IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment

By Ken Maguire, Associated Press | April 27, 2004

BOSTON --Gov. Mitt Romney and top lawmakers discussed a range of potential solutions on Tuesday -- from raising taxes to firing teachers -- in response to a judge's ruling that found Massachusetts must spend more money to properly educate students in poorer districts.

Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford issued her advisory ruling Monday, saying the state hasn't met its constitutional duty to adequately fund its schools. The case now sits before the Supreme Judicial Court, and if the high court agrees it could require the state to increase education funding by hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a dialogue reminiscent of the debate over the court's gay marriage ruling, both the Republican governor and Democratic lawmakers said it's the role of the legislative and executive branches to dictate school spending, and not the courts.

"I'm not terribly panicked about the decision," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, adding that many problems cited by Botsford already are being addressed. "It would be premature to panic, and it would certainly be premature to go off onto a crusade about the balance of power."

When asked whether major new education spending would require a tax increase, Finneran said "possibly," but he said the Legislature won't be bullied.

"In the end, we're the ones who represent and try to protect the interest of the taxpayers," he said.

Romney, who like Finneran accused the SJC of overstepping its bounds by legalizing gay marriage, warned the court to avoid issuing edicts on education spending.

"It shouldn't legislate," Romney said of the court. "I felt that with regards to the definition of marriage, it crossed that line, and I hope they don't ever do it again."

The governor would not entertain questions about potential tax hikes: "I do not expect a major massive spending change in our schools," he said.

Botsford's ruling followed testimony stretching over parts of nine months in a lawsuit filed by 19 lower-income school districts around the state. Her decision sets the stage for the SJC to again dictate the way the state spends money to educate its nearly one million public school students.

A 1993 high court ruling saying the state hadn't met its constitutional duty to fund schools led to passage of the Education Reform law, which overhauled how schools are funded. Since then, Massachusetts has spent nearly $31 billion on schools, mostly in lower-income districts.

In her 358-page report, Botsford said the state still "does not presently provide sufficient funds" to poorer districts to pay for special needs children, reasonable class sizes, technology and good libraries, among other things. She recommended that the SJC order education officials to determine the cost of educating kids in those districts and implement whatever funding and administrative changes are needed.

The ruling "placed responsibility clearly on our table," Education Commissioner David Driscoll told the state Board of Education at a meeting in Chicopee on Tuesday.

"This board and this department have been instructed by this judge to be fully responsible to meet the educational needs of our children," Driscoll said.

Botsford also said the state needs to start schooling children -- particularly those categorized as low income, special needs and English language learners -- earlier than kindergarten.

But Finneran said the state had already begun to take action on that and other areas singled out by the court, including school construction and special education.

The Legislature this year increased funding for special education by $80 million, said Sen. Robert Antonioni, D-Leominster, co-chairman of the Education Committee.

And both Romney and lawmakers have proposed restructuring the state program that pays portions of school construction costs.

In a speech to school committee members from around the state, the governor said Botsford's ruling supports many of his initiatives, including greater accountability in struggling schools. Romney wants to strip job protections from teachers, which would give administrators the ability to fire them, creating potential savings.

"Money is not the sole answer," he said. "Some of our most well-funded districts, Cambridge and Boston, fall at the very bottom 10 percent of our performance."

Cambridge and Boston were not among the 19 districts that filed the lawsuit, which included Barnstable, Belchertown, Brockton, East Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Gill-Montague Regional, Holyoke, Leicester, Lowell, Lynn, Mashpee, Orange, Revere, Rockland, Sandwich, Springfield, Taunton, Uxbridge, and Winchendon.

Now here's my list of questions: Which is more important? Quality schools that are accountable or schools with adaquete resources to teach children? Would you as a taxpayer be more willing to accept legislation that would increase your taxes and improve public schools? Or just yell and complain that money could be used to send your child to a private school? Should schools be run as a buisness? And more importantly, who's intrests are more important? The taxpayers or the state of our children and their education?