Update on SPB7030 - "Educational Scholarship Programs" Bill

I have been looking for an update ad haven't been successful....is there any news of this bill being passed or revisions that were made behind the scenes?

I think parents that choose to reenroll their students before the end of the disbersement period should simply be required to pay back a pro rated portion of the funds.

I wanted to add to my comment here, because I received more information about where the request to change the disbersement into 10 seperate payments came from. From the Facebook post, it seems that this request came from the FLDOE as a result of students who were pulled from school getting double funded. While these types of issues should be avoided, it seems like a sweeping change for a problem that was the result of a very small subset of the population of PEP and UA recipients, and one that could easily be remedied by sticking to the 4/1/25 application deadline, or simply by conducting a more thorough audit of students switching to PEP or UA mid year, if the deadline was extended (I know the deadline does not apply to UA students, but since UA typically fills, it still seems like a similar situation). Funding is already often delayed, and reimbursement requests are inconsistent and often erroneously processed, resulting in further delays before parents see money back for expenses. I would encourage HEF to work with our legislators to find a solution to the double funding issue that doesn't negatively affect the majority of parents, who are either renewals or families that complete an entire year with the scholarship. Another example of how the 10 disbursement rule would negatively affect families falls with those that utilize FLVS Flex (not fulltime) for several courses. Each segment is $375, and a smaller disbursement would mean my students could not afford to start all 3 of their FLVS courses at the same time, significantly disadvantaging them compared with public school students, who have an entire year to complete a course. We (and many scholarship families) use FLVS for some courses because we are guaranteed to be able to use scholarship funds (they are a direct pay provider and have certified teachers), the curriculum is standardized and allows students to prepare for college entrance requirements (ie they offer AP and honors courses), and because some families intend to send their students back to public school at some point. FLVS is an excellent resource, and one legislators should be encouraging students to use. 10 payments will make it more difficult to access these and other high level courses from outside providers, resulting in a lower quality of education overall, and more financial burden for those parents who choose to proceed and put these expenses on a credit card.

“With the shekels come the shackles” and unfortunately I feel like the introduction of electronics being eligible are coming with those shackles. Don’t get me wrong, electronics definitely need to be included in PEP coverage, but I’m willing to pass on them until a better bill is proposed.

These vague background checks are highly concerning, invasive and quite honestly insulting.

For one, the co-op that we have chosen to participate in is a nation-wide cooperation who is highly against receiving any type of government assistance in homeschooling. This hard line is due to the inevitable, overbearing government oversight in a child’s education choices that have occurred in other states.

I’ve been so proud of the state of Florida for NOT falling in line with these ridiculous restrictions and due to this, our particular community has been able to adopt a less strict policy on admitting families who utilize a HS scholarship BECAUSE Florida has allowed the parents freedom to make their own choices.

This community we have found is amazing and quite honestly the main reason I could see us continuing to homeschool through the high school years. The only way we could feasibly afford this option is due to the scholarship.

While this organization is amazing, I don’t anticipate seeing them cooperate with background checks simply on the principal of avoiding unnecessary government involvement, NOR would I expect them to because 1.) I am on campus with my children the entire time and 2.) because I, as the parent, have already deemed this to be a safe and appropriate place for our family.

Our soccer coaches, and many other sports organizations, already concede to a basic background check for participation. They are volunteers who do not get paid for coaching. Our registration fees go to the county. Will these volunteers now be required to undergo an even more invasive and expensive check just to appease these few homeschool participants? Will the state pay for these? This only sets us up for discrimination IMO. The homeschool community in our area is not large enough to offset the financial cost of asking coaches/instructors to jump through these hoops.

Will I have to tell sweet 60 year old Aunt Sandy, who we have known since I was a child, that we can no longer afford to have her teach my kids how to play piano because the State doesn’t trust my judgement? Even though I am there for every lesson? I would never even ask nor expect her to comply with this invasive new requirement from the state. It’s appalling.

