Just in time for Halloween, a vampire lawsuit against school choice has risen from the dead.
Nearly a month ago, a Florida judge dismissed the Florida Education Association’s (FEA) lawsuit against a bill amending the state’s school choice laws, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because they were not harmed. The union wanted to block the creation of the Personalized Learning Scholarship Accounts program for students with special needs, and “in particular” the so‐called “expansion” of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship (FTCS) law, which provides tax credits to corporations in return for donations to nonprofit scholarship organizations that help low‐income children attend the schools of their choice. There are two additional lawsuits against school choice in Florida, including another involving the FEA.
This year, nearly 70,000 low‐income students received FTCS scholarships. One former scholarship recipient, Denisha Merriweather, recently wrote an op‐ed for the Wall Street Journal explaining how the FTCS allowed her to switch from her assigned district school, which failed to meet her needs, to a private school where she thrived.
Last week, the FEA filed an amended complaint with additional plaintiffs. The union argues that the new plaintiffs have standing as district school teachers and parents of district school students because they “are threatened by the implementation of […] the expansion of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program,” which they claim would cause the district schools to “[lose] considerable funding” since the scholarship funds “that otherwise would go to support the public schools are instead redirected through an intermediary to provide vouchers [sic] for Florida children to attend private schools.” (The FEA’s complaint did not discuss the impact of the Personalized Learning Scholarship Accounts.)
The union’s argument suffers from at least two fatal flaws.
First, the FTCS does not “redirect” any state funds. The state of Florida allocates funds to school, in part, on a per‐pupil basis, but the fiscal impact of a student leaving her assigned district school to accept a tax‐credit scholarship is no different than the fiscal impact of a student moving out of the district, attending private school without a scholarship, or homeschooling. Moreover, if the funds were actually “redirected” then the state would not realize any savings. In fact, the state’s own Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability found that the FTCS generates significant savings ($36.2 million in 2008-09) because the forgone revenue is less than the reduction in state expenditures.
Second, the union is factually incorrect in asserting that the challenged legislation, SB 850, “expanded” the FTCS. The bill loosened eligibility requirements by eliminating the requirement that recipients spend the prior academic year in a district school; allowing foster students to continue receiving scholarships if adopted; and raising the income thresholds for eligibility for full and partial scholarships. However, the bill did not expand the amount of tax credits available nor did it add any new credits against other taxes. In other words, while the bill increased the number of students who can apply for scholarships, it did not increase the actual amount of available tax credits or scholarship funds.
The FEA’s vampire lawsuit misunderstands how the FTCS law works and misstates the facts about what the legislation does. The judge should drive a stake through its heart.