Jayleesha Cooper sat in her apartment at the University of Chicago and watched with hope as the election results rolled in.  

The college senior from Omaha had marked her mail-in ballot to retain Nebraska Measure 435, upholding a $10 million tax credit Opportunity Scholarship program state lawmakers passed a year ago.  

If the ballot referendum passed repealing the bill, families of 1,500 students would be forced to return to public schools next year or find enough funding to stay in their private school.  

After a look at the Nebraska Secretary of State’s website, her hope turned to disappointment.  

 “It was sad,” said Cooper, who was among a volunteer squad of young adult school choice alumni from the American Federation for Children who spent the summer of 2023 working to keep opponents from gathering the required number of signatures to get a previous scholarship bill put up for repeal. The college students reported being harassed by opponents, including some who photographed them and called in police.  

 Lawmakers repealed that bill and passed a new one to fend off a prior referendum attempt by the state teachers union. But opponents got enough signatures to put the new measure up for a veto referendum.  

Choice opponents won on Election Day, with 57% of the vote compared with 43% who voted to continue the program. 

Asked why the modest scholarship program drew such trenchant opposition, Cooper could only speculate. 

“Maybe the people who were benefiting weren’t able to get out to vote,” she wondered. “Did the people who had to opportunity to vote – were they are aware of what they were repealing?” 

National experts were stumped as to why choice initiatives in Nebraska, Colorado and Kentucky all suffered defeats. There is a long history of school choice measures failing at the ballot box in a wide range of states and political climates. 

 “The track record for school choice on the ballot has been so poor, but the poll numbers (for school choice) are always so strong,” said Ben DeGrow, senior policy director for ExcelinEd, a national education think tank founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. 

DeGrow and others cited vague ballot language in Colorado that prompted a homeschooling group to oppose enshrining parental education rights in the state constitution. The group was concerned unclear wording might open the door to government regulation of homeschoolers.  

In Kentucky, the “No” campaign outspent the “Yes” campaign more than three to one on a measure permit the creation of a future school choice program.  

In the end, the unknowns proved to be too much, wrote Mike McShane, the director of national research at EdChoice. While the benefits of school choice may have seemed distant and hypothetical, the fears promoted by opponents about harms to public schools felt immediate and concrete. 

For Cooper, the defeat in Nebraska felt deeply personal. A private donor scholarship made it possible for her to attend Duchesne Academy, an all-female Catholic school.  

She credits that opportunity with ensuring she did not become a teen mom like many other girls she knew and for putting her on a path to a prestigious college. She is now applying to law schools and recently scored in the 92nd percentile on her LSAT. 

She said she did her best to educate everyone she knew about the need to keep the Opportunity Scholarship program alive, including her 90-year-old grandmother, who cast a retention vote. 

Despite the setback, Cooper says she won’t give up. She holds out hope that the new Republican majority in Washington will boost the chances of passing a federal education choice tax credit bill. That would offer some relief to families in states where the fate of parent-directed education continues to look grim. 

Not that her home state should be let off the hook. 

“It’s still important for Nebraska to keep working on a state program,” she said. 

 In the meantime, she promised to keep sharing the truth and debunking the myths about education choice. 

The headline: Utah’s largest teachers union filed a lawsuit against the nation’s second most expansive program that allows parents to direct their children’s public education funding. 

Driving the news: The Utah Education Association challenged the law just weeks before 10,000 students were expected to start using their Utah Fits All scholarship funding, and more than a year after the legislature approved the program. The $82.5 million education savings account program grants eligible students up to $8,000 each that can be spent on private school tuition and approved educational goods and services. Though eligibility is universal, low-income families receive priority. The state also has two other school choice scholarship programs for students with special needs. 

The complaint: Union officials, joined by a teacher, parent and a state school board member, allege that the program drains money from district schools and would deprive students with special needs of services guaranteed only in public schools. It asks a judge to declare the program unconstitutional and stop it permanently. 

Education choice opponents have used these arguments in lawsuits filed in other states. What didn’t get discussed at the union’s news conference on Wednesday was Utah’s Blaine amendment. These bans on public funds flowing to religious institutions in state constitutions have continued to be among opponents’ legal tools of choice even after two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the past four years struck them down. Utah’s constitution says: 

Neither the state of Utah nor its political subdivisions may make any appropriation for the direct support of any school or educational institution controlled by any religious organization. 

