Full Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 250481 Decision filed 09/11/26. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-25-0481 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JASPER COUNTY ) Appeal from the COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ) Circuit Court of ) Jasper County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 23-MR-4 ) THE REGIONAL BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES ) FOR THE COUNTIES OF CLAY, CRAWFORD, ) JASPER, LAWRENCE, AND RICHLAND, ) ILLINOIS, an Administrative Agency ) in the State of Illinois; JEREMY BRUSH, Regional ) Superintendent of Schools; ) MATTHEW J. METTE, EMILY ) METTE, CAROL CHRISTINE MILLIMAN, ) JOHN L. PROBST, Trustee, ) KATHLEEN B. PROBST, Trustee, ) JOSEPH MEYER, and ANDREW P. MEINHART, ) Petitioners; and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ) OF DIETERICH COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL ) DISTRICT NO. 30, ) Honorable ) Chad M. Miller, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Sholar concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Barberis dissented, with opinion. OPINION ¶1 The defendant Regional Board of School Trustees for the counties of Clay, Crawford, Jasper, Lawrence, and Richland, Illinois (Regional Board), approved a petition submitted by Matthew and Emily Mette and other landowners, for the detachment and annexation of five 1 separate tracts of land pursuant to the School Code (105 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)). The plaintiff, the Board of Education of Jasper County Community Unit School District No. 1 (Jasper County Board), sought administrative review in the circuit court of Jasper County, Illinois, claiming that the detached territory was not compact and contiguous and, therefore, the Regional Board’s decision did not comply with the requirements of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, § 1) or the School Code. On October 24, 2024, the circuit court initially reversed the decision of the Regional Board. On a motion for reconsideration, the circuit court vacated the October 24, 2024, order and affirmed the Regional Board’s decision to grant the petition. For the following reasons, we reverse. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 A. Petition for Detachment/Annexation ¶4 In 2017, Matthew and Emily Mette purchased a home on property located entirely within Jasper County. In May 2023, the Mettes’ oldest child was ready for kindergarten. The Mettes submitted a petition to the Regional Board for detachment from the Jasper County Community Unit School District No. 1 (District 1) and annexation of territory to the Dieterich Community Unit School District No. 30 (District 30), in Effingham County. ¶5 The Mette property was located entirely within Jasper County, approximately 1.5 miles from the actual boundary line of District 30, and did not touch any part of District 30. The property owners located in the territory between the Mette property and the boundary of District 30 joined the Mette petition and requested that a limited section of their land, as described in the Mette petition, be detached along with the Mette property. Notably, these landowners did not seek to detach and annex their entire parcels of land. Instead, each landowner designated a 10-foot-wide rectangular strip of land that touched one another at their ends, thereby creating a land bridge that 2 extended approximately 1.5 miles from the Mette property line to the District 30 boundary. ¶6 The Mette petition indicated it was brought pursuant to “Section 7-1 of Chapter 122 of the Illinois Revised Statutes (1989)” 1 and alleged that the territory described in the petition “is contiguous to the existing territory of the Dieterich Community Unit School District #30.” Attached to the Mette petition were the legal descriptions and tax deeds for the 10-foot-wide strips of land as well as the Mette property description. Several maps illustrating the location of the various properties were included and attached as exhibits to the Mette petition. One of these maps, exhibit A(i), 2 showed the configuration of the territory using the 10-foot-wide strips of property that went from the District 30 boundary to the Mette property. There was, additionally, a letter from Tom Matson of the Jasper County Assessment Office, dated June 7, 2023. The letter described the Mette property and the tracts of 10-foot-wide strips of land and provided an assessed valuation for the parcels involved. The letter concluded, “All parcels will be contiguous to Dieterich Community School Unit 30 District after detachment and annexation is complete.” (Emphasis added.) ¶7 B. Motion to Dismiss ¶8 The Jasper County Board submitted a motion to dismiss the Mette petition to the Regional Board and argued that section 7-4 of the School Code prohibited the Regional Board from granting the Mette petition for detachment/annexation. See 105 ILCS 5/7-4 (West 2022). The Jasper County Board claimed that, if the detachment were allowed, the resulting districts would not be compact and contiguous as required by the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, § 1) and the School Code (105 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)). Specifically, the Jasper County Board argued that 1 Chapter 122 of the Illinois Revised Statutes (1989) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 122) was a reference to the School Code prior to the recodification of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS), effective January 1, 1993. See Pub. Act 87-1005 (eff. Jan. 1, 1993). 