To chart an equitable course forward for all Floridians, we must first understand the journey that brought us to where we are today. The following publication is the first of FPI’s “Pursue Equity” series, a part of a multi-year research initiative on Florida’s historically discriminatory policies, their evolution, and their impact on all Florida communities today.
Providing a quality education to all of Florida’s students is a core constitutional responsibility of state government and critical to economic growth. Yet, school districts in Florida are dealing with a crushing teacher shortage, bus driver shortage, and overall operating cost growth that has outpaced revenue. Florida’s average teacher pay ranked 49th in the nation in 2020. All these issues are directly tied to Florida’s ongoing underinvestment in K-12 public schools.
Education Law Center’s report on state school funding, “Making the Grade,” paints a woeful picture for Florida. It grades each state and D.C. on three metrics: funding level (cost-adjusted, per-pupil revenue from state and local sources), funding distribution (the extent to which additional funds are distributed to districts with high student poverty levels), and funding effort (funding allocated to PreK-12 public education as a percentage of the state’s economic activity). Florida was one of only two states to receive an ‘F’ in all three categories. The Sunshine State ranked 45th for funding level, at $4,484 below the national per-pupil average of $15,487 for school year 2018-19 (the most recent Census data available).
The state not only ranked dismally for adequacy of funding level, but perhaps more surprisingly, the report found the state’s distribution of funds relative to district poverty level was highly unequal and regressive. On average, high poverty districts received 12 percent or $1,492 less per pupil than low poverty districts, after adjusting for local wage factors. (See Fig. 2C below from the Education Law Center report.)
But how could this be? Florida’s formula for school funding is touted as one of the most equitable in the nation. The explanation lies in the large disparities in counties’ tax bases, a local funding “loophole,” and a long history of state underinvestment in Florida’s public schools.
The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) dictates how much funding each school district receives annually using student counts cost factors for programs such as Exceptional Student Education (ESE) and English Language Learners (ELL), district cost differences, and other variables. Notably absent from the formula, however, is the number of students in poverty in each school district, the inclusion of which would improve the equitable nature of the FEFP.
The “Required Local Effort” school property tax required of all counties feeds into the FEFP. By redistributing some dollars from wealthier districts with higher property values to less well-off districts, the FEFP has widely been regarded as one of the nation’s most equitable K-12 state funding formulas since its inception.[1]
However, the FEFP is only the centerpiece of funding for Florida’s school districts. Other components, such as state categorical funding and federal funding, are provided to local districts via formulas based on student counts. And importantly, districts can leverage local revenue options as well. Funding from the supplemental voter-approved property taxes stays wholly within the district’s budget. Thus, as more local school districts feel compelled to ask voters to raise revenue in the face of state funding shortfalls, the funding for schools across the state has begun to diverge significantly depending on local property values, which contributes to the regressive distribution of funds as identified by Education Law Center.
The FEFP was created by the state Legislature in June 1973, using recommendations submitted by Governor Rubin Askew’s Citizen’s Committee on Education.[2] This policy development was highly influenced by school funding news at the federal level. In March 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that, while “the need for (school funding) reform is apparent,” the right to an education was not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and that school financing via local property taxes was constitutional. The majority opinion also urged that state courts and Legislatures should be the ones to take up the issue of school funding inequities.
The 5-to-4 decision has had its detractors because of its long-standing impact on school funding equity; scholars have included it when listing the U.S. Supreme Court’s worst decisions. At the time, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that the decision should be viewed “as a retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educational opportunity and as unsupportable acquiescence in a system which deprives children in their earliest years of the chance to reach their full potential as citizens.”[3]
Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that the decision should be viewed “as a retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educational opportunity”
After Rodriguez, school finance reform cases largely wound through state Supreme Courts, and Florida was no exception. Historically, “property-poor” districts in Florida have sued the state over the inequitable distribution of funds related to the optional property tax millage. In 1979, the school board of Escambia County sued Florida’s Department of Education (Gindl v. Department of Education) contending that the discretionary millage levied by school boards created an unequal effect on school finances in the state, running counter to the equal protection clauses in the federal and state constitutions and the education uniformity provision in Florida’s state constitution. The Florida Supreme Court at that time upheld the discretionary millage as constitutional, ruling that Florida’s constitution did not require equality of funding, only a “substantial equality standard.”[4] Property-poor school districts continued to fight against the discretionary millage, and in 1987, 22 districts brought suit against the state once more, contending that the FEFP did not adequately equalize funding because of the local discretionary millage, and underfunded property-poor (and often high-poverty) districts.[5]
These suits failed, and Florida’s school funding advocates turned to fighting for funding “adequacy” in court, not just for equity. In 1998, voters in Florida passed an amendment to the state constitution making education a “paramount duty.” This spurred litigation around funding adequacy. The most significant of these court cases culminated in 2019, when the Florida Supreme Court deemed the issue non-justiciable, reasoning that funding is a policy decision to be left for the state Legislature. This meant that the only foreseeable steps forward to improve school funding adequacy and equity in Florida was through legislative advocacy.
