Here’s what HB 611 would add to Florida statute 1003.44 if it passes: (5)(a) The commissioner shall develop minimum criteria for 19 a civic literacy practicum that helps students evaluate the 20 roles, rights, and responsibilities of United States citizens 21 and identify effective methods of active participation in 22 society, government, and the political system. The practicum may 23 be incorporated into a school’s curriculum for the high school 24 United States Government course under s. 1003.4282(3)(d) 25 beginning in the 2022-2023 school year. (b) The purpose of the practicum is to inspire meaningful 27 civic engagement and help students learn how governmental 28 entities at the local, state, or federal level interact with the 29 public which they represent and serve. The practicum must 30 provide students with an opportunity to be civically engaged 31 through any of the following activities: 32 1. Participation in an unpaid internship at a governmental 33 entity. 34 2. A series of simulations or observations of one or more 35 governmental entities performing their core functions in 36 relation to the public. Such functions may include 37 administrative, legislative, or judicial functions and other 38 official business conducted by a governmental entity. 39 3. Learning about the United States citizenship 40 naturalization process and attending a United States citizenship 41 naturalization oath ceremony. 42 (c) The practicum must require a student to complete a 43 research paper that must include all of the following: 44 1. Reflection on the student’s experience participating in 45 the civic engagement activity. 46 2. Explanation of the significance of the governmental 47 entity’s role in the student’s community, the state, or the 48 nation. 49 3. Explanation of how the governmental entity is 50 responsive to the public. 51 (d) The hours outside of classroom instruction that a 52 student devotes to an unpaid civic engagement activity under 53 paragraph (b) may count toward the community service 54 requirements for participation in the Florida Bright Futures 55 Scholarship Program. School districts are encouraged to include 56 and accept civic literacy practicum activities and hours toward 57 requirements for academic awards, especially those awards that 58 include community service as a criterion or selection factor.
This is what SB 146 will add to 1003.44:
(5)(a) In order to help students evaluate the roles, rights, and responsibilities of United States citizens and determine methods of active participation in society, government, and the political system, the commissioner shall develop minimum criteria for a nonpartisan civic literacy
practicum that may be incorporated into a school’s curriculum for the high school United States Government course required by s. 1003.4282(3)(d), beginning with the 2022-2023 school year.
[line 33] The commissioner also shall develop a process by which a district school board can verify that a student successfully completed a practicum meeting those criteria.
1. The criteria must require a student to do all of the following:
a. Identify a civic issue that impacts his or her
community.
b. Rigorously research the issue from multiple perspectives and develop a plan for his or her personal involvement in addressing the issue.
c. Create a portfolio to evaluate and reflect upon his or her experience and the outcomes or likely outcomes of his or her involvement. A portfolio must, at minimum, include research, evidence, and a written plan of involvement.
2. A civic literacy practicum must be nonpartisan, focus on addressing at least one community issue, and promote a student’s ability to consider differing points of view and engage in civil discourse with individuals who hold an opposing opinion.
(b) The hours outside of classroom instruction which a student devotes to the nonpartisan civic literacy practicum to implement his or her plan of involvement may be counted toward meeting the community service requirements of the Florida Bright
Futures Scholarship Program. School districts must include and accept nonpartisan civic literacy practicum activities and hours in requirements for academic awards, especially those awards that include community service as a criterion or selection factor.
(c) The State Board of Education shall annually designate each public school in this state which provides students with high-quality civic learning, including civic-engagement skills, as a Freedom School. The state board shall establish the criteria for a school’s designation as a Freedom School. The
criteria must include all of the following:
1. The extent to which strategies to develop high-quality civic learning, including civic-engagement skills, are integrated into the classroom using best instructional practices.
2. The scope of integration of high-quality civic learning, including civic-engagement skills, across the school’s curricula.
3. The extent to which the school supports interdisciplinary, teacher-led professional learning communities to support continuous improvement in instruction and student achievement.
4. The minimum percentage of students graduating with a standard high school diploma who must successfully complete a civic literacy practicum and earn community service hours as provided in this subsection.
Note that HB 611 says nothing about nonpartisan whereas its companion bill SB 146 does mention nonpartisan.
HB 5 and SB 1450 are identical, i.e. they are companion bills for the House and the Senate.
This is what will be added to the Florida Statute 1003.4282 by HB 5:
which must include a comparative discussion of political ideologies, such as communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States.
