Destroying Equity and Other Problems With HB51

On 4/15/21, during the House Education and Employment Committee meeting, PreK-12 Appropriations Chair Randy Fine (R-Brevard) confessed that he enjoyed debating people he disagreed with. Perhaps this is why he chose to question public education advocate, Marie-Claire Leman during her testimony that day. Let’s see how he did…

Marie-Claire Leman is a public education advocate and mother of three Leon County public school children (one in now in college).  For several years now, she has been giving spot on public comments, on behalf of public education, before various Florida legislative committees. On Thursday, 4/15/21, she gave public comment on HB51, representing the organization Fund Education Now. 

You can learn more about the bill here. Rep. McClain, the bill’s sponsor presented the bill, which was amended to include School Board Term Limits. Committee members asked no questions on the bill. Many charter school organizations (KIPP, Charter Schools USA, Florida Charter School Alliance, etc) and proponents of privatization (Including Americans for Prosperity and Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Florida’s Future) waived in support of the bill. Pro-public school advocates (including the Florida School Boards Association and Polk County Schools) waived in opposition.

Ms. Leman’s remarks began at 2:46:35:

This bill is attempting to circumvent three things, two of which make this bill unconstitutional:

1- it is attempting to circumvent the constitution by imposing term limits on school board members. And, as you are aware, that would need to proceed through a Joint Resolution.

2- it is attempting to circumvent the constitutional authority of duly elected local school boards by creating alternate charter authorizers in state universities and the Florida College system, opening the door to statewide authorizers, given the reach of the service area of certain colleges and universities. To create alternate charter authorizers you would, also, need a joint resolution as has been attempted in years past.

This would not only remove the authority of duly elected local school boards to operate, control and supervise all free public schools but it would also removes the ability of parents to have recourse to an elected body and it removes local oversight of taxpayers over the funding of these so-called “public schools.”

3- it is attempting to circumvent the funding formula. When this was presented in the Senate there was an attempt to characterize this as akin to lab schools. But the language of the bill amends 1002.33 when it comes to the alternate authorizer and the funding for those schools will come directly out of the GAA. The fiscal is indeterminate because you don’t know how many charter schools will ultimately be authorized by the universities, and where they will be located. But the impact to the GAA could be significant. Currently 43% of FEFP funding is from Required Local Effort, some districts generate as much as 90% of their per pupil funding. In those districts, if a student were to transfer to a university authorized charter school, the state responsibility would increase from 10% to 100% of the cost of that student. The reason the Required Local Effort is in the FEFP in the first place is to provide equitable funding across districts that have dramatically different tax bases. This Bill would break that formula requiring the State to pay 100% for students even in those wealthiest districts.

At the conclusion of her public comment, Rep. Fine asked to be allowed to question Ms. Leman. You can watch the exchange at 2:49:38 :

RF: “Just one question on the budgetary issue because I’m not sure… I want to make sure I understand… So, if a student were to go to one of these university charter lab schools and the State would have to pay 100% of the FEFP, which would be incremental to the budget today, would not those local dollars go to the remaining students in that local school district, thus on the aggregate increasing education spending in the State of Florida which is I think, given the name of your organization, you’d like?”

MCL: “The concern is with going backwards on the funding formula which ensures that across the State we are getting equity in funding and this circumventing of that formula would eventually cease to create equity between our various districts that have… contributed back to the funding in different percentages depending on the tax base, as I understand it.”

RF: “Two-second followup? So more funding equals less equity is your position?”

MC: “The circumventing of the formula is what creates less equity, yes. Thank you.”

Let’s fact-check a little here:

1. “University Created Lab Schools”

Fine refers to these newly created schools as “university charter lab schools.” This is a misnomer. These will not be university charter lab schools. The University research lab schools are governed under 1002.32: Developmental research (laboratory) schools. Such schools are created in affiliation with their associated college of education.

The Alternate Charter Authorization language in HB51 amends 1002.33, the “Charter Schools” statute. These will be charter schools authorized and overseen by a university or college, potentially creating a statewide system of charter schools located in, but independent from, local school districts. There is NO requirement that these proposed schools have any connection to their sponsor’s college of education or the university at all, other than the sponsorship. It is likely that corporate charter chains (like those who sent lobbyists to waive in support of the bill) will transfer their schools over to these state-wide university authorizers, rather than continue to submit to the constitutionally mandated oversight by multiple elected school boards. This has always been the intended goal of alternate charter school authorization.

The language here is important because Rep. Fine, as well as Senator Diaz on the Senate side, keep suggesting that these bills are simply expanding programs already in place rather than creating an entirely new process for charter authorization and oversight. It is this new process of alternate charter authorization that is unconstitutional without a voter approved constitutional amendment. (read more here)

2. Will SB51 Result in Increased K-12 funding?

Fine suggests that the funding of these university authorized schools, through the General Appropriations Act process (GAA,) will be over and above the current amount of K-12 funding and result in an overall increased amount of education spending in Florida.

