LWVMA 

Where We Stand 

Content:

Introduction

Program in Brief

Government

Natural Resources

Social Policy

LWVMA 

WHERE WE STAND

Social Policy: Education

Goal:
Equal access to education. (LWVUS) (1967)

Statewide standards (1967)
The League supports:

League action

In 1935, the League supported legislation that raised the age of compulsory school attendance from 14 to 16 years. The League also supported adequate training and experience for teachers and administrators in public schools, studies of state teachers' colleges, use of public libraries, and better use of tax dollars in education. Legislation designed to maintain academic freedom by the repeal of the teachers' loyalty oath and the prevention of censorship of school books also received League support.

The Willis-Harrington Study Commission of 1965 and its resulting legislation received active support by the League. This legislation restructured the Massachusetts Department of Education and created two independent policy-making boards to oversee public education. The Board of Higher Education was authorized to make policy for developing higher education in the Commonwealth. The Board of Education was authorized to oversee elementary and secondary education with new legal powers to set and enforce minimum standards.

In 1973 and 1975, the League opposed bills that would have increased the power of the Secretary of Education at the expense of lay boards.

After a two year study, completed in 1967, members agreed that to improve the quality of education and to equalize educational standards among public school systems, the state Board of Education should set standards and provide services for all public schools in the Commonwealth.

Areas for establishing minimum standards include ages of school attendance, educational criteria for school personnel, educational standards for required courses, kindergartens, length of school day and years, pupil/teacher ratios, pupil personnel services, school buildings, school libraries, size and organization of school districts, and special education and occupational education. Services which the Department of Education should provide include: regional centers for developing, evaluating and adapting educational innovations; communication and information centers; consultation services and others beyond the capacity of the separate local schools, such as services to prevent dropouts; supporting services to improve the quality of education; and subsidies to poorer communities for programs beyond minimum standards.

The League has supported the application of statewide standards in all of the various versions of the educational reform bills through the years and monitors their implementation. Local League members are encouraged to be active in their own school systems.

LWVMA was represented on a committee that advised the Board of Education and its staff regarding proposed guidelines and regulations for Ch. 188, the School Reform Act, passed in 1985. The League was also involved in forming the Massachusetts Organization of Citizens for School Improvement (MOCSI). MOCSI seeks to facilitate training and communication among individual School Improvement Councils.

• increased school aid to localities on an equalizing basis (1948)

Since 1948, the League has supported increased state school aid to cities and towns, using an equalizing distribution formula. Members recognize that the bulk of funds that support public schools come from the local property tax and those funds vary greatly according to the financial resources of the community; therefore school districts vary widely in their ability to support education. Because efforts in support of increased state funding of public education using an equalizing distribution formula have failed, LWVMA is a party to the court case which is now called Murdoch v. Weld (formerly Webby v. Dukakis). This case is an attempt to ensure towns with a small property tax base of sufficient funds for quality education and is being pursued by a coalition that includes a number of communities, large and small, throughout the Commonwealth.

The suit was put on hold in 1985 with the passage of Ch. 188, the School Reform Act, because of the Equal Educational Opportunity Grant section of that act. This was a state effort to equalize educational opportunity by giving money to poorer school systems (those spending less than 85 percent of the statewide average per public school student). However, the continued underfunding of education by the legislature has forced the renewal of this constitutional case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (For further details on the distribution of state aid for education see the Fiscal Policy section.)

In cooperation with other members of the coalition Citizens for Public Schools, the League has lobbied against proposed constitutional amendments that would allow public funding for private schools.

(Additional information on action on equal access to education may be found in the Equality of Opportunity section.)

• statewide interdistrict public school choice
• If statewide interdistrict public school choice were established, the League would consider the following features essential:
  • equalizing, consistent, and mandatory state funding for public school districts
  • no punitive loss of state aid to sending schools, but oversight and assistance designed to improve problem areas, in order to protect students who remain
  • clear, timely, easily-obtainable information about the process by which students apply for admission to receiving schools, and about criteria used to assess applicants for admission, made available in every language used in the school district; parent participation in decision-making when process and criteria are established
  • vigorous and adequately funded outreach programs to provide parents with timely and accurate information available in every language used in the school district, about the choice program and about individual schools
  • admission and assessment of choice students designed to achieve equity and student body diversity with equal access for all who apply in a timely manner; transportation programs to assure such access
  • impartial periodic evaluation of the educational effectiveness of school choice for both sending and receiving schools

League Action

During the 1980s, as the rate of social and cultural change in the U.S. accelerated, public education seemed increasingly unable to prepare a diverse student population for adult responsibility in the next century. "Interdistrict school choice," allowing parents and students to choose freely among all available schools, was frequently presented as an ideal way to address the "crisis in education." In theory, market competition for students and for public education funds would force apathetic or incompetent educators to improve their schools; any school unable or unwilling to improve itself would be forced to close when parents sent their children elsewhere. The League was concerned about several potential problems: the possibility of public funds being diverted to private institutions; the risk of increasing the disparity between rich and poor school districts; and most of all, the difficulty of providing all students with equal access to opportunity.