Yes, but: Though lawsuit sidestepped the Blaine amendment, it cited another part of Utah’s constitution specifying that the legislature shall provide a public education system that is free and open to all students and “free from sectarian control.” 

What opponents are saying: The union blasted the state for giving ESA students more than double the amount it spends on public school students. 

"This discrepancy is not just unfair, it is a deliberate undermining of public education,” Utah Education Association President Renée Pinkney said. 

However, the reality of how Utah students are funded is more complex. While the state provides direct aid of about $4,000 per student to public schools, it shares costs with local districts through property taxes and motor vehicle fees. The final total ends up being more than $11,000 per student, according to the Libertas Institute, which published a breakdown after opponents made those claims earlier this year.  Students who fall into certain categories, such as, those with special needs, English language learners or those who attend high-poverty schools, get more money from the state. 

What school choice advocates are saying: “Families in every state deserve the right to choose the best education for their children, and it is shameful but not surprising that the teachers unions are pulling out all the stops trying to block this opportunity in Utah,” said Ryan Cantrell, vice president of government affairs for the American Federation for Children. “The fact that more than 27,000 students applied for 10,000 scholarships in the first year of the program demonstrates the incredible demand for choice in Utah, and the unions are on the wrong side of this issue.” 

On defense: The Partnership for Educational Choice, a joint initiative of the Institute for Justice and EdChoice, announced plans to intervene in and defend the program on behalf of participating families.

“Utah Fits All scholarship program empowers parents to choose the education that will work best for their children,” IJ managing attorney Arif Panju said. “The Utah Education Association is trying to deny Utah families that opportunity in order to protect the monopoly on education that it currently enjoys. The union and its allies will not succeed in depriving families of the desperately needed alternatives that Utah Fits All provides.”  

Thomas M. Fisher, EdChoice vice president and director of litigation, praised Utah lawmakers for putting families first.  

“Utah was right to prioritize students' needs over a state monopoly, and we will eagerly defend its decision to empower families.” 

Your guide to the intersection of school choice, the courts and the constitution. 

In 2020 and 2022, the nation’s highest court threw a one-two punch at state bans on religious schools’ eligibility to participate in education choice scholarship programs.

Some supporters hailed Espinoza v. Montana and Carson v. Makin as panaceas, the end of constitutional provisions that excluded religious institutions from public programs. Some opponents decried them as a breathtakingly radical breakdown of church and state separation.

But recent legal and legislative actions at the state level show that as usual, reality is a lot more messy. Neither side can claim total victory.

“The typical Blaine Amendments (those that prohibit public funding of religious, or sectarian, schools) are no longer a legal barrier to choice—period,” said Michael Bindas, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who argued the second landmark case, Carson v. Makin, before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of families.

However, some state constitutions contain what Bindas calls “Blaine variants” that prohibit public funding of all private schools, religious or not. The high court’s rulings focused on constitutional provisions that excluded religious schools.

“Carson and Espinoza do not speak directly to the federal constitutionality of public/private Blaine Amendments, because these provisions do not target religious schools alone; they discriminate against all private schools,” he said.

A no-aid provision in Wyoming’s constitution even prompted Gov. Mark Gordon to use his line-item veto on the state’s 2024 education choice bill to avoid triggering a court challenge. It says the state cannot "loan or give its credit or make donations to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, except for necessary support of the poor."

The federal rulings, and those broader state Blaine variants, have shifted the fight to states, with legal battles now in South Carolina, Alaska and Kentucky. In Michigan and Massachusetts, education choice supporters are fighting back with lawsuits of their own.

Striking back at Blaine

The latest salvo comes from Massachusetts, where two families represented by IJ filed a federal lawsuit against the state on Monday. The case stems from a state law that guarantees that all students are entitled to special education services, no matter what type of schools they attend. Yet even though the law entitles all children to the services, a regulation makes access to services practically unobtainable for private school students. The reason? A Blaine variant. Regulators at the Massachusetts Division of Elementary and Secondary Education say that services delivered at a student’s private school violate the state’s no-aid clause.

“Massachusetts guarantees special education for all kids who need it. All we want is for Massachusetts to honor that guarantee,” said Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, whose son can’t receive the reading services he needs at his Jewish day school.

In Michigan, five families represented by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and Bursch Law have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case involving its Blaine amendment. The amendment, approved in 1970 and deemed one of the most draconian in the nation, has prevented families in the Great Lakes State from benefiting from a 2017 federal law that allows money saved in tax-exempt 529 accounts to be spent on K-12 private school tuition.

