Opinion ID: 1680628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plain Meaning of Article IX, Section 1

Text: The relevant portion of article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution provides in part: 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 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. The majority finds an exclusivity requirement in this provision that is neither expressed in the text nor necessarily implied. Specifically, the majority states that the public school system is the exclusive means set out in the constitution for the Legislature to make adequate provision for the education of children. Majority op. at 409. It reads article IX, section 1(a) as a limitation on the Legislature's power because it provides both a mandate to provide for children's education and a restriction on the execution of that mandate. Majority op. at 406. Therefore, the majority concludes that [t]he OSP violates [article IX, section 1] by devoting the state's resources to the education of children within our state through means other than a system of free public schools. Majority op. at 407. The majority's reading of article IX, section 1 is flawed. There is no language of exclusion in the text. Nothing in either the second or third sentence of article IX, section 1 requires that public schools be the sole means by which the State fulfills its duty to provide for the education of children. And there is no basis to imply such a proscription. The meaning of this clause, especially if read in light of the presumptions and first principles discussed above, is plain. The people of Florida declare in the first sentence that they consider the education of children a core value. In the second sentence, they establish that it is a primary duty of their government to see that this value is fulfilled. These two sentences 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. Having laid this foundation, the people specify exactly what they demand of their government in regards to this duty to make adequate provision for the education of Florida's children. They specify three things; however, only the first mandate is at issue in this case. [16] This first mandate requires the Legislature to make adequate provision by law for a system of free public schools, institutions of higher learning and other educational programs. Specifically, the mandate states: 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. (Emphasis added.) This mandate is to make adequate provision for a public school system. The text does not provide that the government's provision for education shall be by or through a system of free public schools. Without language of exclusion or preclusion, there is no support for the majority's finding that public schools are the exclusive means by or through which the government may fulfill its duty to make adequate provision for the education of every child in Florida. As the ultimate sovereign, if the people of Florida had wanted to mandate this exclusivity, they could have very easily written article IX to include such a proscription. Ten other states have constitutional provisions that expressly prohibit the allocation of public education funds to private schools. [17] Compare art. IX, Fla. Const., with, e.g., Miss. Const. art. 8, § 208 ([N]or shall any funds be appropriated toward the support of any sectarian school, or to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free school.), and S.C. Const. art. XI, § 4 (No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.). However, the people of Florida have not included such a proscription in article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution. Therefore, without any express or necessarily implied proscription in article IX, section 1 of Florida's Constitution, this Court has no authority to declare the OSP unconstitutional as violative of article IX, section 1. [18]