In 1991, a poorly conceived interdistrict school choice program came before the legislature as an "outside section" to the annual state budget, and was enacted into law. The statute required state education funds to be taken from schools districts that students chose to leave, and given to districts students chose to enter. In some cities and towns, the subsequent loss of funds forced schools to lay off as much as 30% of the staff, to increase class size, and to eliminate educational programs in computers, laboratory science, music, athletics, and art. Under the circumstances, "sending schools" opposed the Massachusetts interdistrict school choice program on the basis of our long-standing commitment to equality of opportunity and fair school finance. In 1992, the legislature changed the school choice statute to eliminate its worst effects; further modifications were included in the Education Reform Act of 1993.

The state board became convinced that LWVMA needed a study and consensus on interdistrict school choice as a basis for future advocacy and action. The 1993 LWVMA convention approved a one-year study of the educational, financial, and social impact of school choice; and in the spring of 1994, local Leagues came to consensus opposing interdistrict public school choice, and establishing standards by which we could judge current and possible future school choice programs.

Fiscal autonomy (1977)
The League supports:

• fiscal autonomy of the Department of Education within the appropriation granted by the legislature
• financial independence of school committees  

• measures that require school committees to set tax rates and send out tax bills to fund school department budgets

League action

LWVMA supports the financial independence of school committees, believing that the loss of final authority over school budgets would cripple the policy-making power of the school committee. The passage of Proposition 2 1/2 in 1981, which the League opposed, imposed a tax levy limit on cities and towns and repealed fiscal autonomy for local school committees.

LWVMA opposes efforts to establish separate school tax rates and bills. It supports measures requiring school committees to hold public hearings on their school budgets at the time the budgets are being prepared. (Ch. 136 of the Acts of 1972)

School committee-teacher relationships
The League supports:

• school committee authority to set education policy (1976)
• provisions in the law for the evaluation of all professional school personnel on a regular basis through the use of specified procedures (1986)

   

  League action

  The League supported the passage of a teacher certification law in the early 1950s and worked to strengthen amendments to that law. It supports the opportunity for public comment on collective bargaining proposals before negotiations begin and progress reports as negotiations continue. And it has worked for evaluation of professional school personnel on a regular basis with use of specified procedures.

  Higher education (1961)
  The League supports:

  • measures to strengthen the state-supported institutions of higher education, including administrative independence with respect to budget and personnel

  • a sound program of state-supported two-year colleges under the Massachusetts Board of Regional Community Colleges

  League Action
  The League recognizes that public higher education should be strengthened and extended if the needs of the Commonwealth's young people are to be met. Following a study of the state's colleges in 1959, the League supported measures that changed the nine teacher-training institutions into liberal arts colleges. The 1959-61 League study of public higher education led to support of measures that would strengthen all the institutions of higher education. In 1965 the League supported the creation of the Board of Higher Education as an independent lay board to coordinate the development of public higher education in the Commonwealth. The principle of administrative independence with respect to budget and personnel for the state institutions of higher education was given highest priority by members during the 1959-61 study.

  In 1961 League support resulted in legislation providing that the trustees of the University of Massachusetts would direct the periodic allotments of funds (within the appropriation made by the legislature) according to the times and areas of greatest need. In addition, the trustees would be able to transfer funds among subsidiary budget accounts. The legislation also enabled the university to determine the rank of faculty members, to promote them and to set their salaries within the state's present salary schedule without securing prior legislative approval. Purchasing restrictions were liberalized to allow the university more freedom in purchasing supplies, books, periodicals, scientific items, and other necessities.

  League efforts to arouse public interest resulted in the 1962 passage of the University Bill. In 1963 and 1964 the League successfully supported the extension of fiscal autonomy to Southeastern Massachusetts University, Lowell Technological Institute and the state colleges and regional community colleges.

  Study of higher education also convinced League members that a two-year college program is essential if specific educational needs in the Commonwealth are to be met. The League, therefore, supported the purpose of the Board of Regional Community Colleges as established in 1958. The board's duty was to provide training in saleable skills and in courses of such quality that graduates are able to transfer to accredited four-year colleges or universities. The League supported the Board of Regional Community Colleges as the authority to determine the locations of new community colleges.

  Impatient with the failure of state education officials to prepare a proposal for reorganization of higher education, the legislature approached the task through an outside section of the FY81 budget. The League objected to this process because citizens were not given an opportunity to analyze or comment on the plan. The office of Secretary of Education was eliminated. A 15-member Board of Regents replaced the Board of Higher Education. The Regents were authorized to prepare and submit a consolidated budget for higher education, and to make policy decisions affecting the state universities, state colleges and regional community colleges. Each separate institution retained a local board of trustees with limited decision-making and advisory powers. The Board of Education retained authority over public education from kindergarten through grade 12.

  In 1990, the newly-elected governor proposed a complete reorganization of all aspects of public education. His plan called for re-establishing the cabinet-level Secretary of Education, and for eliminating both the Board of Education and the Board of Regents. The League testified in opposition to the plan both because the policy-making lay boards were to be dissolved and because the powers proposed for the secretary were too broad. The powers included, for example, the authority to close, consolidate or relocate institutions of higher education and to make educational policy at all levels independent of citizen advice or oversight. In July 1991, the governor signed a compromise reorganization for public higher education that provided for a Secretary of Education with limited powers, and created a new multi-campus University of Massachusetts governed by a single 18-member board of trustees, including representatives of the campuses at Dartmouth and Lowell.

  The League submitted testimony in support of the university reorganization during the legislative hearing process. The Board of Regents was eliminated, and the Higher Education Coordinating Council was established. The council has broad responsibilities for developing goals and standards, collecting data, overseeing the preparation of educational plans and mission statements for each state institution of higher education and developing funding formulas to govern state support of the university system, the state college system and the system of regional community colleges.

  The Board of Education remains in place, supplemented by a Committee on Educational Policy chaired by the Secretary of Education.

  Special Education (1999)
  The League supports:

  • the principle that special education programs should ensure that students are educated to reach their full individual potential, learning to the best of their abilities the skills they will need to lead productive lives as informed and contributing citizens in their communities.

  • The following measures that are vital to the success of special education programs:

  • comprehensive outreach and assessment to identify and serve children in need of special education services as early as possible.
  • review and, if needed, revision of the processes and procedures used to identify children in need of special education services to ensure their effectiveness and accuracy
  • appropriate and on-going training of regular education teachers and staff to address the needs of special education students in their classrooms.
  • the development of practical and timely measurements which the public can use to evaluate the effectiveness of special education programs.
  • widely disseminated and clear communications with parents, educators, and others about the availability and applicability of special education services.
  • the principle that local school districts should be responsible for the provision of services to special education students which meet the goals of their Individual Education Plans.

  League action
  In the mid-1990s special education came to the public policy forefront as many Massachusetts communities dealt with increasing school enrollments coupled with the budgetary limits imposed by Prop. 2½. Although the Education Reform Act of 1993 had significantly increased state aid to local school districts, it also changed how aid was distributed for special education students. At the same time, federal and state laws and regulations directed that SPED students’ education be provided in the least restrictive environment possible, leading to more students with disabilities being taught in regular classrooms under a policy known as "inclusion."

  A number of organizations representing a wide range of viewpoints weighed in with reports on special education. Many legislative bills that would have changed various aspects of the SPED laws were filed, but the Legislature decided not to act on them. Several of these bills dealt with one of the principal points of contention in the public discussion of SPED: changing Massachusetts’ "maximum feasible benefit" standard to one that more closely paralleled the federal "free and appropriate education" standard.

  In this time of significant change and heightened attention, LWVMA members voted at the 1997 Convention to study special education in Massachusetts. In 1999, consensus was reached on the first part of the study, which looked at the goals of special education and the standards for children’s participation in SPED programs.

  A common message emerged from the consensus process: local Leagues felt strongly that the goals for special education should be the same as for regular education: to prepare all children, within their individual capacities, to live and participate productively in society. Local Leagues also suggested several measurements that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SPED programs, including:

  Number/percentage of both SPED and regular-education students who:

  drop out

  leave at age 22

  go on to higher education

  enter the work force

  take standardized tests, including their scores

  Number/percentage of students who move out of SPED programs into regular education programs

  Surveys of parental satisfaction with the program and with the progress of their special education children  

  Background

  1959-61: LWVMA studied public higher education.

  1967: LWVMA consensus was reached that the state Board of Education should set standards and provide services for all public schools in the Commonwealth.

  1976: After study of ways in which collective bargaining and tenure laws affect the quality of education in public schools, members reached consensus to support legislation that allows greater public information into collective bargaining before negotiations begin and the provision of progress reports as negotiations continue. No consensus was reached regarding tenure, but there was support for teacher evaluation.

  1986: Concurrence, voted at state council, expanded LWVMA positions on the evaluation of teachers to include principals, administrators and other professional school personnel.

  1994: LWVMA consensus opposed interdistrict school choice, but established standards members believe to be essential to any such program that, despite our opposition, may be enacted.

  1997–1999: LWVMA members study and reach consensus on special education in Massachusetts.

  
   

  Previous Page: Corrections
  
  Back to Where We Stand Contents
  
  Next Page: Equal Opportunity