Hancock v. Driscoll Case Concludes in Massachusetts

On February 15, 2005, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the defendants in the Julie Hancock vs. Commissioner of Education adequacy lawsuit. Although the 5-2 ruling reaffirmed the 1993 adequacy decision, in McDuffy, and found that “the process of education reform can and must be improved,” it stated that this was “not a case where the Legislature reasonably could be said to have neglected or avoided a constitutional command.”

Background

Adequacy litigation originated in Massachusetts with McDuffy v. Secretary, in which a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs was followed three days later by passage of the Education Reform Act (ERA) of 1993. The ERA adjusted the system by which public schools in the state were funded, decreasing the reliance on property wealth substantially. The ERA also established a set of state standards and accountability measures. Since then, the state has implemented the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, which measures student performance and requires students to pass certain exams to get a high school diploma.

Despite progress on funding and standards, students from several of the state’s highest-poverty districts filed the Hancock motion for further relief in 1999, claiming that substantial improvements had not been made to the quality of education in their districts. The case was assigned to Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford, who presided at trial and found that students in these districts (represented in this case by four “focus districts”) were being denied their constitutional right to educational opportunity. Her findings and recommendations were then reported to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments from both sides before issuing its ruling.

The Ruling

The plurality opinion, written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, while repeatedly praising both the McDuffy decision and the findings of Judge Botsford, ultimately refuses to issue an order requiring the state to finish its incomplete education reforms. The opinion details the myriad reforms undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of the state government, as well as the improvements on all measures of student and school achievement witnessed across the state in the decade since the ERA was passed.

The chief justice praises the “amply supported findings” of Judge Botsford, which “reflect much that remains to be corrected before all children in our Commonwealth are educated” and “stand as a compelling, instructive account of the current state of public education in Massachusetts.” She recommends to the legislature that it “rely on these findings as it continues to consider efforts to improve public education” and concludes that “[n]o one reading the judge’s decision can be left with any doubt that the question is not ‘if’ more money is needed, but how much.”

The chief justice writes, “No one, including the defendants, disputes that serious inadequacies in public education remain. But the Commonwealth is moving systemically to address those deficiencies and continues to make education reform a fiscal priority.” Though she readily admits to discrepancies in the achievement of students and the resources available in the focus districts, Chief Justice Marshall argues that the progress since 1993, in those districts and across the state, is enough to remove the legislature from constitutional culpability.

While finding in favor of the Commonwealth, the chief justice is careful not to undermine the precedent set up by McDuffy, writing “Nothing I say today would insulate the Commonwealth from a successful challenge under the education clause in different circumstances.” Thus preserving the domain of the courts over the constitutional adequacy of education, she writes,

Where the governor and the Legislature establish, exercise ultimate control over, and provide substantial and increasing (subject only to dire fiscal circumstances) resources to support, (sic) public education in a way that minimizes rather than accentuates differences between communities based on property valuations, constitutionally impermissible classifications, and other criteria extrinsic to the educational mission…we cannot conclude that they are presently violating the education clause.

The judge contrasts this decision with the judicial orders in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York and Abbott v. Burke, the New Jersey lawsuit, claiming that only “years of legislative failure” led the judges in those cases to order more specific remedies. The actions of the Massachusetts legislature and governor, according to the ruling, were sufficiently substantial that they do not merit further court review at this time.

Repercussions and Reactions

The Massachusetts decision is one of the very few plaintiff losses in adequacy cases during the past several years. The Massachusetts legislature, which had been preparing to address the concerns raised by the Hancock districts, expressed relief over the decision. Nonetheless, many legislators and advocates have pledged continued commitment to reforming school funding to bring better opportunities to the low-wealth districts.

As reported in the Boston Globe, lead plaintiff Julie Hancock, a high school junior, was disappointed, reporting that crowded conditions, high dropout rates, and totally insufficient books and computers were facts of life at her school, legislative efforts not withstanding. Lead lawyer for the plaintiffs Michael Weisman was more resolute, stating “The only thing the Legislature ought to take away from today's decision is that the court is going to give them some time to get the job done.”

Prepared by Nelly Ward, February 27, 2005