Ground zero becomes a new battleground on two fronts

In Montana, ground zero in the first of the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2020, the education choice fight is back in the headlines. Instead of a small tax-credit scholarship program, the latest fight centers on a new education savings account program for students with disabilities. (A separate lawsuit has been filed over the state’s charter school program.)

Among other claims, the lawsuit argues the program runs afoul of the Treasure State’s Blaine amendment, which bans “appropriations for religious, charitable, industrial, educational, or benevolent purposes to any private individual, private association, or private corporation not under the control of the state.”

EdChoice Legal Advocates recently petitioned the court to intervene to protect the program, which is scheduled to start in the 2024-25 school year.

Thomas M. Fisher, EdChoice’s vice president and director of litigation, said the law makes the state Office of Public Instruction, a government agency, responsible for reimbursing parents’ education expenses.

“Opponents might say there’s a direct appropriation to parents, but there’s really not,” he said. “I think that probably finds a home within the Montana constitution.”

Different states, same funding argument

Aside from Blaine, plaintiffs also alleged that the program will “shake out Montana’s public education piggy bank” and redirect money to private school students at the expense of those who deprive students who stay in district-operated schools. That’s a common argument in other states, including Florida and Oklahoma, where the courts found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and couldn’t prove the program harmed public schools.

“When scholarship students leave, districts still receive some state and federal funds and don’t have to bear the cost of that student’s education,” Fisher said.

Editor’s note: This commentary from Tim Benson, a policy analyst in the government relations department of the Heartland Institute, appeared recently on the institute’s website.

A January 2022 white paper from the Pioneer Institute illustrates how a tax-credit funded education savings account program might be the best way forward for pursuing educational reform in Massachusetts.

In Modeling an Education Savings Account for Massachusetts, Pioneer Institute senior fellow Cara Candal argues this type of ESA could possibly make its way around the commonwealth’s incredibly strict anti-Catholic Blaine amendment. The amendment currently bars public funding of faith-based schools, and which was not affected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue overturning many of these relics of 19th century prejudice.

The Bay State’s Blaine amendment reads:

“No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth or federal authority or both.”

The workaround would be to fund the ESA as if it were a tax-credit scholarship program. Tax-credit scholarship programs allow individuals and businesses to contribute to a non-profit scholarship-granting organization which handles the funds. In return, individuals and businesses would receive a tax credit from the commonwealth that usually matches their contribution dollar-for-dollar.

These donations, not commonwealth funds, would then be used to provide ESA scholarships to families that meet the eligibility requirements and apply for them.

To continue reading, click here.

(more…)

“Like to one more rich in hope.”

Twelfth Night, Shakespeare

The media are calling the long-awaited U.S. Supreme Court decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue a victory for “conservatives.” The Court has liberated a few low-income Montana families from conscription by the state and the teachers union, and yet we hear this rescue is “conservative.”

It is, I concede, an act of conservation, preserving the basic legal authority of the poor over their own children. These parents are, to a limited degree, made free to participate in the great school market. It is a victory for the lower-income family – but conservative?

Could it be that our English language is, for this scenario, simply lacking in resource to describe the reality? If you don’t like the judicial outcome of some dispute, you are free to call it whatever you think will give it a black eye in your own intellectual neighborhood. Hence, “conservative” we shall hear.

Last week’s decision is a powerful, if very limited, reaffirmation of the basic constitutional right, authority, and power, even of low-income parents, to decide just what style and content of formal schooling their child will experience – what teacher we shall allow to instruct their child in the skills she or he may need and what version of human origin and personal perfection will be delivered to these young minds for whom we are so full of hope.

The decision reminds us that 95 years ago, a case titled Pierce v. Society of Sisters et al. gave America the basic precept that parents – not the State – have the authority to decide where Susie goes to school. But a fundamental problem has remained: If you are not well-off, how can you exercise that authority by paying tuition? And, if you can’t do so, will the government that makes school compulsory leave you helpless with no option but P.S. 42? Must Susie go where strangers – i.e., “the State” – decide to send her?

So far in history, government has shown little interest in assisting the exercise of your parental authority. The primary concern of its legislatures and its governors has been to keep the teachers union electing them.

The Montana decision will not by itself end this great shadow on human liberty and authority. But the majority opinion justifies hope for development of ever more radical motions (“conservative,” if you prefer). The majority opinion by the chief justice relies exclusively upon the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, extended by the 14^th Amendment to limit the states.

