THE WARNINGS BEFORE THE HARM:
THE ILLINOIS LAW DESIGNED TO PROTECT STUDENTS
October 28, 2026 | ETHAN CROSS | GENERATION NEXT | F4F NEWS | Fighting4Freeport
Faith's Law recognizes that professional boundaries can be violated long before criminal conduct occurs. But are Illinois schools doing enough to ensure those protections work?
What happens when a teacher crosses a professional boundary with a student, but no crime has been established? What happens when another educator witnesses concerning behavior but remains silent? And who is responsible when the warning signs of an inappropriate relationship are visible long before allegations of sexual misconduct become public?
In Illinois, these questions are not simply matters of personal judgment or professional ethics. They are addressed by state law through legislation designed to protect students from sexual misconduct and establish expectations for the adults entrusted with their education.
The legislation is known as Faith's Law, and one of its central provisions, 105 ILCS 5/22-85.5, Sexual Misconduct in Schools, requires Illinois school districts, charter schools, and nonpublic schools to maintain employee codes of professional conduct addressing relationships with students.
The provision became applicable July 1, 2022. Its significance extends beyond defining sexual misconduct. It recognizes that professional boundaries can be violated without a criminal offense having occurred, that repeated violations may signal grooming, and that educators who become aware of troubling conduct may possess information essential to protecting students.
More than four years later, the law presents a fundamental question for public education: Are schools merely adopting the policies Illinois requires, or are they ensuring those policies provide meaningful protection?
The distinction matters because a school can have written rules without necessarily ensuring they are understood, followed, or appropriately enforced. And when students depend on adults to recognize and respond to concerning behavior, that difference can have lasting consequences.
The Survivor Whose Experience Changed Illinois Law
Faith's Law is named for Faith Colson, an Illinois woman who survived sexual abuse by a teacher while attending high school. Her experience exposed a troubling weakness in the institutions responsible for protecting children: adults may recognize warning signs of an inappropriate relationship without taking appropriate action.
According to the Illinois State Board of Education, Colson learned years after the abuse, during legal proceedings, that several adults at her school had suspected her teacher's relationship with her was inappropriate but had failed to properly report their concerns.
The significance of that revelation extended beyond the misconduct of one educator. It raised questions about the responsibility of colleagues, administrators, and school institutions when warning signs become apparent.
Colson subsequently advocated for legislative changes intended to prevent similar failures, helping inspire two major pieces of legislation passed by the Illinois General Assembly.
The first, Public Act 102-0676, took effect December 3, 2021, with its employee professional conduct requirements becoming applicable July 1, 2022. It established a definition of sexual misconduct within the Illinois School Code and required schools to develop policies addressing professional boundaries between employees and students.
The second, Public Act 102-0702, took effect July 1, 2023. It expanded protections through employment history reviews, procedures for notifying affected students and parents or guardians of alleged sexual misconduct, and additional responsibilities involving educator misconduct.
Together, the measures sought to address a problem that criminal prosecution alone cannot solve: the failure to recognize, report, or appropriately respond to concerning conduct before further harm occurs.
The legislation also reflects a recognition that student safety cannot depend entirely on a young person's willingness or ability to identify misconduct and report it. Adults have responsibilities, too, and those responsibilities do not disappear simply because a student has not made a formal complaint.
Sexual Misconduct Is Not Limited to Physical Contact
One of the most consequential provisions of Faith's Law is its statutory definition of sexual misconduct.
Under Section 22-85.5(c), sexual misconduct encompasses conduct by a school employee or agent with direct student contact that is directed toward or involves a student for the purpose of establishing a romantic or sexual relationship.
The definition includes verbal, nonverbal, written, and electronic communications, as well as physical activity. Among the examples identified by lawmakers are romantic or sexual invitations, dating or soliciting dates, romantic or sexualized conversations, sexually suggestive comments, sexual or romantic self-disclosure or exposure, and inappropriate physical contact.
This definition establishes an important distinction between sexual misconduct under the School Code and conduct that constitutes a criminal offense. A teacher does not necessarily have to engage in physical sexual activity with a student for behavior to fall within the School Code's definition of sexual misconduct. The statute recognizes that conduct intended to establish a romantic or sexual relationship may itself be inappropriate, even before physical contact occurs.
