Battle Continues to Play Out Over Education Law
More than 18 months after legislators passed a controversial education law pushed by then-House Speaker Richard Corcoran, attorneys for the state and…
November 29, 2018 at 04:48 PM
5 minute read
More than 18 months after legislators passed a controversial education law pushed by then-House Speaker Richard Corcoran, attorneys for the state and 11 county school boards are continuing to battle in court about whether the measure violates the Florida Constitution.
Attorneys for the state this week filed a 100-page document at the 1st District Court of Appeal disputing the school boards' arguments that the measure — known in the education world by the shorthand “HB 7069” — is unconstitutional because it intrudes on the decision-making powers of local school districts and creates a public-school system that is not uniform.
The battle focuses on parts of the mammoth bill that are designed to boost charter schools, including creation of what were dubbed “schools of hope.”
The state's lawyers wrote this week that the school boards' arguments about intruding on local powers “neglect the importance of the state's constitutional authority to provide for and supervise Florida's statewide system of free public schools.”
“Given the state's express constitutional authority and lengthy history of involvement in Florida's statewide system of public schools and education finance — over decades involving the distribution of billions of dollars for millions of students — none of the statutes challenged here improperly limit the local boards' authority or implicate the overall uniformity of Florida's public schools,” said the document filed by lawyers in Attorney General Pam Bondi's Office and the state Department of Education.
But attorneys for the school districts, in briefs filed Oct. 31, offered a different picture.
“At issue here is vindication of the school boards' power to operate, control, and supervise all local public schools, including charter schools,” said a brief filed on behalf of 10 of the school boards. “The challenged provisions intrude on that local control because they sharply restrict the ability of school boards to make discretionary spending decisions and to make the other operational decisions necessary to supervise all the public schools in their districts.”
HB 7069, short for House Bill 7069, was approved by the Legislature in May 2017 and signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott a month later. The measure, which Corcoran made a priority, was one of the most-controversial education bills to emerge from the Legislature in years and drew legal challenges later in 2017.
Corcoran, a Land O' Lakes Republican who stepped down as speaker last week, is a major supporter of school-choice programs, including charter schools. HB 7069 also came amid a backdrop of clashes between some county school boards and charter-school operators about whether charter schools should be allowed to open. Charter schools are public schools, but they are typically operated by private entities.
Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper upheld HB 7069 this spring, spurring the school boards to take the debate to the 1st District Court of Appeal. The case involves two appeals, which have been consolidated. One of the appeals was filed by the Collier County School Board, while the other was filed by school boards in Alachua, Bay, Broward, Hamilton, Lee, Orange, Pinellas, Polk, St. Lucie and Volusia counties.
The appeals deal with a series of provisions related to charter schools, with perhaps the most controversial issue involving the creation of charter schools known as “schools of hope.” Under that part of the bill, non-profit charter operators can open schools of hope to serve children who otherwise would attend low-performing traditional public schools.
Other types of charter schools need to get approvals from county school boards, but the appeals argue that HB 7069 has largely taken away local authority over schools of hope. Also, the school boards contend that HB 7069 violates part of the state Constitution that requires uniformity in the public-school system, in part because schools of hope are exempted from requirements imposed on traditional public schools, such as teacher-certification requirements.
“This uniformity requirement has existed in every (Florida) constitution since 1868,” the Collier County School Board's attorneys wrote in an Oct. 31 brief. “But (the schools of hope section of the law) diverts public funds away from the existing uniform public education system that school boards run and that are bound by the same standards. It then directs those funds to a competing system of 'schools of hope' that nonprofits run without local control or oversight and without having to follow the same standards as district schools.”
But attorneys for the state this week rejected such arguments, pointing in part to the fact that schools of hope are public charter schools.
“And regardless of the additional flexibility afforded to hope operators with respect to certain technical requirements like teacher certification, schools of hope must still comply with state laws regarding the student-assessment program and school-grading system; student progression and graduation; the provision of services to students with disabilities; civil rights, student health, safety, and welfare; public meetings and records; and the code of ethics for public officers and employees,” the state's attorneys wrote. “Any claim that schools of hope would violate the uniformity requirement … therefore fails as a matter of law.”
Jim Saunders reports for The News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
St. Thomas University Settles With Fired Professor Who Had Alleged Academic Freedom Violations and Discrimination
9 minute readEx-St. Thomas Univ. Law Professor Sues School Over Firing, Alleging Defamation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250