In January 2019, a research firm presented a state-funded study of the FEFP, its district cost differential formula, and recommendations to Florida’s House PreK-12 Appropriations subcommittee. The researchers reiterated that the additional voted millage option would have an unequal impact on Florida’s schools—that a 1 mill levy in Monroe County would draw down $3,363 per pupil, while in Union County it would only generate $112 in revenue per pupil. According to the report, by enacting a 1 mill property tax, 10 districts would receive more than $1,000 per pupil, 33 districts would generate less than $500 per pupil, and three districts less than $200 for FY 2018-19. While any school district can ask its voters to approve an additional 1 mill, only a select few in Florida are able to generate significant resources by leveraging their higher property values.
…a 1 mill levy in Monroe County would draw down $3,363 per pupil while in Union County it would only generate $112 in revenue per pupil.
In line with this report, Florida’s Legislature has in recent years acknowledged concerns about the inequity of overall funding per student by creating a new allocation to the FEFP: the Funding Compression and Hold Harmless allocation. This funding is distributed to school districts with less-than-average funding per pupil; however, in FY 2021-22, it only contributed 25 percent of the difference and no more than $100 per FTE, and the Legislature only appropriated $50.2 million for the allocations in FY 2022. While the Funding Compression program is a move in the right direction, the caps on the amounts available to property-poor districts through this allocation means that it only improves funding equity in Florida by a small measure.
“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.” – Article IX, Section 1, Florida Constitution
Florida has long ranked in the bottom fifth for public K-12 education spending per pupil. While the underfunding of education has angered advocates, the “equitable” nature of the state’s funding formula has generally garnered high marks. However, since the Great Recession, the Legislature’s continued underfunding of education has spurred a growing number of school districts to turn to voters via referenda to raise local dollars. “Property-poor” districts are at a significant resource disadvantage when it comes to tax revenues, and students in these districts have suffered the consequences. It is past time for the Legislature to both adequately fund K-12 education in Florida—at pre-Great Recession levels—and refresh the state’s funding formula so that property-poor districts are not consistently left behind.
.png)
While the FEFP formula was created in 1973, Florida laws and policies going back to the nineteenth century set the groundwork for how the state approaches taxation and education spending, often establishing a deeply disparate treatment by race and family income. School segregation and funding inequities were intertwined at the very founding of Florida’s K-12 public school system. The same politicians and forces supportive of segregation and fighting civil rights for communities of color also fought increased school spending and funding equity. Present-day legislators and public school advocates should have a deep understanding of Florida’s historic inequitable policies in order to competently grapple with how to improve the state’s system for school investments.
Revenue and school expenditure politics in post-Civil War Florida were infused with white backlash. The racist “Black Code” laws in Florida included provisions regarding taxation, schools, and race. In 1866, the Florida Legislature passed laws establishing schools for African Americans but stipulated that they would be paid for only with taxes levied on formerly enslaved individuals, and that the state’s education fund was only for white schools. In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, giving equal protection under the law and undermining the legality of southern Black Codes. However, Florida and other southern states responded by passing segregationist Jim Crow laws and continued to fight back against the federal government’s push for equality under the law.