If the state is adamant about requiring some type of background check, I could see it applying to those who wish to be in the system as direct providers that receive the funds directly from the state, but applying this restriction to those who we, the parents, already have relationships with, have approved personally and paid out of pocket for is insane and will be extremely limiting to our options in smaller towns.

The 10 payments per year is also a logistical nightmare. There’s already issues with the state not distributing the correct amount to everyone on the current quarterly schedule, not to mention being highly inconsistent with how they handle current reimbursements. Some refinement and training is desperately needed before they begin adding even more of a processing burden.

Not to mention the fact that admission/registration/enrollment fees, curriculum, etc. is often paid for/purchased at the beginning of the year, causing a heavy financial burden to be front loaded. Will the state also be willing to pay interest on these purchases that I’m legally able to make and be reimbursed for, but will now have to wait to receive the sufficient funds for? Even though my taxes have been going to the public school system for the years that we have been homeschooling before these funds were an option. Seems unnecessarily controlling.

We’re quite a few years away from having to make decisions on college, so the redaction of funds after 12th grade doesn’t yet apply to us, but I will say that it seems detrimental for several reasons.

1.) The availability of these funds for later years has always been assumed thus far, so suddenly taking this away from those who enrolled under this stipulation seems rather dishonest.

2.) It will encourage reckless, unnecessary, frivolous spending of funds in order to not “lose” them, when they would have otherwise been put to use to further the child’s education.

3.) Many homeschool families sacrifice an income to be able to provide personalized education to their children, severely impacting their ability to put money aside for colleges. This decision in no way benefits homeschool families.

I’m severely disappointed is these proposed changes and hope they do not get approved as written. Our ideal homeschool choices will no longer be feasible for us if they do.

Please advocate against the currently language in this bill. It will create a lot of headaches for parents and result in students having a more difficult time accessing services. We have had PEP for two years , and Here are some of the issues I see: 1) dividing payments up more frequently makes it difficult for parents to pay for curriculum and classes and big ticket items, many of which are concentrated in the beginning of the year. For example, we pay yearly for several classes, and if this bill passes I would not be able to submit those reimbursements in early fall, but would have to wait until enough money had acrued. Parents are able to manage their children’s funding without additional disbursements, and bigger ticket items (like the cello we will be purchasing for my student) would also take longer to get reimbursed as we would have less $ available at each disbursement. For example, each fall I pay for yearly orchestra, cello class, 3 FLVS flex classes and an online math class for my students. The total of this is approximately $2500. If I only receive $800 per month, I would have to wait 3 months to submit all these, meaning we will have to put them on a credit card, and pay interest. If I get $2000 in the first of only 4 disbursements, I am much more quickly going to recieve reimbursement and be able to continue to pay for other educational expenses.

Step up has also struggled to send our money in a timely fashion, so having more disbursements would likely worsen this issue. This effect would be further worsened for families of limited financial means, because they would not be able to buy bigger ticket items or even pay for classes up front and wait longer to be able to submit a reimbursement.

2) the second issue is the background check. As homeschoolers we interface with many small businesses in the community. Requiring them to complete a background check at their expense is a burden for them and would drive up costs. It is also unnecessary as we often stay for classes and would complicate reimbursements which already suffer from a lack of consistent processing. Can you imagine submitting a background check for every gym employee, soccer coach, art teacher etc that your child attends? Even for online tutoring? This section of the Bill takes more power away from parents and will limit our provider options. My child’s 80 year old cello teacher is not going to get a background check for us- nor should she have to, if she is not a direct provider.

3) taking the funding away for secondary education. Families with older kids are budgeting their current expenses and planning to use some of this $ for post secondary education. Removing this option is unfair and disincentivizes parents to save money now for future expenses.

4) I realize that this bill also allows PEP parents to purchase electronic devices. While that is nice, it is not in any way worth these negative changes.