That does not mean every friendly interaction, personal conversation, or instance of additional attention constitutes misconduct. The statutory definition requires consideration of the conduct's purpose and circumstances.
Healthy relationships between teachers and students remain essential to education. Educators frequently provide mentorship, academic assistance, encouragement, and emotional support that can profoundly influence young people's lives.
But the authority and trust associated with teaching create responsibilities that distinguish those relationships from ordinary friendships or romantic relationships between adults. The purpose of professional boundaries is not to discourage teachers from caring about students. It is to ensure that the trust placed in educators is not used to pursue inappropriate personal relationships.
Illinois Law Specifically Recognizes the Warning Signs of Grooming
Perhaps the most revealing language in Section 22-85.5 appears in the General Assembly's legislative findings.
Lawmakers acknowledged that many violations of professional boundaries do not rise to the level of criminal conduct but may still pose risks to student safety. They further recognized that repeated boundary violations can indicate grooming for sexual abuse.
These findings are important because they establish why schools need professional standards beyond the criminal law.
Grooming is commonly understood as a process through which an individual develops trust, influence, emotional dependence, or secrecy to facilitate exploitation. In educational settings, potentially concerning behavior may include unusually exclusive attention, inappropriate personal communications, secrecy surrounding interactions, or attempts to transform an educational relationship into a romantic one.
Such behavior must be evaluated carefully. No single example necessarily establishes grooming, and the term should never be used as a substitute for evidence.
Illinois also has a separate criminal grooming statute, 720 ILCS 5/11-25, with specific legal elements. The School Code's recognition that boundary violations may indicate grooming does not mean every professional boundary violation constitutes the criminal offense of grooming.
A school may have grounds to examine or discipline inappropriate professional conduct without possessing evidence sufficient to establish a criminal offense. Conversely, the existence of a close teacher-student relationship does not automatically establish sexual misconduct.
What Faith's Law requires is a framework for maintaining professional boundaries and addressing conduct that may compromise them. It is a preventive approach to student safety, rather than one dependent exclusively on responding after criminal conduct has been established.
What Happens Outside the Classroom Still Matters
Teachers and students interact in settings extending well beyond the traditional school day. Educators supervise extracurricular activities, transport students, participate in community programs, communicate electronically, and sometimes develop relationships with students' families.
Those interactions can be entirely appropriate and beneficial. They can also create circumstances in which professional responsibilities and personal relationships become difficult to distinguish.
Section 22-85.5(d) requires covered schools to establish employee codes of professional conduct that identify expectations for maintaining professional relationships with students. Those expectations must account for students' ages and developmental levels and include guidelines addressing student transportation, photographs and videos, and meetings or contact outside an employee's professional role.
The law does not establish a universal prohibition against students visiting a teacher's home, communicating with teachers outside school, or participating in legitimate activities away from school grounds. Instead, it requires schools to establish standards governing these situations.
That distinction places significant responsibility on local school districts. A district's adopted policies may establish restrictions, approval procedures, documentation requirements, or other safeguards concerning interactions that occur outside ordinary educational settings. Whether a particular interaction violates those policies depends on the applicable rules and the facts.
For parents, this creates important questions. Under what circumstances may a teacher meet privately with a student outside school? Are there restrictions on personal electronic communications? What procedures apply when a student works for an educator's private business? When must concerns about an employee's relationship with a student be reported?
These are not questions that presume misconduct. They are questions about the standards designed to prevent it.
The existence of professional boundaries should not be treated as an obstacle to meaningful mentorship. Properly implemented, those boundaries protect students while giving educators clearer expectations about appropriate conduct.
Does Turning 18 Change the Rules?
The distinction between legal adulthood and student status is particularly important when evaluating relationships involving high school seniors.
Turning 18 may change an individual's legal rights and responsibilities, but it does not automatically terminate that person's status as a student or eliminate the professional obligations of educators.
The definition of sexual misconduct in Section 22-85.5 applies to students and does not create a blanket exception for enrolled students who have reached age 18. An educator's conduct toward an adult student may therefore remain subject to the School Code and applicable district policies.
