Opinion ID: 1680628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Language and History of Florida's Education Articles

Text: The Florida Constitution has contained an education article since its inception in 1838. See art. X, Fla. Const. (1838). [5] The original education article contained only two brief sections that dealt almost exclusively with the preservation of public lands granted by the United States for the use of schools. [6] In 1849, the Legislature provided for a system of schools by authorizing the establishment of common schools. See ch. 229, Laws of Fla. (1848). [7] The education article remained substantially the same in the 1861 and 1865 Constitutions. See art. X, Fla. Const. (1861); art. X, Fla. Const. (1865). In 1868, the education article was significantly expanded, see art. VIII, §§ 1-9, Fla. Const. (1868), and included the first requirement that the state provide a system of free public schools for all Florida children: Section 1. It is the paramount duty of the State to make ample provision for the education of all the children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference. Section 2. The Legislature shall provide a uniform system of Common Schools, and a University, and shall provide for the liberal maintenance of the same. Instruction in them shall be free. As this Court explained in Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So.2d 400, 405 (Fla. 1996), [b]y this change, education became the `paramount duty of the State' and required the State to make `ample provision for the education of all the children.' In 1885, the education provisions were moved to article XII and the provision imposing a paramount duty on the State to make ample provision for the education of all the children was deleted. See art. XII, § 1, Fla. Const. (1885). Section 1 of article XII simply provided that [t]he Legislature shall provide for a uniform system of public free schools, and shall provide for the liberal maintenance of the same. [8] The adoption of the 1968 Constitution saw another substantial revision of the education article, with section 1 of article IX providing that [a]dequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform system of free public schools 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. Art. IX, § 1, Fla. Const. (1968). The new reference to other public education programs referred to the existing systems of junior colleges, adult education, etc., which are not strictly within the general conception of free public schools or institutions of higher learning. Bd. of Pub. Instruction v. State Treasurer, 231 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1970). The effect of the addition of the phrase adequate provision was analyzed in Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness, in which we ultimately concluded that it is the Legislature, not the Court, that is vested with the power to decide what funding is adequate. See 680 So.2d at 406-07. In 1998, in response in part to Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness, the Constitutional Revision Commission proposed and the citizens of this state approved an amendment to article IX, section 1 to make clear that education is a fundamental value and a paramount duty of the state, and to provide standards by which to measure the adequacy of the public school education provided by the state: 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 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. Art. IX, § 1(a), Fla. Const. (emphasis supplied). A commentary on the 1998 amendment by the Executive Director and the General Counsel of the Constitution Revision Commission explained that the amendment revised section 1 by (1) making education a fundamental value, (2) making it a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of children, and (3) defining adequate provisions by requiring that the public school system be efficient, safe, secure, and high quality. The fundamental value language, new to the constitution, was codified from the language taken from the Florida Supreme Court decision in Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So.2d 400 (Fla.1996). Early proposals presented before the Constitution Revision Commission framed education in terms of being a fundamental right. In response to concerns of commissioners that the state might become liable for every individual's dissatisfaction with the education system, the term fundamental value was substituted. The paramount duty language represents a return to the 1868 Constitution, which provided that [i]t is the paramount duty of the State to make ample provisions for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference.. . . . The addition of efficient, safe, secure, and high quality represents an attempt by the 1997-98 Constitution Revision Commission to provide constitutional standards to measure the adequacy provision found in the second sentence of section 1. The action of the commission was in direct response to recent court actions seeking a declaration that Article IX, section 1 created a fundamental right to an adequate education, which the state had arguably violated by failing to provide sufficient resources to public education. William A. Buzzett and Deborah K. Kearney, Commentary, art. IX, § 1, 26A Fla. Stat. Annot. (West Supp.2006) (first alteration in original). In reviewing article IX, section 1 in Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness, the Court recognized a four-category system for analyzing state education clauses to ascertain the level of duty imposed on the state legislature by language in the Constitution: [A] Category I clause merely requires that a system of free public schools be provided. A Category II clause imposes some minimum standard of quality that the State must provide. A Category III clause requires stronger and more specific education mandate[s] and purpose preambles. And, a Category IV clause imposes a maximum duty on the State to provide for education. Barbara J. Staros, School Finance Litigation in Florida: A Historical Analysis, 23 Stetson L.Rev. 497, 498-99 (1994). Using this rating system, Florida's education clause in 1868 imposed a Category IV duty on the legislature  a maximum duty on the State to provide for education. In addition, it also imposed a duty on the legislature to provide for a uniform system of education. 680 So.2d at 405 n. 7. After the 1998 revision restoring the paramount duty language, Florida's education article is again classified as a Category IV clause, imposing a maximum duty on the state to provide for public education that is uniform and of high quality. Continuing concern over the quality of the education provided by the public schools led the citizens of this state to adopt a constitutional amendment in 2002 mandating maximum class sizes. See art. IX, § 1(a), Fla. Const.; Advisory Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Florida's Amendment to Reduce Class Size, 816 So.2d 580, 586 (Fla.2002) (approving the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot). [9] In this same election, the citizens of this state also approved a constitutional amendment requiring the state to provide a high quality pre-kindergarten learning opportunity. Art. IX, § 1(b)-(c), Fla. Const.; see also Advisory Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education, 824 So.2d 161, 167 (Fla.2002) (approving the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot).