Does voucher amendment hide the ball?

Did the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission stack the deck with Amendment 9 – which deals with both public funding for private schools and the "65 percent plan" – when it put this title over the ballot question: "REQUIRING 65 PERCENT OF SCHOOL FUNDING FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; STATE'S DUTY FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION"?

Voucher opponents, who filed suit against Amendments 7 and 9 this morning in Tallahassee (see the St. Petersburg Times story on that here), say yes.

"A more neutral title that did not seek to capitalize on the perceived popularity of setting a 65% floor on funding for classroom instruction while 'hiding the ball' about the voucher proposal would have identified both of the proposals in the same way," the plaintiffs argue in another document filed this morning.

"For example, it might have identified only the general subject matter of both: 'Allocation of school district funding; state's duty for children's education.' Or, the TBRC could have written a title that described the chief purpose of both proposals: 'Requiring 65 percent of school funding for classroom instruction; allowing state funding of private schools.' "

To see the lawsuit, click here. To see related court filings, click here, here and here.

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

It is funny to me that the need by the Bushie's to have everything that they want will end with the death of things they had and didn't deserve. These programs would have survived the fact that they were unlawful, but now will be challenged. Brilliant.

Every district in the state (except for tiny Gulf County) already exceeded 65% by 2005. With two additional years of major CSR funding (only classroom money is included in that allocation) every district far exceeds this percentage at this point. So, the union is keeping the TBRC, Jeb Bush and Miss Patricia from lying their way into more vouchers. Oh, and by the way, all of the current voucher programs are unconstitutional and just need to be challenged to disappear. Does that make you nervous Mr. CIT Voucher program founder? It should because without this amendment the program never would have been challenged. I am willing to bet that it now soon will find its deserved lawsuit.

Sorry.

[John Perry]

The 65% Plan is pure hokum. Anyone can google it and find out what it's really about. 2:25 might want to try that before spouting off.

The 65% deception is only in Amendment 9 to hide what the amendment is really all about- taking public money from pubic school teachers and the pubic school classroom to give to private schools.

Hey, 2:25, makes your comment look kinda dumb, huh? I wouldn't sign my name to that embarrassing comment, either.

[patcon]

It's not "the union" bringing this suit. What makes you so sure that this will result in "more money going to teachers and the classroom"? What will be sure of happening if this amendment passes is that public tax money which should be going to fund public schools will be diverted to private schools, many with no accountability.
If you want more money to be spent where it's really needed, then push for the ending of 'categorical' funding where the state mandates how money in the budget must be spent. "You must spend this money on books (or whatever) whether you need it or not."

The union should be ashamed for trying to stop more money from going to teachers and the classroom