Massachusetts

There have been no recent developments in educational opportunity itigation in Massachusetts.

In 1993, in McDuffy v. Sec’y of the Executive Office of Educ., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the state constitution’s education clause imposes a duty on the Commonwealth to ensure the education of all its children, and found that students in less affluent communities were “not receiving their constitutional entitlement of education.”

In 1999, in Hancock v. Driscoll, plaintiffs relied on the McDuffy decision, and claimed that the state’s funding system had again become insufficient to provide them with a constitutional quality education.  Based on substantial factual findings, the trial court agreed with the plaintiffs in 2004, and recommended that the state be ordered to conduct an education cost study and fund its schools accordingly. 

However, in 2005, the Supreme Judicial Court chose not to adopt these recommendations and denied plaintiffs’ motion for further relief. While acknowledging shortcomings in the system and suggesting that the legislature use the trail court ruling to guide improvements, the court closed this case.

For more detailed information, email Education Justice.

 “Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish …public schools and grammar schools in the towns….” Mass. Const. Pt. 2, C. 5, § 2.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts interpreted the state constitution’s education article in McDuffy v. Sec’y of the Executive Office of Educ., 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993).

Relying on a rich history of the importance of education, beginning in colonial times, the court first considered what the duty to cherish public schools meant, writing,

“The duty is established so that the rights and liberties of the people will be preserved.  The immediate purpose of the establishment of the duty is the spreading of the opportunities and advantages of education throughout the people; the ultimate end is the preservation of rights and liberties. Put otherwise, an educated people is viewed as essential to the preservation of the entire constitutional plan: a free, sovereign, constitutional democratic State.” Id. at 524.

The court noted that the  "duty ... to cherish... public schools and grammar schools in the towns" is an obligation to support or nurture these interests and institutions,” Id. at 526, and further concluded that “the duty to "cherish" -- support -- public schools arises out of the need to educate the people of the Commonwealth; it is reasonable therefore to understand the duty to "cherish" public schools as a duty to ensure that the public schools achieve their object and educate the people.” Id. at 526.  Moreover, the court established that this duty is mandatory.

The court then went on to adopt the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc.:  An educated child must possess: "at least the seven following capabilities:

1. sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization;
2. sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable students to make informed choices;
3. sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;
4. sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness;
5. sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage;
6. sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and
7. sufficient level of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market." Id. at 554.

However, in Hancock v. Driscoll, a divided SJC, while affirming McDuffy’s constitutional interpretation, toned down its adoption of the Rose standards, ruling that “[i]n McDuffy, this court recognized that an ‘educated child’ possesses these ‘capabilities,’ but did not mandate any particular program of public education.” 822 N.E.2d 1134, 1153 (2005).

In 2005, in Hancock v. Driscoll, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote that the question of whether to provide free preschool is a policy decision for the legislature.

Massachusetts' state policy encourages its Department of Education to “seek to increase the availability of early care and education services.” 

Children are eligible to participate in the UPK and Preschool Scholarship program from age 2 years, 9 months until they reach the locally determined kindergarten eligibility age.  Grant 391 grantees are located in public schools in 96 districts, and any preschool-aged child without disabilities is eligible.  Providers of these initiatives may collaborate with Head Start, public school programs, private preschools, child care centers, independent family child care programs, or other family child care systems that meet provider criteria.

UPK and/or Preschool Scholarship grants are available to pre-K programs serving children ages 2 years and 9 months to 5 years of age.  All children are eligible, but preference is given to programs in communities with under-performing schools and programs serving 50% or more children with family incomes below 85% of the SMI.  Programs receiving UPK and/or Preschool Scholarship funding are required to operate or provide access to full day, full year services.

The Massachusetts Department of Education distributes grant funds to a lead public or private early education agency within each town.  This lead agency, in turn, distributes funds to local public and private programs to provide pre-K services.

The Massachusetts Head Start state supplement program also provides funding for grants to support program quality and increase access for children and families in Head Start programs.

According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Massachusetts served only 14% of all 4-year-olds in its state preschool program in 2008-2009 and 4% of 3-year-olds. 

Quality Standards

The UPK program and the Grant 391 program were evaluated by the NIEER together because both programs have similar requirements and standards.  6 out of 10 benchmarks were reached during the 2009-2010 school year.

The 6 benchmarks reached were:

• Early Learning Standards
• Teacher in-service (at least 15 hours/year)
• Class size limits of 20 students
• Class ratio of 1:10 or better
• Screening/referral and support services
• Monitoring/Site visit program  

The 4 benchmarks not met were:

• Teacher must have Bachelor’s degree
• Requirement that teachers have specialized training in pre-K education
• Assistant teacher must have a Child Development Associate credential, or equivalent
• Requirement to provide at least one meal a day

The UPK initiative was evaluated for process quality during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.  Starting in the 2010-2011 program year, UPK will require grantees to participate in its Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) and grantees will be asked to submit child-level information to build a longitudinal data system within the Massachusetts state education agencies.

Annotated Laws of Massachusetts

Massachusetts Session Laws

Code of Massachusetts Regulations

Massachusetts Department of Education

Uniform Prekindergarten Evaluation (2008)