F.A.C.E. to FACE
F.A.C.E. BULLETIN
6/08/05
Dear Friends,
All Opportunity March/Rally participants, you each did an outstanding job! We are making significant achievements in Florida for our children. The achievements are not only significant in Florida, but relevant and of particular interest from the national outlook. We are honored to be on the front line of this historic struggle with each of you.
Thank you for stepping up for the students and for the long tireless hours you endure to ensure that all of Florida’s children have more hopeful future.
Thank you for Stepping Up For Students,
Michael A. Benjamin
Executive Director, F.A.C.E.
Florida Alliance for Choices in Education
* THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES APPEARED IN VARIOUS PAPERS BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY MARCH IN TALLAHASSEE *
Both sides sure their views on vouchers for religious schools will prevail
By Kimberly Miller <mailto:kimberly_miller@pbpost.com>
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 04, 2005Mary Jane Soto knows all about Florida's Blaine Amendment.
The Miami-Dade County mom believes her son's private school education depends on how the Florida Supreme Court interprets the 38-word sentence added to the state constitution in 1868.And it does.
Soto's son, Spencer, is one of 719 Florida students who used a taxpayer-funded Opportunity Scholarship to attend a private school last year as part of the nation's only statewide voucher program.On Tuesday, lawyers for parents and teachers will stand before the Florida Supreme Court and argue that the Blaine Amendment bans state tax dollars from going to religious organizations, including churches and private schools.
Two lower courts have deemed the Opportunity Scholarships unconstitutional based on the Blaine Amendment, which is named after a 19th century speaker of the U.S. House who wanted the U.S. Constitution changed to bar the use of public money in religious schools.
When his effort failed, about 30 states adopted the language that Soto now feels stands between her son and Archbishop Curley-Notre Dame High School.
"I'm a big believer in the public schools, but when you are up against a wall and faced with going to a failing school, it just doesn't seem right," Soto said. "I'm very concerned."
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in an Ohio case, said vouchers going to religious schools did not violate the U.S. Constitution because tax dollars were not going directly to the schools. The money, the court ruled, went to the parents, who then decided where to send their children. There was an indirect benefit to the religious schools, but not a direct one.
But Florida's constitution, with the Blaine Amendment, goes further than the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "No revenue of the state shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
"The language is very plain and clear that no money should go to religious organizations directly or indirectly," said Elliot Mincberg, a spokesman for People for the American Way, which is co-counsel for plaintiffs in the Florida case. "The court ought to decide, as lower courts have, that Florida's constitution goes further than the federal constitution and that the value of the separation of church and state should remain."
Attorneys who are representing the state and parents whose children are using vouchers see things differently.
"The $64,000 question is what is the meaning of 'in aid of' in that passage," said Clark Neily, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, which is representing parents of children who receive vouchers.Defendants argue that because the vouchers are often not enough to pay the full tuition at religious schools, it is actually not aiding the school at all. In fact, they say, it is the school that is subsidizing the student's tuition.
Meyer said he doesn't believe there is any way the court can interpret the Blaine Amendment as allowing tax dollars to go to religious schools.
"We do have a degree of optimism going into this," Meyer said. "We are traveling to the Florida Supreme Court with lower courts already deciding in our favor."
But Neily said the Supreme Court ought to interpret things differently because he believes more is at stake than just vouchers, including Bright Futures scholarships that students use at religious colleges and government Medicaid money going to hospitals with religious affiliations.
Pre-K plan may have a big flaw
Use of religious schools for programs could be a violation of the state constitution
By Joe Follick CAPITAL BUREAU
As they crafted Florida's free prekindergarten program last year, lawmakers were largely silent on one potential hang-up: Their plan may be unconstitutional.
The problem is that Florida lawmakers, rather than relying on public schools as other states have done, opted to offer public money for 4-year-olds to attend religious schools.
That's the very issue the Florida Supreme Court will rule on in the coming months in a separate lawsuit. Florida's constitution says, "No revenue of the state...shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
Their ruling may apply only to one smaller voucher program. But it could also could make the pre-K program illegal before it even starts this August.
Lawmakers say they did not have enough time to fully address the constitutionality of a plan they approved late last year.