This is what will be added to Florida Statute1003.44--Patriotic programs—by HB 5:
34 (6) To help families, civic institutions, local
35 communities, district school boards, and charter schools prepare
36 students to be civically responsible and knowledgeable adults,
37 the Department of Education shall:
38 (a) Develop or approve an integrated civic education
39 curriculum that school districts and charter schoolsmust
40 incorporate as part of regular school work in kindergarten
41 through grade 12. The civic education curriculum must assist
42 students in developing:
43 1. An understanding of their shared rights and
44 responsibilities as residents of the state and of the founding
45 principles of the United States as described in s.
46 1003.42(2)(a)-(c).
47 2. A sense of civic pride and desire to participate
48 regularly with government at the local, state, and federal
49 levels.
50 3. An understanding of the process for effectively
51 advocating before government bodies and officials.
52 4. An understanding of the civic-minded expectations,
53 developed by the State Board of Education, of an upright and
54 desirable citizenry that recognizes and accepts responsibility
55 for preserving and defending the blessings of liberty inherited
56 from prior generations and secured by the United States
57 Constitution.
58 (b) Curate oral history resources to be used along with the
59 civic education curriculum which provide portraits in patriotism
60 based on the personal stories of diverse individuals who
61 demonstrate civic-minded qualities, including first-person
62 accounts of victims of other nations’ governing philosophies who
63 can compare those philosophies with those of the United States.
64 This paragraph may be cited as the “Portraits in Patriotism
65 Act.”
66 (c) Approve integrated civic education curricula submitted
67 by school districts and charter schools that meet the
68 requirements of this subsection.
I sent this to the bill sponsors of HB 5/SB 1450
Please amend your bill so that 1003.44 applies to all publicly funded schools including schools receiving vouchers authorized by SB 48.
Please amend your bill to make it clear that the courses mentioned in 1003.4282 are required of all students wishing to receive a high school diploma in Florida. There should be no exceptions for any of the certificates that call themselves high school diplomas: http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18617/urlt/1819-114025.pdf
I applaud you for including charter schools in your requirements that amend 1003.44 but why didn’t you include all publicly funded schools? Since the majority of the current state legislators seem determined (via SB 48) to give more and more of our taxpayer dollars to private schools and homeschooling parents, you need to consider why you’re mandating something for some publicly funded schools but not for others. What schools did the people that stormed the Capitol go to? What school did Ivanka Trump go to? It was reported that Ivanka Trump tweeted a message calling the people who stormed the Capitol by the term “patriot” and we heard the domestic terrorists inside the Capitol calling themselves patriots in the videos that have been released to the public. Why did they think storming the Capitol was a patriotic thing to do? Your bill should be required of all publicly funded schools. The term patriot is discussed in this article: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/30/us/patriot-definition-trnd/index.html
Is your bill an attempt to make it clear that the people who stormed the Capitol are not patriots, i.e. they are domestic terrorists?
Are ALL students who want a standard high school diploma required to take the courses listed at f.s. 1003.4282? Are students who receive taxpayer funded vouchers required to satisfy the requirements of 1003.4282? Link to Florida statute that includes 1003.4282 : http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=1000-1099/1003/1003.html Here’s how 1003.4282 begins: (1) TWENTY-FOUR CREDITS REQUIRED.—(a) Beginning with students entering grade 9 in the 2013-2014 school year, receipt of a standard high school diploma requires successful completion of 24 credits, an International Baccalaureate curriculum, or an Advanced International Certificate of Education curriculum. [and then later it says} The Department of Education shall directly and through the school districts notify registered private schools of public high school course credit and assessment requirements. Each private school must make this information available to students and their parents so they are aware of public high school graduation requirements.
Please take a look starting at line 3953 of SB 48. When people go to buy a car, they will be asked if they want to divert their sales tax dollars to “K-12 Education Funding.” What will they think their money is going to? Will they realize they are diverting their sales tax dollars to fund unaccountable private school vouchers and to fund the unregulated efforts of home school parents?
That’s not the only problem with SB 48 but it makes it obvious that the bill sponsor is trying to deceive the public.
This is our tax money! We want our tax money to go to HIGH QUALITY schools. Certainly a parent can choose to send their child to a subpar school but the taxpayer shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.
I am worried that this bill will take even more money from the already diminishing budget of the district run schools.
Our district-run schools need funds for wrap around services, libraries, art classes, music classes, team sports, civic classes, and high quality science classes. Of course until the pandemic is over, the district run schools are being forced to do virtual and brick and mortar.
Quote from a blog hosted by Step Up for Students: Step Up for Students, which hosts this blog, uses 11 lobbyists, according to state records. “Everybody is trying to get a piece of the pie” …The new school voucher plan could be a test case for the new-look Florida Supreme Court. The plan draws from general revenue funds instead of tax credits. When a similar idea was enacted in 2006, the state Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional [because it gave money to religious organizations in violation of the state constitution that says adherents and philanthropists should fund religious institutions of their choice not taxpayers being forced to fund other people’s religious institutions]. But three of the justices who supported that decision are no longer on the court, having been replaced by justices who have previously supported voucher programs. Step Up For Students, which hosts this blog, helps administer the tax credit and other state scholarship programs. Link to the blog: https://www.redefinedonline.org/2019/03/florida-schools-roundup-education-lobby-vouchers-and-the-top-court-and-more
Florida voters said NO to Amendment 8 in 2012 but then they keep electing representatives who pass bills in violation of our Florida Constitution. Hopefully SB 48 won’t pass. Info about the 2012 amendment 8 in case you don’t remember: https://www.au.org/content/florida-amendment-8-0
Does the school board get the surtax money every month from the state? How often are they required to give the charter schools their portion? Can they withhold the charter school portion if the charter school hasn’t submitted the requested information to the Citizen Oversight Committee?
Can the Citizen Oversight Committee require: 1. All financial documents, bond requests, loan requests that were made in anticipation of the sales tax revenue 2. The detail of the owners of the charter school drilled down to the names of the people 3. The detail of the owners of the building (drilled down to the names of the people) that the charter school is leasing with our sales tax money 4. The competitive bids and if the project was awarded to a related party 5. Will this information be on a website for the public to see?
Excerpts from 212.055 (6): (6) SCHOOL CAPITAL OUTLAY SURTAX.— [this statement was required by HB 7097 passed in early 2020]: The resolution must include a statement that the revenues collected must be shared with eligible charter schools based on their proportionate share of the total school district enrollment. … Surtax revenues shared with charter schools shall be expended by the charter school in a manner consistent with the allowable uses set forth in s. 1013.62(4). All revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for in a charter school’s monthly or quarterly financial statement pursuant to s. 1002.33(9). The eligibility of a charter school to receive funds under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with s. 1013.62(1). If a school’s charter is not renewed or is terminated and the school is dissolved under the provisions of law under which the school was organized, any unencumbered funds received under this subsection shall revert to the sponsor.(d) Surtax revenues collected by the Department of Revenue pursuant to this subsection shall be distributed to the school board imposing the surtax in accordance with law. [But how often? Every month?]
What is this saying? Here’s my guess:
Charter schools will get at least the amount of capital outlay funds per student that was distributed in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. No such guarantee is given to the district owned school buildings.
Excerpt from 1013.62
Beginning in fiscal year 2021-2022, charter school capital outlay funding shall consist of state funds when such funds are appropriated in the General Appropriations Act and revenue resulting from the discretionary millage authorized in s. 1011.71(2) if the amount of state funds appropriated for charter school capital outlay in any fiscal year is less than the average charter school capital outlay funds per unweighted full-time equivalent student for the 2018-2019 fiscal year, multiplied by the estimated number of charter school students for the applicable fiscal year, and adjusted by changes in the Consumer Price Index issued by the United States Department of Labor from the previous fiscal year. Nothing in this subsection prohibits a school district from distributing to charter schools funds resulting from the discretionary millage authorized in s. 1011.71(2).
1. Will River City Education Services, Inc be using our sales tax dollars to repay the loans that are funding the two new charter schools? They have two new charter schools approved by the school board:
***CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACT FOR RIVER CITY EDUCATION SERVICES, INC., TO OPEN RIVER CITY SCIENCE ACADEMY INTRACOASTAL
*** CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACT FOR RIVER CITY EDUCATION SERVICES, INC., TO OPEN RIVER CITY SCIENCE ACADEMY SOUTHEAST
2. Is it true that according to Florida statute 1002.33, the school board could not have denied these charter school applications? If the school board had wanted to deny the application but failed to win on appeal, then the school board would have been subject to this part of the statute:
The administrative law judge shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred during the mediation process, administrative proceeding, and any appeals, to be paid by the party whom the administrative law judge rules against.
School board member answered: Yes, this is accurate
3. Are you worried that real estate investors are getting rich off the taxpayers?
School board member answered: Yes
4. Will these charter schools still be here after the half cent sales tax ends?
School board member answered: We would not be able to predict this
5. Or will they close and we’ll essentially lose our tax dollars? HB 7069 forced local school boards to share our property taxes with charter schools. Then in 2020, HB 7097 is forcing us to share our sales tax dollars with charter schools. Quote from this article:
The report also notes that nearly 400 charters in Florida have closed over the last couple of decades. What research went into this report, and why, in Integrity Florida’s view, have charters not succeeded in their mission?
6. What can you do to mitigate the damage caused by charter schools closing?
School board member answers: This will fall to the families that make choices about which schools to attend.
7. Now that our sales tax money is going to the charter school industry, I fear charter schools are going to start popping up all over town. What will that do to our excellent neighborhood schools that are loved by the parents. I guess if the parents don’t like their neighborhood school, then perhaps they’ll be happy for another option. But it’s going to be a sad day if millions of our sales tax dollars go to build new charter schools that subsequently close and there are no clawback provisions in place to recoup our sales tax dollars even if the charter school building is sold for millions to a private school or other private investor.
School board member answered: This would be very sad and frustrating indeed.
I sent the below email to my city council member but I have not received a response:
Honorable City Council Member Boylan, I was told that even though the charter school didn’t have to apply for a zoning change, they did have to apply for a building permit. Approval should have been denied due to traffic congestion. How do I find out who approved the building permit? Link to article about it: https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/11/10/a-charter-school-is-being-built-across-the-street-from-a-public-school-some-arent-happy-about-it/ It doesn’t seem we can blame the school board for this. They have the least control over the funding and placement of charter schools. The majority on the city council by delaying the vote on the referendum and the majority state legislators for explicitly taking away the school board’s power to deny the application are to blame if you see a problem with a charter school building right across the street from an A rated neighborhood school. But if traffic is also an issue, then we can blame the person that approved the building permit? Can we stop this charter school from building right across the street from an A rated public school on a two lane road where traffic is already an issue? If yes, how? And if it’s too late to stop this, how can we stop it from happening all over town now that the state legislators have forced us to give our sales tax dollars to charter schools? Thanks,
References:
Response from Dr. Greene forwarded to me from a friend:
The Oversight Committee is an independent body from the school district, and they have the autonomy to establish reporting requirements for public and charter schools. As a meeting of a governmental advisory body, there will be an opportunity for public comment, and I hope you will share your concerns there as well.
2. The latest RIVER CITY EDUCATION SERVICES, INC. form 990 can be found at this link:
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAINING 92,127
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e BOARD OF EDUCATION 303,064
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION 1,554,429
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e FACILITIES ACQ & RENT 1,158,065
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e FISCAL SERVICES 339,272
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e OPERATION OF PLANT 832,877
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e MAINTENANCE OF PLANT 154,098
Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e COMMUNITY SERVICE 327,143
Etc to a total of $6,232,860 on line 24 e
3. Excerpts from an opinion piece from a couple of years ago:
Thanks to HB 7069 and other laws, the most profitable enterprise in the charter school industry is real estate. To see how this works, consider the case of River City Science Academy in Jacksonville.
Why didn’t Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute invite someone that would be willing to challenge Barrett’s extremist views? I was disappointed in Rick Mullaney’s interview of Amy Coney Barrett. Originalism is an intellectual cloak drummed up to dignify a view of the Constitution as a straitjacket on the ability of the local, state, and federal government to act on behalf of the public.
Originalists want to do this despite the Constitution’s preamble, which states that one of its basic purposes is to “promote the general welfare.”
Mullaney asks if Congress had a right to pass the Affordable Care Act. He uses the phrase “fundamental right to health care.” She doesn’t answer the question about a fundatmental right to health care, but instead starts rambling about the death penalty and abortion. Later in the interview, Barrett says the Supreme Court wrongly decided that the state exchanges could mean the exchanges offered at the federal level. In other words, she would have ruled to deprive citizens of the subsidy the ACA provides. Luckily the Supreme Court (without her) ruled to allow citizens in states that don’t have exchanges to still qualify for the ACA subsidies.
Also in the interview, she claims that trans people aren’t the gender they identify as. She uses the term “physiologically a boy.” Barrett’s unscientific view of gender will hurt real people. Scientific research (specifically through genetics, neurobiology and endocrinology) helps us understand the transgender experience. I wish the Republicans in the Senate had not confirmed her nomination. I fear that she has no empathy for real people.
