A Structural Problem, A Temporary Fix
Why Florida House’s 90:10 to 85:15 Shift Misses the Real FEFP Funding Issue
Yesterday, I attended the House PreK-12 Budget Subcommittee meeting to hear a presentation on “Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Budget Issues.”
Other than reporting that the PreK–12 budget had been submitted to Leadership, there was no substantive discussion of 2026–2027 budget issues. That conversation is overdue.
For context, the committee’s first four meetings this session hosted presentations on the funding crisis in the 2024–25 school year, when Florida’s rapidly expanding voucher program destabilized the K–12 funding formula. Scholarship spending exceeded appropriations by roughly $400 million, resulting in a $47 million FEFP deficit and a scathing Auditor General audit.
In response, the Senate passed SB 318, a priority bill designed to address the Auditor General’s findings and prevent a repeat of the 2024–25 debacle, including the recommendation to fund vouchers in a separate FEFP categorical.
No comparable structural reforms have emerged from the House PreK-12 Budget Subcommittee.
The Real Budget Issues
In my view, the most pressing questions remain:
1. Will the House follow the Auditor General’s recommendation and agree to fund vouchers in a separate silo?
The Senate has embraced this approach. The House has not.
2. How will the House address mid-year enrollment declines?
At the January 13, 2026 meeting, members were presented with data showing unexpected student population declines – particularly among English Language Learners – likely tied to recent immigration policy changes.
The new. Senate budget includes $65,263,148 for a declining enrollment supplement. The House budget contains no comparable solution.
3. How will the House address scholarship growth exceeding statutory caps in property-rich districts?
Instead of addressing the structural issues, they appear poised to kick the can down the road.
The FEFP and Funding Fairness
For more than 50 years, Florida’s Education Finance Program (FEFP) has been designed to equalize funding so that students have access to substantially similar programs and services regardless of where they live.
District funding is based on student needs and the programs in which they participate. The formula accounts for differences in property tax bases, program costs, cost of living, and population density. It has survived court challenges and is widely cited as a national model for funding fairness.
A portion of FEFP funding comes from local property taxes through the Required Local Effort (RLE).
- In “property-rich” districts, local taxpayers may generate up to 90% of their FEFP funding, with the state contributing the remaining 10%.
- In districts with lower property wealth, the state contributes a larger share.
When the Family Empowerment Scholarship (FES) was folded into the FEFP, it was intended to be funded with state dollars only. To safeguard districts, lawmakers capped scholarship funding in each district at 99% of its Net State FEFP (Section 1012.394(8)(a)12., F.S.).
But as voucher participation surged, Net State FEFP funding was increasingly diverted to pay for scholarships.
The impact is now being felt in property-rich districts, which rely on only a small state contribution to begin with.
The 3rd FEFP Calculation: A Breaking Point
In the recently released 2025–26 Third FEFP Calculation, scholarship funding exceeded the 99% statutory cap in five counties: Collier, Martin, Monroe, Sarasota, and Walton.
In those districts:
- Local taxpayers must still generate 100% of their Required Local Effort.
- Districts receive none of their promised Net State FEFP funding.
- Scholarship payments exceed Net State FEFP allocations by nearly $12 million collectively.
This is precisely the scenario the 99% cap was meant to prevent.
An Overlooked Risk: Voucher Funding Shrinks When Public Enrollment Drops
There is another structural problem with keeping scholarship funding inside the FEFP and tying it to a percentage of a district’s Net State FEFP.
When voucher funding is capped at 99% of a district’s Net State FEFP, the amount available for scholarships is directly tied to public school enrollment.
That means:
- If public school enrollment declines,
- Net State FEFP declines,
- The cap on scholarship funding declines with it.
This year’s Third FEFP Calculation reflected unexpected mid-year enrollment declines — particularly among English Language Learners — which reduced Net State FEFP funding in several districts. Because scholarship funding remains tied to a percentage of that shrinking base, the amount legally available for vouchers is also reduced.
In other words, when public school enrollment drops unexpectedly, the funding pool for vouchers drops as well.
This creates instability for districts and instability for scholarship families — both dependent on enrollment fluctuations neither directly controls.
A separate categorical would avoid this problem entirely:
- Public school funding would reflect public school enrollment.
- Scholarship funding would reflect scholarship participation.
- Neither would destabilize the other.
Keeping scholarships inside the FEFP does not protect districts. It does not protect voucher families. It guarantees volatility for both.
The House Response: 90:10 → 85:15
Rather than move scholarships into a separate funding silo — the structural fix recommended by the Auditor General and adopted by the Senate — the House appears to be addressing the shortfall by adjusting affected districts from a 90% local / 10% state split to an 85% local / 15% state split.
Adjusting property-rich districts from 90:10 to 85:15 may ease this year’s immediate budget pressure, but it does not address the structural flaw that created it. A separate voucher silo, by contrast, would preserve the integrity of the FEFP’s equity framework while providing predictable, transparent funding for both public schools and scholarship students.
Conclusion
The Auditor General has already warned that the current structure is unstable. The 2024–25 deficit demonstrated it. This year’s Third FEFP Calculation — combined with unexpected enrollment shifts — confirmed it.
The Senate has advanced legislation to implement the Auditor General’s recommendations and move scholarship funding into a separate categorical. The House, so far, has relied on ratio adjustments and temporary fixes — without addressing the structural imbalance at the heart of the problem.
If the goal is a funding system that is fair, predictable, and sustainable, structural reform is available. The question now is whether the House will adopt it.
The solution has been written. What remains is the will to enact it.