Peterman supports voucher bill

Count Rep. Frank Peterman, D-St. Petersburg, as another black Democrat who's bucking his party on an education initiative it has long opposed: Private-school vouchers.

Peterman is a co-sponsor of a House bill filed last week (see Gradebook post here) that would triple the size of the state's biggest voucher program by increasing the cap on corporate tax-credit scholarships from $88 million now to $238 million by 2012. Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville and chair of the Senate education committee, introduced the companion bill today.

Several black Democrats are supporting the legislation, including Reps. Peterman and Terry Fields in the House, and Sens. Al Lawson and Gary Siplin in the Senate. Others are expected to join them. The fact that black Democrats in the Legislature are slowly but surely embracing vouchers is a development that has been largely overlooked by the media (though not by The Gradebook; see one of last summer's posts here.)

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[terminator]

8:41
I can't speak for Ron or Andy. I don't work for FEA but am involved politically.
I'm just a local union hack not a kingmaker.
I know we (FEA, locals, union teachers) won't stand for it and will take any lawmaker to the woodshed just like we did Jeb.
Sure pass it along. I'm sure they know exactly what we'll do already.
The message is, if they make nice and don't attempt to increase the voucher programs they'll be ok, if they don't we'll put a hurting on them they'll never forget!

Terminator,

You say

"if CC, Pruitt and his buddies don't live up to their promise to hold education harmless and by some far fetched chance the voucher bill did pass you can bet your *ss we'd sue in a hearbeat!"

Thank you for clarifying that Ron Meyer did mislead the Tax and Budget Reform Commission about the FEA's intentions. I think that will be important information for the commission members to have. I will be sure to pass it on to them. I presume I can tell them that you are with the FEA and you are accurately describing the FEA's true intentions?

[terminator]

3:46
bottom line is: if CC, Pruitt and his buddies don't live up to their promise to hold education harmless and by some far fetched chance the voucher bill did pass you can bet your *ss we'd sue in a hearbeat!
We're not going to sit idly by and allow public taxpayer money intended for public schools to be used to subsidize inferior/unregulated voucher schools.
I would challenge you to cite evidence from anywhere in the country where the public has supported vouchers?
You know and I know, the vast majority of the taxpaying public doesn't support vouchers.
If we get the money we want and the voucher bill goes down (which it undoubtedly will), it's highly unlikely we'd pull the trigger.

Terminator,

You say Meyer's comments were "before A1 passed and before the ill timed voucher bill."

Actually Traviesa's bill was filed on January 22nd, and your comments on it were posted January 23rd. Meyer's comments were made January 25th.

So, Meyer was aware of the bill when he made his comments. Did he intentionally mislead the commission?

Meyer said the commission doesn't need to put these amendments on the ballot because the union "has no plans to challenge those programs". If the union's decision to file turns on the increase in this year's FEFP, did not Meyer misrepresent the FEA's position?

[terminator]

1:02
that was before A1 passed and before the ill timed voucher bill.
we'll see what comes out of session.
if CC and Pruitt don't come through on their promises to hold education harmless there will be hell to pay, I can promise you that.
If you guys are looking for a war, it's a war you'll get.

Terminator,

This is a direct quote from an AP article last week about Ron Meyer's testimony to the Tax and Budget Reform Commission:

"School choice advocates are afraid the appellate ruling could be used as a precedent to attack other state programs that use faith-based providers. That includes state scholarships for students attending private colleges, Florida's voluntary prekindergaten program and two other voucher programs.
The Florida Education Association has no plans to challenge those programs, Meyer said, but committee members said he couldn't guarantee the union or some one else wouldn't do so in the future."

So did Meyer mislead the commission? Should he have said "we'll sue if you try to expand the program?" That's a pretty big omission, don't you think?

It would make me feel better, termie, if you would predict that the FEA won't sue and that they would lose if they did, because your record on making predictions for the past year has been extremely good (at being wrong).

[terminator]

9:28
get real.
you know and I know this won't ever make it out of the sausage making process.
Gaetz is sponsoring because he's Chair of the Senate K-12 committee and carrying the water for Pruitt.

as for the other misinformed individuals:
the only reason FEA HASN'T filed suit is because we had a truce with Crist and GOP leadership to NOT expand the voucher program in exchange for us not filing suit against McKay and the corporate scholarship program.

the bill won't pass so it's a moot point but we are currently considering our options.

