Hancock v. Commissioner of Education
443 Mass. 428 (2005)
Rule of Law:
The Commonwealth satisfies its constitutional duty to educate its children when the legislative and executive branches implement a comprehensive, uniform education reform plan supported by substantial resources, even if achievement gaps persist in specific districts.
Facts:
- In 1993, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 'McDuffy' that the state was failing its constitutional duty to educate due to an inequitable funding system reliant on local property taxes.
- In response, the Legislature passed the Education Reform Act of 1993 (ERA), which radically restructured school funding and established the 'foundation budget' to ensure minimum funding levels for all districts.
- The state introduced the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and curriculum frameworks to measure student performance and accountability.
- Between 1993 and 2003, the state invested billions of dollars into public education, significantly reducing the spending gap between wealthy and poor districts.
- Despite these reforms, students in four 'focus districts' (Brockton, Lowell, Springfield, and Winchendon) continued to perform poorly on standardized tests compared to the state average.
- Schools in these focus districts suffered from overcrowded classrooms, outdated textbooks, insufficient libraries, and difficulty retaining certified teachers.
- The Department of Education designated these districts as having 'high needs,' yet lacked sufficient staff and funding to fully intervene or provide necessary remedial support.
- The plaintiffs, students from these districts, sought relief claiming the state was still failing to meet the 'McDuffy' constitutional capabilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for further relief in the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (single justice session).
- The single justice assigned a Superior Court judge to hear evidence and make findings of fact regarding the current state of education in the focus districts.
- The Superior Court judge conducted a trial, issued a report finding the Commonwealth in violation of the Constitution, and recommended remedial orders.
- The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court for final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts currently violating the education clause of the state constitution by failing to provide a constitutionally adequate education to students in four underperforming school districts?
Opinions:
Majority - By the Court
No, the Commonwealth is not currently violating the Constitution to a degree that requires further judicial intervention. A majority of the Justices decline to adopt the trial judge's conclusion that the state is failing its obligations. The court denies the motion for further relief and terminates the single justice's ongoing jurisdiction over the case.
Concurrence - Marshall, C.J.
No, the legislative and executive branches are complying with the education clause because they are effectively implementing a comprehensive reform plan. Unlike the situation in 1993, the state has not abandoned its duty; it has established uniform standards, increased funding, and created accountability systems. While serious inadequacies remain in the focus districts, the education clause dictates a structural duty for the elected branches to devise a plan, not a guarantee of equal outcomes or immediate perfection. Because the government is proceeding purposefully with a rational plan and substantial resources, the court should not micromanage educational policy or appropriations.
Concurrence - Cowin, J.
No, the plaintiffs have not proven a constitutional violation because the education clause does not create a judicially enforceable right to a specific level of education. The Constitution creates a general duty for the legislature to 'cherish' education, but it does not empower the judiciary to mandate specific programs or funding levels. The 'McDuffy' decision overreached by creating specific educational guidelines, and the court should respect the separation of powers by leaving educational policy and funding decisions entirely to the legislature and executive branches.
Dissent - Greaney, J.
Yes, the Commonwealth is failing to meet its constitutional obligation in the four focus districts. The factual record unequivocally establishes that students in these districts are not receiving the level of education mandated by 'McDuffy,' as evidenced by dismal test scores, a lack of certified teachers, and inadequate resources. The court should adhere to the principle of stare decisis and the 'McDuffy' precedent by ordering a cost study to determine the actual funding required to provide an adequate education, rather than abandoning the students to a system that is failing them.
Dissent - Ireland, J.
Yes, the state is violating its enforceable duty to provide an adequate education to all children, regardless of wealth. The 'painfully slow' progress cited by the majority effectively overrules 'McDuffy' and leaves children in poorer districts without recourse or opportunity. The court should have adopted the trial judge's recommendations to force the state to determine the actual costs of implementing the necessary curriculum and support measures, as education is the key to success in life and the current system leaves these children behind.
Analysis:
This decision effectively ends the era of active judicial supervision over Massachusetts school finance initiated by the McDuffy decision. By shifting the constitutional standard from a requirement of fulfilling specific educational capabilities to a more deferential standard of 'reasonable progress' and 'comprehensive planning,' the Court limits its own role in educational policy. The ruling reinforces separation of powers, signaling that as long as the legislature is actively engaged in reform and funding, the judiciary will not intervene to correct specific achievement gaps or mandate appropriations. This makes future constitutional challenges to educational quality much more difficult to sustain unless there is a total systemic abandonment of duty by the state.