Please help us busy homeschool moms by advocating for changed language and against these provisions in the bill.

While I understand the reasoning that PEP will go away at graduation, this is really going to be a huge issue for parents who have upperclassmen right now. So if a family has a student graduating in 2025, and this bill passes, the family would need to "use or lose" whatever funds are in their account within the next 60 days (before graduation)....? Is that accurate?

The "owner" language is troublesome for non-profits as well. By law, there is no "owner" of a non-profit. If the language were changed to include local director or on-site manager as an alternative, that would not only fix some of the issues it would probably move the law closer in line to the intent.

Any updates on HB 5101: Education !

1) the background screening piece is concerning. Will this lead to only providers, teachers, tutors on the SUFS approved list as eligible reimbursements?

This is sneaky way to insert government control of a program that is advertised as giving parental choice in their child’s education. It’s also a limiting factor of which programs and opportunities students may have. Again limiting parental choice.

Also, will this mean parents have one more document to upload each time they request reimbursement. This is costly when considering the hours that will be spent by SUFS requesting new documentation or denying/approving requests.

2) they struggle to effectively pay four times a year, ten would be a nightmare and require families to wait on larger expenses like curriculum, manipulatives, tutoring services, co-op classes, sports, etc. again this limits the advertised parent choice options.

3) the use of the payment cards was a nightmare. They have a system that is working. Why change?

4) as nice as the tech device option is, I can’t help but think it’s a distraction from more ambiguous controls in areas that don’t need more control.

5) not allowing funds to be used after graduation encourages irresponsible spending. People will spend it because they don’t want to lose it, instead of managing it to be used to further student progress, which benefits our state and communities.

I wonder if the text, "Each owner or operator or an individual providing services under s. 1002.394(4)(b)4. or s. 1002.395(6)(d)4., prior to employment or engagement to provide services, to undergo level 2 background screening as provided under chapter 435," could be understood to mean that if the individual providing services gets the background screening, then an owner might not need to. If the intention was for the owner to get the background screening in every case, wouldn't it have been written, "Each owner or operator AND individual providing services etc..."?

I have concerns about the background checks. My current home educational instructional program is owned by a national organization that has been very vocal about not wanting government money because it will eventually lead to more regulation. Local leaders get around it as long as they are not set up as a direct pay provider. I highly doubt they would up their level of background checks to comply. These opinions about not wanting the strings attached to government money are not isolated. Longstanding programs can continue to operate as-is with families who are committed and will continue to attend and pay out of pocket as they have for years before the scholarship. But it limits those of us who joined because of the scholarship and rely on getting reimbursed those costs.

In looking at HEIP programs in my area, all of them require parents to stay while their kids are participating (and are often required teach or help in some way). Some have drop off options for middle school kids and older. But likely for liability, parents of younger kids are always present. Seems like less of a need for level 2 checks. A larger group I am a part of does level 1 background checks for all parents or designated accompanying adult.

I'm not against background checks in order to protect kids. But targeting scholarship service providers and potentially putting the responsibility of parents to provide documentation sounds frought with problems. At least if it were limited to direct pay providers then the documentation process would be easier on the parent side. But I know there are still obstacles for providers.

The Florida Senate discussion of this bill was incredibly disappointing. They were talking about homeschooling and contracting for services as if it's all done with mom & pop providers, which should be able to provide background checks pretty easily. But how is a parent going to get a background check from the owner of Kumon or Sylvan Learning, or Mathnasium, as the bill currently would require?

My biggest issue is probably the background checks. Anyone can say, “Get a background check,” but then what? Who is setting parameters for what is deemed “passing”? What are those parameters? Simply getting one to check a box doesn’t actually help anything. It would eliminate many of the very mom and pop providers we have come to love as well. Many programs are not dropoff anyway, so what really does it matter? It’s arbitrary and just adds another meaningless hoop.

