Editor's note: Another year, another legislative session, another stack of school-choice bills in Florida. Here's a roundup of choice legislation that lawmakers will consider in the annual session that begins today.

Career Academies:

SB 1076 by Sen. John Legg, R-Lutz. Expands the "Career and Professional Education Act (CAPE)," revising requirements for high school graduation and accelerated high school graduation, and allowing students to earn and substitute certain industry certifications for certain course credits. Also requires districts to make digital materials available to students and to use the Postsecondary Industry Certification Funding List in determining annual performance funding distributions to school districts and Florida College System institutions, etc.

Charter Schools:

HB 373 by Rep. Joe Saunders, D-Orlando. Provides that a contract for a charter school employee or service provider may not extend beyond the school’s charter contract, and that the employee or service provider is not entitled to compensation after the school’s closure. (Identical to SB 780 by Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando.)

HB 453 by Rep. Victor Torres, D-Orlando. Requires the compensation and salary schedules for charter school employees to be based on school district schedules. (Identical to SB 784- Charter Schools by Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando.)

SB 744 by Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs. Requires charter school applications to demonstrate the applicant is financially qualified to open and maintain a high-quality charter school, requires the charter to set forth detailed reporting of the financial operations of the school to ensure employees are not paid unreasonable compensation, and requires that the term of the charter must provide for cancellation of the charter if the school becomes insolvent, fails to provide a quality education, or does not comply with applicable law.  The bill also clarifies that a charter school system shall be designated a LEA solely for the purpose of receiving federal funds if certain criteria are met.

SB 828 by Sen. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah. Grants school districts the ad valorem tax exemption given to charter schools, and restricts the use of capital outlay funds for property improvements if the property is exempt from ad valorem taxes. It restricts charter schools or technical career centers having financial problems from certain activities, and grants flexibility to high-performing school choice districts.

HB 1001 by Rep. Karen Castor Dentel, D-Maitland. Prohibits charter schools from requiring, soliciting, or accepting certain student information before student's enrollment or attendance. Also requires charter schools to submit attendance plans to the school district for students enrolled in school; provide funding to the school district in event of student transfers; and report to the school district certain student enrollment and wait-list information.

SB 1092 by Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando. Requires charter school to submit attendance information for each student to the school district, and requires the charter school to provide a prorated portion of per-student funding to the school district if a student transfers to another public school in the school district before the last day of the school year.

SB 1164 by Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland. Revises the eligibility criteria for extracurricular activities to include students in charter schools, and revises the criteria for bylaws, policies, or guidelines adopted by the Florida High School Athletic Association. (Compare to HB 1279 by Rep. Larry Metz, R-Groveland.) (more…)

Eleven states currently offer tax credits to specified taxpayers who make contributions to tax-exempt non-profit organizations that in turn use those contributions to fund scholarships for qualifying, financially-needy, elementary and/or secondary school students attending private schools. This fairly recent development is currently empowering perhaps 150,000 lower-income families, who generally are unable to afford private schools, to make this sort of school choice for their children. To be clear, these plans provide benefits for taxpayers who make contributions that help other people’s children attend private schools.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has just introduced a bill that would expand this tax credit scholarship initiative nationwide. To understand the good (and dubious) features of Senator Rubio’s proposal, it is important to appreciate the state law background against which it is set.

Florida has the financially largest of these 11 state tax credit programs, with about 50,000 children currently participating. It restricts the scholarships to children from truly low-income households; the child must be eligible for a free- or reduced-price school lunch – currently just over $40,000 a year for a family of four. Other states are more generous, with Oklahoma reaching well into the middle class since there a family of four can still qualify with $120,000 in annual income. Senator Rubio’s plan, while not as tightly restricted as Florida’s, focuses the scholarships on families with income no more than 250 percent of the poverty level, which is a bit over $50,000 today. The main thing to emphasize here is the senator clearly seeks by his bill to empower the least well-off Americans who are currently least able to exercise school choice – a choice that more well-to-do families make by either moving to a better public school district or paying for private schools on their own.

