In June 2001, plaintiff, Comprehensive CommunitySolutions, Inc. (CCS), submitted a charter-school applicationto defendant, Rockford School District No. 205 (School District). In September 2001, the School District rejected CCS'sproposal. CCS appealed the decision to defendant, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). In May 2002, ISBEaffirmed the School District's denial of the charter. In July2002, CCS filed a complaint for administrative review. InSeptember 2003, the circuit court affirmed ISBE's decision.

On appeal, CCS argues (1) this court should presumethe findings of the ISBE appeal panel are true, (2) ISBE'sdenial of the charter-school application violated the CharterSchools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A-1 through 27A-13 (West 2000)), and(3) ISBE's decision was clearly erroneous. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2001, CCS submitted a charter-school application to the School District pursuant to the Charter SchoolsLaw (105 ILCS 5/27A-1 through 27A-13 (West 2000)), proposingthe YouthBuild Rockford Charter School (YouthBuild) to serve"at-risk and out-of-school students through a multifacetedprogram of educational, social, and employability supportsthat provide youth with the full range of resources they needto transition from 'street to work' or 'street to school'effectively." The application included a financial planregarding the economic soundness of the proposed charterschool as required by section 27A-7(a)(9) of the CharterSchools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a)(9) (West 2000)).

On August 14, 2001, the Rockford Board of Educationheld a public meeting, wherein several people expressed support for the YouthBuild proposal. The Board of Education'scharter- school advisory committee evaluated the proposal andrecommended approval of a contract contingent upon successfulnegotiations of the financial plan. On August 28, 2001, theBoard of Education rejected a motion to grant the YouthBuildproposal by a 3 to 3 vote. In September 2001, the Board ofEducation filed a report, notifying ISBE of the denial of theYouthBuild proposal. In part, the report indicated boardmembers found the YouthBuild proposal would provide "duplicative" services and "[g]iven the dire financial situation, theRockford School District cannot take on more debt." CCSformally appealed the decision to ISBE.

In November 2001, an ISBE appeal panel held a hearing as to CCS's appeal. The School District stated it currently had a $20 million deficit in its education fund and hadbeen "operating on a deficit budget for at least 25 years." In January 2002, the appeal panel requested additional information from CCS.

In February 2002, the appeal panel found theYouthBuild proposal complied with the Charter Schools Law andrecommended the denial of the proposal be reversed and ISBEgrant the charter. The appeal panel found the "cumulative net'deficits' to Rockford over five years ranging from $2,570,962at 100% of the per capita tuition rate to $1,873,170 at 80% ofthe per capita rate. These figures represent .27% and .20%respectively of the five-year cumulative educational budgetsprojected for Rockford." The appeal panel noted the possibleloss of revenue was not to be minimized but noted "a revenueloss to the district is inescapable under the Charter SchoolsLaw[] but is necessary to serve the law's goal 'to provideparents and pupils with expanded choices within the publicschool system.'" Further, the panel found

"[b]y funding charter schools through per[-] capita payments from the district, theCharter Schools Law recognizes that thefunding in essence 'belongs to' the studentand the student's parents[] and may bespent in a charter school rather than inthe district's schools if the parents seefit. So viewed, the creation of a charter'costs' a district nothing."

The appeal panel concluded the financial impact on the SchoolDistrict did not make the proposal economically unsound byjeopardizing the educational programs available to the SchoolDistrict's other students. The State Superintendent ofEducation, Respicio F. Vazquez, reviewed the record andrecommended ISBE grant a charter to the YouthBuild charterschool.

On February 20 and 21, 2002, ISBE held a meeting todiscuss CCS's charter-school appeal and requested additionalinformation. On March 13, 2002, ISBE held another meeting andrequested additional information. The School Districtprovided information, indicating that if the charter-schoolproposal was approved, the total estimated deficit incurred bythe School District would be $1,037,363. Further, the SchoolDistrict stated that in considering the $12,200,034 in budgetcuts and $55,000,000 in tax-anticipation warrants maturing inOctober 2002, "it [was] apparent that the [School District]cannot take on new debt." The School District's report alsoindicated a referendum to repay tax objectors would require anadditional $3,100,000 to be paid to bondholders over a 10-yearperiod.

In May 2002, ISBE conducted meetings on the charter-school appeal. ISBE board members voted down the motion toreverse the School District's denial of the proposal on a 4 to4 vote. The members voting to deny the charter expressedtheir concerns over the School District's financial problems. In its final decision denying the appeal, ISBE found theproposed charter school was "not economically sound for [theSchool District] in view of the serious financial problemsthat currently exist in the district."

In July 2002, CCS filed a complaint foradministrative review, asking the circuit court to reverse thedecisions of the School District and ISBE and grant itscharter. In January 2003, the court remanded the matter toISBE to set forth what evidence it accepted or rejected inmaking its decision. In June 2003, ISBE indicated it deniedthe appeal for the following reasons:

"(1) board members were concerned thatthe charter[-]school proposal had notadequately shown that it was economicallysound for the charter school and the schooldistrict;

(2) board members reviewed additionalmaterial such as an independent financialanalysis by ISBE staff of costs and budgetimpact; and

(3) board members expressedreservations that the charter[-]schoolproposal was in the best interests of thestudents it was designed to serve."

In September 2003, the court affirmed the administrativedecision. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a final decision under theAdministrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 through 3-113(West 2002)), this court reviews the administrative agency'sdecision and not the circuit court's determination. KeyOutdoor, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 322 Ill. App.3d 316, 320, 750 N.E.2d 709, 712 (2001). Cases involvingISBE's decision to accept or reject a charter-schoolapplication involve a mixed question of fact and law. Boardof Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 59v. State Board of Education, 317 Ill. App. 3d 790, 796, 740N.E.2d 428, 434 (2000). The standard of review applicable toagency decisions that present a mixed question of law and factis the clearly erroneous standard. City of Belvidere v.Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205,692 N.E.2d 295, 302 (1998). Under this standard, we willreverse only if, after reviewing the entire record, we are"'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistakehas been committed.'" AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v.Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 393, 763N.E.2d 272, 280-81 (2001), quoting United States v. UnitedStates Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 766, 68S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948).

B. Review of Findings

CCS argues this court should base our review on thefindings of ISBE's appeal panel and "not the cursory, incomplete[,] and unexplained conclusions of *** ISBE." Wedisagree.

Under the Charter Schools Law, an applicant seekingto establish a charter school must submit a proposal to ISBEand the local school board, setting forth all the details ofthe proposed charter school. 105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a) (West 2000). The proposal must include, inter alia, a proposed budget and"[e]vidence that the terms of the charter as proposed areeconomically sound for both the charter school and the schooldistrict." 105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a)(9) (West 2000).

After the local school board decides to grant ordeny the charter-school proposal, it must file a report withISBE. 105 ILCS 5/27A-8(f) (West 2000). The applicant mayappeal the denial of the proposal to ISBE, and ISBE mayrequest additional evidence to decide the appeal. 23 Ill.Adm. Code