"That was an issue we didn't ignore, but we chose not to get bogged down," said Rep. Dudley Goodlette, R-Naples, one of the pre-K plan's primary architects.
Yet advocates for the program say lawmakers ignored offers to find a constitutional way to start the pre-K system.
"This was brought up several times, and several lawmakers said, 'We fully expect to be sued.' That was their response," said Linda Alexionik, prekindergarten director for Children's Campaign, a statewide advocacy group. "There was just this strategy the legislators were not going to deal with this issue unless it became an issue ...Well, it's here."
Voters in 2002 ordered lawmakers to provide a free and voluntary pre-K plan for the upcoming school year. Other states implementing such a plan have relied heavily on public schools for the program.
But Florida, already facing a multibillion-dollar mandate to limit class sizes, opted instead to pay for 4-year-olds to attend private and faith-based schools.
Such use of taxpayer money is at the center of a Florida Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, when the state defends the "opportunity scholarship program," or OSP. Those vouchers provide public money for students who are at failing public schools to attend private or religious schools.
Only about 700 children receive the vouchers.
That pales next to the state's prediction that the majority of up to 200,000 4-year-olds are expected to attend faith-based schools as part of the pre-K program.
John Kirtley is the creator of a separate voucher program that gives businesses a tax credit in exchange for providing vouchers for students. He said lawmakers had little choice but to rely on private schools for the pre-K plan since voters left them no option. "If that amendment had said the state must create space in the public schools to do pre-K, I don't think that would have passed. The price tag would have been $20 billion," he said.
The pre-K plan is a voucher plan, as is the state's use of Bright Futures scholarships, which allow university students to attend religious schools, Kirtley said.
"That's why this court case is so fascinating. If they strike down OSP as unconstitutional, clearly pre-K is as well, and clearly Bright Futures is, too."
Nobody seems to have an option if the state Supreme Court rules the pre-K program illegal.
"I hope that's not the ruling," said Gov. Jeb Bush last week. "It would be very difficult."
"I don't see any way to prepare for it," said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, chairman of the House Education Council.
One option Baxley suggested is that lawmakers move to repeal the constitutional amendment barring public money from use by faith-based operators. He said many lawmakers are prepared to put that to a statewide referendum next year.
Ironically, one of the groups suing the state and claiming the vouchers are illegal was one of the big backers of the pre-K plan in 2002. The Florida Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, is now noncommittal about the constitutionality of the pre-K plan, while ardently pursuing the lawsuit against the OSP option.
"We were hoping it would be a public school initiative and we would be expanding on the structure already in place," said Mark Pudlow, an FEA spokesman. He said the union would have to weigh the scope of a lawsuit against other vouchers or the pre-K plan.
"We're not intending to cause chaos here," he said.
Larry Spalding is a lobbyist for another anti-voucher litigant, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. He said if the court deems the OSP unconstitutional, his group will likely sue to end the pre-K plan.
"It really is, in our view, an unconstitutional program," he said.
Court to decide future of vouchers
Constitutionality of state funding at issue
By Nancy Cook Lauer
DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEFAngela Jones will be paying close attention Tuesday when lawyers argue the constitutionality of vouchers before the Florida Supreme Court.
Her son, Jamal Barron, has benefited greatly from his two years using taxpayer-backed vouchers at the Baptist-run Innovation Schools of Excellence in Tallahassee, where he will be entering fifth grade this fall.
"When he went to the public school system, no matter how they described it, there still was an exclusionary type (of) mentality between those in mainstream classes and those in Exceptional Student Education," Jones said. "His self-esteem suffered because he was labeled retarded."
Jamal, who has struggled with a learning disability since his premature birth at only 1 pound, 7 ounces, goes to the private school courtesy of a McKay Scholarship, not the Opportunity Scholarships, which are being challenged in the Supreme Court. But Jones, and many like her, worries that if one type of voucher is found unconstitutional, the rest won't be far behind.
"This is really about academic enrichment, not about religious indoctrination. It's about choice," Jones said. "It's all under the same umbrella. Once you set a precedent, it's going to affect all the scholarships that are out there."
The Supreme Court got the case after a circuit court and then the 1st District Court of Appeal found that using state money to send children to private schools not only violates constitutional separation of church and state but also guts the constitution's requirement that the state provide free, high-quality education of children through a public school system.
