Mass. kids struggling in school need support. Too often, they’re being sent to court. – The Boston Globe

Report on Judicial Overreach in Massachusetts Education and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

• A report from the Massachusetts Office of the Child Advocate reveals an increasing trend of schools utilizing the judicial system to address student behavioral and educational issues through Child Requiring Assistance (CRA) filings.
• This practice is identified as a systemic failure that directly contravenes the principles of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• The findings indicate that court intervention is often used in place of providing legally mandated educational supports, resulting in harmful and inequitable outcomes for vulnerable children.

Analysis of Child Requiring Assistance (CRA) Filings

• CRA petitions, intended to connect children with services, have become a mechanism for circumventing school responsibilities, particularly regarding special education and disability accommodations.
• The process of court involvement is described as developmentally inappropriate and potentially traumatic, creating lasting negative consequences for children.
• Key statistics from the report highlight the escalating nature of the issue:
  1. A total of 4,290 CRA filings were recorded in fiscal year 2024, representing a 6% increase from 2022.
  2. Petitions involving children aged 6 to 12 increased by 17% between 2022 and 2024.
  3. School-initiated petitions, primarily for truancy and habitual misbehavior, grew by almost 14% over two years, constituting 43% of all filings in 2024.

Violation of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The application of CRA filings demonstrates a significant failure to uphold SDG 10, which calls for the reduction of inequality within and among countries by empowering and promoting the inclusion of all, irrespective of race, origin, or disability.
• The system disproportionately targets marginalized and vulnerable student populations, creating profound disparities.
  1. Latino and Black children are 3.5 times more likely than their white peers to have a CRA petition filed against them.
  2. The filings are more frequently used for students experiencing poverty.
  3. Suffolk County exhibits the highest rate of petitions, indicating that resource deficiencies in urban school districts may be driving the reliance on judicial intervention, further entrenching inequality.

Contradiction of SDG 4: Quality Education

• The report’s findings are in direct conflict with SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, including children with disabilities.
• Schools are increasingly turning to the courts instead of providing the special education resources and disability accommodations that students are legally entitled to receive.
• Evidence of this systemic failure to provide quality education includes:
  1. A 2022 report found that nearly half of all CRA petitions were filed for children who needed, but had not received, an evaluation for special education services.
  2. Behaviors such as school avoidance and disciplinary issues, which often trigger CRA filings, are frequently symptoms of unmet educational needs, unidentified disabilities, or a lack of appropriate support.
  3. The complexity of the special education system is exploited, preventing families without significant resources from successfully advocating for their children’s right to an equitable education.

Implications for SDG 3 (Well-being) and SDG 16 (Justice)

• The practice undermines SDG 3 by failing to promote mental health and well-being. Subjecting children to court proceedings for educational or behavioral challenges can cause significant psychological harm and trauma.
• This misuse of the court system challenges the objective of SDG 16 to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. It represents a failure of the education system to fulfill its duties and a misapplication of the justice system, which is used punitively rather than as a last-resort support mechanism, thereby denying children equal access to justice and protection.

Proposed Legislative Reforms to Align with SDG Principles

• Pending legislation in Massachusetts offers a pathway to rectify these systemic issues and align state practices with global commitments to sustainable development.
• Key reforms proposed in the bill aim to strengthen institutional accountability and prioritize child welfare over judicial intervention:
  1. Barring the filing of CRA petitions for any child under the age of 12.
  2. Requiring schools to refer families to community-based Family Resource Centers 45 days prior to initiating a court petition.
  3. Prohibiting schools from filing petitions to obtain services that they are already legally obligated to provide under state or federal law.
  4. Mandating that a probation officer confirms all other non-judicial options have been exhausted before a petition can be formally filed.
• These measures are designed to ensure that judicial intervention is a true last resort and that the state’s educational and social service systems uphold their commitment to providing equitable, inclusive, and supportive environments for all children.

SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is the failure of the Massachusetts school system to provide adequate and appropriate education for all students, particularly those with behavioral issues, disabilities, and special needs. It highlights how schools resort to court filings instead of providing legally mandated “special education support or disability accommodations.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article explicitly points out significant disparities in how the Child Requiring Assistance (CRA) system is applied. It states that the process is “a tool disproportionately used for poor and disadvantaged children” and provides data showing that “Latino children were 3.5 times more likely than white students to have a CRA petition filed against them,” with Black children facing similar rates. This directly addresses the goal of reducing inequalities based on race and economic status.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article critiques both the justice system and educational institutions. It describes the misuse of the court system as a means to handle educational and behavioral issues, which is “developmentally inappropriate and can be harmful” to children (Target 16.2). It also portrays the school system as an institution that is failing in its accountability to provide mandated services, thus not being an “effective, accountable and transparent” institution (Target 16.6).

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article connects the school system’s failures to the mental and behavioral health of children. It mentions that CRA filings are used for children with “behavioral health” issues and “extreme anxiety.” The report notes that court intervention can “traumatize a child” and create “lasting, really negative memories,” which is contrary to the promotion of mental health and well-being.

Specific Targets Identified Based on the Article’s Content

Targets under SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.
   • The article supports this by detailing how children with disabilities, unidentified disabilities, and those from vulnerable situations (poor, minority families) are not receiving equal access to necessary educational supports. Instead, they are funneled into the court system.
2. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • The article demonstrates a failure to meet this target by describing how the current approach of court involvement creates a harmful and non-inclusive environment for children. The process is described as “traumatizing” and not a “safe” or “effective” way to address educational needs.

Targets under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The article highlights the exclusion of children based on race (“Latino children,” “Black children”), economic status (“students in poverty”), and disability. The CRA filings serve as a mechanism of exclusion rather than inclusion.
2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • The article points to the CRA filing as a practice that results in discriminatory outcomes. It also mentions “pending legislation” as a corrective action designed to prohibit schools from filing petitions for services they are legally required to provide, thereby promoting a more equitable policy.

Targets under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.
   • The article describes the court process as potentially causing psychological harm, stating it can “traumatize a child” and is “developmentally inappropriate.” This can be interpreted as a form of systemic abuse against children.
2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article critiques schools for a lack of accountability in providing special education and for a lack of transparency, with one activist noting, “It is very easy for a school district to pull the wool over a family’s eyes.”

Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Proportion of students subject to court filings, disaggregated by race and ethnicity: The article explicitly states, “Latino children were 3.5 times more likely than white students to have a CRA petition filed against them. Black children were referred to the court system at similar rates to Latino children.” This is a direct indicator of racial inequality.
2. Number and rate of court petitions (CRA filings) against children: The article provides specific data: “In fiscal year 2024, the state recorded 4,290 Child Requiring Assistance filings, a 6 percent increase from 2022.” This measures the scale and trend of the problem.
3. Proportion of court petitions filed for children with special education needs: The article implies this is a key indicator by citing a 2022 report which “found that almost half of all petitions were filed for children who needed to be evaluated for special education services or disability accommodations.”
4. Rate of court petitions initiated by schools for specific reasons (truancy, misbehavior): This is mentioned as a specific measure of how schools are using the system. The article states, “Petitions due to chronic truancy and habitual misbehavior account for roughly 43 percent of all those filed in 2024, an increase of almost 14 percent over two years.”
5. Rate of court petitions, disaggregated by age group: The article points to a worrying trend by noting that “Petitions associated with children ages 6 to 12 increased by 17 percent from 2022 to 2024,” indicating that younger children are increasingly being affected.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bostonglobe.com