2 Exhibit A(i) is reproduced below (infra ¶ 73). 3 article X, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution required that the “State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, § 1. This constitutional mandate, according to the Jasper County Board, has been affirmed in the case law of Illinois, including People ex rel. Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Decatur School District No. 61, 45 Ill. App. 2d 33 (1963) (Community Unit School District No. 1). 3 In Community Unit School District No. 1, the Third District acknowledged the principle that, when interpreting this section of the constitution, Illinois courts “have held that school districts must be compact and contiguous in order to comply with the constitutional requirement of an efficient school system.” Community Unit School District No. 1, 45 Ill. App. 2d at 37. ¶9 The Jasper County Board further relied on Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205 v. Hearing Board of the Counties of Boone & Winnebago, 152 Ill. App. 3d 936 (1987). In Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205, although the evidence showed that there was a common boundary between the two districts, granting the petition would have created eight islands of territory that destroyed the compactness and contiguity of each district. Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 938. Therefore, the ruling of the hearing board and the circuit court that the territory was contiguous was against the weight of the evidence and destroyed the compactness and contiguousness of each district and would impair the Rockford School District’s ability to deliver educational services. Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 940. Thus, the Jasper County Board argued that a petition that created islands of noncontiguous territory, as in Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205, violated the constitutional requirement of providing an efficient school 3 In Community Unit School District No. 1, 45 Ill. App. 2d at 37, the Third District Appellate Court was referring to the Illinois Constitution of 1870, section 1, article VIII. which required that, “ ‘The general assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient system of free schools, whereby all children of this state may receive a good common school education’ ” (quoting Ill. Const. 1870, art. VIII, § 1). 4 system. Similarly, the Jasper County Board argued that the Mette property, if allowed to detach and then annex to District 30, would create a single island, thus destroying the constitutional mandate of providing an efficient school system. ¶ 10 The Jasper County Board further indicated in its motion to dismiss that, if the Mette petition were allowed, the District 30 boundary would change in that there would be four parcels of land, 10 feet wide, where no children reside, that would be annexed into the District 30 territory and one tract of land, the Mette property, located 1.5 miles away from the Dieterich boundary, would be annexed to District 30. All of the land was located in Jasper County, not Effingham County, where District 30 was located. The Jasper County Board alleged that “the bold attempt by the Petitioners [Mettes] to create contiguity through the one and one-half mile strip wholly violates the ‘compact’ component of the ‘compact and contiguous’ requirement of Section 7-4 of the School Code.” (Emphasis in original.) The Jasper County Board went on to argue that “Section 7-4 of the School Code requires that ‘territory within any district whose boundaries are affected by the granting of a petition shall after the granting thereof be compact and contiguous.’ ” (Emphases in original.) Additionally, the Jasper County Board argued that to allow the result requested by the Mette petition would “seriously undermine the stability of both school districts” and, where a petition creates “islands of non-contiguous territory,” the result is to destroy the compactness and contiguity of the affected districts and “violates the constitutional requirement of providing an efficient school system.” ¶ 11 The Jasper County Board additionally alleged that the Mette petition was attempting “to create a fiction of contiguity by including 10-foot-wide strips of land to connect Tract #1 [(the Mette property)] to Dieterich District 30.” The Jasper County Board compared this effort to strip annexation, which it pointed out has been rejected in Illinois for over a century. In making this analogy, the Jasper County Board examined various annexation cases that had rejected strip 5 annexation, concluding that, for a territory to be contiguous, the tracts of land must “touch or adjoin one another in a reasonably substantial physical sense.” (Emphasis in original.) See Western National Bank of Cicero v. Village of Kildeer, 19 Ill. 2d 342, 352 (1960). ¶ 12 Finally, the