"Courts do not have the authority to ignore the clear language of the constitution, even for a popular program with a worthy purpose," wrote Appellate Judge Van Nortwick in the majority opinion last year.
But attorneys for Gov. Jeb Bush argued in filings in the Supreme Court case that "The Legislature's constitutional duty ... is to make adequate provision for the public school system and for the education of all children. This court has held that the Legislature is vested with 'enormous discretion' in deciding how to do this."
About half of the $4,241 vouchers are used at religious-based schools and half at other private schools. Yet because they're part of the same program, striking down the law would eliminate both choices.
Students have been allowed to keep using vouchers while the case wends its way through the legal system. Of some 2.5 million K-12 students in Florida, more than 700 are using Opportunity Scholarships. Combined, the three voucher programs have about 25,000 students.
The Supreme Court is pretty much the last stop for the voucher debate, said Ron Myer, one of the attorneys for the voucher opponents. If the state loses the case, it will have to change the constitution to continue the program, he said.
"My view is this (is) the end. This is about the state constitution and this is the highest court in the state, and it has the final word on the issue," Myer said.
Voucher opponents include the Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers (Florida PTA), the League of Women Voters of Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Florida Education Association, People for the American Way and the Florida Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Ruth Holmes Cameron, a former teacher in the Escambia County Schools system, and Susan and Gregg Watson, parents of children in the public school system.
Voucher supporters - the plaintiffs in the case for the high court - include Gov. Jeb Bush, Attorney General Charlie Crist, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Florida Catholic Conference and a coalition made up of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options, the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the McKay Coalition and the Florida African American Education Alliance.
Voucher supporters expect 2,000 people to rally outside the Supreme Court building during the arguments. Opponents also are expected to rally.
Myers doesn't think the rallies will have much effect.
"Constitutional cases are not decided in the streets outside the courthouse," he said. "Even a well-intentioned program that's unconstitutional still can't be sanctioned."
THE HEARING
When: 9 a.m. Tuesday
Where: Florida Supreme Court; seating is limited.
How to watch: The Florida Channel will provide live coverage. Locally, it's available on 4FSU (Comcast Channel 4). The coverage can also be seen on the Internet at www.wfsu.org.
Also: Duval Street will be closed from Gaines to Pensacola from 8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. to make room for a march and rally.
VOUCHERS
Types of taxpayer-backed education vouchers in use in Florida:
Opportunity Scholarships: A key component of Gov. Jeb Bush's 1999 A-Plus Plan, these are given to parents of children who attend schools that have been graded F twice in the past four years, based on Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests. This is the voucher being challenged.
McKay Scholarships: Vouchers given to parents of children with learning disabilities. They are named for former Senate President John McKay, who championed the measure.
Corporate Scholarships: Corporations get tax breaks for giving money to low-income families so their children can attend private schools.
STATE GOVERNMENT
Contact Capitol Bureau Chief Nancy Cook Lauer at (850) 671-6547 or nlauer@tallahassee.com.
© 2005 Tallahassee Democrat and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.tallahassee.com
By Nancy Cook Lauer
DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEFAngela Jones will be paying close attention Tuesday when lawyers argue the constitutionality of vouchers before the Florida Supreme Court.
Her son, Jamal Barron, has benefited greatly from his two years using taxpayer-backed vouchers at the Baptist-run Innovation Schools of Excellence in Tallahassee, where he will be entering fifth grade this fall.
"When he went to the public school system, no matter how they described it, there still was an exclusionary type (of) mentality between those in mainstream classes and those in Exceptional Student Education," Jones said. "His self-esteem suffered because he was labeled retarded."
Jamal, who has struggled with a learning disability since his premature birth at only 1 pound, 7 ounces, goes to the private school courtesy of a McKay Scholarship, not the Opportunity Scholarships, which are being challenged in the Supreme Court. But Jones, and many like her, worries that if one type of voucher is found unconstitutional, the rest won't be far behind.
"This is really about academic enrichment, not about religious indoctrination. It's about choice," Jones said. "It's all under the same umbrella. Once you set a precedent, it's going to affect all the scholarships that are out there."
The Supreme Court got the case after a circuit court and then the 1st District Court of Appeal found that using state money to send children to private schools not only violates constitutional separation of church and state but also guts the constitution's requirement that the state provide free, high-quality education of children through a public school system.