Several state plans give tax credits to both individual and corporate donors (and for corporate donors the plans sometimes allow credits against a variety of state taxes).  Senator Rubio’s bill does the same – allowing married couples and single taxpayers both to obtain a federal income tax credit for an annual contribution of up to $4,500, and allowing corporations an annual corporate income tax credit of up to $100,000. Florida by contrast only allows corporate tax credits and Arizona (which was the first state to adopt this program) initially granted only individual tax credits. Senator Rubio’s proposed tax credit limit for couples and individuals is about twice that now allowed in Arizona. Some states have no cap on donations, and indeed in Florida a few very large corporate donors contribute millions each year to the plan.

Senator Rubio’s proposed tax credit is a 100 percent credit, as is true in both Florida and Arizona, for example. This means that for every qualifying dollar contributed, federal income taxes would be reduced by a dollar. This essentially makes contributions costless to the donors. They, in effect, are able to re-direct their tax dollars to this specific cause – helping needy families send their children to private schools. It is worth nothing, however, that some states grant only a partial tax credit, such as the 65 percent credit allowed in Iowa and the 50 percent credit allowed in Indiana. In those latter states, donors must put up some of their own money.

Most states that adopted these plans imposed a maximum overall limit on the amount of tax credits that may be claimed each year in support of the program. These maxima vary enormously and even so are often not reached. Senator Rubio’s plan has no such limit. It probably would be complicated and costly, but clearly not impossible, for the IRS to administer an overall ceiling in a way that allowed would-be donors to know whether their contribution was within the national maximum and hence truly eligible for the credit.

One important difference between many state plans and Senator Rubio’s proposal is there is no limit on the amount of the scholarship that may be awarded. Florida, for example, caps scholarships at $4,335 at present; in Georgia the limit is just over $9,000. Hence, as appears to be the case in states like Iowa and Indiana, it would be legally possible under the senator’s plan for a child to win a full scholarship to a very high cost, elite private school and hence indirectly obtain government financial aid well beyond what is now being spent on public schools. This is perhaps unwise. Note, however, that nothing in Senator Rubio’s bill would require scholarship granting organizations to award full scholarships or high-value scholarships. In many states at present, the average scholarship is less than $2,000 a year. Since it would be rare to find a school with tuition that low, either the families must find some way to come up with the difference, or the schools must use their own financial aid plans to make up some or all of the gap.

The most striking difference between most state plans and Senator Rubio’s is children already enrolled in private schools would be eligible for scholarships. (more…)

Editor's note: This guest post from StudentsFirst is authored by Vice President of Fiscal Strategy Rebecca Sibilia and fiscal policy analyst Sean Gill.

We appreciate Doug Tuthill’s recent redefinED post challenging StudentsFirst to consider supporting voucher or tax-credit scholarship programs that aren’t just limited to what he describes as the “failing schools” model. We agree with his assertion that school choice policies, including private school options, are about empowering parents to select the best school for their child.

It is true that we believe voucher programs should prioritize low-income students in low-performing schools. However, we want to make clear that this position is not based simply on a “politically safe compromise.” Indeed, our entire State Policy Report Card judges not what is politically popular, but rather the laws and policies we believe, through evidence, best practices, and common sense, will deliver the best results for kids.

We think it is important that states focus on more than policies that just provide access to schools; states must prioritize expanding access to high-quality choices for families that traditionally lack them. A Brookings study found that students from low-income households are much more likely to attend low-performing schools than middle or high-income students. This is important because the same study further confirms that low-income kids can actually achieve at high levels when they attend high-performing schools. Unfortunately, as Florida Education Commissioner Tony Bennett has mentioned, low-income families often lack the resources to enroll in potentially higher-performing private schools or to relocate to a school district that offers a better public education.

Policymakers must always consider tradeoffs and unintended consequences when considering how to budget limited resources. Consider if a state adopted a universal voucher program. This would provide the most theoretical choice, but it could also easily have the unintended effect of simply subsidizing the students already enrolled at private schools and those in families who may otherwise be able to afford private school tuition. This would result in few new students being able to attend a high quality school option, and wouldn’t expand access to those who need it the most.  Presumably, avoiding this problem is one of the reasons why the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program is currently limited to low-income children.

