What the high court's ruling means
School systems, politicians, and business leaders had anxiously awaited yesterday's SJC decision on school funding. They thought it might change what happens in education in Massachusetts for years to come. But the court ruled 5-2 to dismiss the Hancock v. Driscoll lawsuit that argued that schools need more money and resources to educate all students.
Q. What was the case about?
A. In 1999, children and parents from 19 poor cities and towns -- including Revere, Lynn, Springfield, Brockton, and Lowell -- filed suit, arguing that Massachusetts was not meeting its duty under the state Constitution to educate all students. The plaintiffs have said that poorer students weren't getting the same education as students in Wellesley, Brookline, and Concord-Carlisle. They pointed to a lack of microscopes and textbooks, staggering dropout rates, and low scores on the MCAS tests.
Q. Why did the court rule against the families?
A. The court said the state was working to fulfill its constitutional obligation to educate all students. Over the past decade, the court said, the state has transformed ''a dismal and fractured public school system into a unified system" that has raised test scores, reduced or reversed spending gaps between rich and poor districts, and pumped $30 billion into public education from 1993 to 2003. That was a result of a 1993 court decision, McDuffy v. the Secretary of Education. In that case, the SJC found that the state was violating its constitutional duty to educate all children. Three days later, the governor signed the Education Reform Act of 1993, which forced higher standards in Massachusetts, poured billions of dollars into schools and led to the creation of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System to measure student achievement.
Q. What is the situation now with school spending?
A. A spending gap remains between poor and rich school systems, but it's not as large as it once was. In fiscal 1992, Lowell spent $4,183 per student, compared to $6,494 in Wellesley. In 2003, Lowell spent $8,407, while Wellesley spent $9,589.
Still, leaders of many school systems in poor communities said they need more state aid to help students to succeed, partly because they don't receive as much revenue from local property taxes.
Q. What will those who say poor school systems need more money do now?
A. School and teachers union leaders say they will lobby state lawmakers in the coming months to increase funding for schools.
Q. Are there any plans to increase spending on schools this year?
A. Governor Mitt Romney has proposed spending nearly $100 million more, more than a 2 percent increase, on schools next fiscal year. He plans to unveil an Education Act of 2005, with some increases in spending, but that money will be targeted for specific programs, including possibly a longer school day in failing schools. The Legislature will draft its own budget in the weeks ahead.
MARIA SACCHETTI
