McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education

O’Connor, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the court that “the Commonwealth has a duty to provide an education for all its children, rich and poor, in every city and town of the Commonwealth at the public school level, and that this duty is designed not only to serve the interests of the children, but, more fundamentally, to prepare them to participate as free citizens of a free State to meet the needs and interests of a republican government, namely the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” (emphasis in original). Ante at 606. I also agree that an educational program that is reasonably calculated to provide the children of the Commonwealth with the capabilities set forth in the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s guidelines (Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212 [Ky. 1989]), would *622 satisfy the constitutional mandate. Ante at 618-619. I do not agree, however, that the record establishes that the Commonwealth has failed to provide public education in keeping with those guidelines. Therefore, I do not agree that the plaintiffs have proved that the defendants have violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional entitlement to an education.

In support of its conclusion that children in the Commonwealth’s less affluent communities or parts of communities are not receiving the education to which they are constitutionally entitled, the court states that it “need look no further than the parties’ stipulations and the record appendix.” Ante at 614. Specifically, the court appears to rely on a 1991 report of the Board of Education, ante at 552, a 1991 report of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, ante at 553, the affidavit of Harold Raynolds, former Commissioner of Education, the affidavit of Peter Finn, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and the affidavit of Rosanne Bacon, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, ante at 553. In addition, it appears that the court relies on the parties’ stipulation “to the opinions of the superintendents of four of the plaintiffs’ districts.” Ante at 615-616. The reports and' affidavits identified by the court are contained in a joint appendix filed by the parties and they set forth the opinions of various individuals. For example, the court notes that the 1991 Board of Education Report of the Committee on Distressed School Systems and School Reform, speaks of a “state of emergency due to grossly inadequate financial support,” and states that “[cjertain classrooms simply warehouse children . . . with no effective education being provided.” Ante at 615. The court also points to the affidavits of Harold Raynolds, Jr., and Peter Finn expressing the affiants’ view that education in many poor communities is inadequate.

In deciding whether the plaintiffs have established that their constitutional rights have been violated, it is critically important to understand that (1) the opinions contained in the aforementioned reports and affidavits do not purport to employ the Supreme Court of Kentucky guidelines {Rose, *623 supra) or any other articulable standards of educational adequacy, and (2) the parties have not stipulated to the truth of any assertion or to the validity of any opinion stated in the reports and affidavits. The mere inclusion of those documents in a jointly filed appendix establishes nothing.

In addition to the aforementioned reports and affidavits, the court focuses on the opinions of four superintendents of schools. Ante at 615-616. The court states that “[t]he parties have stipulated to the opinions of the superintendents of four of the plaintiffs’ districts, which describe in some detail the Commonwealth’s failure to educate the children in those districts.” Ante at 615. The court’s opinion sets forth relevant portions of those opinions. The tenor of the superintendents’ opinions is fairly illustrated by the stated views of the superintendent of the Brockton public schools that “the Brockton Public Schools are unable to provide the programs, services and personnel that are necessary to meet the needs of its students,” and “Brockton is not adequately teaching its students to read.” Ante at 616. Just as it is important to understand that the parties have not stipulated to the merit or validity of the opinions expressed in the reports and affidavits included in the joint appendix, it is also important to understand that, although the parties “have stipulated to the opinions of the superintendents of four of the plaintiffs’ districts,” as the court says, ante at 615, they have done so only in the sense that they have agreed that the stated opinions are indeed the four superintendents’ opinions and the superintendents are competent to render them. The parties have not stipulated to the merit or correctness of the opinions. On the contrary, in a supplemental stipulation, the parties have expressly agreed that “there is no consensus among education experts as to what constitutes an adequate education.” Therefore, whether standing alone or in conjunction with the reports and affidavits discussed by the court, the superintendents’ opinions do not establish any constitutional violations.

The court states: “The parties have stipulated that students in the plaintiffs’ districts are offered ‘significantly fewer educational opportunities and lower educational quality than’ *624 students in the ‘comparison’ districts of Brookline, Concord, and Wellesley. The stipulations outline specific deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ schools, such as: large classes; reductions in staff; inadequate teaching of basic subjects including reading, writing, science, social studies, mathematics, computers, and other areas; neglected libraries; inability to attract and retain high quality teachers; lack of teacher training; lack of curriculum development; lack of predictable funding; administrative reductions; and inadequate guidance counseling.” Ante at 616-617. If that passage is intended to say that the parties have agreed that, in the plaintiffs’ schools, basic subjects such as reading, writing, science, social studies, mathematics, and others are “inadequately” taught, or that the teaching in those subjects does not comply with the Supreme Court of Kentucky guidelines or similar standards, I respectfully disagree with the court. The parties have not stipulated to those facts. Those facts have not been established, and it is of no constitutional significance that more educational opportunities are provided in wealthy communities than in poor ones. Therefore, I am unwilling to join the court insofar as it declares that the defendants or the Commonwealth have failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations.