CONCLUSIONIn sum, article IX, section 1(a) provides for the manner in which the state is to fulfill its mandate to make adequate provision for the education of Florida’s children—through a system of public education. The OSP contravenes this constitutional provision because it allows some children to receive a publicly funded education through an alternative system of private schools that are not subject to the uniformity requirements of the public school system. The diversion of money not only reduces public funds for a public education but also uses public funds to provide an alternative education in private schools that are not subject to the “uniformity” requirements for public schools. Thus, in two significant respects, the OSP violates the mandate set forth in article IX, section 1(a).
We do not question the basic right of parents to educate their children as they see fit. We recognize that the proponents of vouchers have a strongly held view that students should have choices. Our decision does not deny parents recourse to either public or private school alternatives to a failing school. Only when the private school option depends upon public funding is choice limited. This limit is necessitated by the constitutional mandate in article IX, section 1(a), which sets out the state’s responsibilities in a manner that does not allow the use of state monies to fund a private school education. As we recently explained, “[w]hat is in the Constitution always must prevail over emotion. Our oaths as judges require that this principle is our polestar, and it alone.” Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321, 336 (Fla. 2004).
Because we conclude that section 1002.38 violates article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution, we disapprove the First District’s decision in Holmes I. We affirm the First District’s decision finding section 1002.38 unconstitutional in Holmes II, but neither approve nor disapprove the First District’s determination that the OSP violates the “no aid” provision in article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, an issue we decline to reach. In order not to disrupt the education of students who are receiving vouchers for the current school year, our decision shall have prospective application to commence at the conclusion of the current school year.
It is so ordered.
In the era in which this was written, "private schools" meant Catholic schools.
Florida's Blaine Amendment prohibits taxpayer money from going "directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
that's ridiculous. if that's the case then Florida can't give student loans or grants to any student who attends a private church related college.
If "vouchers" were instead issued as tax credits, in other words, The People keeping their money instead of The People sending their money to the State only to have the State return it back to them in the form of vouchers, then the State is not funding private schools since it would have always been The People's money in the first place.
What this argument boils down to is who owns the benefits of your labor? Does all money belong to the State, and they let The People keep only as much as the State allows, or do The People own their money to do with as they please, and only send to The State what The State needs operate?
-PJ
Their logic is stupid.
BY DEFINITION, once the funding goes to support a voucher to an alternative school, it makes that PART OF THE SYSTEM for educating the children.
It all depends on whether you focus on the word "system" or "public". My reading of english indicates that the system is the important word here, not public. By definition - once anything is included in this system it becomes part of the the "system of public education".
In other words, a "system for educating the public" - not "a system of public schools" which this absolutely does not say - yet they claim.
To make them look stupid - are buses part of the education system? Yes? But are buses public schools? No. They are part of the "system".
The rest is just liberal claptrap, which is why they don't even bother to state what part of the Constitution has anything to do with diversion of money.