Court News

The Hancock v. Driscoll trial began Thursday, June 12, 2003 at the John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse in Boston, which is located at 90 Devonshire Street in the Financial District. The fact finding portion of the trial, during which over 70 national experts and dozens of Massachusetts educators and administrators will testify, is being heard by Judge Margot Botsford in Suffolk Superior Court. On most weeks, court will be held from 9:00am to 1:00pm Monday through Friday at the courthouse in Boston, with some breaks. For information on witnesses who have testified, click on the "Daily Court Summaries" link at the bottom of this page. Courtroom Players

The Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs are students who attend public schools in 19 Massachusetts school districts. At trial, the evidence will focus on four of those districts--Brockton, Lowell, Springfield and Winchendon because these districts are typical of the districts in which all of the plaintiffs attend school. The 19 plaintiff districts are:

Barnstable, Belchertown, Brockton, East Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Gill-Montague Regional, Holyoke, Leicester, Lowell, Lynn, Mashpee, Orange, Revere, Rockland, Sandwich, Springfield, Taunton, Uxbridge, Winchendon

The plaintiffs'attorneys are Michael D. Weisman, Rebecca P. (Betsy) McIntyre, Emiliano Mazlen and Peter E. Montgomery of Weisman & Associates and Alan Rom of the Appleseed Foundation.

The Defendant: The main defendant is the Commonwealth's Commissioner of Education, but James A. Peyser and other members of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and Michael Sentence, the Advisor on Education in the Office of the Governor, are also named in their official capacities in the lawsuit. The Commonwealth will be represented by lawyers from the Attorney General's office.

The Case: The full name of the lawsuit is Julie Hancock et al. v. Commissioner of Education Driscoll et al. and the fact-finding portion of the case is being heard by Judge Margot Botsford in Suffolk Superior Court. It will then proceed to the supreme judicial court for a decision in 2004. Court Documents

• Motion for Further Relief---This is the document that initated Hancock v. Driscoll.
  
• Second Trial Management Order---This is the judge's order which states that the state's cirriculum frameworks will be used as definition of an adequate education for the Hancock trial.
  
  

• Decision in the McDuffy Case ---This is a link to the full text of the 1993 Supreme Judicial Court decision in the McDuffy case. The decision stated that the state's constitutional duty was not being met for students enrolled in public schools.