Present-day legislators and public school advocates should have a deep understanding of Florida’s historic inequitable policies in order to competently grapple with how to improve the state’s system for school investments
By enforcing segregation in Florida’s schools, the state Legislature not only created a separate education system for Black and white students, but also starved the Black schools of resources to reinforce an institutional system built on the premise of white supremacy. Black students in Jim Crow-era Florida attended schools without basic utilities and materials, were deprived transportation, and given shorter school years and fewer grades than their white counterparts.[6] Until the 1940s, salaries for Black teachers in Florida were less than half those for white teachers on average.[7] Per pupil funding for Black students was a small fraction of spending per white pupil — for example, in 1918, the per pupil funding for white students in Volusia County was $138.63 while Black schools only received $13.19 per student.[8]
By enforcing segregation in Florida’s schools, the state Legislature not only created a separate education system for Black and white students, but also starved the Black schools of resources to reinforce an institutional system built on the premise of white supremacy.
Prior to Florida’s reapportionment of its Legislature in the mid-1960s, Northern Florida was dramatically overrepresented in the state Senate. Almost each northern county had its own senator, while southern Florida had a burgeoning population and much less representation in Tallahassee. In the mid-1950s, the rural northern bloc of state senators known as the “Pork Chop Gang” for their powerful “pork barrel” spending was deeply entrenched against reapportionment of the Legislature, integration of schools and society, and efforts to increase state revenue and services. The term “gang” was fairly accurate: in 1955, the senators gathered at a North Florida fishing camp to take a “blood oath” committing to “vote together preserve the southern way of life: rural values, racial segregation, and minimal government.”[9]
In the first statewide teacher strike in the U.S., an estimated 27,000 teachers protested the longstanding disinvestment in Florida’s public schools by handing in resignation slips and walking out. Black teachers and white teachers joined together to demand higher pay and improved school budgets — the newly elected Governor Claude Kirk had promised improvements, but the teachers protested after it became apparent that his campaign promises were just empty rhetoric. The strike ended on March 8, 1968, after two-and-a-half weeks, when the recently integrated Florida Education Association and the state agreed on increasing investments in education. Some of the striking teachers were not rehired as retaliation.
Notes
[1] C. P. Escue, "Adequate Yearly Progress as a Means of Funding Public Elementary and Secondary Education for Impoverished Students: Florida Funding," Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 37, No. 4, Spring 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23255492.
[6] James A. Schnur, "Desegregation of Public Schools in Pinellas County, Florida," Tampa Bay History 13, Spring/Summer 1991, pp. 26-43, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4002&context=fac_publications
[7] Leonard R. Lempel, Daytona State College, "The Long Struggle for Quality Education for African Americans in East Florida," Journal of Florida Studies, Vol. 1, Issue 7, p. 13, 2018, http://www.journaloffloridastudies.org/files/vol0107/LEMPEL_Integration.pdf.
[9] Mary Adkins, Making Modern Florida: How the Spirit of Reform Shaped a New State Constitution, p. 11, University Press of Florida, 2016.
Re-employment Assistance (RA) Department of Children and Families (DCF) Multi-Program Policies Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Child Nutrition Programs Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Re-employment Assistance (RA)American Rescue Plan Act Changes. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 extended PEUC and PUA benefits through the week ending September 6, 2021. It also increased the maximum duration of PEUC benefits ($300 a week) to 53 weeks and the maximum duration of PUA to 79 weeks. Although PEUC and PUA did not end until September 6, 2021, Florida withdrew from the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Program (FPUC) effective June 26, 2021. FPUC provided persons who were out of work due to COVID-19 with an additional $300 a week in unemployment insurance.
Reemployment Assistance weeks reverted to 12 effective January 1, 2022. DEO determines the maximum number of weeks available to RA claimants based on a statutory formula that looks at the average unemployment rate for the most recent third calendar year quarter (i.e., July, August, and September). Based on the downturn in unemployment, the maximum number of weeks for RA reverted to 12 effective January 1, 2022.
RA work-search and work registration requirements reinstated on May 30, 2021. Persons filing an application for RA benefits beginning March 15, 2020, are not required to complete work registration in Employ Florida through May 29, 2021. In addition, work search requirements for individuals requesting benefits for the weeks beginning March 15, 2020, were also reinstated on May 30, 2021.
RA biweekly reporting requirements reinstated. Although previously waived, biweekly reporting was reinstated effective May 10, 2020. DEO’s guide to claiming weeks is here.
Mobile app deployed. DEO has deployed a mobile app for RA applications.
DEO announces extended benefits. DEO announced implementation of Extended Benefits (EB).
Resources and guidance. For a list of resources and guidance from the United States Department of Labor on unemployment insurance and COVID-19, go here.