Sigh…. It is hard to believe this guy is the Chair of Education Appropriations… 

Students in Florida are funded based on their weighted Full Time Equivalent “per pupil funding” or FTE. As Rep. Fine and his colleagues often remind us: “the money follows the child.” When the State uses GAA funding to pay entirely for a student to attend one of these new, university sponsored charter schools, that student will no longer be funded in their home district – with either local or state funds. Keep in mind that, through the funding formula, the State limits the amount of local funding that districts can generate, so it is nonsense to believe that the state will miraculously start allowing local districts to generate funds for students no longer attending their district schools. If local students leave their district (charter or district managed) schools to attend university sponsored schools, their money will go with them.

This whole scenario is reminiscent of when Florida’s voters were convinced that lottery proceeds would be spent to supplement and not supplant k-12 education spending… Fool me once, shame on me…

3. Breaking the Equity Formula. 

Ms. Leman is correct. Having the State fund 100% of a student’s per pupil education funding, regardless of their home district’s tax base, circumvents the FEFP formula essentially breaking it.

The entire purpose of Florida’s complicated funding formula, the Florida Education Finance Program, or FEFP, is to distribute education funding equitably across Florida’s diverse school districts. 

A Basic Primer on the FEFP (learn more here):

When the FEFP was enacted by the 1973 Florida Legislature, it’s goal was Equity:

“To guarantee to each student in the Florida public education system the availability of programs and services appropriate to his educational needs which are substantially equal to those available to any similar student notwithstanding geographic differences and varying local economic factors.”

Through the FEFP, district funding is based on the number of individual students and the programs in which they are participating. For example, students requiring special education services or English Language Learners receive more funding than a student requiring basic programming. The FEFP, also, recognizes variations in local property tax bases, education program costs, costs of living and effects of population density/sparsity.

Part of the FEFP is funded by local property taxes through a calculation called the Required Local Effort. In districts that are “property rich,” local property owners are asked to generate as much as 90% of their district’s FEFP funding (with the State chipping in the final 10%). In districts with lower property tax bases, the State contributes a larger percentage of the FEFP. The formula’s goal is equitable funding and the formula, though complex, has withstood court challenges, earns high marks (for equity) and is often cited as a national model for funding equity.

HB51, and its Senate companion SB1028, would break the FEFP formula, by sending 100% of state funding to all students enrolled in these university authorized charter schools, regardless of the socioeconomics, or tax base, of the students’ home district. 

Depending on the locations of these new charters, the state could be sending significantly more funding to property rich neighborhoods than defined by the formula.  A few simple comparisons, using the 2019-2020 FEFP, will demonstrate the problem:

In Walton County, the average per pupil funding is $8269.75. Walton is a property rich community, so it’s Required Local Effort is 90%, meaning local tax dollars fund 90% of their FEFP share and the state funds 10% or $827/student. If Florida State University were to authorize a charter school In Walton County, the state would pick up the entire cost ($8269.75) for that student, a 900% increase in state funding for that child.

In neighboring Washington County, the average per pupil funding is $8079.33. Washington County is less affluent than its neighbor Walton, so its Required Local Effort is only 15%, meaning local tax dollars fund 15% of their FEFP share and the state funds the remaining 85% or $6867/student. If FSU were to authorize a charter school In Washington County, the state would pick up the entire cost ($8269.75) for that student, an 18% increase in state funding for that child.

A similar situation occurs in Southwest Florida:

In Sarasota County, the average per pupil funding is $8324.79. Sarasota is a property rich community, so it’s Required Local Effort is 90%, meaning local tax dollars fund 90% of their FEFP share and the state funds the remaining 10% or $832/student. If University of Florida were to authorize a new charter school In Sarasota County, the state would pick up the entire cost ($8324.79) for that student, a 900% increase in state funding for that child.

In neighboring DeSoto County, the average per pupil funding is $7792.69. DeSoto County is less affluent than its neighbor Sarasota, so its Required Local Effort is only 23%, meaning local tax dollars fund 23% of their FEFP share and the state funds the remaining 77% or $6000/student. If University of Florida were to authorize a charter school In DeSoto County, the state would pick up the entire cost ($7792.69) for that student, a 30% increase in state funding for that child.

Remember, the entire purpose of Florida’s complicated funding formula (FEFP) is to distribute education funding equitably across Florida’s diverse school districts. The funding scheme planned for HB51/SB1028’s alternately authorized, university-sponsored charter schools, would disrupt that formula… and result inequitable funding for Florida’s less affluent communities.

Let’s review:

HB51/SB1028 create an alternate charter school authorizer, which should require a constitutional amendment. Referring to them as “university charter lab schools” is incorrect and misleading.

There is no reason to believe that funding a state wide system of alternately authorized charter school will result in increased K-12 funding overall.

Florida’s complicated funding formula, the FEFP, was designed intentionally to distribute education funding equitably across Florida’s diverse school districts. SB51/SB1028 will break that formula.

Full disclosure, Marie Claire is my friend. But even if she wasn’t, I believe she won the debate.

Of course, by a vote of 14Y-4N, HB51 was reported favorably and will head to the House floor for a final vote.