One can wonder (“conservatively”?) about the regimes of public schooling born of 19^th century anti-Romanism by which schools became mandatory, but those elite who could afford it could, and still do, go private or religious at their choice.

Is it still constitutionally sound for a state to make schooling a parental duty, but then to protect choice only for the well-off? Will the Court let the inner-city “public” school last forever it its captive mission, thus saving the bacon for officers of the teachers union?

Talk to your state legislator – and stay tuned to the conservative Court.

Bigots spent an enormous amount of effort in the late 19^th century enshrining their hostility to Catholics and Jews into dozens of state constitutions in the form of Blaine Amendments. They quite nearly amended the federal Constitution as well.

It was never going to be easy to undo, but it has been done.

This Blaine Amendment movement supported by the likes of the Know-Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan reeked of illiberal intent. In the 1920s, the Know-Nothings and the Klan managed to make it illegal to send a child to a private school at all, making attendance at a public school with a Klan-approved curriculum mandatory so as to meld people into what the Klan considered “real Americans.”

While the U.S. Supreme Court struck this law down, Blaine Amendments remained in effect. It took multiple careers-worth of sustained effort to chip away at these relics, including that of the great Dick Komer, pictured above, who came out of retirement to argue the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case.

Komer has long been one of the treasurers of the education choice movement. To meet him is to love him. Not even his consistent and hilariously expressive swearing can distract you from his warm heart and keen intellect.

Blaine, the Know-Nothings and the Klan met their match once Komer and the many other dedicated attorneys at the Institute for Justice put their mind to it across a string of cases stretching over decades. Komer not only won the big case; he served as an inspiration and example to the choice movement for how to be a happy warrior.

Enjoy your retirement Dick, and thank you for your service.

After more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court finally has determined that Blaine amendments, which were created in the late 19^th century under a wave of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic bias, violate the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise clause.

"A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” ruled the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision this week.

Montana’s school choice program became the first tax credit scholarship to be struck down by a state supreme court, but not the first private school choice program to be struck down because of a “Blaine Amendment.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling reverses the Montana Supreme Court, arguing the state’s  “No Aid” provision violates the rights of parents, students and religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling is in step with the Trinity Lutheran (2017) decision which argued denying grants for playground resurfacing simply because the institution was religious was unconstitutional.

Though the Court ruled that the Blaine Amendment violates the Free Exercise clause, it declined to rule whether it also violated the Establishment Clause or Equal Protections Clause.

Not surprisingly, school choice opponents are up in arms about the decision.

“… the court has made things even worse opening the door for further attacks on state decisions not to fund religious schools,” said National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García in an NEA blog post.

But the court’s decision does nothing of the sort. The decision to create and fund education scholarships still falls to the people.

Other school choice opponents are arguing the decision erodes separation of church and state.

Ron Meyer, lawyer for the Florida Education Association, went so far as to state in an interview with the Miami Herald, “It’s another chipping away of the free exercise of religion.”

But the decision falls in line with a long-standing recognition of religious neutrality required of governments. Though many of these cases deal with the Establishment Clause rather than the Free Exercise Clause, they demonstrate this long-standing precedent on religious neutrality. 

The first case to apply the Free Exercise clause to a state matter was Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which reversed a criminal conviction of three Jehovah’s Witnesses for proselytizing door-to-door without a state license. In a unanimous decision the court ruled:

“Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act.”

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the court defined the Establishment Clause beyond simply establishing a national church by declaring the clause prohibited the aid of one religion or even all religions. However, the court still upheld public bus fare reimbursements to parents sending their children to Catholic schools because the reimbursement was available to all. Regarding New Jersey’s publicly funded programs, the court ruled:

“Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.”

In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held Ohio's voucher program “does not offend the Establishment Clause” because the program was neutral with respect to religion.

As with Zelman, several other national cases support tax exemptions and other public benefits for seemingly religious activities, but only so long as the programs pass the “Lemon Test.”

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established the “Lemon Test,” a three-part test to determine if a program violates the Establishment Clause. The test requires the program to have a secular purpose, to not advance or inhibit any particular religion, and to not excessively tangle government with religion. In Lemon, the court allowed state subsidies of textbooks, educational materials and even teacher salaries at private schools in Pennsylvania.

Mueller v. Allen (1983) upheld a Minnesota tax law that allowed individuals to deduct parochial school expenses. The Supreme Court ruled the program was neutral with respect to religion since the tax deduction was available to all, and that helping to fund education (even through tax deductions) was a secular purpose.

Agostini v. Felton (1997) allowed public funds to pay the salaries of public school teachers educating economically disadvantaged children, including private religious schools. This landmark ruling reversed Aguilar v. Felton (1985), which held that paying public school teachers to teach parochial school students was “excessive entanglement” with religion. Agostini reversed that decision and determined the program was neutral with respect to religion and that the purpose of educating disadvantaged children was a secular one.

Deference to religious neutrality flows down to the state courts as well.

Florida cases such as Koerner v. Borck (1958) argued that, “State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them.”

Meanwhile, in Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, Inc. (1970), the Florida Supreme Court ruled on a tax exemption:

“A state cannot pass a law to aid one religion or all religions, but state action to promote the general welfare of society, apart from any religious considerations, is valid, even though religious interests may be indirectly benefited.”

Espinoza isn’t deviating from the U.S.’s “separation of church and state,” as critics have misunderstood. The ruling follows a long history of allowing religious institutions and persons to benefit from public programs, in this instance extending that right to K-12 education where powerful opponents attempted to carve out an exemption.

 A fight over how much religion can be taught in a private school may be around the corner. But that is a fight for another day.

(more…)

Teacher raises: The Florida Senate Education Committee has released its $22.6 billion budget plan that calls for an increase in spending of $762 million, with $500 million of it going toward teacher salary increases. That's about $100 million less than Gov. Ron DeSantis requested to raise starting teacher salaries, and the Senate also would distribute the money differently than DeSantis wanted. DeSantis called for $600 million to boost starting teacher pay to $47,500 a year, while the Senate would distribute the money proportionally to districts, which would have to spend 80 percent of their share to move toward that starting teacher pay goal but could use the rest to boost pay for veteran teachers. The Senate's budget also includes no money for any educator bonuses program; DeSantis had requested $300 million. Other items in the Senate budget include a spending increase of $181 per student, and increases of $42 million for Gardiner scholarships for special needs students, $42 million for school security and $25 million for mental health services. News Service of Florida. Gradebook. Politico Florida. redefinED. Florida Politics. Florida Phoenix.

Weapons at schools: Two bills are approved by a House subcommittee that would allow people to carry guns in churches that have schools and permit school board members with concealed carry permits to be armed at school board meetings. Both H.B. 1437 and H.B. 183 received bipartisan support in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee. “Every day that this (H.B. 1437) is not the law in Florida is an insult to people of faith who attend church," said Rep. Anthony Sabatini, R-Howey-in-the-Hills. Okaloosa County Commissioner Graham Fountain spoke on behalf of H.B. 183. “Every day we get threats," he said. "We have people stalking our staff, our commissioners . ... This protects us."  News Service of Florida. Associated Press. WFSU.

Restricting restraints: A House subcommittee has approved a bill that could put restrictions on the use of restraints on students. H.B. 1231 would define the terms "restraint" and "seclusion" and establish when their use is permitted. School districts would have to create policies emphasizing positive behavior interventions and train employees in their use. Rep. Bobby DuBose, D-Fort Lauderdale, the bill sponsor, said restraints have been used 80,000 times on students in recent years, and seclusion more than 20,000 times. “This is a traumatic experience for both the students and the parents,” he said. Gradebook.

Educator honored: Jesus Armas of Royal Palm Beach High School has been named the Palm Beach County School District's principal of the year. The other finalists were Pamela Buckman of Pioneer Park Elementary, Michelle Fleming of Lake Park Elementary and Reggie Myers of Park Vista Community High. Palm Beach Post. WPEC.

Union challenge: Florida public employee union officials, including those in education, say that a House bill increasing the regulations for membership is all about "union-busting." H.B. 1, which was filed by state Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, would require union members to sign a form every year if they want to remain a member. Right now, employees authorize the deduction for union dues just once, and may leave the union after giving 30-day notice. Florida Phoenix. WTSP.

Teacher complaints: Brevard County teachers say the addition of mental health instruction on such topics as substance abuse and child trafficking leaves them feeling undertrained and overwhelmed. "Every time we take away time teachers have to teach the standards that are required, that can be very stressful," said union vice president Vanessa Skipper. "I think teachers support the idea of mental and emotional health education. But they recognize there are only so many hours in a day." Florida Today. Hundreds of Polk County teachers tell the school board that they are overworked and underpaid, and implored board members to push the state to improve funding. WTVT.