Graduation introduces a different legal question. A romantic relationship that begins after a former student graduates is not automatically prohibited by Section 22-85.5 merely because the individuals previously had a teacher-student relationship.
However, where allegations concern conduct that occurred during enrollment, the timing and nature of those interactions remain relevant. Subsequent graduation does not erase a professional boundary violation that occurred while the person was a student. At the same time, a relationship that begins after graduation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct occurred beforehand.
These distinctions protect both students and educators by requiring allegations to be evaluated according to evidence rather than assumptions. They also demonstrate why schools need clear professional standards governing relationships before disputes arise about when particular conduct began.
School-Sponsored Trips and the Responsibility to Supervise Students
Educational travel provides opportunities that can shape a student's future. Academic conferences, competitions, leadership programs, and extracurricular activities allow young people to develop skills and experiences beyond their regular classrooms.
But when students travel away from home under school supervision, the responsibility entrusted to educators becomes particularly significant. Overnight trips may involve hotel accommodations, transportation, recreational activities, and extended periods in which students depend on school personnel for their safety.
Section 22-85.5 requires employee codes of professional conduct to address student transportation and appropriate employee-student boundaries. However, it does not establish a statewide minimum number of chaperones for every school-sponsored trip or require that chaperones be of a particular gender.
Those questions must be examined under applicable district policies, trip requirements, and other governing rules.
Similarly, the participation of a recent graduate in a school-sponsored activity is not automatically prohibited by Section 22-85.5. Whether such participation is permitted depends on the individual's authorized role, the activity's requirements, and applicable district procedures.
Questions concerning the use of taxpayer funds require separate examination of public expenditure rules, district authorizations, and the source and purpose of the funding.
These distinctions are important because assumptions about what a school should prohibit are not substitutes for the policies it has actually adopted.
Nevertheless, the underlying questions of oversight remain substantial. Who approves overnight travel? Who determines appropriate supervision? How are chaperones selected? What procedures govern additional participants? What safeguards exist when students report concerns during a trip?
Schools should be able to explain the procedures governing these decisions. And when questions arise, the answers should be found in documented policies and authorizations rather than speculation.
When Other Educators Know, Silence Can Have Consequences
One of the central lessons of Faith Colson's experience concerns the adults who may recognize warning signs but fail to respond.
Section 22-85.5 expressly acknowledges that educators acting as bystanders may possess knowledge of concerning behavior unavailable to others. The General Assembly recognized the importance of training school employees concerning sexual abuse, professional conduct policies, and reporting requirements.
The statute requires employee codes of professional conduct to reference reporting obligations under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act and Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972. It also requires references to applicable training concerning child abuse and educator ethics.
Under subsection (f), violations of an employee code of professional conduct may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. The same potential consequences apply when an employee fails to report a violation of that policy.
This is a significant provision because it recognizes that responsibility for professional conduct does not necessarily end with the employee whose behavior is questioned. Other employees may also have obligations when they become aware of violations.
However, the legal standards governing different types of reports must not be confused.
Illinois mandated reporters generally must report to the Department of Children and Family Services when they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused or neglected as defined by applicable law. Title IX imposes separate requirements, and internal district policies may establish additional reporting procedures.
Not every rumor or questionable interaction automatically triggers the same reporting obligation. Determining whether an employee failed to fulfill a duty requires examining what the employee knew, the circumstances surrounding that knowledge, and the applicable legal or policy requirements.
Still, the law makes one principle clear: employees may face consequences for failing to report violations of professional conduct policies. A school culture in which legitimate concerns are ignored or minimized can undermine even carefully drafted safeguards.
Faith's Law Also Addresses Notification of Students and Parents
Professional conduct policies are only one part of Illinois's broader statutory framework.
A separate provision, 105 ILCS 5/22-85.10, establishes requirements for notifying affected students and, in applicable circumstances, their parents or guardians when allegations of sexual misconduct arise involving school employees, agents, or contractors.
The statute requires covered schools to implement notification procedures and addresses both initial allegations and certain formal employment actions following investigations.
