A victory for school reform
GOVERNOR ROMNEY was suffering with the flu but still beaming like a lighthouse when he came to the podium yesterday to address the day's big story -- and with good reason.
After months of nervous anticipation at the State House, the Supreme Judicial Court delivered a sweeping victory to the administration in the long-running lawsuit over whether the state is spending enough on education in poorer communities. In its 5-2 decision, the SJC strengthened the hand of the governor and those who believe that in the next stage of education reform, new state spending on education should be tied to specific goals.
Conversely, the high court dealt a stunning loss to those who had hoped to sidestep the political process to achieve court-ordered remedies. That includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, two unions that had provided most of the funding for the so-called Hancock lawsuit alleging serious underfunding.
To be sure, this was not just a victory for the Romney administration but for Attorney General Thomas Reilly, whose office defended the state, and for the Legislature, which has kept the funding faith with education reform since passing the landmark Education Reform Act in 1993.
In reaction, the losers tried to portray the decision as only a qualified victory for the defendants. In fact, it was a rout. Not only did the SJC reject requests for judicial remedies; the high court actually ended its long-running role in monitoring the state's educational efforts.
In arriving at its decision, the SJC ignored the recommendations of Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford, whom it had appointed to make a finding of fact on the case.
That required a diplomatic dance on the part of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
''I accord great deference to the Superior Court judge's thoughtful and detailed finding of fact," maintained Marshall in her opinion.
Perhaps, but the chief justice arrived at very different conclusions. Instead of endorsing Botsford's call for much greater SJC involvement and oversight, Marshall offered an opinion that should make sense to anyone who has followed education reform closely.
To wit: Elected policy-makers are conscientious about the need to improve education and have been since the passage of education reform. Given that reality, there is no need -- and, indeed, no basis -- for the SJC to intervene further.
Or, as Justice Marshall put it: ''The legislative and executive branches have shown that they have embarked on a long-term, measurable, orderly, and comprehensive process of reform 'to provide a high quality public education to every child.' They are proceeding purposefully to implement a plan to educate all public school children in the Commonwealth.. . . They have committed resources to carry out their plan, have done so in fiscally troubled times, and show every indication that they will continue to increase such resources as the Commonwealth's finances improve."
Indeed, in what must have made for painful reading for the teachers unions, Marshall even offered a note of praise for the MCAS graduation requirement.
''The requirement is not designed . . . to winnow underperforming students from the graduation process," she wrote. ''Prior to the act, failing high school students would have been permitted either to graduate without basic skills or fade away from the public education system altogether. They are now given extensive remedial opportunities."
In essence, then, the SJC said that state's 12-year commitment to education reform has been an intelligent, purposeful, good-faith effort, one that left no appropriate room for the SJC to intervene.
With this victory, the stage is now set for the second phase of education reform.
Yesterday Romney stressed that he wants more power for principals and superintendents to manage their schools and will support more funding for specific purposes such as after-school programs, a longer school day, early education, and merit pay for the best teachers.
Last week, a coalition associated with MassInsight Education proposed a package of initiatives that include raising the MCAS passing level, offering incentive pay to attract talented teachers in critical areas, and giving superintendents more authority to restaff underperforming schools.
Ideas abound. But one common denominator is that new dollars shouldn't be sent unencumbered. Instead, more funding should be targeted to specific goals and improvements.
With the Hancock suit now decided, it's time to abandon the discredited notion that more money alone will solve the state's remaining educational woes -- and take a fearless look at what should come next.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.