Using this logic, we believe that when state resources are limited or the existing supply of desirable private schools is limited, it also makes sense to prioritize vouchers or scholarships for those low-income children attending a low-performing school or living in low-performing school districts. There are practical, administrative considerations that also make targeted programs more effective. For instance, when looking at the state of Tennessee, where Gov. Haslam has proposed a voucher program, we’ve determined that the four districts with the lowest performing schools also have both higher concentrations of low-income families and private schools in their communities.

We find that most voucher and scholarships programs are capped by enrollment or appropriation levels. Given that low-income students can be found in most counties throughout a state, these caps then create an unintended consequence of spreading out scholarship recipients among multiple communities, which would not provide enough demand to create new private school options. (more…)

Vouchers and testing. A new report from the Fordham Institute finds that mandated testing - and even public reporting of test results - isn't that big a concern for private schools worried about government regs tied to vouchers and tax credit scholarships. Coverage from redefinED, Choice Words, the Cato Institute's Andrew J. Coulson and Gradebook. AEI's Michael McShane says Florida's tax credit scholarship program (which, altogether now, is administered by Step Up For Students, which co-hosts this blog) finds the "sweet spot" with its testing and financial reporting requirements: "These regulations don’t sound too crazy to me; they seem to strike a good balance of accountability for safety, fiscal responsibility, and academic performance without being overly dictatorial in how schools must demonstrate any of those."

Shooting rockets. Senate President Don Gaetz tells the Associated Press that Florida needs to slow down on ed reforms until it rights the new teacher evaluation system and other changes in the works: "We need to quit shooting rockets into the air. We need to give schools and school districts, teachers and parents time to institutionalize the reforms that have already been made. We need about a two-year cooling off period."

Ford Falcons. Schools need competition. EdFly Blog.

School choice. Education Commissioner Tony Bennett says at a National School Choice Week event in Tampa that some Florida districts deserve credit for expanding public school options such as magnets and career academies, reports redefinED. More from Tampa Tribune.

Charter schools. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranks Florida fifth for its charter laws.  SchoolZone. Gradebook. South Florida Sun Sentinel. StateImpact Florida. The Pinellas school district postpones a decision on whether to close a long-struggling Imagine school in St. Petersburg, reports the Tampa Bay Times and Tampa Tribune. The Volusia district's decision to shut down a struggling charter in Deland is headed to appeals court, reports the Daytona Beach News Journal. (more…)

The Fordham Institute may be the closest thing to an honest academic broker in the contentious private school choice arena these days, and its latest report will no doubt enhance that reputation. "Red Tape or Red Herring?", released today, provides strong evidence that private schools are not averse to academic or financial oversight – a finding that runs counter to a longstanding libertarian narrative.

As Fordham president Chester Finn Jr. acknowledged in the forward: “Many proponents of private school choice — both the voucher and tax credit scholarship versions — take for granted that schools won’t participate (or shouldn’t participate) if government asks too much of them, regulates their practices, requires them to reveal closely held information and — above all — demands that they be publicly accountable for student achievement.”

The report looks at the participation rate of private schools in voucher and tax credit scholarship programs in 11 states and surveys from 241 private schools that do and don’t participate, and it finds that testing requirements are not a significant deterrent. Only a quarter of the schools ranked state-required testing as a “very” or “extremely” important factor. Among the schools not participating in voucher or scholarship programs, testing was the fifth most-cited concern – behind such issues as protection of religious activities and admission processes and government paperwork.

This is not to suggest that private schools are eager to embrace more government regulation. The report did find a modest negative correlation between the degree of regulation in a state and the rate of schools participating. But the survey is a reality check on private schools and the educators who run them. Catholic schools remain a major player in the voucher-scholarship market, in part because their mission is to serve poor children, and they also demonstrate remarkable leadership on the issue of testing and academic accountability.

The report echoes similar on-the-ground work in Florida. (more…)

The Friedman Foundation’s latest “ABCs of School Choice” guide is out, and the numbers go like this: 21 states, 39 programs, 255,000 kids.

The guide offers a state-by-state rundown of the publicly funded, school choice options that are a vital piece of the overall school choice picture. It includes profiles of the students, parents and teachers who benefit from them. And it presents some thought-provoking stats, like how the value of each choice option compares to per-pupil funding in traditional public schools.