These requirements are not identical to a general obligation to announce allegations to the entire school community. Notification obligations depend on the statutory circumstances, including the student's age, whether the student is emancipated, the nature of the allegation, and applicable confidentiality protections.
For students who are at least 18 or emancipated, the parental-notification rules differ from those applicable to younger students.
The law also addresses notification following formal employment actions connected to investigations, including termination or acceptance of an employee's resignation.
The distinction between notifying an affected student or family and publicly disclosing personnel information is important. Student privacy, confidentiality obligations, and the integrity of investigations remain legitimate considerations.
Nevertheless, the notification requirements reflect a broader legislative judgment: families and affected students should not necessarily be left unaware when serious allegations arise involving school personnel.
That creates another area of institutional accountability beyond the question of whether an employee violated a professional boundary. Schools must also understand and follow the procedures that govern how allegations are handled and communicated.
A School Investigation Is Not the Same as a Criminal Investigation
Public controversies involving educator misconduct frequently become entangled in questions about criminal charges, administrative findings, and employment decisions.
These processes are related, but they are not interchangeable.
A criminal investigation examines whether evidence supports allegations of conduct prohibited by criminal law. A school district must also consider its employee code of professional conduct, applicable employment obligations, and the requirements imposed by education law.
A determination that criminal charges are not warranted does not automatically establish that an educator complied with every professional standard. Likewise, an allegation of misconduct does not establish that a teacher violated the law or district policy.
The Illinois State Board of Education's Faith's Law guidance explains that a school, through its administration or governing board, determines whether sufficient evidence exists to find that an employee committed an act of sexual misconduct for purposes of applicable school procedures.
That determination may involve evidence and standards distinct from those used in criminal proceedings.
Section 22-85.5 permits disciplinary consequences for violations of employee conduct policies, up to and including dismissal. It does not automatically mandate termination whenever an allegation is made.
Other applicable laws, employment protections, and contractual obligations may also affect disciplinary decisions.
This makes procedural fairness essential. Students deserve serious consideration of their concerns. Educators deserve protection against unsupported accusations and arbitrary disciplinary decisions. And school districts have an obligation to evaluate evidence responsibly.
Accountability does not mean presuming guilt. It means establishing what occurred, determining which standards applied, and evaluating whether the institution fulfilled its responsibilities.
Policies Are Public. Accountability Requires More.
Illinois law does not leave the existence of employee professional conduct policies entirely to administrative discretion.
Section 22-85.5 requires covered schools to develop a policy incorporating the Code of Ethics for Illinois Educators and the statute's definition of sexual misconduct.
The policy must identify expectations for appropriate professional relationships and address the specific circumstances identified in the law.
Under the version of the statute in effect in October 2026, the employee code must be posted on the school's website, if it has one, and included in the applicable handbooks specified by law.
The Illinois State Board of Education has also issued guidance concerning the development, publication, and implementation of these policies.
An amendment scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, under Public Act 104-0831, expands the express publication requirements to include the specified boundary guidelines and available methods for reporting violations internally and to external agencies.
That future amendment should not be confused with the requirements already in effect in October 2026.
But publication alone is not evidence that a policy is working.
A district may have adopted a code of conduct without employees fully understanding its requirements. Training may exist without every concern being appropriately recognized. Reporting procedures may be available without students knowing how to use them.
These are potential weaknesses that cannot be established through speculation. They must be examined through actual policies, training records, reporting procedures, and documented institutional responses.
The distinction between having safeguards and implementing them is central to any serious examination of school accountability.
What Does This Mean for Freeport School District 145?
Freeport School District 145 is subject to the same statewide professional conduct requirements established by Section 22-85.5 as other Illinois public school districts.
That does not establish that the district has violated the law, failed to investigate misconduct, or neglected its responsibilities.
It does establish that the district is required to maintain a professional conduct policy addressing the statutory subjects, including appropriate employee-student relationships and contact outside professional roles.
For Freeport families, the relevant questions begin with those policies.
What standards has the district adopted? How are they communicated to employees? What training is provided? How are concerns about professional boundaries reported? What procedures govern student transportation and school-sponsored travel? How does the district distinguish an allegation from a substantiated policy violation?
