|
In a decision issued February 15th, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts upheld the Commonwealth’s school funding system, despite finding severe inadequacies and inequities in the system. The SJC decision in Hancock v. Driscoll rejected the finding of a specially assigned trial court judge that the Commonwealth was failing to meet its duty under the state constitution to provide an adequate education to all Massachusetts children. The Court also declined to uphold the trial judge’s recommended remedies, which included funding high quality preschool for all low-income three- and four-year-old children at-risk for school failure.
The 5-2 decision reversed the trial judge’s ruling for plaintiff students
from low-wealth school districts. The trial judge had recommended that the
Commonwealth study the actual cost of providing all children an adequate education;
determine the costs of improving the capacity of local districts to effectively
implement essential programs; and follow through on needed changes. The trial
judge also recommended specific programs that must be included in the cost
study, including preschool education for at-risk children, special education,
adequate school facilities, and all seven of the state’s curriculum content
frameworks.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall, rejected the recommendation for a cost study, finding that it would divert attention from educational reform and that any study "is rife with policy choices that are properly the Legislature’s domain." The Chief Justice singled out the preschool recommendation as an example of impermissible judicial intervention.
Despite rejecting the recommended remedies, the Chief Justice acknowledged the trial judge’s "thoughtful and detailed" findings and "share[d] the judge’s concern that sharp disparities in the educational opportunities, and the performance, of some Massachusetts public school students persists." The Chief Justice also recognized that the Commonwealth itself concedes "serious inadequacies in public education remain." Yet these inadequacies are not constitutionally fatal because of the "comprehensive and systematic overhaul of State financial aid to and oversight of public schools" undertaken by the Commonwealth in response to the 1993 decision in McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Educ. (1993). The SJC decision in McDuffy, which declared the school finance system unconstitutional, resulted in the enactment of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993.
Chief Justice Marshall concluded that the 1993 Act "profoundly altered" the Commonwealth’s role in education through standardized statewide criteria for funding that increased the state’s mandatory assistance to public schools, and by establishing uniform, objective performance and accountability measures for every public school student, teacher, administrator and school in the state. The Chief Justice also found that delays in full implementation of educational improvements were attributable not to "legislative or departmental inaction" but, at least in part, to "severe revenue shortfalls" at the state level.
One dissenting Justice questioned the Chief Justice’s failure to examine the cause of the fiscal crisis, which, in this Justice’s opinion, stemmed from the Commonwealth’s policy of income tax reductions implemented since 2000.
The Chief Justice cautioned that the Commonwealth is still open to legal challenge under the education clause if it does not continue on a course of improvement. The opinion notes that "‘the content of the duty to educate… will evolve together with our society,’ and that the education clause must be interpreted ‘in accordance with the demands of modern society or it will be in constant danger of becoming atrophied and, in fact, may even lose its meaning.’" For the time being, though, the Massachusetts high court has determined that the children of the Commonwealth must wait for full realization of their constitutional right to an adequate education.
It is not clear what impact the Hancock decision will have on school finance cases in other states. As the SJC acknowledged, "the Massachusetts Constitution may provide greater flexibility to the Legislature concerning educational strategy than the more directive provisions contained in the Constitutions of other States." The Chief Justice cited the constitutions of New Jersey, Kentucky, Ohio and Washington State as examples of more modern, directive constitutional provisions. Moreover, in contrast to the Hancock court’s acceptance of the Commonwealth’s education reform efforts as the measure of constitutional compliance, other state high courts have required an education system that provides equal opportunity for an adequate education for all children. The Hancock ruling also departs from decisions in other states by accepting fiscal constraints as a limitation on the progress of education reform. For example, in Kentucky, which has a pending school finance case with a claim for increased funding for preschool education, the Supreme Court ruled in Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc. (1989), that Kentucky taxpayers must pay for a constitutionally adequate system of common schools "no matter how large, even to the point of being unexpectedly large or even onerous." Similarly, in Wyoming, another state with a pending school finance case with a preschool claim, the Supreme Court held in Campbell County Sch. Dist. v. State (1995), that lack of resources is no excuse for not funding the very high quality education program required by the state constitution, and that education must be funded before other governmental functions.
Prepared February 28, 2005
|