In Florida, a tax credit scholarship for low-income students is 34 percent of what’s spent on a traditional public school student, according to the Friedman analysis. Our own back-of-the-envelope calculations would put the percentage slightly higher, but the point is spot on: “voucher” students receive far less for their education than their public school peers. It’s a relevant detail that deserves more attention as the debate unfolds over testing for scholarship students and regulatory accountability measures for the private schools that enroll them.

The Florida section of the guide also includes a mini-profile of Davion Manuel-McKenney, a former tax-credit scholarship student who is now a freshman at Florida State College at Jacksonville. (Full disclosure: the tax-credit program is administered by Step Up For Students, which co-hosts this blog.) The story of Davion and his mother is a moving one. Click here to read more about it.

Stephanie Saul offered an indictment in the New York Times today of tax credit scholarship programs that have, in my opinion, serious design flaws. These flaws were almost guaranteed to provide examples like Saul found for her article. How lawmakers and, just as importantly, parental choice advocates respond is an important test of their credibility.

Not much of what Saul reported is new, though that makes it no less troubling. Georgia’s law sets no boundaries on the income of scholarship recipients and no limit on the amount of the scholarship itself. It requires no financial audits, no attempt at any meaningful data collection. Many of the contributions are steered through schools and parents with a self-interest to underwrite the tuition of their own students. In Georgia and two other states she covered, Pennsylvania and Arizona, the public has little idea whether students are learning because no tests are required and no academic data collected.

The story was loaded with powerful anecdotes of abuse, but employed surprisingly pedestrian journalistic standards in its attempt to portray those practices as national in scope. The punchline in what newspaper writers call the nut graph – that “the programs are a charade” – was qualified as a  question raised by “some” private school administrators. The characterization of programs becoming “enmeshed in politics” was leavened again with the word “some.” How many of the eight states with tax credit scholarship laws “collect little information”? You guessed right. The answer was “some.”

To her credit, Saul did acknowledge that at least one state has different statutory and regulatory standards: “In Florida, where the scholarships are strictly controlled to make sure they go to poor families, only corporations are eligible for the tax credits, eliminating the chance of parents donating for their own benefit. Also, all scholarships are handled by one nonprofit organization, and its fees are limited to 3 percent of donations. Florida also permits the scholarships to move with the students if they elect to change schools.”

The Florida scholarship program, as readers of this blog should be aware, is where the creators of this blog work. So we certainly have a self-interest in seconding such an assessment but also an intimate appreciation of the tension that appropriately exists with education options that have one foot in the private market and the other in the public treasury. We want to give the parents of poor and struggling school children something they could not otherwise afford – a private school learning option – and we recognize that with tax-credited funding comes public responsibility.

Finding the right balance between regulation and market is no simple feat. But our prescriptions for a well-designed law are as follows: (more…)

The headlines covered Gov. Chris Christie's passionate call for education options in New Jersey, but the fine print here was equally edifying. In papers and workshops presented Thursday afternoon at the American Federation For Children's Annual Summit, the policy message was unambiguous and remarkably consistent:

All learning options must be scrutinized and must measure up.

Craig Barrett, the former chairman of Intel Corp. (pictured here), may have most succinctly summed up the discussions of accountability for charter schools and private learning options. 

"We have to be willing," Barrett said, "to shut down schools that aren't working. We have to be ruthless, and I'm hopeful we'll have enough pragmatism to do that."

Summit participants were also handed a three-page document from AFC that described various academic, financial and administrative accountability provisions as essential ingredients to "ensuring the highest level of program quality and sustainability." 

"Not only are transparency and accountability smart public policies," the document stated, "but they provide the school choice movement with readily available data and information to improve programs and illustrate the success of those programs."

AFC has gone so far as to rate the strengths and weaknesses of voucher and tax credit scholarship accountability provisions in 26 different programs across the country. And it didn't pull many punches. For example, it ranks Arizona's "Empowerment Scholarships" as measuring up on only two of eight broad accountability measures.

These proclamations won't end the division over how to measure success, of course, but they demonstrate a policy maturity that is beginning to draw a sharp contrast with some of the opponents of charter and private options - including the New Jersey teachers union with which Gov. Christie is at war. Just as it would be untenable for proponents to reject any public oversight and rely only on market mechanisms, it is also unpersuasive for opponents to argue that every option must be regulated in precisely the same way.

(Image from podtech.net)