"Courts do not have the authority to ignore the clear language of the constitution, even for a popular program with a worthy purpose," wrote Appellate Judge Van Nortwick in the majority opinion last year.
But attorneys for Gov. Jeb Bush argued in filings in the Supreme Court case that "The Legislature's constitutional duty ... is to make adequate provision for the public school system and for the education of all children. This court has held that the Legislature is vested with 'enormous discretion' in deciding how to do this."
About half of the $4,241 vouchers are used at religious-based schools and half at other private schools. Yet because they're part of the same program, striking down the law would eliminate both choices.
Students have been allowed to keep using vouchers while the case wends its way through the legal system. Of some 2.5 million K-12 students in Florida, more than 700 are using Opportunity Scholarships. Combined, the three voucher programs have about 25,000 students.
The Supreme Court is pretty much the last stop for the voucher debate, said Ron Myer, one of the attorneys for the voucher opponents. If the state loses the case, it will have to change the constitution to continue the program, he said.
"My view is this (is) the end. This is about the state constitution and this is the highest court in the state, and it has the final word on the issue," Myer said.
Voucher opponents include the Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers (Florida PTA), the League of Women Voters of Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Florida Education Association, People for the American Way and the Florida Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Ruth Holmes Cameron, a former teacher in the Escambia County Schools system, and Susan and Gregg Watson, parents of children in the public school system.
Voucher supporters - the plaintiffs in the case for the high court - include Gov. Jeb Bush, Attorney General Charlie Crist, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Florida Catholic Conference and a coalition made up of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options, the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the McKay Coalition and the Florida African American Education Alliance.
Voucher supporters expect 2,000 people to rally outside the Supreme Court building during the arguments. Opponents also are expected to rally.
Myers doesn't think the rallies will have much effect.
"Constitutional cases are not decided in the streets outside the courthouse," he said. "Even a well-intentioned program that's unconstitutional still can't be sanctioned."
THE HEARING
When: 9 a.m. Tuesday
Where: Florida Supreme Court; seating is limited.
How to watch: The Florida Channel will provide live coverage. Locally, it's available on 4FSU (Comcast Channel 4). The coverage can also be seen on the Internet at www.wfsu.org.
Also: Duval Street will be closed from Gaines to Pensacola from 8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. to make room for a march and rally.
VOUCHERS
Types of taxpayer-backed education vouchers in use in Florida:
Opportunity Scholarships: A key component of Gov. Jeb Bush's 1999 A-Plus Plan, these are given to parents of children who attend schools that have been graded F twice in the past four years, based on Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests. This is the voucher being challenged.
McKay Scholarships: Vouchers given to parents of children with learning disabilities. They are named for former Senate President John McKay, who championed the measure.
Corporate Scholarships: Corporations get tax breaks for giving money to low-
income families so their children can attend private schools.
Argument for vouchers no better than in 1999
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Five years after the first Florida judge ruled Gov. Bush's original voucher program unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in the case. Because the vouchers, in effect, help religious schools proselytize and undermine public education, the high court should agree that they violate the state constitution.
That document says, "No revenue of the state... shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." Voucher advocates say that prohibition doesn't apply because any benefit to the religious school is incidental. Delivering education, they say, is like delivering meals or other social services that religious organizations can provide using state grants. If the court strikes down vouchers, they claim, religious groups will be unable to offer any state-subsidized aid.
More from Opinion
•Sound off in the blog
• Columnists
• Editorials/Letters
• Don Wright cartoonsIn fact, there is a clear difference between delivering a service and providing an education. The three major influences on a child usually are home, church and school. The voucher program improperly seeks to combine the last two.
Voucher supporters say the important thing is that students don't have to participate in prayers. But parents who send their children to religious schools would be shocked and disappointed if the religious nature of the school's instruction began and ended with a few minutes each day of prayer and Bible study. In depositions, many of the religious schools that take Gov. Bush's so-called Opportunity Scholarships proudly describe a curriculum in which Jesus is central to every aspect of instruction. Religious schools seek to mold children into adherents of their particular religious beliefs. That hardly is "incidental." Parents are free to send their children to such schools — but not at the public's expense.
The vouchers, which go to students in schools that receive a state grade of F twice within four years, primarily have been used at religious schools. Public school advocates also persuasively argue that providing vouchers for use at nonreligious schools violates the constitutional requirement that Florida exclusively provide public education through "a system of free public schools." The intent of the governor and Legislature in creating vouchers has been to undermine that system of free public schools.
There is no other way to explain inadequate state budgets and the second wave of vouchers, which aren't at issue in this case but ought to be soon. While chaining public schools to a grading system that misuses the FCAT, the state has refused, despite repeated abuses, to require adequate academic or fiscal oversight of private schools using corporate tax vouchers.
Gov. Bush has continued and expanded voucher programs even as lower courts ruled them illegal. The Supreme Court should return the state's focus to public schools, as the constitution requires.
Daytona Beach New Journal
Right Choice?
Court can't answer fundamental question
Last update: June 05, 2005Voucher systems in Florida are not designed to offer a better choice for parents seeking better schooling for their children. If they were, they would require private schools receiving vouchers to be held as accountable for academic achievement, overall safety and financial responsibility as public schools. They would require that parents be provided with comparative information to help them make the best choice.
Instead, Florida's three voucher programs have minimal oversight. Private schools receiving vouchers get millions in tax dollars but how good are they? That information is not shared with the public, not even the FCAT scores.
When parents can't compare quality, how can they know what's best for their child?
That's the irony about the voucher case before the Florida Supreme Court. It's not about academic programs, privacy issues or even child-safety matters.
The issue before the justices is whether public money can be used to support a religious school under the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program. The state constitution prohibits aid to religious institutions, and court rulings have so far supported the voucher opponents' stance that giving funds to schools that blend educational and religious programming is unconstitutional.
The people who filed the suit are hoping a ruling in their favor will kill not only Opportunity Scholarship but also block new voucher programs, such as the one the governor has proposed for students who fail FCAT reading exams.
So the court will focus on the legal issue, as it should, and won't be able to address the critical flaws of voucher systems.
High on the list of shortcomings is that voucher systems take away funds needed to make substandard public schools better. In many cases, students in those schools are from low-income minority backgrounds. It would be better to use funds that go to vouchers to infuse failing schools with the best administrators, the best teachers, the best technology.
The voucher system offers an easy out. By sending money to private schools that are not held accountable, the state is let off the hook. A private school that fails might be sued, but the blame would likely be deflected from political leaders. And those leaders would be unlikely to impose measures to ensure that voucher-receiving schools meet another constitutional requirement: that the state provide free, uniform, high-quality schools.
By diverting public-education dollars to voucher programs, the state can slowly move itself out of the costly education business. And some critics say that is the goal. Indeed, legislators have been reducing the state's share of Florida's education funding for years. The budget just passed allocates 56.6 percent of state spending for education, down from 61 percent six years ago.
When lawyers address the Florida justices on Tuesday, their arguments will be about whether vouchers run afoul of the constitution's "no-aid" clause. Yet the overriding issue remains: Turning schooling over to private providers who are paid with tax dollars and not held to any standards is fundamentally wrong and doesn't improve public education.
FLORIDA'S VOUCHERS
Florida was the first state to offer statewide voucher plans for kindergarten through 12th-grade students. They are:
· Opportunity Scholarship, implemented in 1999, provides $3,900 for public or private schools. Recipients must attend schools that receive two consecutive failing grades under the FCAT system. Affects about 700 children.
· McKay Scholarship, started in 2001, is for children with disabilities. The funding equals what the public school would have collected in per-child state funding or the private school's tuition and fees, whichever is less. Affects about 14,000 children.
· Corporate Tax Credit, enacted in 2001, provides dollar-for-dollar tax credits up to $5 million for businesses that provide private-school scholarships for children from low-income families. The Legislature this year increased the cap from $50 million to $88 million. Affects about 11,000 children; new cap could add 9,000.
THE COURT CASE
On Tuesday, the Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments to dismantle or save the Opportunity Scholarship program. The ruling might affect the other state voucher programs.
The law creating Opportunity Scholarship has been struck down by three Florida courts. In the latest ruling, the full Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, found the voucher system violates Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which says "[n]o revenue of the state . . . shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid . . . of any sectarian institution."