Jasper County Board alleged the Mette petition, if granted, would cause confusion by dividing up parcels into multiple districts, undermine the stability of school district boundaries, and harm the public interest. Therefore, the Mette property, when considered with the 10-foot-wide strips, could not meet the compact and contiguous requirements of section 7-1 and section 7-4 of the School Code, and the Regional Board should deny the Mette petition. See 105 ILCS 5/7-1, 7-4 (West 2022). ¶ 13 C. Hearing on Motion to Dismiss ¶ 14 The Regional Board held a hearing on July 6, 2023, to address several petitions for detachment including the Mette petition and a petition filed by another family, the Buersters, represented by the same attorney as the Mettes. Both petitions proposed using 10-foot-wide strips of land to detach from their school district. The Jasper County Board had filed a motion to dismiss the Buerster petition, even though the Buersters sought to annex into District 1 and the Mettes were attempting to detach from District 1. ¶ 15 Prior to the commencement of the Mettes’ hearing, the regional superintendent, Jeremy Brush, indicated that a report had been prepared using information from District 1 and District 30, which provided information on the financial and educational condition of each district. The report also addressed the probable effect of the proposed change on the districts requested by the Mette petition; had a map showing the territories involved; and set forth the date, time, and place of the hearing. This report was marked as regional office of education exhibit 2 and made a part of the 6 administrative hearing record. 4 ¶ 16 The first matter heard by the Regional Board was the Jasper County Board’s motion to dismiss the Buerster petition. 5 The Jasper County Board argued against the Buersters’ proposed annexation into District 1, claiming that the resulting territory would not be compact and contiguous. The Buerster petition proposed the use of 10-foot-wide strips of land that “run for approximately a mile and a quarter” to reach the Buerster property. The Jasper County Board argued that allowing this petition would detach two parcels in their entirety and create noncontiguous territory. First, the Jasper County Board relied on a case from 1907, where the Illinois Supreme Court in Wild v. People ex rel. Stephens, 227 Ill. 556 (1907), prohibited the use of strip annexation to make a property contiguous. The Wild case involved a 50-foot strip of land that ran for a half mile and was used to connect one tract of land with another in an effort to claim the properties were contiguous. The Jasper County Board argued that, because in Wild a 50-foot strip of land was not allowed to create contiguity, the use of 10-foot-wide strips could not create contiguity. Additionally, the Jasper County Board argued that “the basic requirements of granting a Petition, as specified in the School Code in Section 7-4, is that ‘after the petition is granted, both affected districts must be compact and contiguous.’ ” By allowing the Buerster petition to go through, the Jasper County Board argued that the Regional Board would create noncontiguous territory that becomes part of the Jasper School District, that the Jasper School District would have to service that property, and the property is really surrounded by the Clay City Community Unit School District No. 10. The Jasper County Board also relied on the Board of Education of Rockford 4 This exhibit has not been included as a part of the record on appeal. 5 The Buerster petition is not the subject of our review. To the extent it is relevant, the Jasper County Board and counsel for the Mettes each reincorporated their respective arguments made regarding the Buerster petition as their arguments in support of their positions on the Mette petition. Therefore, it is necessary to recount the arguments of the parties on the Buerster petition. 7 School District No. 205, 152 Ill. App. 3d 936. Counsel for the Jasper County Board argued that the school district should not have to service this (Buerster) property, and this result was inconsistent with the compact and contiguous requirement of the School Code. Additionally, the Jasper County Board claimed that allowing this kind of detachment would cause “confusion among school district boundaries” and there was “a strong public interest in maintaining respect for school district boundaries.” ¶ 17 The attorney for the Buersters, who also represented the Mette family, then argued against the motion to dismiss. Counsel had prepared copies of case law for the members of the Regional Board to review. Buersters’ counsel first argued that the Jasper County Board relied on annexation cases that have nothing to do with school districts. He claimed that there was discussion in the Jasper County Board’s case law regarding special school districts and stated “I don’t know what a special school district is. I don’t want to know.” Buersters’ counsel relied primarily on Ottawa Township High School District No. 140 v. County Board of School Trustees of LaSalle County, 106 Ill. App. 2d 439 (1969), and Phillips v. Special Hearing Board of Boone-Winnebago Counties, 154 Ill. App. 3d 799 (1986), to