Ma Federation of Teachers v Bd. of Edu.

Decision Date09 May 2002
Docket NumberSJC-08641
Citation436 Mass. 763
PartiesMASSACHUSETTS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFT,, & another(FN1) vs. BOARD OF EDUCATION & another.(FN2) Docket No.:MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT County: Suffolk
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Summary: Education Reform Act. Regulation. Administrative Law, Regulations, Judicial review, Agency's interpretation of statute. Education, Teacher testing. Board of Education. Constitutional Law, Equal protection of laws, Education. Due Process of Law, Vagueness of regulation. Public Employment, Collective bargaining.

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 30, 2000.

The case was heard by Patrick J. King, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.

Jeffrey W. Jacobsen (Matthew D. Jones with him) for the plaintiffs.

Pierce O. Cray, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ.

SPINA, J.

The Massachusetts Federation of Teachers and the Massachusetts Teachers Association/NEA (collectively, Teachers) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Board of Education (board) and the Commissioner of Education (commissioner) (collectively, the defendants) challenging the validity of 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 2.01, 2.02, 2.05, 44.02, 44.03, 44.04 (2000), regulations promulgated by the board that require mathematics teachers in certain schools to take a Mathematics Content Assessment (assessment test) to evaluate their mastery of the subject matter prior to renewal of their licenses. A Superior Court judge denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), but declared the challenged regulations valid. The Teachers filed a timely notice of appeal, and we granted the defendants' application for direct appellate review. The issues now before us are whether (1) the board had the authority to promulgate the regulations; (2) the regulations are arbitrary and capricious; (3) the regulations, on their face, violate the Teachers' due process and equal protection rights; (4) the regulations conflict with collective bargaining laws; and (5) the Teachers should have been afforded the opportunity to develop a factual record. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

1. Statutory and regulatory background. On June 18, 1993, the Governor signed into law the Education Reform Act of 1993 (Act), St. 1993, c. 71,3 a comprehensive statutory scheme addressing, among other things, student performance, school and district performance, certification and recertification of teachers, and professional development. "[T]he purpose of the [Act], from its billions of dollars in additional financial aid to local school systems, to its establishment of teacher performance standards, [was] to improve the education provided to the students in the classrooms of our public schools." School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223, 235 (2001).

An important focus of the Act is the accountability of teachers, schools, and school districts for student performance. See G. L. c. 69, § 1B, twenty-first par. ("The board shall carry out its responsibilities with a view toward increasing the accountability and effectiveness of public early childhood, elementary, secondary and vocational-technical schools and school districts for the performance of the students they serve"). See also G. L. c. 69, §§ 1I, 1J, 1K (school and district accountability); G. L. c. 71, § 38 (teacher accountability). General Laws c. 69, § 1I, first par., provides that the board "shall adopt a system for evaluating on an annual basis the performance of both public school districts and individual public schools." That system "shall be designed both to measure outcomes and results regarding student performance, and to improve the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction." G. L. c. 69, § 1I, second par. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) was adopted by the board for Statewide assessment of individual students' academic performance. See 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 30.00 (2000).

The board has broad authority to establish such policies as are necessary to fulfil the purposes of the Act and to promulgate regulations that encourage innovation, flexibility, and accountability in schools and school districts. See G. L. c. 69, § 1B, twenty-third par. Pursuant to G. L. c. 69, § 1J, first par., "[t]he board shall establish regulations defining when a school or school district has chronically failed to improve the educational program provided to students served by the school or district." Schools where the academic performance of students does not improve will be deemed under-performing or chronically under-performing and will become subject to remedial measures. See G. L. c. 69, § 1J. See also G. L. c. 69, § 1B, tenth par. ("The board shall establish the process and standards for declaring a school or school district to be 'under-performing' or 'chronically under-performing' in accordance with the provisions of this chapter").

Pursuant to its broad statutory authority in this area of school accountability, the board promulgated detailed regulations, 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 2.00, for reviewing "the adequacy of the educational opportunities and services provided by the Commonwealth's public schools" and for identifying "the circumstances under which the [b]oard may declare a school or school district chronically under-performing and intervene."4 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.01 (2). These regulations "also govern[] the [b]oard's review of the mathematics programs provided by the Commonwealth's public schools and identif[y] circumstances under which the [b]oard may declare a school's mathematics program low-performing and require mathematics teachers in that program to take a diagnostic mathematics content assessment." Id. In particular, math teachers at schools with "low-performing mathematics programs,"5 math teachers in middle or high schools that have been referred for review under 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.03 (7), and math teachers who are not certified in mathematics and are teaching in a middle or high school with a 30% or greater failure rate on the 1999 mathematics MCAS (with certain limited exceptions), must take the assessment test.6 See 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.05 (2). A math teacher is required to take it only once. Id. Results on the assessment test are to be used for diagnostic purposes in developing or revising individual professional development plans (professional development plans), which are an integral component of the process for renewal of a teaching license.7 See 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.05 (3).

Individuals employed in Massachusetts public schools as teachers, or other enumerated professionals, must hold a license (also referred to as a "[s]tandard educator certificate") granted by the commissioner. See G. L. c. 71, § 38G, tenth and twenty-ninth pars. "The commissioner of education shall have the authority to grant, upon application... standard educator certificates to persons who have satisfied the requirements for such certificates as established by the board. The board shall define the knowledge of subject matter and demonstration of competencies commensurate with attainment and renewal of such certificates." G. L. c. 71, § 38G, eleventh par. See G. L. c. 69, § 1B, third par. (board shall establish standards for certifying public school teachers as set forth in G. L. c. 71, § 38G). A teaching license is valid for five years and must be renewed every five years thereafter.8 See G. L. c. 71, § 38G, tenth par. Renewal occurs "upon the successful completion of an individual professional development plan that meets the subject matter knowledge and teaching skill requirements set by the board. Such plan shall be designed to increase the [educator's] ability... to improve student learning." G. L. c. 71, § 38G, twenty-second par. In essence, the Act holds teachers accountable for the academic performance of their students. "The board shall have the authority to promulgate, amend and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section." G. L. c. 71, § 38G, twenty-sixth par.

Pursuant to its broad statutory authority in this area of teacher accountability, the board promulgated detailed regulations, 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 44.00, to carry out the recertification provisions of the Act. The purpose of the Massachusetts recertification system is to "enhance education through ongoing professional development for educators that meets high standards for quality... in order to assist students in meeting state learning standards." 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 44.01. In accordance with G. L. c. 71, § 38G, licensed public school teachers must have their proposed professional development plans approved by their supervisors pursuant to specific timelines. See 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 44.04 (1). The plan of any math teacher in a low-performing mathematics program will not be approved or endorsed by a supervisor until that teacher takes the assessment test. See 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 44.04 (4) (a). In evaluating whether a professional development plan is "consistent with the educational needs of the school and/or district and whether the plan is designed to enhance the ability of the educator to improve student learning," a supervisor must determine that the plan addresses weaknesses identified by the assessment test. 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 44.04 (4) (b). By addressing any such weaknesses, the board can remediate math teacher deficiencies so as to achieve the ultimate goal of maximizing the academic performance of all students.

2. Procedural background. In their six-count complaint brought pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 7, and G. L. c. 231A, the Teachers challenged the regulations relating to the mandatory assessment of mathematics teachers in certain schools, 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 2.01, 2.02, 2.05, 44.02, 44.03, 44...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Querubin v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 9, 2003
    ... ... Cf. Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 780-781 (2002). Such common-law considerations are among the ... ...
  • Querubin v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 6, 2003
    ... ... Cf. Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 780-781 (2002) ... Such common-law considerations are among the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT