FEA "Raises Cain" Over Parents' Choices

The Florida Educators Association (FEA) has filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Education, the Commissioner of Education Anastasios Kamoutsas, and the State Board of Education, Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. For the sake of transparency, a link to their website with a copy of the filing is available here.

And just in case they move or remove it, we’ve downloaded a copy and uploaded it to this link for our readers to access. And, if you want to look it up yourself, you can find it under the filing number and information: Filing # 247476194 E-Filed 05/05/2026 10:50:25 AM.

Now, let’s dive in. 

The FEA is “Raising Cain” over School Choice

Schools are losing enrollment. Because their funding is based upon the students enrolled, they are losing funding. Parents are choosing other options. To this I say:

Genesis 4:6-7, “So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? If you do well, will you not be accepted?”

Cain didn’t get picked. God asked him, “Umad, bro?” Then Cain killed Abel.

Parents are being empowered within the public education system to make their choices. They’re not impressed with the public schools, and they’re making other choices. Now, the unions are mad, and they’re trying to kill parents’ choices. That’s right. They’ve declared war on the Authority of Parents, and they’re trying to disguise it as a complaint against the State. 

So, let’s dive in and cite our sources to get to the bottom of this. 

First of all, the filed lawsuit is frivolous, wasteful of union membership dues, and time and resources. The Preliminary Statement in the lawsuit immediately lays out the claim and quotes ARTICLE IX of the Florida Constitution stating it requires that the State, “shall make adequate provision for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high-quality system of free public schools.” (pg 1-2).

So, here’s a link to what ARTICLE IX of the Florida Constitution actually states. It’s important because they have violated several of the Supreme Court’s Rules of Interpretation by citing this as their claim, and have defeated their own argument before any further details begin to be needed. Over and over again, they truncate the full sentence to serve their own needs, and it raises important suspicions as to their intent and transparency. 

What the Florida Constitution actually says in the quoted section is this: “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 complete provision concludes by authorizing 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). 

So, when they go on to claim that the funds raised for this purpose in the FEFP/state education budget are mandated by constitution to go to only those free public schools, they’re basing this on misquoting the constitution. This is a violation of the rule against surplusage which, “tells courts to give effect to every clause and word of a statute so that none is rendered superfluous.” This is known as The Surplusage Canon. Under this rule, every word and clause in a legal document must be given effect; no part should be treated as redundant or meaningless. By focusing almost exclusively on the "uniform system of free public schools", their argument risks rendering the "other public education programs" clause as mere surplusage. It's like that scene from the Wizard of Oz when they spot the man behind the curtain, and he completely wants them to disregard it and stay focused on the smoke and mirrors so that he can preserve his illusion. 

The truth is that reading that section of the Florida Constitution in its entirety, the final clause provides the State Legislature with the distinct grant of authority to fund educational programs that exist outside the traditional public school system to meet evolving public needs. 

I would like to speak to that evolving public need for a moment.

See, the true beneficiaries of the ARTICLE IX are the parents and the children. It states, “The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida.” The prime beneficiary of this mandate in the Constitution is the family. Yet over and over in the filed complaint, the lawsuit frames the diversion of funds as a “harm” to the system of public schools and its employees. It cites low wages for teachers, and blames the state for not funding the system properly. However, the Constitution does not state that it’s for “the maintenance of a specific administrative system.” 

The purpose and intent is for the education of children. In Florida Statute 1002.20 the state views the parent as the primary agent and authority of the child’s education. And in Florida Statute 1014.04 ALL PARENTAL RIGHTS are reserved to the parent, and education is named among them. So, when the state has made provision for the funds to go to a Constitutional option of “other public education programs that the needs of the people may require,” and have funded specific accounts by which the parents themselves can be empowered to make decisions about those options, as is their established right…then the lawsuit’s focus on “investment in public schools” and “teacher pay” treats the school system as the recipient of the constitutional right rather than the parent. 

Further, it stands to reason that the fundamental value of the education of children as the primary mandate is fulfilled when “adequate provision” results in a high-quality education received by the child, regardless of the delivery model chosen by the parent. 

Now, let’s talk specifically about the “need.” The lawsuit takes aim at Charter Schools, Private Schools and Homeschools (whatever that is, because it’s nothing that the Home Education community recognizes, nor does statute – but by all means, fling words around…no one’s stopping you). Under FACTS it lists Florida Statute, 1002.394. This is the statute that holds the Florida Empowerment Scholarship for Students with Unique Abilities (FES-UA). It claims at item 38 that the public funds are allowed to be used by the parent for various expenditures, and you know what? It absolutely fails to mention the primary driving force behind this scholarship — special needs and the therapies that are needed. The lawsuit makes a clear list of so many other things parents are authorized to spend the money on, and yet fails to list the needs that drive this scholarship at its core. 

Do you know why? 

Because listing the core need of this scholarship would defeat their argument from the start. The FES-UA Scholarship is an example of the “other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.” These are needs that were not being met by the free public schools in their uniform system with their standards and requirements that the lawsuit also listed. The free public schools cannot properly customize the learning environment, therapies, and solutions that “adequately provide” for the needs of those students. Thankfully, the Legislature has made provisions for the parents in the State of Florida that meet the fundamental value of educating their children.  

It’s mind-blowing that this lawsuit isn’t dead on arrival. 

I want to address one final confundity within this lawsuit. It’s the way that it reads the Uniformity. It makes a categorical error as it argues that the system is non-uniform because scholarship-funded private schools, charter schools and homeschools (again ???), are held to different regulatory standards (e.g., 20 pages of law vs. 1,400 pages for public schools). The hole in this logic is found in the assumption that “uniformity” is a global requirement for all educational spending. The word “uniform” is a modifier that specifically describes the “system of free public schools” within the clause. This indicates that it is an internal requirement: one public school district must be uniform with another. 

If the “other public education programs” mentioned in the Constitution are a separate category from the “uniform system of free public schools,” then the standards applied to those “other” programs (like FES-UA, charter schools, private schools) do not necessarily need to be identical to the public school system. In fact, forcing them to be identical and uniform with public schools would effectively remove their distinction and force them to all become public schools, eliminating the “other public education programs” altogether. This violates the principle that the Constitution established when it mentioned “other public education programs" separately, and differentiated them categorically from public schools. The conclusion is that the Constitution clearly states both, distinctly states both, and identifies both as serving the fundamental value of the education of children in the State of Florida. 

This lawsuit is not an attack on the “School Choice Movement.” It’s not a grievance against the State for failing in their constitutional mandates. It’s an attack on the main beneficiaries — the parents and their children. It's the demand to be funded, regardless of the poor performances that have eroded the trust of parents across the state. If parents are not wanting to buy their product, then they should ask themselves some very serious questions, not just demand to be paid regardless and double down on fallacious lawsuits to cloud with smoke and mirrors. 

You are the parent. The children are YOURS. It bothers them that with all of their certifications they feel they deserve to be teaching your children, and to be paid for it even if you are unhappy with the results. That’s what this is. It’s a deeply felt tantrum that you, the parent, have weighed them, and found them wanting. It’s a volatile emotional outburst over the fact that you, the parent, are exercising your options constitutionally and legally provided by the Legislature to pursue a high quality education for your children. 

But at the end of the day, certain things are true and self-evident. 

You ARE the PARENT. 

ALL PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO THE PARENT WITHOUT STATE OBSTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE FROM THE STATE. (F.S. 1014.05_Parental Rights)

YOU have the right to direct the education and care of your children.

They do not have the right to force you into a state controlled monopoly of uniform public schools. 

Stand up for yourselves. Know your rights. Stand on the State Constitution and the Florida Statutes that protect those rights. Speak up in School Board meetings. Send letters to your Representatives and Senators and thank them for these options and protections, and press them to keep protecting them. Let them know how YOUR CHILDREN have benefited from the HIGH QUALITY education they have received under these provisions, and how your children have flourished. Encourage, entreat, and impress upon them the importance of protecting Parental Rights. 

YOU ARE THE PARENT.

In the Free State of Florida, that still means something.