• 3 The role of the judiciary on administrative review is limited to a determination that the board applied the statutory standards and that the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. ( Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 666.) Where the evidence is conflicting and the board's findings of fact are supported by evidence, this court cannot hold that a decision of the board is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
• 3 Even in the absence of substantial detriment to the losing district, however, petitioners must establish that detachment is in the best interests of the affected district and the educational welfare of the pupils. (See Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 664; Board of Education v. RegionalBoard of School Trustees (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 501, 504; Bowman v. County Board of School Trustees (1974), 16 Ill. App.3d 1082, 1085.) The hearing board must consider the following factors relative to the students' educational welfare: (1) the differences between the districts' facilities; (2) the effect detachment will have on either district's ability to meet statutory standards of recognition; (3) the effects on tax revenues; (4) the relative distances of the districts from students' homes; (5) identification of the detaching area with the annexing district; (6) the likelihood of child and parent participation in school activities, and (7) the convenience and personal desires of parents and children.
Pontiac argues that this finding evidences a consideration of the "community of interests" factor as set forth in Golf but ignores the "whole child" factor, which is so closely intertwined. Pontiac cites to two recent cases, Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 497 N.E.2d 152, and Dresner v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 150 Ill. App.3d 765, 501 N.E.2d 983, where the court affirmed the Board's denial of a detachment petition because there was no evidence regarding the educational welfare of students. We find Fixmer and Dresner persuasive authority for the case before us.
( Waste Management, 160 Ill. App.3d at 441-42, 513 N.E.2d at 597.) The role of a reviewing court on administrative review is limited to a determination of whether the administrative agency's decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ( McHenry County Landfill, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (1987), 154 Ill. App.3d 89, 100, 506 N.E.2d 372; Fixmer v. RegionalBoard of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 666, 497 N.E.2d 152), and, as such, a reviewing court should not reweigh conflicting testimony. McHenry County Landfill, 154 Ill. App.3d at 100, 506 N.E.2d at 379; Fixmer, 146 Ill. App.3d at 666, 497 N.E.2d at 156-57.
In doing so, we must apply the manifest weight of the evidence standard to each criterion separately. ( Waste Management, 160 Ill. App.3d at 441-42, 513 N.E.2d at 597.) The role of a reviewing court on administrative review is limited to a determination of whether the administrative agency's decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ( McHenry County Landfill, Inc. v. Environmental ProtectionAgency (1987), 154 Ill. App.3d 89, 100, 506 N.E.2d 372; Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 666, 497 N.E.2d 152), and as such a reviewing court should not reweigh conflicting testimony. McHenry County Landfill, 154 Ill. App.3d at 100, 506 N.E.2d at 379; Fixmer, 146 Ill. App.3d at 666, 497 N.E.2d at 156-57.
• 1 The Guards as petitioners had the burden to show that it was in the best interests of the area schools and the pupils' welfare to allow a change of boundaries. It was their burden to support their petition with substantial evidence. ( Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 664, 497 N.E.2d 152, 155.) In Oakdale Community Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 v. County Board of School Trustees (1957), 12 Ill.2d 190, 145 N.E.2d 736, our supreme court stated:
Under the circumstances, we thus conclude that the Board's denial of the plaintiffs' petition to detach and annex was clearly erroneous.¶ 30 We acknowledge that in Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees of Kane County, 146 Ill. App. 3d 660, 665 (1986), the court held that a reduction in the distance and time traveled on a school bus "is not, in itself," a sufficient basis for granting a petition to detach and annex. See also First National Bank of Elgin v. West Aurora School District 129, 200 Ill. App. 3d 210, 217 (1990).
The effect of the detachment petition on children currently attending school should be considered over the possible impact on future children. Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 146 Ill.App.3d 660, 665–66, 100 Ill.Dec. 272, 497 N.E.2d 152 (1986); see also Phillips v. Special Hearing Board, 154 Ill.App.3d 799, 807, 105 Ill.Dec. 733, 504 N.E.2d 1251 (1986) (the preferences of the most directly impacted persons should be strongly considered). ¶ 64 Here, the vast majority of people who were sending their children to public school, or who themselves were public school students, testified against the detachment petition.
Carver, 146 Ill.2d at 359-60; see alsoGolf, 89 Ill.2d at 400 ("Students from the detachment area would benefit by improved safety conditions in traveling to and from school"); Burnidge v. County Board of School Trustees, 25 Ill. App.2d 503, 509 (1960) ("In addition to the savings in transportation costs, and diminution in time spent daily by children riding a bus, there would be a certain safety factor by reason of diminution of exposure and certainly a lessening of fatigue accompanying a long bus ride to and from school"); Board of Education of Jonesboro Community Consolidated School District No. 43 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 86 Ill. App.3d 230, 234 (1980) (benefit of shorter distance to school "would be reflected in time, safety, effort, and expense"). A reduction in travel time, however, is not sufficient by itself to justify a boundary change. First National Bank v. West Aurora School District 129, 200 Ill. App.3d 210, 217 (1990); Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 665 (1986). Although relevant, the personal preferences of the petitioners as to shopping, banking, et cetera, are not a sufficient basis for granting a petition.
Accordingly, we find this unsupported contention without merit. Having concluded that the Regional Board's findings that neither school district would suffer substantial detriment if the petition were granted are supported by evidence in the record (see Fixmer v. Regional Board of School Trustees (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 660, 664), we must consider whether there is some evidence in the record to support a finding of educational benefit to the children affected. ( Carver, 146 Ill. 2d at 358.)