Saturday, January 07, 2006
Clint Bolick On The Impact On Other States
Florida Ruling Striking Down School Choice Will Not Affect Arizona
by Clint Bolick
The Florida Supreme Court ruling last Thursday holding unconstitutional a school choice program for children in failing public schools will not affect the ability of other states to expand educational choices and opportunities.
The basis for the decision was a provision of the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature to make "adequate provision . . . for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." In a ruling without precedent anywhere in the nation, the Court held that the provision means that public schools are the exclusive means by which the state may provide educational opportunities. Bizarrely, the decision means that children will be forced to return to public schools that are anything but "high quality," turning the constitutional provision on its head.
Every state allows at least some children who are not receiving an adequate education in public schools---students with disabilities or special needs or who are otherwise disadvantaged---to attend private schools at public expense. Moreover, more than 40 states provide public charter schools, which are not "uniform" in terms of curriculum, teacher requirements, or governance. Arizona is the nation"s leader in the diversity of educational choices.
Florida's ruling endangers all such programs, but other courts are unlikely to follow its lead. About 15 states, including Arizona, have "uniformity" clauses, but the Florida court pointed out that its constitutional language is unique. Arizona's Constitution requires the state to provide for the "establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system." In upholding the Milwaukee school choice program against challenge under a similar provision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the clause was not implicated because the state had done exactly that: it had created a uniform public school system. But it was also free to go beyond that to provide for the educational needs of its children. In other words, the Constitution creates a floor, not a ceiling, for educational opportunities.
Given that the intended beneficiaries of the constitutional provisions regarding education are children, we can expect reasonable courts to interpret the provisions to uphold programs that benefit children. In doing exactly the opposite, we can be confident that the Florida Supreme Court will find itself as lonely as it is misguided.
PermaLink | 2:59 PM |
|
by Clint Bolick
The Florida Supreme Court ruling last Thursday holding unconstitutional a school choice program for children in failing public schools will not affect the ability of other states to expand educational choices and opportunities.
The basis for the decision was a provision of the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature to make "adequate provision . . . for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." In a ruling without precedent anywhere in the nation, the Court held that the provision means that public schools are the exclusive means by which the state may provide educational opportunities. Bizarrely, the decision means that children will be forced to return to public schools that are anything but "high quality," turning the constitutional provision on its head.
Every state allows at least some children who are not receiving an adequate education in public schools---students with disabilities or special needs or who are otherwise disadvantaged---to attend private schools at public expense. Moreover, more than 40 states provide public charter schools, which are not "uniform" in terms of curriculum, teacher requirements, or governance. Arizona is the nation"s leader in the diversity of educational choices.
Florida's ruling endangers all such programs, but other courts are unlikely to follow its lead. About 15 states, including Arizona, have "uniformity" clauses, but the Florida court pointed out that its constitutional language is unique. Arizona's Constitution requires the state to provide for the "establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system." In upholding the Milwaukee school choice program against challenge under a similar provision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the clause was not implicated because the state had done exactly that: it had created a uniform public school system. But it was also free to go beyond that to provide for the educational needs of its children. In other words, the Constitution creates a floor, not a ceiling, for educational opportunities.
Given that the intended beneficiaries of the constitutional provisions regarding education are children, we can expect reasonable courts to interpret the provisions to uphold programs that benefit children. In doing exactly the opposite, we can be confident that the Florida Supreme Court will find itself as lonely as it is misguided.
PermaLink | 2:59 PM |
| 
