Testimony by the Staff
of the
Florida Catholic Conference

Larry Keough, Associate for Education

I.          Introduction

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Committee members. My name is Larry Keough. I am the associate for education at the Florida Catholic Conference and lobbyists for Catholic pre-k programs and K-12 nonpublic schools. 

As many of you know, we have been involved in the school-choice programs since their inception, which has resulted in frequent legal consultation with our attorneys through the years as to the legal balance of the state having a vested interest to know whether students on vouchers or scholarships are receiving a quality education and on the other hand, protecting the autonomy, independence of private schools and in the case of religious schools, protecting the religious mission of those schools.

We were pleased to hear Gov. Bush’s comments this week that the independence of private schools in choice programs is to be protected. 

Obviously, there is a fine line between encroachment on private sector schools/programs and a state’s right to determine if scholarship children are receiving a quality education. 

It is important to note that when many of us oppose intrusive accountability that does not mean that we oppose high quality standards. A matter of fact, the Florida Catholic Conference has long supported reasonable governmental regulation when receiving federal and state services or funding.

II.                FCC’s position

The question is not whether we are opposed to accountability, but how to define accountability. The overwhelming majority of the private-sector providers at the Pre-K and K-12 level support accreditation as a viable accountability measure. The standardization of accreditation defines accountability in the private sector. Why? Because accreditation is tied to the qualifications of the operator of the program, teachers and assistants, as well the curricula, the health, safety and sanitation of the physical plant and fiscal solvency.

III.               Entanglement

It just makes good sense from a public policy perspective to define scholarship accountability by private sector models. When the state attempts to force its model on private and religious programs, then our worst fears become reality. Moreover, state regulation can lead to excessive entanglement, which the courts have ruled as unconstitutional.

At this point, let me take just a few minutes to discuss what excessive entanglement is. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, excessive entanglement is when the state excessively entangles itself into the religious mission of the school or program.

When reviewing the Governor’s draft UPK legislation, there is a great concern that various provisions could very well lead to excessive entanglement.

We raise these concerns not as an obstructionist, but as a caveat to be a collaborator with the Senate and Administration to head off the possibility of excessive entanglement issues that could legally jeopardize the program.

For example, on page 8 of the Governor’s UPK draft, it states that the Department of Education shall be responsible for developing standards of all early learning programs. Now, consider that provision in combination with the one on page 26 that indicates the state board of education shall establish rules identifying curriculum standards for the approval of child development equivalent programs.

Because the Commissioner of Education in this draft legislation has the power to investigate providers, it is very possible that the state could find that utilizing religions through multi-learning is not acceptable during a 4.0 or 3.0 Universal Pre-K day.

I ask each of you: How would the state react if it ascertained that providers utilized educational strategies for 4-year-old children by having them recite nursery rhymes to music in a religious play or program that enhances phonemic awareness, choral reading, speech and language, short and long-term memory, and self esteem? 

If the state were to determine through their newfound authority in the Governor’s draft that this type of program was not acceptable, that decision would compromise the religious mission of the program, impact the provider’s academic program and in doing so, likely cause excessive entanglement. 

Please remember that inculcating religion in the curriculum is not just a simple matter of teaching religion outside of the UPK 3.0 or 4.0 hour day. Religion permeates the curriculum.

To avoid excessive entanglement, I recommend that we emphasize accreditation and other private-sector accountability provisions that continue to serve our children well. 

IV.             Conclusion

Thank you Sen. Carlton and committee members.  At this time, if there are any questions, I would welcome them.