The case has raised national interest because 36 other states have similar funding bans. Florida's -- one of the most restrictive -- dates back to the 1868 constitution and is included in the current document ratified by voters in 1968. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Cleveland voucher program does not violate the U.S. Constitution but did not address state constitutions.
NATIONAL OUTLOOK
Only a handful of states have voucher programs although many are considering them. Utah approved a statewide program this year. Maine and Vermont had rural programs dating back to the 1800s. Ohio has a voucher program affecting only Cleveland, and Wisconsin's voucher program affects only Milwaukee. The District of Columbia began a federally funded voucher program last year.
Several states are looking into corporate tax credits to avoid court battles.
Two of the oldest are Milwaukee and Cleveland. They have been the most studied, with results either inconclusive or contradictory regarding academic achievement.
· Milwaukee: First created in 1975, Wisconsin lawmakers included religious schools in 1990. The state provides $5,900 in vouchers. Affects 15,000 children.
· Cleveland: Implemented in 1996, the Cleveland program offered up to $2,250 for low-income children to attend private schools. Affects 5,000 children.
School voucher issue heads to state high court
By JIM SAUNDERS
Tallahassee Bureau Chief
Last update: June 05, 2005TALLAHASSEE -- Ordinarily, 741 students would be little more than a footnote among the more than 2.6 million Florida schoolchildren.
But that small group is at the center of a six-year legal and political battle that comes down to this question: Should Florida use tax dollars to send children to private and religious schools?
State Supreme Court justices will tackle the issue Tuesday, hearing arguments about whether Gov. Jeb Bush and lawmakers violated the Florida Constitution when they passed a 1999 law that allows children to get taxpayer-funded private education -- a system commonly known as school vouchers.
Two lower courts have ruled the voucher program violates part of the constitution that bars the state from using tax dollars "in aid of" religious institutions. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could be a huge setback for Bush, who has made vouchers a focus of his controversial efforts to overhaul Florida's education system.
Backers of the program dispute it is unconstitutional, though it pays for children to attend church schools. They argue, in part, that the program is designed to aid children who otherwise would go to low-performing public schools.
"We're hopeful that they (justices) will protect the rights of parents to make choices . . . where they have no other option because the schools have failed," Bush said.
But opponents say the program clearly violates language that has been part of the constitution for more than a century. They say the tax dollars go to carrying out the "religious missions" of schools and that many families receiving vouchers have few other private-school choices.
"The money is going to go to sectarian (religious) schools, if it is going to go anywhere," said Ron Meyer, a Tallahassee attorney who has helped represent a coalition of opponents in the case.
The battle stems from the Legislature's approval in 1999 of Bush's so-called "A-plus" education plan, which included the annual grading of public schools. Under the plan, students can receive vouchers -- or "opportunity scholarships," as Bush and lawmakers have dubbed them -- to transfer to private schools if their public schools receive failing grades in two out of four years.
So far, the number of students transferring to private schools through the program has been relatively small. Statewide, 741 children received the vouchers during the 2004-05 school year, as of a March count, with none in Volusia and Flagler counties.
But the Bush plan also helped spawn two similar programs that sent more than 26,000 students to private schools in 2004-05, including more than 500 in Volusia County. One of those programs offers vouchers to students with physical or learning disabilities, while the other gives tax credits to businesses that pay for low-income children to attend private schools.
Similarly, Bush and legislative allies proposed a plan this spring that would have led to a further expansion by offering vouchers to students who perform poorly on reading tests. That proposal, which senators killed, could have led to tens of thousands of children receiving vouchers.
While the Supreme Court case centers on the initial Bush plan, it is part of a much-broader national fight about vouchers. That is evident as numerous state and national education and religious groups -- ranging from teachers unions to the Florida Catholic Conference -- have filed briefs or participated in the case.
Teachers unions and other voucher opponents argue such programs take away money that could otherwise be used to bolster public schools.
"My concern is that there's a real agenda against public schools," Volusia County School Board Chairwoman Candace Lankford said.
But Bush and other voucher supporters say the programs offer choices to low-income families who often can't afford to pay for their children to attend private schools.
"Simply put, the Florida Constitution does not dictate that only the wealthy may send their children to private schools, while parents of lesser means are forced to accept even demonstrably inadequate services from their local public schools," said a brief filed by the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group that represents parents of voucher students.