support their argument that the Regional Board must be “concerned about the pupils.” Buersters’ counsel read excerpts from these cases that discussed the interests of the school children and urged the Regional Board to consider the “whole child.” In other words, “there should be a determination of where his community of interest lies.” ¶ 18 The Buersters’ response in opposition to the arguments of the Jasper County Board did not address the constitutional arguments for a compact and contiguous school district or the statutory requirements in the School Code. The Buersters claimed there was no statute and no appellate case law that prohibited the use of 10-foot-wide strips to detach from one school district into another. Buersters’ counsel argued that the 10-foot “ribbons” were good for Clay County because only a 8 small part of the property was going to detach as opposed to complete parcels, so the Clay City school system would still receive the property tax benefits on the majority of the property. After the conclusion of the argument on the motion to dismiss the Buerster petition, the Regional Board took action, but the transcript of those proceedings was not included in the record. ¶ 19 The Regional Board then proceeded to hear arguments specific to the motion to dismiss the Mette petition. The attorney for the Jasper County Board reincorporated his arguments from the Buerster motion to dismiss as support for the Jasper County Board’s motion to dismiss the Mette petition. The Jasper County superintendent, Joe Sornberger, pointed out that the Mette property was 1.5 miles from the school district boundary that it sought to annex into. He indicated that the Jasper County Board now looks “at these 10-foot-strips of land a little differently than the Board has in the past.” And, if the Mette petition were allowed, other people in District 1 would use the 10-foot-wide strips of property to disconnect as well. ¶ 20 The attorney for the Mettes also reincorporated all of his arguments made in support of the Buerster petition as his arguments in opposition to the Jasper County Board’s motion to dismiss the Mette petition. Additionally, Mettes’ counsel stated that the area surrounding the Mette property was vacant farm ground and there were no homes located on the property between the Mette property and the District 30 boundary. The Mettes were located “13 miles” from District 1 school in Newton, Illinois, but only “3 miles” from the school in District 30. The time spent on a school bus for the Mette children would be greatly reduced if the Mette petition was granted. Subsequent to the arguments of counsel, the Regional Board voted to deny the Jasper County Board’s motion to dismiss. 9 ¶ 21 D. Initial Hearing on the Mette Petition ¶ 22 After denying the Jasper County Board’s motion to dismiss the Mette petition, the Regional Board proceeded directly with the hearing on the merits of the Mette petition for detachment/annexation. Emily Mette first testified and introduced her two daughters, ages four and five, to the members of the Regional Board. Emily indicated that her five-year-old would be ready to attend kindergarten in the upcoming year. Emily also introduced a letter from a preschool teacher advising that Emily’s youngest daughter would also be ready to attend kindergarten. Emily testified that the Dieterich Elementary School, in District 30, was 3 miles from her home, while the school in Newton, in District 1, was 14 miles away. As Emily responded to this question, her attorney indicated that their “argument is essentially that these kids shouldn’t be subjected to riding a bus a lot longer than they have to.” Emily worked part-time in Effingham and indicated she would be able to drop off her children at school on her way to work. Her husband, Matthew Mette, had relatives that lived in Dieterich who would be able to assist their children if there was an emergency. The Mettes also attended church in Dieterich, shopped in Dieterich, and identified with Dieterich as their home. Comparatively, the Mettes rarely went to Newton. ¶ 23 At the conclusion of Emily’s testimony, her counsel introduced their exhibit 1, which was referred to as “Comparison of Dieterich and Jasper County School Districts per Report of the Secretary.” 6 The Mettes’ counsel remarked that “the chronic absenteeism in Jasper County is almost three times what it is in Dieterich. Jasper County has a better teacher retention rate. [The] [g]raduation rate is better in Dieterich. The class size is smaller in Dieterich. But the student-teacher ratio is greater. There’s fewer teachers in Dieterich per student than in Jasper per 6 The exhibits used during the July 6, 2023, hearing and referenced in the hearing transcript were not made a part of the record on appeal. 