Florida Statute 1003.42 (2)(g)–that passed in 1994–is an important message for our community and should be taught in all publicly funded schools:
(g)1. The history of the Holocaust …[must] be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions,—
Please ask your representative to suggest changing this part of HB 51
71 (1) Beginning in the 2023-2024 school year, the department 72 shall annually verify that each school district, charter school, 73 and private school [that receives voucher money] implements the instruction required under s. 74 1003.42(2)(g) and (h), relating to the history of the Holocaust 75 and the history of African Americans, efficiently and faithfully
by adding
in such a way that students are encouraged to understand the ramifications of prejudice, stereotyping and racism. If we truly want to educate our next generation to understand the evils of hatred, as exposed during the Holocaust, so that history does not repeat itself, we must address the universal lessons,
The necessity for the additional clause and line is because the standards passed by the state Board of Education in June 2021 don’t emphasize the original goal of 1003.42(2)(g). Excerpts from this Orlando Sentinel article:
Experts tapped by the state to help write or review new Holocaust standards say Florida’s proposal fails to connect the horrors of the Holocaust to lessons that would encourage today’s students to understand the “ramifications of prejudice, stereotyping and racism.” That failure is a violation of the state’s nearly 30-year-old Holocaust education law, they say, and undermines the work of longtime Holocaust educators. “Any legitimate Holocaust education expert” would advise that students learn what happened from 1933-45 and about antisemitism and also be encouraged “to make connections between the past and their own roles and responsibilities today,” wrote Yael Hershfield, interim regional director of the Anti-Defamation League Florida, in a June 11 letter to Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran. “If we truly want to educate our next generation to understand the evils of hatred, as exposed during the Holocaust, so that history does not repeat itself, as it did in Rwanda and other genocides, we must address the universal lessons,” Hershfield added.
Oren Stier, a professor of religious studies and director of the Holocaust and genocide studies program at Florida International University, says PJTN should never have been consulted, a view shared by other state experts. Laurie Cardoza-Moore, PJTN president, said the Holocaust should be taught without “universalizing” it. Cardoza-Moore said, “If you’re going to talk about the Holocaust you don’t bring in racism or xenophobia or all these other issues.” But other experts disagree. The Holocaust Memorial Resource & Education Center in Maitland, for example, founded by a Holocaust survivor from Poland, says its mission is to “use the history and lessons of the Holocaust to build a just and caring community free of antisemitism and all forms of prejudice and bigotry.”
Our country is based on wonderful ideals: liberty and justice for all, equal opportunities for the pursuit of happiness, freedom to practice your religion, and freedom from the brutalities of other people’s religions. Publicly funded education that teaches those ideals is one way to get closer to achieving them.
64DER21-15 is a new rule from the newly appointed head of the Florida Department of Health. Governor DeSantis appointed Ladapo, but the state senate has not yet confirmed him. As you read this, please consider if you’d like to ask your state senator to vote no on Dr. Ladapo’s confirmation.
The new rule also says, “64DER21-15 repeals and replaces rule 64DER21-12 that was adopted August 6, 2021.”
Under the section called “specific reasons“, 64DER21-15 notice says “the Department observed no meaningful difference in the number of COVID-19 cases in school-aged children in counties where school districts have imposed mask mandates…” On what is Dr. Ladapo basing that statement? He indicates no study or data to support that claim. Is he basing that statement on data pre-delta variant? What would be his conclusion if masking was the only option of these four:
Chalkbeat dove back into the research. In short, existing studies focusing on schools — including those cited on both sides of the debate — are strikingly limited. Little if any research has definitively shown what effect masks have on COVID spread in schools. At the same time, there is a broader body of evidence collected in other settings that suggests that masks help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases like COVID-19. That appears to be what’s driving health authorities to recommend masking in the classroom, alongside a general desire to minimize the risk to children and communities when cases are rising. “It’s entirely possible that open windows or fresh-air ventilation accounts for nearly all the mitigation benefit in a classroom and other ‘layered’ interventions may contribute only a marginal benefit or none at all,” concludes Zweig. In fact, it’s not clear that any of the most cited studies examining masks in schools are able to pin down cause and effect. “All of the studies that I have seen,” said Tulane University epidemiologist Susan Hassig, “are not sufficiently rigorous to assess the actual effectiveness of masks” in schools. Some experts say we should look beyond research on masking in schools and keep the basic logic of masking in mind. COVID-19 “is transmitted predominately by inhalation of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe,” explains the CDC. The logic of masks, then, is straightforward. They can block particles, protecting the wearer and limiting transmission from an individual who has the virus. Masking is particularly important for a disease like COVID-19 where an infected individual can transmit the disease before developing symptoms (and thus realizing they should stay home). Laboratory simulations confirm that masks stop many — though not all — of these droplets that could contain the virus. Jeremy Howard, author of a review of masking research and a research scientist at the University of San Francisco, says the benefits of masks very likely apply in school. “For masks in schools, the weight of evidence, when you combine it all together, is very strong,” he said. Mike Smith, a pediatrics professor and epidemiologist at Duke said “We have to make decisions weighing the risks and benefits without the gold standard randomized-controlled trial data.” Ultimately, Sarah Bode, a pediatrician in Columbus, Ohio argues, masks will help keep schools open during the delta surge, and the benefits of in-person school outweigh any downsides of masking.
Elected school boards only make rules for the district-run schools. Charter school boards will be making the rules for their schools. Some Florida state laws apply to both and some only apply to district-run schools. However, I think most people agree district-run and charter schools are considered “public schools” but I keep making the plea that the term “public schools” is outdated since the advent of charter schools and voucher funded private schools. Should public schools mean any school that receives public funds? When people use the term “public schools,” are they being intentionally vague?
64DER21-15 is called “Protocols for Controlling COVID-19 in School Settings.” Can’t we assume that means all schools?
Item (1) of 64DER21-15 does use the term “public schools” so I assume everyone will agree it applies to the district-run and the charter schools. I make the case that it also applies to voucher funded private schools because of Florida Statute 1002.421 which says:
.A private school participating in an educational scholarship program established pursuant to this chapter must … be in compliance with all requirements of this section …(g)Meet applicable state and local health, safety, and welfare laws, codes, and rules…
Items (2) and (3) of 64DER21-15 definitely seem to apply to ALL schools, even private schools that don’t receive government funding.
Why is the state Board of Education only going after the district-run schools? Are they even asking what protocols charter and voucher funded private schools are following? Are they threatening to reduce the funding of charter and voucher funded private schools that follow CDC guidelines? The 4 out of the 7 Duval county school board members are merely trying to follow CDC guidelines. Ladapo’s new rule is NOT following CDC guidelines. I agree with the counties that say the Florida Health Department shouldn’t have the authority to tell the Constitutional Officers (the elected school boards) to NOT follow CDC guidelines. It’s outrageous!
When people use the term “public schools,” are they being intentionally vague? What did “public schools” mean when Article IX of our Florida Constitution was last amended? I’ve heard many people say “charter schools are public schools” but they don’t have to follow all the rules set by district school boards. My memory tells me that charter schools have only been in Florida for 20 years. I’m not sure when the state legislature started giving vouchers to help cover the cost of private school tuition.
ARTICLE IX of Florida’s Constitution
SECTION 1. Public education.—(a) The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system offree public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require. To assure that children attending public schoolsobtain a high quality education, the legislature shall make adequate provision to ensure that, by the beginning of the 2010 school year, there are a sufficient number of classrooms so that …
The tricky question is: Should our elected school board fight back like the Leon County School Board did?
Excerpt from article:
After a lengthy debate, the Leon County School Board denied a new charter school’s application during Tuesday night’s board meeting. Scott Mazur, president of the local teacher’s union, said the charter’s application had “certain things that were missing.” George Levesque, attorney for the proposed school, said he hoped the board would consider “the recommendation made by your own staff — that the charter should be approved [despite the concerns].” Among several concerns laid out by staff was how the school would maintain a safe school officer, required by law [for both district run and charter schools].