Though the Florida Constitution has included language since the late 1800s that bars using tax dollars to aid religious institutions, the state has long paid church-affiliated organizations for services such as providing health care to the poor.
Supporters of the vouchers program contend a wide range of services could be jeopardized if the Supreme Court finds the program unconstitutional. Institute for Justice attorney Clark Neily, for example, said the Bright Futures university scholarship program -- and potentially even the state's new prekindergarten program -- could be deemed unconstitutional because they allow students to receive tax dollars to go to religiously affiliated schools.
"What is the difference between this (voucher) program and Bright Futures?" Neily asked.
But Meyer called that a "parade of horribles" argument and said the other programs are not part of the case. He and other attorneys wrote in a brief that the vouchers program differs, at least in part, because it makes it possible for schools and churches to "inculcate" religious beliefs in children they would not otherwise reach.
Nevertheless, Meyer said the case could jeopardize the voucher program for children with disabilities. That program, which is similar to Bush's plan, served nearly 16,000 children in 2004-05, including 228 in Volusia.
The Supreme Court typically takes months to rule on lawsuits, so it appears unlikely that the case will be resolved before children return to school in August. What's more, Meyer said, the case poses difficult legal questions.
"These are important constitutional issues that the Supreme Court is going to wrestle with, I suspect," he said.
The Florida Times-Union
June 6, 2005
Implications wide in school voucher caseBy J. TAYLOR RUSHING
Capital Bureau ChiefPENSACOLA -- Ruth Holmes and Brenda McShane live just 25 minutes from each other in the neighborhoods near Pensacola Bay. Both sent their children through the same Escambia County school system, both devoted decades of their lives to careers in education, and both believe in not looking back.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------Yet Holmes and McShane are worlds apart on the question of whether Florida should allow public money for a private education. And their differences are at the core of the school voucher debate that lands before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday and will affect all 67 school districts.
Justices will convene in Tallahassee to hear oral arguments about the constitutionality of the 6-year-old Opportunity Scholarship program, one of Gov. Jeb Bush's most prized programs, which is sending 720 students to private schools. The vouchers are offered for students at any public school that receives failing grades from the state at least twice in a four-year period.
A court decision is not expected immediately. But when it comes, it could have a domino effect on a long list of other state programs that include the religious community. Since Florida's voucher program was the nation's first, widespread national effects also are coming, no matter what the seven judges decide.
2 tales, 2 stances
--------------------------------------------------
Holmes --------------------------------------------------Holmes, a Navarre Beach mother of two grown children, spent 35 years teaching elementary schools in Pensacola and was the president of the state teachers union in 1983-85. She agreed to be the lead plaintiff in the case because she said vouchers create an unfair split in what should be an all-inclusive public education system.
"They take money away from a school system that is already hurting, and they're against the Florida Constitution," Holmes said. "I don't have any objection to private schools. Parents send their kids there for all sorts of reasons. But it's not right for my public tax dollars to pay for it."
But McShane, a 31-year Head Start official in Pensacola, said public schools failed the first three of her four children through a lack of attention. Six years ago she finally removed her youngest child, Brenisha, now 12, from the public school system and sent her to a private, non-religious school on an Opportunity Scholarship. When lawyers from the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm in Washington, asked if she was willing to be a figurehead in the case, McShane readily agreed.
"If the scholarships would have been available earlier, I would have used them for all four of my children," she said. "I am so thankful for them. I know some people out there are concerned about them. But Brenisha is getting more individualized attention. There's a team approach, with me included. She's more self-confident. I was disappointed at what I was getting for my first three kids, and they're still struggling in life because of it."
The lawsuit originated in Pensacola because the voucher program was launched there at two inner-city elementary schools. Those schools are no longer in the program. One closed and reopened as a secondary alternative school; the other improved its grades.
Legal last word
Bush, who was in Jacksonville Friday to sign the state's new Medicaid legislation, said he was proud of the program but acknowledged judges may disagree.
"I am not a lawyer and I'll let the Supreme Court make up its mind about the legality of this," Bush said. "Depending on what they decide, we'll respond. I do know that the Opportunity Scholarship program has provided 800 parents and 800 children a chance to move to a school of their choice. ... The fact that there is that option has created a catalyst to improve the underperforming schools of our state."
It is such a bitterly divisive case that there is perhaps only one area on which all sides agree -- the need for a legal last word on Florida's six-year experiment.
"This showdown is the most important case in recent history to go before the justices," said Andrew Ford, president of the Florida Education Association, the state teachers union. "We need an answer to the constitutionality of it."
The arguments over Florida's school voucher program have implications that reach from local school districts to national politics. But the two basic questions before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday are fairly simple: Do vouchers violate the state constitution's ban on public money to religious schools, and do they shortchange public education?
Specifically, the Florida Constitution prohibits state money from "directly or indirectly" aiding any church, sect or religious denomination -- and more than half of the 700 students using vouchers are using them to attend religious schools.
The second question centers on a clause in the state constitution that was expanded by voters in the 1990s to require the state to ensure an "efficient, safe, secure and high-quality" public education system. That requirement is being violated, voucher opponents say, when public money is diverted to private schools.
Lower courts have ruled against the voucher program four times since 1999, although the program has been allowed to continue during appeals. Voucher supporters say those lower courts didn't have to consider the consequences of such rulings on other social service programs, as the Supreme Court must now do. Voucher opponents call that a scare tactic and say the past rulings prove the program is unconstitutional.
Voucher supporters such as Bush, Republican legislators and some religious leaders say the program expands choices for parents and is aimed solely at helping students, not religions.
"The real question is whether it constitutes aid to a religious institution, and our position is 'absolutely not,'" said Clark Neily, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice. "Think of it this way: Whenever there's a scholarship awarded, does that go to the college or the student? It goes to the student. We recognize others see it differently, but we believe this aid is going to parents and children to expand their opportunities. Any benefit to a religious institution is purely incidental."
But opponents say vouchers represent a clear and unmistakable path of money from taxpayers' pockets to religious institutions.
"That's the key. This is state money, and the record shows it's being used for religious values," said Tallahassee lawyer Ron Meyer, who represents voucher opponents. "These are largely sectarian, religious schools and they have not altered their programs. There's nothing wrong with that. You just can't use the state treasury to pay for it."
Duval County School Board Chairwoman Nancy Broner also noted what even some voucher supporters admit -- there is a troubling lack of accountability measures in place in the program. This spring, the Legislature rejected proposals to boost such accountability.
Broner's point is that without those measures, even parents who want to use vouchers for their children have no way to evaluate a particular private school. Students at private schools, for example, don't have to take the state's performance-measuring Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
"What's purported to be parental choice is actually a disservice to parents because you're not being given equal information," Broner said. "Some parents feel their needs are met best in a private setting, but a year or two or three down the road, they find it's lacking and they bring these kids back to us."
Times-Union writer Urvaksh Karkaria contributed to this report.
jt.rushingjacksonville.com, (850) 224-7515, extension 11
School vouchers challenge goes to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling of justices is expected to have national repercussions.
By Linda Kleindienst
Tallahassee Bureau Chief
Ft. Ludersdale Sun Sentinel
June 6, 2005
TALLAHASSEE -- Six years after it began, the legal battle over Florida's private school voucher program will finally land in the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.
On one side will be retired teacher Ruth Holmes, who wants tax dollars raised for education to remain in public schools, which she thinks are underfunded.
The opposing camp will include parents such as Mary Jane Soto of Miami, who credits a state voucher with rescuing her son from a failing public school and giving him a better academic future.
At stake is the future of Opportunity Scholarships, the nation's only statewide voucher program and a cornerstone of the education reform agenda that Gov. Jeb Bush pushed through the Legislature in 1999, his first year in office.
The program allows students to obtain tax-funded vouchers to attend a private school if the public school to which they are assigned has earned two F's from the state in a four-year period. The vouchers, which are sent directly to the parents, are worth about $4,200 each.
The legal wrangling is focused primarily on a provision in the Florida Constitution that prohibits any money from the state treasury from being used "directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious denomination or in any ... of any sectarian institution." It was first put into the state's constitution in 1868, when anti-Catholic sentiments ran rampant throughout the country, especially in the South.
Two lower courts have declared the program unconstitutional. But Attorney General Charlie Crist calls "archaic" the section of the constitution used to strike down vouchers.
"It was
