept and to add the notion of high quality. 6 Proceedings 234. An exchange between Delegates Netsch and Patch during the debate on section 1 confirms the framers' understanding of the efficiency concept: MRS. NETSCH: Mr. Patch or Mr. Fogal, could I explore just very briefly your use of the word  `efficient' . Was this done quite consciously to adopt and reincorporate into this constitutional provision all of the body of law that has developed with respect to that term in the previous constitution? MR. PATCH: Yes. In terms of boundaries and in terms of quality, so there would be a continuity of education based on the law or the court decisions relative to efficiency. 2 Proceedings 766. Careful review of the remainder of the debates on section 1 of the education article and other relevant materials in the convention record discloses no persuasive evidence to support the view that section 1's efficiency requirement was intended by the framers to function more broadly as a substantive guarantee of parity in educational opportunity or funding. Accord ILCS Ann., 1970 Const., art. X, §1, Constitutional Commentary, at 789 (Smith-Hurd 1993) (There is no indication that the Convention intended to alter the line of cases in which the courts have deferred to the legislature on the meaning of terms such as `efficient' ). Disparity in educational funding was a highly charged and controversial subject during the constitutional convention, but it was not touched upon to any significant degree in connection with section 1's efficiency requirement. Instead, the debate over unequal opportunities and resources ultimately led to the incorporation of section 1's final sentence, which provides that [t]he State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education. Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, §1. That language did not appear in the education committee's originally proposed education article. Rather, by a six to five majority, the education committee had initially proposed a separate section governing school finance that was designed to achieve greater parity of educational funding and opportunity by limiting local contributions to school operational costs to 10% of the amount received from the General Assembly. See 6 Proceedings 295. Delegate Bottino, a member of the education committee, submitted an alternative proposal permitting funding from local taxation in an amount equal to state funding, and requiring that state funds be distributed so as to provide for substantial parity of educational opportunity throughout the state. 1 Proceedings 622-23. The members of the education committee were deeply divided over the main committee proposal. The committee's majority report specifically noted that [a] salient fact of Illinois school finance is the enormous inequality among the districts with respect to their resources from local tax receipts and that the quality of education received by any student in the State is largely a product of the accident of the wealth of his district. 6 Proceedings 297. One of the majority's stated objectives was to produce a level of educational opportunity that would be more equal throughout the State for all children. 6 Proceedings 299. The education committee's minority report acknowledged existing inequities in school funding (see 6 Proceedings 300), but sought to preserve the tradition of local control of public education, which the minority feared would be imperiled under a constitutional regime of centralized funding of education. The minority believed that a system of statewide funding of schools would prove incompatible with local autonomy in educational decisionmaking. Simply put, the minority did not believe that it was realistic to expect that the General Assembly would allow local school boards and administrators free reign with state funds. See 6 Proceedings 301-02. The minority also objected that: While substantially full [State] support might improve the programs of inferior schools, it would lower the quality of education in the better schools and make it impossible for local citizens to restore these quality programs despite their willingness to do so. Local citizens might well show less interest in the welfare of their schools if they are frustrated in their efforts to improve their programs. 6 Proceedings 302. The minority further expressed the view that educational funding was inherently a legislative subject. 6 Proceedings 304. The framers of the 1970 Constitution rejected both the education committee proposal (1 Proceedings 527-28) and Delegate Bottino's alternative proposal (1 Proceedings 622-23). Subsequently, however, Delegate Netsch offered an amendment to section 1 adding the language placing primary responsibility for financing public education on the State. 1 Proceedings 738. Delegate Netsch explained that the purpose of the amendment was to put the Convention on record that the State should bear greater responsibility for school funding both to reduce the burden of property taxes and to cure inequality in education. 5 Proceedings 4502. Delegate Netsch carefully explained, however, that the added language was not a legally obligatory command to the state legislature.  [I]t is something that can be pointed to every time the question of appropriations from the state to the school districts is at issue. 5 Proceedings 4502. In Blase v. State, 55