I encourage the school board to adopt a policy that states that they will deny all charter school applications that do not include the following: * Give assurance that the charter school will accept and have adequate support for ESE students * Fully explain the charter school’s plan to comply with the state law that requires a school safety officer with a gun to be at the school. Do they plan to allow teachers to be armed which the school district doesn’t allow for the district run schools? * When the charter school closes, the building purchased or constructed with taxpayer dollars (either directly or indirectly via lease payments) must be leased to another charter school or allow the school district to share in the sales proceeds to recoup the tax money if the building is sold. After all, if the charter school is planning to fund the purchase with our sales surtax dollars, the school district should be able to have the ability to recoup our sales surtax dollars. Apparently the FLDOE thinks that also.
My guess is that most taxpayers don’t want our sales surtax money to fund the purchase of a school building that will later be sold to a private school for the purpose of enriching private real estate investors.
I asked the FLDOE these questions and here are the responses I received:
1. Is there any provision to pay the taxpayer back if the building is sold? Their answer:
Section 1013.62 (4) F.S. states, “If a charter school is non-renewed or terminated, any unencumbered funds and all equipment and property purchased with district public funds shall revert to the ownership of the district school board. The reversion of such equipment, property, and furnishings shall focus on recoverable assets, but not on intangible or irrecoverable costs such as rental or leasing fees, normal maintenance, and limited renovations. The reversion of all property secured with public funds is subject to the complete satisfaction of all lawful liens or encumbrances. If there are additional local issues such as the shared use of facilities or partial ownership of facilities or property, these issues shall be agreed to in the charter contract prior to the expenditure of funds.”
2. Do related party rules apply so that our sales surtax money can ONLY be used (directly or indirectly via lease payments to a related party) on items mentioned in 1013.62(4)? In other words, can related parties use our sales surtax money to repay loans? It seems that charter schools are setting up related party entities to skirt the rules of 1013.62(4) that bar capital outlay funds from being used to repay loans. Is that legal? Their answer:
The sponsor has fiduciary responsibility as it holds the contract with the governing board of the charter school.
References I’m focusing on one charter school as an example but many of these facts can be applied to other charter school applications.
Jacksonville Classical Academy (K-6) with the FLDOE school number165831 hasn’t been in existence for two years so it has not yet begun to get the FLDOE capital outlay funds detailed on this website: http://www.fldoe.org/finance/fco/charter-school-capital-outlay/
Jacksonville Classical Academy (which is part of the national charters getting their curriculum from Hillsdale College) got another Charter school approved May 4th by the school board. And apparently the charter school plans to move into a facility that housed a private school that closed in 2019. Excerpt from a document about the charter school’s application found on the school board’s website.:
“The school will be located in the Arlington area at 5900 Fort Caroline Road, Jacksonville, FL 32277.”
This article mentions that many of the students that attended the private school that closed (and is apparently the proposed location of the new charter school) were at least partially funding their tuition with McKay (for ESE students) vouchers. Excerpt from this 2019 article:
The principal of a Christian school in Arlington said financial issues due to low enrollment will force it to close its doors May 31 — the end of the current school year. Arlington Community Academy has been open for two years, opening as a kindergarten through third grade, and then adding a fourth grade this year. “He made a commitment to us that he would keep this school open for the Arlington community and he’s not doing that,” the unnamed parent said. “Within three years, he’s shutting down and he’s not telling us nothing.” “Enrollment is critical to maintaining operations,” Principal Gina Fafard wrote. “Despite our best efforts, enrollment has been significantly lower than expected, and we are not able to keep ACA operational beyond the end of the 2018-2019 school year.”
I assume real estate investors will buy the facility and lease it to the charter school because that’s usually what happens. The charter school will make the lease payments with our sales surtax dollars and other tax dollars. Will the real estate developers sell the property back to a private school after they get our sales surtax dollars for several years? The Jacksonville Classical Academy on 2043 Forest St., 32204 leases its building from JEB Jacksonville Support Corporation. Details of that real estate investor group: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/N19000011884
Quote from this November 2020 opinion piece published after the sales tax referendum was passed:
Rood said that Jacksonville Classical Academy will benefit from the recent half-cent sales tax referendum. Funds will be used to build a gym and free the school from some fundraising.
I see that the new KIPP school is requesting to be designated as a feeder school so it can get our sales surtax money BEFORE the two year probation period. Will this new charter school attempt to be designated as a feeder school also?