My other big problem is the administrative burden of cross checks for 10 disbursements when four is already a challenge. The legislators need to remember that whatever is put into law has to also then be executed by SUFS. If it’s not practical, it ties their hands and we (recipients) are the ones who suffer.

My third issue is losing the ability to use funds upon graduation. Homeschoolers are somewhat at a disadvantage for scholarships due to not always having the opportunity to join in where those scholarships might be awarded such as for team sports, or privately-funded scholarships made available via the school district. Being able to use these funds for expenses that are eligible for reimbursement or direct pay affords us a different avenue. Especially when we have to pay for FLVS classes unlike district homeschoolers, for example.

10 payments will directly affect parent’s ability to choose curriculum , therapies and other services that require year round funding to utilize them .

Also ending funding upon graduation will hurt children with special needs and etc…who relied on that to further their education , which was always an option they had .

overall many things in this bills will cause harm to educational choices , So the bill needs to be stopped .

10 payments would be incredibly impractical. When parent needs to purchase a full cirriculum, it can be quite expensive. With smaller payments, it will delay a parent's ability to pay for cirriculum until they have saved up enough to do a larger purchase.

Concerned about:

1. background checks. the way it is written, this will cause so many unplanned & negative consequences to small co-ops and small business providers (Level 2 background checks cost $75 each and will be a HUGE financial burden for small co-ops, a burden that will be passed onto families and possibly make those groups go under).

2. ten distributions instead of 4 will make it extremely difficult for families who utilize these scholarships for larger ticket items (like paying up front for a season of sports or lessons or buying curriculum at the beginning of the semester/school year or paying for expensive tutoring for UA students).

3. losing funds after graduation. if a family/student budgets specifically to utilize this money for post-secondary education, they should be able to access it through a 529 plan or similar option

They should remove the PEP ability to use funds after graduation. That’s not the intent of these funds to be saved for college.

10 payments is a problem

Background checks are needed, people are creating to many un regulated mini schools. Home education has come so far out of the home that they definitely need to regulate this.

My teenager is very sad to hear that his funds will get removed upon graduation as he’s been purposely saving funds to help him finish his Associates degree. Another comment was mentioned including a 529 for PEP as well as for UA. That would be a brilliant solution.

The background checks will limit educational options for families. I hire language tutors for my son that are outside of the US all the time. Background checks would be impossible to conduct on them and he'd lose his opportunity to learn from native speakers. Let parents decide if they want the people engage with their kids in person or virtually to have a background check or not. It shouldn't be legislated.

I appreciate your clear stance on this bill, as I was unclear if you guys were fully against a lot of these big changes.

I think one of the things that I feel would make more sense then just removing the funds at graduation for PEP students would be to add in 529s as an eligible expense and require a timeline of 3 years to be enrolled in an approved post secondary institution after graduation. This would set some parameters for these rollover funds and also help streamline the scholarships as these are already implemented for UA. Making things simpler for parents and the SFOs

The big problem I see is the requirement that owners of service providers would need to get background checks. Our son plays soccer for a team that is owned by a national corporation that owns teams all over the country. I would expect that it would be pretty simple for us to ask our coach to get a background check and for us to submit documentation of it, but some owner (or ownership board?!) from out of state to send documentation of a background check? Or how about like the YMCA? Who would be the owner of that? Or somehow an individual provider (like the local farmer who teaches my kids animal husbandry) would have to prove that she is *not* part of an organization where there is an "owner" over her who would also have to submit documentation of a background screening? How could you prove that negative? This gets exacerbated, in my opinion, by the fact that it's the SFO who is responsible for ensuring that the owner gets a background screening, because they are going to be very risk averse about being audited and allowing services against this regulation. I mean, not only will you have to track down the owner to get a screening, but somehow they will have to prove that they are the owner?

I don't love the fact that funds expire on graduation and so can't be "saved" for college anymore, but I can see the value of this provision as a potential cost-saving consideration in light of the way that these scholarships have caused some financial challenges in other states.