There are two oaths: constitutional oath and judicial oath. (Reference 11) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas swore in Amy Coney Barrett under a constitutional oath at a White House event Monday evening. (Ref 10) Why did Thomas do it? Why didn’t Chief Justice Roberts do both?
Justice Thomas thinks states should be allowed to establish their own religion. (Ref 7) I fear the White House ceremony that took place Monday evening is signaling how the court will rule concerning government collaboration with religious institutions. What will happen to the wall separating church and state? Will the new Supreme Court give states the power to pass laws preferring one religion over another, or to take taxpayer money and give it to the church preferred by the Governor?
I also fear that Barrett and the other extremist justices do not recognize reproductive rights. (Ref 8) Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of reproductive health. (Ref 9)
There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that legislators couldn’t pass laws to protect workers. (Ref 5) Will this new Court take us back to the Lochner era? Will the American people hold the senators responsible who confirmed Barrett if Barrett and Thomas and Alito prove to be extremists out of step with most Americans? (Ref 6)
Judge Barrett has explicitly stated that “adherence to originalism arguably requires … the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education,” the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund wrote, quoting a phrase from another article co-written by Barrett. The LDF report says the discussion of Brown “raises serious questions about her commitment to enforcing core civil rights protections. … Treating Brown as potentially mistaken, even if untouchable, is far different from recognizing that it was correctly decided.” (ref 4)
Barrett is full of malarkey. Around minute 36 (ref 2) in the video, Mullaney asks if Congress had a right to pass the Affordable Care Act. He uses the phrase “fundamental right to health care.” She doesn’t answer the question about a fundatmental right to health care, but instead starts rambling about the death penalty and abortion. Later in the video, she says the Supreme Court wrongly decided that the state exchanges could mean the exchanges offered at the federal level. In other words, she would have ruled to deprive citizens of the subsidy the ACA provides. Luckily the Supreme Court (without her) ruled to allow citizens in states that don’t have exchanges to still qualify for the ACA subsidies.
Around minute 40, she claims that trans people aren’t the gender they identify as. She uses the term “physiologically a boy.” Barrett’s unscientific view of gender will hurt real people. Scientific research (specifically through genetics, neurobiology and endocrinology) helps us understand the transgender experience. (ref 3)
The state legislature has taken away the school board’s authority to safeguard our sales tax dollars going to the charter school industry. (ref 3) It is up to the city council to be diligent when voting on ordinances that are giving our sales tax dollars to the charter school industry. I urge the city council to vote no on 2020-627 as the money appears to be aimed at enriching real estate investors.
If the city council had not prevented us from voting on the sales tax referendum in 2019, our referendum would not have fallen under HB 7097 passed in 2020 which took away the school board’s ability to protect our sales tax dollars going to the charter school industry in addition to forcing us to give our sales tax dollars to charter schools on a per student formula instead of a needs basis.
Superintendent Greene (in an email I received in response to my inquiry) confirmed that in the event a charter school closes, our sales tax money (except for the money sitting in the bank) will be forfeited to the real estate investor. It is up to the city council to protect our sales tax dollars going to the charter school industry because the state legislature has taken away the school board’s authority.
The City of Jacksonville’s Office of Economic Development and the Office of General Counsel negotiated the bond application (2020-627) with the Jacksonville Alliance for KIPP Schools. Based on the bill summary, they indicate that they will provide oversight and administration.
The bond is outside the purview of the Duval County School Board. The city council needs to ascertain the legitimacy of the claim that KIPP’s “affiliates” and “any successor” and “McDuff QALICB2, Inc” qualify as an educational institution for purposes of the bond. McDuff QALICB2, Inc and JAKS appear to me to be real estate investors.
A recent audit revealed that Kipp paid $850,000 in rent to JAKS in that audit year. (ref 6) This bond is being done partly to give money to Chartrand and Baker. (ref 1) Jason Gabriel’s office in 2019 interpreted “shall” to mean “doesn’t have to” in order to help the charter school industry including Chartrand and Baker or so it appeared to me. The city council and the school board need to be skeptical of the Office of General Counsel opinions when it comes to the profit motivated charter school industry.