Anyone want to comment about Critical Race Theory and the propaganda pamphlet I received from Hillsdale College? Excerpt I received from a public request I sent to Jacksonville Classical Academy:
Jacksonville Classical Academy (JXC) has been supported through the early stages of startup by the Barney Charter School Initiative (BCSI) of Hillsdale College. Jacksonville Classical Academy is a Licensed User of the Hillsdale College K-12 Curriculum.
A recent spate of charter-school closings illustrates weaknesses in state law. Florida requires local school districts to oversee charter schools but gives them limited power to intervene when cash is mismanaged or students are deprived. Lack of regulation can allow abuses. … A handful of South Florida charter schools that failed in the past five years owe a total of at least $1 million in public education money to local school districts, records show. The actual amount may be much higher. Districts struggle to track spending at troubled schools.
When I asked the FLDOE if these were PECO funds of which I believe the district run schools got zero, this was the response:
Per the 2020 General Appropriations Act, Chapter 2020-111, specific appropriation 21, these capital funds are from the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund (state funds).
These Duval County charter schools received capital outlay funds from the state every month this year. The amount received for April:
April
Name of charter school
15,090
160471
LONE STAR HIGH SCHOOL
8,338
160531
DUVAL MYCROSCHOOL OF INTEGRATED ACADEMICS AND TECHNOLOGIES
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.
Did you know that all publicly funded schools are not required to obey the following two Florida statutes dealing with nondiscrimination and tolerance? Currently only the district-run schools are required to follow both.
**Excerpt from f.s.1000.05—
Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, religion, or marital status against a student or an employee in the state system of public K-20 education is prohibited.
**Excerpt from f.s. 1003.42 (g)—
[a required course that will teach] …… the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.
There are two bills before our Florida Senate (with companion bills in the House) that will help correct the problem:
**SB 184 (HB 91) will make clear that f.s. 1003.42(g) must apply to charter schools and private schools receiving voucher money in addition to the district run schools.
**SB 56 (HB 45) will make clear that private schools can’t receive voucher money if they discriminate against the minorities mentioned in f.s. 1000.05.
Our state Constitution requires free public schools for the children of Florida, but our elected officials are not consistent with what they mean by “public schools.” Many of our laws defined the rules for “public schools” at a time when the term meant only the neighborhood schools. If our Florida Legislature is going to continue to give our taxpayer dollars to charter schools and private schools, then those schools need to be required to follow the same nondiscrimination laws that our neighborhood schools must follow.
The organization that administers Florida’s growing array of voucher programs — Step Up For Students — insists it has no legal basis to deny voucher money to private schools that discriminate against minority groups.
SB 56 will give Step-Up-For-Students the legal basis to deny voucher money to private schools that discriminate against the minority groups mentioned in f.s. 1000.05.
A Florida statute— 1002.33 (16)—already demands charter schools follow the nondiscrimination statute. In other words, SB 56 will make it so all publicly funded schools are forbidden from discriminating against the minority groups mentioned in f.s. 1000.05.
Florida Education Commissioner Corcoran in his letter to a superintendent about the teaching of the Holocaust mentioned “public schools” twice. His letter was concerning f.s. 1003.42 (g). The way I read his letter, he thinks it is an important course. However, f.s. 1003.42 (g) only applies to the district-run schools. SB 184 (if it passes) will require any school receiving public funds to follow f.s. 1003.42(g).
If legislators are going to continue to use your tax dollars to fund charter schools and private schools, then those schools need to follow the same nondiscrimination laws that neighborhood schools must follow. The nondiscrimination laws should apply to all publicly funded schools.
Excerpt: The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education
Ref 7 HB 741 passed last legislative session unanimously. The discussion of the bill called antisemitism discussed the teaching of the holocaust. It also added religion to the list in f.s. 1000.05.
Ref 10 Quote from MOSH curator Paul Bourcie:
“…We’re seeing domestic terrorism happening to all kinds of people branded as the Other. We see systems in place that put certain communities at a disadvantage. Can it be that we’re looking at something systemic that hearkens back to the racial violence of the past?” http://folioweekly.com/stories/warts-all,21834
Unite Us Do Not Divide Us 