Those questions can be answered through documentary evidence, district policies, and information that may be available through public records.
Other questions, particularly those involving confidential student information or protected personnel records, may be subject to legitimate disclosure restrictions.
The public's interest in institutional accountability does not eliminate the privacy rights of students or employees. But confidentiality should not prevent a district from explaining its general policies, procedures, and legal responsibilities.
For school boards, the challenge is ensuring that the rules adopted to protect students are understood and implemented. For administrators, it is responding appropriately when concerns arise. For educators, it is maintaining professional boundaries and fulfilling applicable reporting obligations. And for families, it is knowing what protections exist and how to seek help when those protections may be needed.
The Responsibility Cannot Rest on Students Alone
Young people are often encouraged to report inappropriate behavior, speak up when something feels wrong, and seek help from trusted adults.
Those messages are important, but they address only part of the problem.
Students should not be expected to possess the legal knowledge or professional experience necessary to distinguish every inappropriate boundary from ordinary mentorship.
They may not recognize the significance of unusual attention from a trusted educator. They may fear being disbelieved, embarrassed, or blamed. They may also worry about consequences for their education or relationships within the school community.
That vulnerability is one reason professional boundaries exist. The adults entrusted with educating students have responsibilities that cannot be transferred to the young people under their supervision.
Faith's Law reflects that principle by requiring institutions to establish professional standards and recognizing the importance of employees who may observe concerning conduct.
It also acknowledges that preventing sexual misconduct requires more than reacting after a criminal offense has occurred. The goal is to create educational environments in which professional expectations are clear, concerns can be raised appropriately, and misconduct can be addressed through fair and effective procedures.
For the next generation, those protections are not abstract legal concepts. They influence whether students feel safe seeking guidance from teachers, participating in extracurricular activities, traveling for educational opportunities, and trusting the institutions responsible for their development.
The overwhelming majority of interactions between educators and students are not the subject of misconduct allegations. Teachers perform important work every day, often providing encouragement and stability that young people carry throughout their lives.
Clear professional boundaries help preserve that trust. And consistent accountability helps ensure it is not misplaced.
The Law Exists. The Question Is Whether Schools Are Living Up to It.
Faith's Law emerged from a survivor's experience and the recognition that adults who might have intervened did not take appropriate action.
Its professional conduct requirements have now applied to Illinois schools for more than four years.
The law cannot guarantee that misconduct will never occur. No statute can eliminate every risk or ensure that every adult will exercise appropriate judgment.
What it can do is establish responsibilities.
It can require schools to define professional boundaries. It can recognize the importance of reporting violations. It can authorize disciplinary consequences for misconduct and failures to report. And, through related provisions, it can establish procedures for informing affected students and families when allegations arise.
Those safeguards provide a basis for evaluating institutional conduct.
The public does not need to presume wrongdoing to ask whether a school is following the law. Nor should allegations be treated as established facts simply because they generate public concern.
The appropriate measure of accountability is evidence: the policies that existed, the information available to responsible officials, the procedures that applied, and the actions actually taken.
For young people, that standard matters.
Students deserve to know that their safety is not dependent on the popularity of an educator, the reputation of an institution, or the willingness of adults to acknowledge uncomfortable concerns.
They deserve schools where mentorship is encouraged, professional boundaries are respected, and allegations are handled with fairness and seriousness.
A school cannot promise that no employee will ever cross a boundary. It can, however, be expected to establish the safeguards required by law, take legitimate concerns seriously, and hold employees accountable when violations are substantiated.
That is the promise behind Faith's Law.
And for Illinois students, it is a promise that deserves more than a place in an employee handbook.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sources and Legal References
Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/22-85.5, Sexual Misconduct in Schools.
Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/22-85.10, Parental Notification of Sexual Misconduct.
Illinois State Board of Education, Faith's Law Guidance and FAQ.
Illinois State Board of Education, Faith's Law.
Public Acts 102-0676, 102-0702, and 104-0831.
Editor's Note: This article examines Illinois law applicable as of October 28, 2026. It does not establish that any individual educator or school district violated the law. The January 1, 2027 amendment is identified separately from the requirements currently in effect.