10 student. So that favors Jasper.” Mettes’ counsel asked the Regional Board to review the summation designation for elementary schools, which designated the elementary school in Dieterich as “exemplary, which puts that elementary school in the top 5 percent of the state of Illinois. And Jasper County Elementary is commendable. It’s a well-functioning school.” ¶ 24 The Mettes’ attorney then indicated they were “asking the Board to consider basically two things. One, the opportunity for these young ladies to attend an exemplary elementary school. And second of all, to not subject them to long bus rides when those could be totally avoided.” The Mettes’ counsel went on to comment, “It’s their bad luck I would say, that their property just happens to be located so far from Newton and to their benefit that it’s so close to Dieterich.” Additionally, counsel for the Mettes asked the Regional Board to consider “the whole child” and “the community where they are, of their identification.” The Mettes’ attorney concluded his summarization by asking the Regional Board to “do what is best for these kids and grant the prayer of their Petition.” ¶ 25 The Mettes’ counsel then asked Matthew Mette if his responses to the questions asked of Emily would be the same. Matthew answered in the affirmative. Upon cross-examination by counsel for the Jasper County Board, Matthew indicated they have owned their property since 2017 and knew when they purchased it that their property was located within the Jasper County school district. At that time, they had no children, but they had always considered St. Thomas, a private school in Newton as they had heard it was a good school, as well. ¶ 26 At the conclusion of Matthew’s questioning, one of the Regional Board members asked about the 10-foot-wide strips of land. Matthew responded that there were no houses on this property and “[i]t’s all bottom ground. Floods all the time.” The Mettes were also asked whether 11 Dieterich was willing to provide bus service to the Mette property. Both Matthew and Emily indicated they would forfeit the issue of bus service and drive their children to school, if necessary. Another board member asked about the Mettes’ intent to go to the St. Thomas school. Matthew indicated they went and listened to the school’s preregistration and, when they asked about enrolling their youngest, the school indicated it had cut enrollment off. That concluded the testimony on behalf of the Mette petition. ¶ 27 Joe Sornberger, the superintendent of District 1, testified that District 1 is the “biggest school district land mass in the state of Illinois, 460 square miles.” So, if a house is bought in Jasper County, the house is in District 1. Sornberger testified that it was difficult to compare District 30 with District 1 because Jasper County had about 1,100 children in the school district, compared to a little over 500 in District 30. Sornberger indicated there was a difference in graduation rates considering District 30 had approximately 30 children compared to a graduating class of 144 children in District 1. Sornberger further explained that District 1 had an accelerated placement program for students “that are able to go into school before they should.” Sornberger indicated that this program was a sanctioned program by the Illinois Association of School Boards, and he assumed Dieterich was following the same policy. As for bus routes, Sornberger stated that District 1 did “the best we can to minimize the travel on buses.” He indicated he was aware of 14 families in the general area of the Mettes who had expressed an interest in pursuing annexation to District 30. Allowing detachment/annexation, through the use of 10-foot-wide strips of land, would create “a land bridge” and “a way out of our school district.” Sornberger was concerned that other families may “tap into this line and go the same direction.” And Sornberger stated he was not going to “bash the Dieterich School District.” He thought the superintendent of the Dieterich school district “runs a great school.” But Sornberger believed that District 1 had “just as good of an opportunity for kids in our school, depending on what you’re looking at.” Sornberger concluded 12 his statements by saying, “I feel like we have tons to offer. But, again, that is me looking at what we have and speaking for grade to grade and what we can offer.” ¶ 28 At the conclusion of Sornberger’s testimony, counsel for the Mettes made the following statement: “The only thing we would add in rebuttal is that we are not in any way, shape, or form trying to bash Jasper County. It’s a fine school system. And they offer a lot of great programs. And they have had a lot of great graduates. Joe not being one of them, of course. He’s from Robinson.” The Mettes’ counsel argued that “we’re focusing on the community of identification. Where is the Mette life? The Mette life is in Dieterich. So their life is in Dieterich.” The Mette attorney relied on the Ottawa case (see Ottawa Township High School District No. 140, 106 Ill. App. 2d 439) and observed that the “community of identification is important not only for the children being involved in the schools, but also the parents. If the school is three miles away, it’s pretty easy for the parents to be involved, to volunteer and sell popcorn at games or whatever it takes. But if you have to drive half an hour and drive half an hour back to get involved in some of those things, it becomes less appealing.” ¶ 29 The members of the Regional Board then heard argument from the Jasper County Board. Counsel noted that the Mettes’ argument focused on the petitioner’s “community of interest.” The Jasper County Board attorney reminded