9:28 maybe you want to give Ron Meyer a call if you don't think we'll file suit against the other programs if it ever came to pass?

Termie's Comments posted on Jan. 23 about this bill:
"You're nuts.
this will never see the light of day in the Senate.
Gaetz is far too progressive for this.
Wise maybe, Gaetz no way.
See you there!"

Posted by: terminator | January 23, 2008 at 02:15 PM

OKAY TERMIE- What say you now!!

Not only is Gaetz the Senate sponsor BUT Lawson (in-coming Senate Minority leader) AND Siplin (K-12 Ed Approp vice Chair and a Black Dem) are co-Sponsors. And did you notice that Sen King is a co-sponsor too!!

Sorry you lost your bet!! But thankful that so many legislators- R's and D's - are interested in helping poor families have parental educational choice.

10:22
If this tax credit scholarship was unconstitutional then why has not the ACLU and Teachers Union gone after it in the courts??
Have you seen the graduation rates for minority boys in FLA lately??
Around 40% actually graduate!

Their neighborhood public schools are trying but they may not be the best fit for all kids. And if they were so great why don't the teachers send their own kids there.

Do a poll of how many public school teachers send their own kids to private school and while you are at it survey all the democrates too- you will be surprise how many send their kids to a private school.

Why should other parents be denied that option just becuase they are POOR!!

Do you think Poor people are too dumb to choose a school for their kids and the gov't HAS to do it for them???

I know alot of rich people that are too dumb to realize that poor parents deserve the same RIGHTS as rich parents- maybe you are one of those rich parents too!?

8:09 p.m.,

Is the McKay voucher program a voucher?

Why hasn't that been challenged?

There was a truce on this issue. It seems that the voucher proponents have violated the truce. It is time to vaporize their illegal (unconstitutional) scheme.

Sorry if this takes money out of the pocket of your SFO or private school, but the Constitution of the State takes precedent over your profits.

Tell Patricia to quit, she can come up with all of the reasons that she thinks it is good, but it is a voucher. Just like the Opportunity Scholarships were vouchers no matter how much Rep. (at the time) Lynn complained about it. Read the ruling. It is clear that the Legislature is creating a scheme to establish a second system of education. That is prohibited by the current language of the Constitution which gives the Legislature the power to make laws in the first place. As such, if you want vouchers, you should change the Constitution. Good luck with that.

This program is a huge winner politically for black Democrats, so is no surprise to see these developments. What low income parent wouldn't want the ability to choose the best school for their kid? I'm just surprised it has taken this long for these legislators to come around. Plus many of the power brokers in their communities run schools where the kids use the program.

Maybe what Peterman, Lawson and the others are seeing is that when we are graduating less than half of minority kids, we have to be open to new ideas. When former Congresswoman Carrie Meek is actually administering the tax credit program, you know the rules of the game have changed. These people are not getting hung up on labels or old rhetoric--they want to help low income kids. That's their only motivation.

Dear 8:01,

The program that Peterman, Lawson, Fields, Siplin and the others are supporting isn't a voucher. It's a tax credit given to companies for donations of private funds that never reach the Treasury. The ruling in Bush v. Holmes does not apply. The reason there hasn't been a suit against this program is that opponents wouldn't win. If they thought they would win they would have filed long ago.

The reason we are seeing so many black Democrats support this program us simple: their constituents want it. All this program does is give low income parents the power to choose. It doesn't tell them where to send their kids. Good for Peterman and good for Lawson, Fields and anyone else.

Vouchers are prohibited by the Florida Constitution per the ruling Bush v Holmes. Only the lack of a direct challenge of the remaining programs has allowed them to defacto continue even in the face of the ruling on Opportunity Scholarships. The ruling clearly spelled out exactly why these other programs are not allowable under the current Constitution. The programs are attempts by the Legisalture to establish a seperate system from the public schools to satisfy their requirement to provide a high quality system of free PUBLIC schools. Expanding the program is just speeding the remaining programs to their demise.

Those who want vouchers in Florida are free to propose a change to the Constitution that would simply authorize them under some circumstance. They would need a 60% vote of the electorate (and they won't get 50%).