SJC: Charter school cap doesn’t infringe on rights

Massachusetts is not failing in its responsibility to educate its youth by having a cap on charter schools, according to a high court ruling that found attending one of the alternative institutions is not a constitutional right.

“The education clause provides a right for all the Commonwealth’s children to receive an adequate education, not a right to attend charter schools,” wrote Supreme Judicial Court Justice Kimberly S. Budd, in a unanimous decision released yesterday.

Five unidentified Boston public school students challenged the validity of the state’s cap on charter schools. They argued that the cap “arbitrarily and unfairly deprives” children in the poorest districts from receiving an “adequate education.”

“The burden of the charter enrollment cap — an arbitrary limit that furthers no legitimate educational goal — falls squarely and disproportionately on children in less affluent districts like Boston,” the appeal, filed last year, states.

Superior Court Justice Heidi E. Brieger tossed the suit, and the SJC agreed to weigh in on the charter school debate — an ongoing controversy that has been duked out in the halls of the State House and at the ballot box.

The Legislature has not increased the caps since 2010, and on Nov. 8, 2016, voters considered and rejected a ballot question that would have permitted up to 12 new charter schools.

The SJC decision did not tinker with the will of the voters or lawmakers. Budd found that while the five students had a right to bring the suit, the charter cap did not violate either the education clause or the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts Constitution.

“(T)he plaintiffs have no constitutional right to attend charter schools, and the charter school cap does not interfere with the students’ abil- ity to attend tra- ditional public schools,” Budd wrote.

Attorney General Maura Healey, charged with defending the cap, lauded the SJC’s decision, saying in a statement that it “reaffirms that change must come from the people of Massachusetts, not special-interest-driven litigation.”

Paul Ware of Goodwin Procter, Michael Keating of Foley Hoag and William Lee of WilmerHale — three power brokers in the legal community — led the charge against the charter school cap.

“The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision is a disappointment for those interested in and committed to providing a meaningful education for all the children of Massachusetts,” the attorneys said in a statement.

Massachusetts Teachers Association President Barbara Madeloni said in a statement that the SJC decision was the “third leg of the charter expansionists’ strategy to be rejected” — referring to failed charter cap bills and the defeated ballot question.

“And they filed this lawsuit, which has such weak claims that the SJC won’t even allow it to go to trial,” she said.

In her decision, Budd said charter school caps serve a purpose because “the expansion of charter schools has detrimental effects on traditional public schools and the students who rely on those schools and their services.”