Free SAT tests: All Volusia County high school juniors will take the SAT during the school day April 14, with the district picking up the $150,000 bill. The initiative is Superintendent Scott Fritz's idea, and it includes paying for seniors to take the test next fall and 9th- and 10th-graders to take the pre-SAT. “I can’t think of anything better to invest in for our students,” said school board member Linda Cuthbert. Daytona Beach News-Journal. Retakes of the 2019 reading, writing and algebra Florida Statewide Assessment tests for Citrus County students are scheduled from Feb. 24 to March 13, district officials have announced. Citrus County Chronicle.

Holocaust education funding: The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill that allocates $10 million over five years for educating students about the Holocaust. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will create and share curriculum materials on a centralized website. Jewish Journal.

Career planning: The Marion County School District's new career planning guide program emphasizes the three E's: enrollment, employment or enlistment. It's been designed to guide students into thinking about their life beyond high school. About 85 percent of the district's 2,809 seniors have identified their E, with 72 percent picking enrollment, 20 percent employment and 8 percent enlistment. Ocala Star-Banner.

Students chat with superintendent: Bay County school Superintendent Bill Husfelt has begun a series of community conversations with students at each of the district's high schools in which they can voice concerns and ask questions. Bay High School went first on Tuesday, and students wanted to know how students and parents can get more involved in district decision-making and the status of facilities improvements such as the addition of a STEM building on campus. Panama City News Herald.

Smart watch problems: Smart watches worn by students are becoming a problem in Santa Rosa County classrooms, said Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick. "Smartwatches have really become an issue in the county where we've really had to say, 'Parents, take a look at this,'" he said. "We need your help." WEAR.

Compensation for college athletes: The House Workforce Development & Tourism Subcommittee has approved a bill that would allow Florida college athletes to receive compensation for use of their “name, image, likeness or persona.” H.B. 251 would also require schools to provide insurance, life-skills workshops, and continue scholarships to athletes for up to one academic year after their athletic eligibility has ended. News Service of Florida. Florida Politics.

Day-care worker fired: A day-care teacher at a Sanibel Island preschool has been fired for writing a message in marker on the abdomen of a 1-year-old boy. The message to the mother read, in part, "Mom, I'm out of diapers." The mother said she may remove the child from the Children’s Education Center of the Islands, and the Florida Department of Children and Families and Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida are investigating. Fort Myers News-Press. WINK. WFTX.

Arrests at schools: An English teacher and a student at Fivay High School in Pasco County were arrested separately at the school Tuesday. Deputies say the teacher, who was not named, had a gun in her purse inside a filing cabinet. She told deputies she forgot she had it. The student falsely reported a threat against the school, deputies said. Gradebook. WFLA. WTSP.

Iguanas cause lockdown: Two Charlotte County schools were locked down for more than an hour Tuesday after someone reported seeing a man with a rifle near the adjacent campuses of Ainger Middle and Vineland Elementary in Rotonda West. When deputies found the man, they discovered he was a local animal trapper with a pellet gun who had been hired to remove iguanas from the area. He was given a trespass warning and released. Charlotte Sun. WFTS. WFTX.

Opinions on schools: We keep short-changing public education in this state financially and keep whining that the kids aren’t smart enough. Funny how that works. Scott Maxwell, Orlando Sentinel. Don't expect Espinoza, the U.S. Supreme Court case about tax credit scholarships in Montana, to be a major game changer. State legislatures still must create voucher programs and families must still choose schools for their children. All we can hope for is that the court will provide some clarity in how Blaine Amendments can or cannot be applied. Patrick R. Gibbons, redefinED. By forcing students to research discussion topics, develop and sharpen their own arguments, study the opposing angle and articulate their points publicly, Gov DeSantis' civics and debate initiative should improve their critical thinking, help them become more socially interactive, learn more about our shared political culture and, hopefully, develop tougher hides as preparation for the bump and grind of the real world. Lakeland Ledger.

Student enrichment: A Palm Beach County teacher has received a $10,000 grant from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which she and 22 of her students are using to develop a test that can monitor a patient predisposed to sepsis and prompt intervention. Mary Fish teaches science in the Biotechnology Academy at Spanish River High School. Palm Beach Post. More than 800 students from traditional public high schools in Pinellas County marched across a bridge in Clearwater in a Unity Walk to honor those in the past who have fought for equality and human rights and to inspire others in future struggles. Gradebook.