I assume the bond will be repaid with lease payments funded by our sales tax dollars.. I continue to wonder if the voters understood that Jason Fischer co-sponsored HB 7097 which took away the school board’s ability to protect our sales tax dollars going to charter schools when they voted for him in the last election.
Please see references below which back up my fact claims.
Begin forwarded message from school board member in response to my inquiry about the authority of the citizen oversight committee:
Please note that the Oversight Committee does not have the authority to approve or deny plans. They provide monitoring and oversight and then report findings back to the SB.
Charter schools may use their funds for any/all allowable uses defined in FL Statute. This is the same statute that Charters have already been using to guide Capital funds; this should be a familiar process for Charter schools.
As is current practice, the state essentially circumvents the local school board to provide direct oversight of the Charter school system and this process will not be an exception. If there is misuse this would be reported like any other discrepancy in spending of capital funds through the District to the State DOE.
I urge you to please pass a bill to provide protections for our sales tax dollars in the event the charter school receiving our sales tax dollars should close.
Are there any options for the local school board to put restrictions on the money going to charter schools? A charter school and its affiliates are seeking a bond which I assume they plan to repay with our sales tax money so this is an urgent question. Link to the ordinance that the city council will soon be voting on: https://jaxcityc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4663688&GUID=5172AF95-34C2-4EA5-B3CD-67405B8D9A31
1. Under state law, would the school board be allowed to require clawback provisions to recoup our sales tax dollars if the charter school closes or the building is sold? 2. The Oversight Committee must monitor the expenditures but do they have any authority to withhold funding? The Oversight Committee was an extra layer of protection that was included on our ballot. Our Duval ballot included the words:
“with expenditures based upon the Surtax Capital Outlay Plan, and monitored by an independent citizens committee”
References
1. Excerpt from an email I received from a city official regarding 2020-627: Yes, the loans in (ii) and (iii) repay loans from Chartrand and Baker.
2. Florida Statute 1013.62(4) A charter school’s governing body may use charter school capital outlay funds for the following purposes: (a) Purchase of real property. (b) Construction of school facilities. (c) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of permanent or relocatable school facilities. (d) Purchase of vehicles to transport students to and from the charter school. (e) Renovation, repair, and maintenance of school facilities that the charter school owns or is purchasing through a lease-purchase or long-term lease of 5 years or longer. (f) Payment of the cost of premiums for property and casualty insurance necessary to insure the school facilities. (g) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of driver’s education vehicles; motor vehicles used for the maintenance or operation of plants and equipment; security vehicles; or vehicles used in storing or distributing materials and equipment. (h) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of computer and device hardware and operating system software necessary for gaining access to or enhancing the use of electronic and digital instructional content and resources; and enterprise resource software applications that are classified as capital assets in accordance with definitions of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, have a useful life of at least 5 years, and are used to support schoolwide administration or state-mandated reporting requirements. Enterprise resource software may be acquired by annual license fees, maintenance fees, or lease agreement. (i) …
3.The legislature forced us to give our sales tax dollars to charter schools on a per student basis with HB 7097. It begins on line 1291: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2020/7097/BillText/er/PDF Quote from the bill HB 7097 beginning at line 1332:
Surtax revenues shared with charter schools shall be expended by the charter school in a manner consistent with the allowable uses set forth in s. 1013.62(4). All revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for in a charter school’s monthly or quarterly financial statement pursuant to s. 1002.33(9). The eligibility of a charter school to receive funds under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with s. 1013.62(1). If a school’s charter is not renewed or is terminated and the school is dissolved under the provisions of law under which the school was organized, any unencumbered funds received under this subsection shall revert to the sponsor. [inadequate clawback provisions for encumbered funds]
4. Florida statute 1013.62(1) (a) To be eligible to receive capital outlay funds, a charter school must: 1.a. Have been in operation for 2 or more years; b. Be governed by a governing board established in the state for 2 or more years which operates both charter schools and conversion charter schools within the state; c. Be an expanded feeder chain of a charter school within the same school district that is currently receiving charter school capital outlay funds; d. Have been accredited by a regional accrediting association as defined by State Board of Education rule; or e. Serve students in facilities that are provided by a business partner for a charter school-in-the-workplace pursuant to s. 1002.33(15)(b). 2. Have an annual audit that does not reveal any of the financial emergency conditions provided in s. 218.503(1) for the most recent fiscal year for which such audit results are available. 3. Have satisfactory student achievement based on state accountability standards applicable to the charter school. 4. Have received final approval from its sponsor pursuant to s. 1002.33 for operation during that fiscal year. 5. …
