Suppressing the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education--in Minn and Mass

In a number of posts, we've criticized Minnesota for failure to consider the actual cost of meeting state standards.  How could we possibly meet those standards if we ignore the cost of doing so?  The Supreme Court has ruled that the state has an obligation to provide funding to all districts sufficient to provide students with an education that meets state standards. We've contended that it is impossible for the state to comply with that constitutional requirement if it fails to determine the cost of meeting all state standards.  

Now, a new suit brought in Massachusetts calls attention to the importance of developing and recording costing to meet the constitutional adequacy requirement.  Massachusetts has grappled with education funding issues for decades, but it has actually worked at meeting that requirement by determining and reporting on the cost of meeting state adequacy requirements.  However imperfect Massachusetts may be, that state has at least implemented an official costing mechanism.  The difference is rather stark:  Massachusetts responded to its 1993 McDuffy constitutional decision by creating a state commission to report officially on cost.   Minnesota has responded to its 1993 Skeen decision by intentionally suppressing any costing procedure.  One state has acted to comply with its constitution, while the other has actively chosen to avoid compliance.

In Massachusetts, an official costing commission was formed to comply with the McDuffy Supreme Court decision.  The commission provides the legislature and citizens with data necessary to evaluate whether the state is meeting its constitutional requirement to fund an adequate education.  The Commission's efforts create a fact-based background for the legislature, for the public, and for school districts.   There are legitimate complaints that its work is not diligent enough, but at least Massachusetts is making an attempt at compliance.

In contrast, as we have said,  Minnesota responded to its own state constitutional decision by purposely suppressing any effort to determine cost of meeting state standards.    What is the matter with us in Minnesota? We have one of the nation's worst achievement gaps, and we think we can fix it with smoke and mirrors while ignoring its cost. 

Our attention was attracted by an announcement that in June of 2019, a large group of organizations commenced a new constitutional funding suit in Massachusetts, Mussotte v Peyser.  The plaintiffs in Peyser are using official cost information to advocate for improvements in their school finance system. This, evidently, is exactly what Minnesota wants to avoid.  "If we don't provide cost information," they seem to say, "then there will be no evidence that we are depriving students of their constitutional rights."

The Peyser case is the third major school funding suit brought in Massachusetts to address the needs of lower income and minority students.   The first opinion in McDuffy v. Secretary of Education (1993) coincided with our on Skeen decision, but the Massachusetts decision triggered efforts to cost an adequate education, whereas the Skeen decision has spawned repeated efforts to suppress costing information.  

The McDuffy suit was brought on behalf of students in certain property-poor communities who alleged that the Mass school finance system violated the education clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. The  McDuffy plaintiffs challenged the failure of those districts to provide an adequate education and urged that the school finance system was failing large numbers of students.  As a result of McDuffy, Massachusetts began a major reform in the state's school funding system.

Recognizing that providing a constitutionally adequate education required the state to make provision for the cost of that education, the state  also established a Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC), which was to recalculate the foundation budget every three years, adjusting it based on changing costs and student need.

Ten years after McDuffy, a group of plaintiffs again sued the state in Hancock v. Driscoll, charging that the foundation budget was inadequate. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs. The Commonwealth’s highest court agreed with the lower court that state funding was inadequate; however, it reversed the trial court’s decision because the Commonwealth had showed “a steady trajectory of progress."  Minnesota on the other hand hasn't even begun to comply with its constitution. 

As Hancock was being decided, Massachusetts had been using a costing process, however imperfectly, whereas Minnesota had been ignoring cost for ten years.  As we've explained in our June 14, 2019 post,  Minnesota's governor considered and then turned away an effort to use cost in funding.   (See June 14, 2019 post).  The fate of the task force is an example of persistent efforts by Minnesota leaders to suppress and ignore data on the cost of providing an adequate education to the students we traditionally leave behind.   There seem to be powerful forces who want to suppress the fact that funding insufficiency is a major reason for the achievement gap.  

Minnesota's Supreme Court has twice ruled that the constitution requires that the state provide school districts with sufficient funding so that districts can provide an education to all students that meet "all state standards,"  but there has been no effort in Minnesota to implement those findings with a cost analysis. Indeed, in 2011, Governor Dayton convened a new task force but barred it from considering cost. 

This new Mass. suit shows how official costing evidence can force the state to confront data.  The state's budget commission, the FBRC, last conducted a cost review in 2015,  The FBRC concluded that the State had failed to

“deliver quality [education] consistently to all geographies and all demographic groups across our state.”

The Commission also found a significant need to fund services for low-income students, students with disabilities, and English language learners, as well as employee and retiree health insurance. It found Massachusetts “understates the cost of educating students to the tune of at least $1 billion per year.”  The plaintiffs in the Peyser case, a group of state education interests are using the official costing report as ammunition to update and repair the state's education finance system.  The plaintiff groups include:

Massachusetts Teachers Association, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and Professor Peter Enrich of Northeastern University School of Law. The lawsuit is supported by a broad-based coalition, the Council for Fair School Finance, whose members include AFT Massachusetts, the Boston Teachers Union, Citizens for Public Schools, Lawyers for Civil Rights, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and the New England Area Conference of the NAACP.

The Peyser case illustrates another difference between Minnesota and Massachusetts, if you will allow us a final editorial comment.  In Mass., advocacy groups have actively and persistently fought for better funding for schools.   They recognize that reform comes with a price.  They have united, somehow, around persistently challenging the state's failure adequately to fund education. In Minnesota there is virtually no active support among the parallel organizations for efforts to fight for proper funding for the students we are leaving behind.   The reasons deserve, perhaps, a completely different post some other time, but it suggests that Minnesota liberals and NGO's don't care enough about the kids we are leaving behind to advocate for adequate funding. 

For now, let us just say that it is long past time for Minnesota to take the first steps in repairing its broken school finance system, by establishing an official process to determine the cost of meeting state educational requirements for the children we are leaving behind.