Update on CS/CS/HB1403 and SB7048 (2/2/2024)

So SB 7048 was updated yesterday to show it as "Introduced" in the Senate, but the Appropriations committee hasn't met on it yet. Does anyone know what that means, for it to be "Introduced"?

I've emailed the following to the members of the appropriations committee:

I am writing to you about HB1403/SB7048. As a parent in a homeschooling family who makes use of the PEP scholarship, I find it to be unreasonably restrictive, and the logic that has been used to argue its necessity extremely flawed.

There has already been much commentary on the restrictiveness of the bill. By limiting the purchase of equipment to only the four "core" classes of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies, this bill forecloses opportunities in physical education, the arts, and vocational studies, all of which have been recognized as legitimate areas of education for thousands of years. It additionally would likely cut off the ability to purchase basic multi-use learning equipment like desks and bookshelves. It is understandable that the state would desire to prevent irresponsible use of PEP funds, but in this blanket ban the legislature cuts off its nose to spite its face.

The logic by which these provisions has been defended is tortured at best. "You can buy the horseback riding lesson, but not the horse;" "What if the student wants to buy a car for driver's ed?" These are ludicrous scenarios, and can easily be addressed (if that is the concern) by placing a per item price cap (say. $700 or so dollars) on any piece of equipment that falls outside of those core classes. And for $700, a student could actually buy a very beat-up car with which to learn automotive servicing and repair -- potentially an excellent educational investment! Would that be so terrible?

Another reason that has been given in support of these regulations is to promote "fiscal responsibility." Nobody doubts that the state has an interest in making sure its monies are spent well, but part of the whole concept of home education is that the state concedes that sometimes parents know better than the government what their children need in their education. Therefore, giving those parents the maximum reasonable latitude is actually the fiscally responsible thing to do. And in the case of these scholarships, it costs the state no more to permit purchases outside of the core subjects than it does to restrict them, considering that the scholarship payments are fixed to the child regardless of how much is spent each year.

Finally, it has been argued that public school students don't get these resources, so why should home education students? Again, there are obvious flaws here. If the state envisions PEP to be "public education at home," then they should say so in order that I might un-enroll from this scholarship. The entire reason that parents sacrifice to educate their children at home is to give them an education that is distinctive from the public education. To make the public education the benchmark with which to compare home education is to completely miss the point of home education. Not only that, but it is inconsistent with the use of the Florida Tax Credit scholarships with regards to private schools. If a private school that accepts FTC scholarship money can buys a robotics kit to offer that as an elective class, why shouldn't a PEP recipient have that same latitude?

Please consider amending this provision in this bill to allow parents to truly "personalize" the education of their child, or remove it altogether and fine-tune a less onerous regulation next session.

Is it advisable to email the appropriations committee members?

Does it seem like any changes will be made before then?

Thanks for all you guys do!