the members of the Regional Board, however, that section 7-6 of the School Code “provides that before the Regional Board is allowed to consider the community of interest factor,” the Regional Board “first has to make a determination that there would be a significant direct educational benefit” to granting the petition. See 105 ILCS 5/7-6(i)(2) 13 (West 2022). The Jasper County Board argued that petitioners had not met their burden under section 7-6 of the School Code, as there had been no evidence presented regarding a comparison of the school district curriculum, no evidence concerning extracurricular activities or athletics, and nothing about the facilities at the different school districts. Therefore, the Jasper County Board attorney argued that the Mettes had failed to prove a “significant direct educational benefit” as required by the statute and, without sufficient proof, the “community of interest factor” could not be considered. ¶ 30 Sornberger added that 50% of the population in Jasper County “drives to either Effingham, to Olney, to Robinson or other places to work.” Sornberger also indicated that the Regional Board had allowed the Buerster petition, which meant from their “house to school is 25 minutes without a stop.” So, if 25 minutes is not too far, then 14 miles is not too far. ¶ 31 After hearing arguments, the Regional Board considered the testimony and exhibits offered. Regional Superintendent Brush indicated that the “Detachment and Annexation Guidelines, Factors for Consideration,” would be used to assist the members of the Regional Board in making a decision. The Regional Board voted 4 to 3 against the Mette petition, and the Mette petition was denied. ¶ 32 E. Order Denying the Mette Petition ¶ 33 On July 16, 2023, the Regional Board issued a formal order. In that order, the Regional Board made several findings, which included the following: “Whereupon Jeremy Brush, Ex-Officio Secretary of the Board did advise, the Board so finds, that all requirements set forth by the School Code of the State of Illinois in relation to the school boundary changes to be performed prior to the Hearing on the Petition had been properly followed. 14 *** Having evaluated the evidence as to the school needs and conditions of the territory in the area within and adjacent thereto the territory proposed for detachment, as to the ability of the respective school districts affected to meet the standards of recognition as prescribed by the State Board of Education, the division of funds and assets which will result from the granting of the Petition for a change in boundaries, and having determined whether it is in the best interest of the schools of the area and educational welfare of the pupils if such change in boundaries is granted, and having heard and taking into consideration the other evidence contained in the record herein, consisting of the testimony of the witnesses, the other exhibits, documents and evidence introduced in support of the Petition and introduced in objection thereto, the Board makes the following findings: 1. That the distances from the petitioner’s homes to schools in both districts were considered. 2. That the granting of the Petition herein would not affect any district’s ability to meet the standards of recognition as prescribed by the School Code of the State of Illinois. 3. That any change in the division of funds and assets among the impacted districts is not significant and will not jeopardize the educational resources of the districts. 4. That the granting of the Petition will increase the opportunities for extra-curricular participation in school, social, religious and commercial activities by students and parents. 15 5. That the petitioners identify with the Dieterich Community Unit School District #30 and surrounding community. 6. That it is not in the best interest of the schools of the area and the educational welfare of the pupils that the change in boundaries be granted. 7. That the detriment to the detaching district, that being Jasper County Community Unit School District #1, Jasper County, Illinois, does clearly outweigh the benefit resulting to the annexing district and the surrounding community as a whole.” ¶ 34 F. Motion for Rehearing ¶ 35 The Mettes submitted a motion for rehearing pursuant to section 7-6(n) of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/7-6(n) (West 2022)) and argued that (1) the Regional Board failed to consider that District 30 was generally superior to District 1 as set forth in an exhibit C, attached to the petition; (2) the Regional Board failed to “give proper weight” to the fact that the “community of identification” for the Mettes was the Dieterich community, where the Mettes’ children attended preschool, and the Mettes went to church, shopped, and had family, as Dieterich was only 4 miles from the Mette property, while they did not identify with the Newton community, which was 13 miles from the Mette property; and (3) if their petition was denied, their child would attend Sainte Marie for kindergarten, in District 1, which was 23 miles away from their home, and this fact was not addressed during the initial hearing. The Mettes attached multiple exhibits to their motion for rehearing, including maps that listed distances and drive times from the Mette residence to the schools in Newton, Sainte Marie, and Dieterich. The motion for rehearing again cited Ottawa Township High School District No. 140, 106 Ill. App. 2d 439, and Phillips, 154 Ill. App. 3d 799, renewing the Mettes’ prior argument that the “child’s natural community center and natural gravitation *** to one or the other community are significant factors” that the Regional Board was 16 obligated to consider. ¶ 36 On August 8, 2023, the Regional Board heard argument on the Mettes’ motion for rehearing. At this hearing, the Mettes introduced additional information that their counsel claimed was relevant to the Mette petition, which had not been considered by the Regional Board at the hearing on July 6, 2023. Specifically, counsel for the Mettes started by providing the members of the Regional Board with a file, the contents of which are not fully specified in the record. 7 Counsel directed the Regional Board members to page 3, which referenced the case of Ottawa Township High School District No. 140, 106 Ill. App. 2d 439. Counsel indicated that the Mettes lived a mile and a half from the District 30 boundary line and 17-18 miles from Newton. Counsel then read a few lines from the Ottawa Township case, which he paraphrased as, “there’s an obvious advantage to a child attending a school in close physical proximity to the child’s home. The additional saving in transportation costs and the time spent daily by children riding a bus involves a certain safety factor and a lessening of fatigue … The identification with the school district in the child’s natural community—[which we represent to you is Dieterich]—results in increased participation in school activities by the child and his parents.” See Ottawa Township High School District No. 140, 106 Ill. App. 2d at 446. Counsel argued that the case law favored the child attending school in the “community of their identification” and a reduced time on a bus. ¶ 37 Counsel for the Mettes then indicated he wanted to rely on Phillips, 154 Ill. App. 3d 799. Counsel read from paragraph 12, arguing that “the whole child should be considered as should a determination of where his community of interest lies.” See Phillips, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 805. 7 This file was not included in the record on appeal. Therefore, only those portions referred to will be considered. 17 Further, the Mettes’ counsel summarized a paragraph from the case and urged the Regional Board that “the whole child should be considered, as should a determination of where his community of interest lies. These concepts require evaluating the residents’ practical educational and social needs by comparing the quality and physical proximity of both schools and the extracurricular facilities and programs offered by the competing school districts, as well as the safety of the children. And, when the competing districts are located in separate communities, a determination must be made as to the [residents’] natural gravitation to one or the other community.” See Phillips, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 805. The Mettes’ counsel noted that the “natural gravitation” for the Mettes was Dieterich. ¶ 38 Counsel for the Mettes continued his argument by discussing the content of exhibit C, which was an academic comparison between the District 1 and District 30 schools. Counsel claimed that the “vast majority” of the categories favored the school in Dieterich. At the bottom part of exhibit C, counsel for the Mettes noted that the Dieterich school is one of 372 elementary schools in Illinois that is ranked as “exemplary.” He also noted that the “Jasper County school” is one of 2,831 schools in Illinois rated as “commendable,” although counsel argued that it was not clear where the school ranked within that overall number. Exhibit D, which contained drive times, was also attached to the petition for rehearing. The drive from the Mette property to Sainte Marie, where the other kindergarten is located, was 23 miles; the distance to Newton was 13 miles; and the drive to Dieterich was 4 miles. Additionally, counsel argued that Matthew had family in Dieterich who could pick up the children in Dieterich, if needed. Counsel argued that the community of identification was clearly Dieterich, as the Mettes attended church and shop there and the older child plays T-ball and had friends in Dieterich. The Mettes had no relationship with 18 the Newton community. ¶ 39 A Google Earth map, marked as exhibit E, was also attached to the motion for rehearing. This map illustrated the distances involved in the drive from the Mette property to Sainte Marie, the District 1 kindergarten. Exhibit F was a map, which illustrated that the property between the Mette boundary line and District 30 was not suitable for building homes. Therefore, it was unlikely that homes would be built in that area and detach from District 1. Counsel then introduced exhibits G and G-1, which were intended to show other property owners who had “detached from Richland, or another school district, or Clay, and annexed to Jasper County.” The Mettes’ counsel commented, “there is an awful lot of people that live in Richland Cou