5.The bond is getting money to repay Chartrand and Baker for the money they loaned Kipp AND to build a new charter school on Golfair. I am indeed making the assumption that this bond is going to be repaid with our sales tax money based on the way the ownership of previous buildings were structured and the wording in 2020-627. I believe the following
1. the bond money will go to repay Chartrand and Baker and to build a new charter school
2. the building will be owned by a real estate investor
3. KIPP will use our sales tax money to rent the space from the real estate investor
Here is the link to the 990 for MCDUFF QALICB 2 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/474726810/202040239349301004/full The reason I call them a real estate investor is because they describe themselves on their form 990 as follows: “Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: HOLD, DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN, AND RETAIN FINANCING AS NEEDED FOR THE REAL ESTATE…”
1) The School Board needs to make it clear that the Sales Surtax Oversight Committee has the same authority over charter school expenditures as it does over the district’s expenditures as stipulated in the referendum that the voters approved.. 2) The School Board needs to require Charter schools to provide detailed documentation for how they plan to spend our sales tax dollars similar to the documentation required of the district run schools. 3) Money should not be distributed to the charter school until the planned expenditure is approved by the Oversight Committee. IF the charter school does qualify for the distributions per Florida Statute 1013.62(1) and HB 7097, then the money must be held in a capital reserve fund until the Oversight Committee is convinced that the proposed expenditure is an allowable use.
Excerpt from the wording on our ballot:
… and share with charter schools, for their allowable uses, shall the Duval County School Board be authorized to levy a 15-year half-cent sales surtax, with expenditures based upon the Surtax Capital Outlay Plan, and monitored by an independent citizens committee
Forward from school board member addressing my above concerns:
Please note that the Oversight Committee does not have the authority to approve or deny plans. They provide monitoring and oversight and then report findings back to the SB.
Charter schools may use their funds for any/all allowable uses defined in FL Statute. This is the same statute that Charters have already been using to guide Capital funds; this should be a familiar process for Charter schools.
As is current practice, the state essentially circumvents the local school board to provide direct oversight of the Charter school system and this process will not be an exception. If there is misuse this would be reported like any other discrepancy in spending of capital funds through the District to the State DOE.
I asked them to please pass a bill to provide protections for our sales tax dollars in the event the charter school receiving our sales tax dollars should close.
But what options does the local school board have now to put restrictions on the money going to charter schools? A charter school and its affiliates are seeking a bond which I assume they plan to repay with our sales tax money so this is an urgent question. Link to the ordinance that the city council will soon be voting on: https://jaxcityc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4663688&GUID=5172AF95-34C2-4EA5-B3CD-67405B8D9A31
I sent a follow up email to the Duval Legislative Delegation:
1. Under state law, would the school board be allowed to require clawback provisions to recoup our sales tax dollars if the charter school closes or the building is sold?
2. The Oversight Committee must monitor the expenditures but do they have any authority to withhold funding? The Oversight Committee was an extra layer of protection that was included on our ballot. Our Duval ballot included the words:
with expenditures based upon the Surtax Capital Outlay Plan, and monitored by an independent citizens committee
References
1013.62(4) A charter school’s governing body may use charter school capital outlay funds for the following purposes: (a) Purchase of real property. (b) Construction of school facilities. (c) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of permanent or relocatable school facilities. (d) Purchase of vehicles to transport students to and from the charter school. (e) Renovation, repair, and maintenance of school facilities that the charter school owns or is purchasing through a lease-purchase or long-term lease of 5 years or longer. (f) Payment of the cost of premiums for property and casualty insurance necessary to insure the school facilities. (g) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of driver’s education vehicles; motor vehicles used for the maintenance or operation of plants and equipment; security vehicles; or vehicles used in storing or distributing materials and equipment. (h) Purchase, lease-purchase, or lease of computer and device hardware and operating system software necessary for gaining access to or enhancing the use of electronic and digital instructional content and resources; and enterprise resource software applications that are classified as capital assets in accordance with definitions of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, have a useful life of at least 5 years, and are used to support schoolwide administration or state-mandated reporting requirements. Enterprise resource software may be acquired by annual license fees, maintenance fees, or lease agreement. (i) Payment of the cost of the opening day collection for the library media center of a new school. Conversion charter schools may use capital outlay funds received through the reduction in the administrative fee provided in s. 1002.33(20) for renovation, repair, and maintenance of school facilities that are owned by the sponsor.
