THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT ruled that charter schools must comply with the state’s public records law, settling an argument at the heart of Mystic Valley Regional Charter School’s years-long refusal to respond to records requests.
The Malden school, breaking from the position of most charter schools in the state, argued this type of school is only quasi-public, with certain characteristics that make it different enough from other public schools that it could refuse to comply with the general public records law.
Excluding charter schools would frustrate the “core transparency mandate” of the law, wrote Justice Serge Georges, Jr. for a unanimous court on Tuesday, given that they are “public schools funded with public money and charged with performing a quintessential public function.”
Charter schools in the Bay State, the court concluded, qualify as “authorit[ies] established by the general court to serve a public purpose” under state law and fall squarely within the class of governmental entities covered by the public records law.
This 17-page decision affirmed a lower court ruling against Mystic Valley. The school had refused to respond to at least 10 public records requests it received between January and November 2022, and held that position even after the supervisor of public records issued multiple orders directing it to comply.
The attorney general’s office brought suit in mid 2023. In a statement after the ruling, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said, “the court affirmed our fight for transparency and sent a clear message that any taxpayer-funded school, including charter schools, must follow the law.”
In its arguments and brief before the high court, Mystic Valley asked justices to declare “Mystic Valley is not a governmental entity.” Because of the burden it could place on the school if it needed to respond to public records requests, its attorneys wrote, “public policy weighs against subjecting charter schools to the Public Records Law.”
Despite fighting the public records requests and telling the SJC it was not a governmental entity, the school claimed in a statement after the ruling that the court’s rejection of their case was a positive result.
George Warren, chairman of the school’s board of trustees, told the Boston Globe that the board was “pleased with the recent ruling from the highest court in the Commonwealth that we are designated an authority of the state.” The “primary” purpose of the litigation, Warren said, was “not to avoid public scrutiny but rather to define our legal status as an entity.”
But the case wound its way up to the high court, Georges noted, after a Superior Court concluded that “Mystic Valley is a governmental entity obligated to respond to the requests,” and Mystic Valley appealed the decision. The SJC agreed to take the case directly on appeal to settle the question.
The school’s argument before the high court put it at odds with the state charter school association, which has maintained that charter schools are covered by the records law.
Many charter schools, which are publicly funded but operate independently of district school systems, even include the word public in their name as part of their effort to fend off criticism from teachers unions and others who argue that they drain resources from public schools.
“Today’s decision reaffirms, once again, what Massachusetts law has made clear for more than three decades: Charter public schools are public schools,” said Tim Nicolette, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, following the ruling.
Mystic Valley is one of only three of the roughly 80 charters in the state that are not members of the advocacy organization.
In rejecting Mystic Valley’s contrarian claim of being more akin to private corporations, the SJC pointed to the Legislature’s designation of Massachusetts charter schools as “public schools,” the fact that state law says their trustees “shall be deemed to be public agents authorized by the commonwealth,” their public funding through a state formula, and their employees’ status as public employees in certain liability cases.
Mystic Valley argued that its operational independence from local school committees and certain corporate powers placed it more in the mold of a private entity.
But the SJC concluded that those attributes “mirror features of entities we have long recognized as governmental authorities for other purposes,” including housing authorities and building authorities it has previously held to be public despite similar corporate characteristics.
The school also argued that because the Legislature explicitly designated charter schools as state agencies for conflict-of-interest and tort liability purposes, without doing the same for public records, the omission was intentional.
Georges wrote that interpretation would undermine the Legislature’s express objective of “hold[ing] teachers and school administrators accountable for students’ educational outcomes.”
On Mystic Valley’s claim that compliance would create financial burdens and distract from its educational mission, the justices were brief. “Cost concerns cannot override clear statutory language,” the court wrote.
Plus, the court said, the public records law already provides mechanisms to mitigate undue burden – like time extensions and the ability to recover reasonable reproduction costs.
“Since their creation, Massachusetts charter public schools have embraced both transparency and accountability – not only to the state, but also to students, families, and local communities,” said Nicolette, the charter school association leader. “As such, outside of this exception, charter public schools across the state have regularly and consistently complied with public records requests. Today’s decision only reinforces this established, welcomed, and deeply important practice.”