For DEO’s “Reemployment Assistance Frequently Asked Questions and Additional Resources,” updated 12/30/2020, go here.
For DEO’s latest claims data, go here.
Re-employment Assistance (RA) Department of Children and Families (DCF) Multi-Program PoliciesDCF opens offices. DCF has reopened its brick-and-mortar storefronts, which were previously closed due to coronavirus.
DCF adds call center numbers. DCF has added a call center number for Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Call center numbers now include 850-300-4323, 866-762-2237, or TTY 1-800-955-8771.
Certification periods extended by 6 months only through August 2020. Certification periods for cash, food and medical assistance were extended by 6 months for individuals and families scheduled to recertify in April through August 2020. FNS’ approval of the SNAP extension for August is here. However, effective September 1, 2020, SNAP, TANF and Medicaid recertifications have been reinstated, although DCF says that no one will lose Medicaid due to recertification.
DCF allows phone interviews. Phone interviews are now being used for TANF cash and SNAP food assistance.
Mandatory work requirements suspended only through May 2021. Under a directive from Governor DeSantis to waive work requirements for safety net programs, DCF waived work requirements for individuals participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) through May 2021. To do this, DCF explains that it partnered with the Department of Economic Opportunity to apply “good cause” statewide for TANF and SNAP recipients who would otherwise be subject to participation in mandatory work requirements as a condition of receiving those benefits. Through May 2021, persons who were sanctioned in the past due to work requirements will be able to reapply and participate in SNAP or TANF again.
Emergency allotments (EA) ended. DCF automatically supplemented SNAP allotments of current recipients up to the maximum for a household’s size for July 2021. However, EA was discontinued beginning August 1, 2021.
The SNAP benefits increase by 15 percent ended in October 2021. Floridians who participate in SNAP to put food on the table will receive a temporary 15 percent supplement to SNAP under COVID relief passed by Congress and extended by the American Rescue Plan Act through September 2021.
FNS permanently increases SNAP through revamp of the Thrifty Food Plan. Effective October 2021, FNS has mandated a permanent increase to SNAP through a revamp of the Thrifty Food Plan. DCF says that the increase amounts to about 6% for Floridians.
Time limits suspended. SNAP time limits are suspended during the COVID-19 public health emergency. No one in Florida should be barred from SNAP due to time limits, even if they exhausted their time limit in the past.
Florida granted waiver to allow families to purchase groceries online. DCF has been granted a federal waiver to permit the State of Florida to launch a pilot project statewide effective April 21, 2020, that allows families to purchase groceries online with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card instead of going into stores.
No Medicaid terminations from March 2020 through the end of the federal public health emergency. The national public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020 and has been renewed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 90-day increments since that time. The most recent renewal is effective January 16, 2022.
On March 31, 2020, AHCA alerted providers and DCF posted on the ACCESS website that:
Redetermination/recertification times are reinstated. As of October 1, 2020 AHCA's website is alerting recipients that the Department of Children and Families is now mailing letters for case reviews to check if a household is still eligible for Medicaid and/or Medically Needy. AHCA is urging people receiving these letters to take steps now to re-apply. But note, Medicaid coverage will not end during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. In January 2021 DCF conducted one-year “automated renewals” for people whose sole income is social security and SSI and are enrolled in an SSI-related Medicaid program (e.g., MEDS/AD, Medically Needy and Medicare Savings Programs). People getting VA income were not included in the automated renewal.
Extended application time. Effective with applications filed in February 2020, the time for submitting documentation required to process an application is extended for 120 days from the date of the application and eligibility will still be effective the first day of the month the application was received. Effective July 1, 2021, this policy has been rescinded. Medicaid applications submitted on or after July 1, 2021 may be denied on the 30th day after application or the day after verification information is due. Applications filed prior to July 1, will be allowed 120 days to provide requested verification to establish Medicaid eligibility.
Exclusion of additional unemployment payments in determining eligibility. The $600/week of additional unemployment insurance payments under the CARES Act will not be counted as income in determining Medicaid eligibility. (However, these payments will be counted as income in determining marketplace subsidy calculations.)
