Com. v. School Committee of Springfield

• Decision Date: 18 February 1981
• Citation: 382 Mass. 665,417 N.E.2d 408
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH et al. 1 v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF SPRINGFIELD et al. 2
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 408

417 N.E.2d 408

382 Mass. 665

COMMONWEALTH et al. ¹ v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF SPRINGFIELD et al. ²

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Oct. 7, 1980.

Decided Feb. 18, 1981.

Richard T. Egan, Deputy City Sol., for defendants.

Donald K. Stern, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Carolyn Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., with him), for plaintiffs.

Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.

QUIRICO, Justice.

On February 3, 1976, the Commonwealth filed a complaint in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Springfield School Committee (school committee). The Commonwealth sought to enforce the rights of school-age children with special needs living in Springfield by an order requiring the school committee to comply with the provisions of G.L. c. 71B, inserted by St.1972, c. 766, which is commonly referred to as "chapter 766." Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to require the school committee to enter into agreements with private schools and institutions to provide special education programs for those children whose special needs could not be met by the programs available in public schools. In its answer, the school committee contended that any such agreement with private institutions, other than institutions for the deaf, dumb, and blind, would violate art. 18, as amended by arts. 46 and 103 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts (anti-aid amendment). By its counterclaim the school committee sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the Commissioner of Education from approving such private placements.

On March 25, 1976, on the Commonwealth's motion for a preliminary injunction, a single justice ordered the school committee to place students found to have special education needs in appropriate schools approved for placement by the Department of Education (department), in accordance with the provisions of c. 766. Thereafter, on February 13, 1980, the parties submitted a statement of agreed facts; and a second single justice reserved and reported the case to the full bench for determination on the complaint, the answer and counterclaim, the order of the court on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and the statement of agreed facts with exhibits annexed.

The issue before this court is whether the disbursement of public funds to educate school-age children in approved private schools or institutions, when no public school program is available to meet the children's special education needs, as allowed under c. 766, exceeds the constitutional limits set by the current version of the anti-aid amendment, art. 46, as amended by art. 103. ³ For the reasons discussed below, we hold that c. 766 as enacted and implemented does not violate the anti-aid amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.

1. The statutory scheme. Chapter 766 was passed to create "a comprehensive and complete program of evaluation and placement for children with special education needs." ⁴ Board of Educ. v. Assessor of Worcester, 368 Mass. 511, 515, 333 N.E.2d 450 (1975). To comply with the statute, and the regulations issued thereunder, see 603 Code Mass.Regs. § 28, et seq. (1979), a school committee must provide an appropriate, publicly supported education to each school-age child with special needs. G.L. c. 71B, §§ 2, 3-4. The school committee must diagnose and evaluate the needs of each child with special needs, propose a special individualized education program to meet those needs, and then provide or arrange for the special education program. G.L. c. 71B, § 3. Under c. 766, those individualized education programs may range from providing some extra help to a student who remains full-time in a regular classroom, to a full-time placement in a day or residential school. See G.L. c. 71B, § 2. The regulations promulgated under the statute further require that the special education child must be placed in the least restrictive program which meets the child's special education needs. 603 Code Mass.Regs. § 28, par. 322.2 (1979).

Under c. 766, children with special needs are "mainstreamed" to the maximum extent possible into regular public school programs. To that end, the statute encourages public development of a full range of educational programs within the public school system and through collaborative programs with other school systems. G.L. c. 71B, §§ 4, 10. Indeed, "the framers of c. 766 sought to design a system under which parents would no longer be required to go beyond their local school districts to find adequate, individually designed educational programs for children with special needs." Amherst-Pelham Regional School Comm. v. Department of Educ., 376 Mass. ---, ---, ^a 381 N.E.2d 922 (1978).

If no appropriate program is available within the public school system, however, c. 766 authorizes the school committee, with the approval of both the child's parents or guardian, and the department, and subject to constitutional limitations, to enter into contracts with private schools, agencies, or institutions to provide the necessary special education. G.L. c. 71B, § 4. ⁵ The statute impliedly requires, and the regulations explicitly mandate, public school education to the maximum extent possible; private school placements are permitted only as a necessary alternative. See G.L. c. 71B, §§ 2, 3; 603 Code Mass.Regs. § 28 par. 502.4(i) (1979) (day and residential placements in private schools considered more restrictive than programs conducted in a regular public school facility); 603 Code Mass.Regs. § 28, par. 804. 2 (1979) (at least once every three months, private schools must review the progress of each special education child toward placement of such child in a less restrictive program). Moreover, after the child is placed with the private school, the school committee must monitor the child's educational progress. G.L. c. 71B, §§ 2, 3. Additionally, by the terms of its contract with the school committee, the private school must agree to comply with all elements of the individual educational programs recommended for special needs child placed in the school, and with all applicable requirements of the c 766 regulations. 603 Code Mass.Reg. § 28, pars. 804.0-804.6 (1979).

The school committee pays, in the first instance, the expenses of instruction and support at such private schools, subject to some State and Federal aid. If the parents of a child placed in a private school are to bear any cost at all, they may be charged for support and care only. Parents may not be charged for any educational cost. G.L. c. 71B, § 10.

2. The agreed facts. We summarize the agreed facts. Because children with special needs include, among others, children with one or more specific physical handicaps such as deafness or blindness, children with learning disabilities such as dyslexia, children who are mentally retarded, and children with severe psychological problems, the same day school or residential school will not appropriately meet the needs of every child requiring special education services.

To meet the special needs of its school-age children, during the school year 1978-1979, Springfield provided service to 3,309 special needs children within the public school system. The programs provided ranged from a regular education program with modifications to a program of full-time teaching in a separate school. See 603 Code Mass.Regs. § 28, pars. 502.1-502.4 (1979), for a description of the various programs required to be made available to children under G.L. c. 71B, § 2. As of December 1, 1978, Springfield operated nine classes of full-time teaching conducted in a separate school. ⁶ The Springfield school committee has not, however, established any residential school programs for children with special needs within the school system. ⁷

Instead, as of January 31, 1979, there were 108 Springfield students placed in day school programs, and 33 Springfield students placed in residential school programs outside of the public school system. ⁸ No available programs within the Springfield school system appropriately met the needs of those children. Moreover, the Springfield school department does not currently plan to establish day school or residential programs on a public basis beyond those programs now provided. Therefore, the Springfield school department envisions that private day and residential programs will continue to be required for those students whose clinical needs exceed the cost-effective capabilities of public education.

3. The anti-aid amendment. Article 18 of the Amendments, ⁹ as adopted in 1855, contained general and "rather uncertain language," Bloom v. School Comm. of Springfield, 376 Mass. ---, ---, ^b 379 N.E.2d 578 (1978), concerning the use of public money for schools. Public dissatisfaction with art. 18 grew, ¹⁰ particularly as "public aid had been granted in several instances to private schools." Id. 376 Mass. at ---, ^c 379 N.E.2d 578. As a result, "a major subject of the constitutional convention of 1917 was proposals for a more specific amendment that would prohibit the practice altogether." Id. See also, 1 Debates in the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1917-1918, at 63, 67-68, 174-176 (1919).

The amendment voted by the convention and adopted by the people prohibited any use of public money or property for the aid of any private school, at any level of education. ¹¹ In 1974, the core prohibiting language of art. 46, § 2, was revised to eliminate the opening clause of the 1917 version. ¹² However, the basic prohibition of the 1917 amendment, significant to the resolution of the instant case, was carried forward. That portion of art. 46, § 2, reads: "No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital,...