{ "id": 8499446, "name": "STACY DONALDSON, a Minor, by Charlotte Reyes, his Mother and Next Friend, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR DANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 118 et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Donaldson ex rel. Reyes v. Board of Education for Danville School District No. 118", "decision_date": "1981-07-17", "docket_number": "No. 16852", "first_page": "438", "last_page": "440", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 Ill. App. 3d 438" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 1103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3288570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 N.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2802615 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/38/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.W.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Tenn. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8528861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/202/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 N.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ohio App. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6705783 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-app-2d/28/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 N.E.2d 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 Mass. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 524498 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/349/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. App. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2830827 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/182/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 N.E. 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 Ill. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5122972 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/312/0163-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 465, "char_count": 6612, "ocr_confidence": 0.864, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.0470817662713137e-07, "percentile": 0.8556518159939054 }, "sha256": "5474f141854095d1366ebd2d7a35869e00bbecbb80cdaea1ec6a0fc3169e6014", "simhash": "1:299442877c57ecd4", "word_count": 1085 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:15.436815+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WEBBER and GREEN, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STACY DONALDSON, a Minor, by Charlotte Reyes, his Mother and Next Friend, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR DANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 118 et al., Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA fight at school.\nOne student combatant received corporal punishment, the other 3 days\u2019 suspension.\nWe affirm.\nThis is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for certiorari and for injunctive relief, in which petitioner Stacy Donaldson challenged the respondent school board\u2019s action in suspending him from school. The petition alleges that on September 30,1980, Donaldson, a seventh grader in the Danville school system, got into a \u201csmall fight\u201d with classmate Anthony Griffin. This was the first time either student had been discovered in combat upon school property. Griffin received corporal punishment in the form of \u201ctwo swats\u201d and was returned to class. Previous to September 30, Donaldson\u2019s mother had informed the school that her son was not to be administered corporal punishment. (A rule adopted by the board had allowed her to give this notice.) Donaldson\u2019s punishment was suspension from school for 3 days \u2014 October 1-3. Since Donaldson\u2019s 3-day absence was thus unexcused, he was not allowed to make up \u201cfinal examinations\u201d and other work missed during that time. As a result, Donaldson\u2019s grades were lowered.\nDonaldson\u2019s suspension was upheld by a hearing officer following a hearing held October 3 and the board of education approved the suspension on October 22. The report of the hearing officer indicates that Donaldson, too, would have been \u201cswatted\u201d had it been possible to use corporal punishment on him.\nDonaldson, though conceding that his behavior was punishable, argues that some other form of available disciplinary action, which would have been less disruptive of his education, should have been used. Thus, he attacks the propriety of the decision to suspend him for 3 days. The parties disagree as to whether the petition alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. The trial court held that it does not, and we agree.\nSchool discipline is an area which courts enter with great hesitation and reluctance \u2014 and rightly so. School officials are trained and paid to determine what form of punishment best addresses a particular student\u2019s transgression. They are in a far better position than is a black-robed judge to decide what to do with a disobedient child at school. They can best determine, for instance, whether a suspension or an after-school detention will be more effective in correcting a student\u2019s behavior. Because of their expertise and their closeness to the situation \u2014 and because we do not want them to fear court challenges to their every act \u2014 school officials are given wide discretion in their disciplinary actions.\nIllinois courts have, therefore, said that a decision to suspend or expel a student will be overturned only if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, or oppressive. (Burroughs v. Mortenson (1924), 312 Ill. 163, 143 N.E. 457; Smith v. Board of Education (1913), 182 Ill. App. 342.) This same standard is used by courts in other States. Leonard v. School Committee (1965), 349 Mass. 704, 212 N.E.2d 468; Laucher v. Simpson (1971), 28 Ohio App. 2d 195, 276 N.E.2d 261; State ex rel. Thompson v. Marion County Board of Education (1957), 202 Tenn. 29, 302 S.W.2d 57.\nThus, to reverse the trial court\u2019s dismissal of Donaldson\u2019s petition, we must find that Donaldson stated a cause of action by alleging facts showing an abuse of the especially broad discretion given school officials in making disciplinary decisions.\nPossibly there would be a situation in which imposition of a 3-day suspension would be an abuse of discretion. (See generally Knight v. Board of Education (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 603, 348 N.E.2d 299.) This, however, is not such a case. Donaldson does not argue that a 3-day suspension is per se an excessive punishment for being in a fight. But he makes much of the fact that his suspension fell during \u201cfinal examinations,\u201d thus reducing his grade. That, however, was due to the unfortunate timing of his fight and misconduct, not to a disciplinarian\u2019s decision to make Donaldson\u2019s punishment particularly onerous by suspending him during an examination period. The record indicates that the suspension began the day after the fight. We cannot fault respondents for this timing, for they were surely reasonable to think that punishment must immediately follow an offense in order to impress more fully upon the student the error of his ways.\nIt is also important to observe that these could not have been \u201cfinal examinations\u201d in the sense of being at the end of a semester or the completion of a course. Since they occurred in early October, they must have been 6-week tests and thus would not be of a type that would have such a substantial effect upon Donaldson\u2019s ultimate grades as to make the decision to suspend him during that time arbitrary. Also, we note that Donaldson is in the seventh grade. He is not in high school, where grades are usually thought of as being more important and can affect a student\u2019s educational and employment prospects after he leaves public school.\nConsidering all these factors, along with the fact that Donaldson\u2019s mother foreclosed the possibility of using corporal punishment, we do not see the suspension as rising to the level of an arbitrary act.\nDonaldson also contends that his complaint states a cause of action based on retaliation in that he was given a 3-day suspension because his mother had exercised her right to notify school officials that her son was not to be given corporal punishment. This basis for reversal, however, was brought up for the first time in Donaldson\u2019s reply brief and has therefore been waived. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 341(g); Farns Associates, Inc. v. Sternback (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 249, 395 N.E.2d 1103.\n(The parties have also briefed the issue of the validity of a regulation issued by the State Board of Education requiring local school boards to notify parents that they may forbid the use of corporal punishment upon their children. Respondents complied with this rule, and we therefore see no need to address that issue.)\nAffirmed.\nWEBBER and GREEN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mary A. Rice, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Danville, and Thomas E. Kennedy III, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, of East St. Louis, for appellant.", "Wendell W. Wright, of Wright and Wright, of Danville, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STACY DONALDSON, a Minor, by Charlotte Reyes, his Mother and Next Friend, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR DANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 118 et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 16852\nOpinion filed July 17, 1981.\nMary A. Rice, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Danville, and Thomas E. Kennedy III, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, of East St. Louis, for appellant.\nWendell W. Wright, of Wright and Wright, of Danville, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0438-01", "first_page_order": 462, "last_page_order": 464 }