Coverage of Medicaid services during the state of emergency
COVID-19 Vaccines for Medicaid Enrollees. In an executive order published March 16, 2021 Governor DeSantis revised the vaccine distribution plan, which applies to the general public including Medicaid enrollees, to lower the age requirement to 40 effective March 29, 2021 and then effective April 5, 2021 all Floridians are eligible to receive any COVID-19 vaccination approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Medicaid enrollees eligible to receive the vaccine may visit myvaccine.fl.gov to find a location distributing the vaccine and to schedule an appointment.
On March 12, 2021, AHCA published instructions for Medicaid enrollees on how to obtain Medicaid transportation once they have scheduled an appointment for a vaccine. AHCA states: "Florida Medicaid will take you to get the COVID-19 vaccine at no cost. All you need to do is set up a time to get your vaccine. Next, let your Medicaid plan know you need a ride and they will take care of the rest. If you are not enrolled in a plan, call the Medicaid Helpline at 1-877-254-1055 to find out the name and phone number for a transportation service."
The state has also recently launched a new email system to help bring COVID-19 vaccines to homebound seniors. Seniors will be able to sign up to have the vaccine come to them by emailing a request to HomeboundVaccine@em.myflorida.com.
AHCA has posted Medicaid Alerts and FAQs providing more detail on Medicaid service changes in response to COVID-19. They address a wide range of topics including, but not limited to: telemedicine guidance for medical, behavioral health, and early intervention services providers; long-term care provider network flexibilities allowing more types of providers to deliver specified long term care services; and continuity of care for adult day care center enrollees during the time these centers are closed.
AHCA is loosening coverage restrictions for behavioral health services. Effective May 5, 2020, all prior authorization requirements for mental health or substance use disorder treatment are waived and service limitations (frequency and duration) are lifted. For behavioral analysis services, current authorizations will be extended through an "administrative approval process" which does not require providers to reassess beneficiaries currently getting services. Effective July 1, 2021 service limits will be reinstated for behavioral health services and effective July 15, 2021 Medicaid prior authorization requirements will be reinstated for behavioral health services.
Per a May 29, 2020 provider alert, during the state of emergency AHCA will be reimbursing providers for telemedicine well-child visits provided to children older than 24 months through age 20. Providers are directed to actively work to schedule follow-up in-person visits to administer immunizations and other physical components of the exam which cannot be accomplished through telemedicine.
Coverage of home and community-based waiver services (HCBS) - In response to the public emergency, Florida obtained approval from the federal government to make changes in HCBS waiver programs, including the Long Term Care and Developmental Disabilities programs. The changes are effective retroactively from January 27, 2020 to January 26, 2021. Details can be found here. They include, but are not limited to:
Note on COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccines for the uninsured. Florida has not opted to receive 100 percent federal Medicaid funding for COVID-19 testing of people without health insurance. Under the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act this option has been expanded to cover COVID-19 treatment and vaccines for the uninsured as well. Since the state has not taken up this option Floridians must look to an uneven patchwork of free testing, treatment, and vaccine resources scattered around the state. AHCA advises that uninsured people may receive free testing from their county health department or a federally qualified health center and that “many communities provide testing for free for individuals who do not have insurance. Please [click here] to find a test site in your area. Uninsured individuals should ask before the test whether testing is free of charge." There are no state agency instructions on where uninsured people can receive free treatment. However, more information on possible sources for free treatment is available here.
Residency proof no longer required at some vaccine sites, “paving the way for migrants.” - On April 29, 2021 Surgeon General Rivkees issued a new public health advisory specifying that COVID-19 vaccines are available to “a Florida resident” or someone “who is present in Florida for the purpose of providing goods or services for the benefits of residents and visitors of the State of Florida.” This new policy applies to all state-run and federally supported vaccination sites. It rescinds an advisory issued in January that had restricted vaccinations to people who could show proof of Florida residency
2021 unemployment compensation claimants can access free or reduced cost health insurance through the ACA marketplace. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace was re-opened in February 2021 to give people who need health insurance a new “special enrollment" opportunity to get covered. The 2021 American Rescue Plan eliminated or vastly reduced premiums for many people with low or moderate incomes.
Starting July 1, 2021, people who received or have been approved for unemployment compensation for any week beginning in 2021 can access free or reduced cost comprehensive health insurance plans through the ACA marketplace. This benefit is available regardless of someone's current income. To get this benefit, people must enroll in the marketplace no later than August 15, 2021. For help with enrollment, contact Covering Florida at 877-813-9115.
