Massachusetts Lawsuit: Don't Hold Students Accountable for the System's Failure

On September 19, 2002, lawyers filed a class-action lawsuit, Student v. Driscoll, in an attempt to throw out the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests as exit exams for high-school seniors. Beginning with the class of 2003, every Massachusetts high-school student must pass the English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics exams as a prerequisite for graduation. Students have five chances to pass the two sections between the tenth and twelfth grades, but after three attempts, half of Latino seniors and 44 percent of African-Americans have not passed, compared to an overall failure rate of 19%. The suit alleges that the test discriminates against African-Americans and Latinos, as well Limited-English-Proficient students, students with disabilities, those who attend vocational-technical schools, and those who live in the Holyoke school district. The complaint further states that the MCAS has a disproportionately negative effect on those students that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 (MERA) was intended to help.

MERA was signed into law by Governor Weld at about the same time that the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its ruling for the plaintiffs in an adequacy case, McDuffy v. Secretary of the Office of Education. The McDuffy plaintiffs claimed that their own school districts were unable to provide them with an adequate education because of insufficient funds. MERA aimed to resolve this problem by establishing a "foundation budget" for each school district, to be phased in over seven years. MERA's progress was to be monitored by an "effective mechanism" that would hold "educators accountable for their achievement."

Instead, says lawyer Tom Frongillo of Testa, Hurwitz, and Thibeault of Boston, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, students are being held accountable for a still-failing system. The complaint alleges that the "curriculum frameworks" and "academic standards" being tested on the MCAS were neither designed nor implemented in a timely manner, which means that the schools have not taught students what they are required to by law. Plaintiffs also allege that the "effective mechanism" was not supposed to be a test, and that the MCAS is illegal under MERA because it punishes students, and particularly minority students, instead of the schools, teachers, and principals who have failed to educate them. In addition to dropping the MCAS as an exit exam, another remedy sought by the plaintiffs is better training for teachers "to meet the educational needs" of students who have failed the test.

The six students plaintiffs are Latinos and African-Americans attending Holyoke and Springfield area schools and some students with learning disabilities. All have failed at least one section of the MCAS. Plaintiffs also allege that MCAS violates the State and Federal Constitutions' due-process and equal-protection clauses and Title VII, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which pertains to students with disabilities.

On September 24, defendant Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll suggested awarding a "local certificate" to students who satisfy all graduation requirements other than the MCAS. Other alternatives are being proposed, such as a GED, which is nationally recognized. The U.S. Army, however, has said that it would accept the local certificate.

Prepared September 24, 2002