The legislature forced us to give our sales tax dollars to charter schools on a per student basis with HB 7097. It begins on line 1291: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2020/7097/BillText/er/PDF Quote from the bill HB 7097 beginning at line 1332: Surtax revenues shared with charter schools shall be expended by the charter school in a manner consistent with the allowable uses set forth in s. 1013.62(4). All revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for in a charter school’s monthly or quarterly financial statement pursuant to s. 1002.33(9). The eligibility of a charter school to receive funds under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with s. 1013.62(1). If a school’s charter is not renewed or is terminated and the school is dissolved under the provisions of law under which the school was organized, any unencumbered funds received under this subsection shall revert to the sponsor. [inadequate clawback provisions for encumbered funds]
1013.62(1) (a) To be eligible to receive capital outlay funds, a charter school must: 1. a. Have been in operation for 2 or more years; b. Be governed by a governing board established in the state for 2 or more years which operates both charter schools and conversion charter schools within the state; c. Be an expanded feeder chain of a charter school within the same school district that is currently receiving charter school capital outlay funds; d. Have been accredited by a regional accrediting association as defined by State Board of Education rule; or e. Serve students in facilities that are provided by a business partner for a charter school-in-the-workplace pursuant to s. 1002.33(15)(b). 2. Have an annual audit that does not reveal any of the financial emergency conditions provided in s. 218.503(1) for the most recent fiscal year for which such audit results are available. 3. Have satisfactory student achievement based on state accountability standards applicable to the charter school. 4. Have received final approval from its sponsor pursuant to s. 1002.33 for operation during that fiscal year.
Since the state legislators who voted yes on HB 7097 were re-elected, I am not hopeful that they will pass legislation that will allow us to recoup our sales tax money from charter schools that close. The only clawback provision is for unencumbered funds.
Our window of opportunity to allow the school board to have adequate clawback provisions was to pass the sales tax referendum in 2019. All of the city council knew that and the majority blocked us from being able to pass the referendum in 2019.
Matt Carlucci fought hard for us but he was unable to sway the majority who appear to be indebted to the people profiting from taxpayer funds flowing to the charter school industry.
The city council members, who barred us from voting on the school board’s referendum in 2019, need to take responsibility for allowing the referendum to fall under HB 7097 passed by the state legislature in early 2020 forcing us to give part of our sales tax money to charter schools without adequate clawback provisions in the event the charter school should close. The 2019 version of the sales tax referendum had adequate clawback provisions.
KIPP charter school has applied for a bond to get funds to repay Chartrand and Baker loans. Chartrand donated to Rory Diamond’s nonprofit. Rory Diamond was one of the ones that fought the hardest to prevent us from voting on the referendum in 2019. Connect the dots? Is it wrong to assume Diamond was rewarded for getting Chartrand millions of our sales tax dollars?
Begin forwarded message I sent to everyone on the city council:
Subject: 2020-627
I hope all the city council members will have the answers to these questions before they vote on 2020-627.
Does JAKS and McDuff QALICB have any business other than owning and renting real and tangible property? Do they qualify for getting money via this bond? They are not an educational organization. They are a rental company. If I’m wrong, would you please tell me why they are not merely a rental company if their only revenue is lease payments.
Who are the investors/owners of JAKS and McDuff? Who profits from the rent revenue?
I understand that the loan (created by this bond) will be repaid by the rent received from KIPP. Does KIPP plan to make those lease payments with our sales tax money?
Has the school district said a new charter elementary school is needed near 813 Golfair Boulevard?
I am worried that this isn’t an efficient use of our sales tax money when we want the schools over 50 years old to be renovated or rebuilt. I understand the state legislators have tied the hands of our local school board with HB 7097 and other bills but the city council needs to allow the school district’s attorneys to determine if they have the ability to get our sales tax money back if the building proposed by this ordinance is sold or no longer used as a charter school.
According to the audit (see link below), the current KIPP charter school pays rent. They don’t own the buildings. The rental company is the organization that rents the building to KIPP charter school. The audit states that the rent is $850,000 per year paid to JAKS.
The city council members, who prevented the voters from voting on the school board’s referendum in 2019, need to take responsibility for allowing the referendum to fall under HB 7097 passed by the state legislature in early 2020 forcing us to give part of our sales tax money to charter schools without adequate clawback provisions in the event the charter school should close.
