Guest Author
A recent Supreme Court ruling prompts Florida lawmakers to consider the unique role charter schools play in the state.
On Thursday last week, the Supreme Court announced it had split evenly on a high-profile case involving an Oklahoma religious school’s challenge to operate as a public charter school. Made possible by Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, the decision in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond sets no federal precedent and will allow similar cases to come before the Court in the future.
When it does, and potentially compels Florida to redefine the legal status of charter schools, lawmakers should avoid blurring the line between charter and traditional private schools.
In return for their autonomy, charter schools were designed to strengthen accountability in public education, not subvert it.
Even if reclassified, lawmakers should preserve the public features that have made charter schools an essential part of Florida’s educational landscape.
While the media framed the case as a test of the First Amendment, its deeper implications are more nuanced — at the heart of the debate is whether a charter school should be considered a public school under the law, or a private institution that receives public funding.
When the Oklahoma Supreme Court rescinded St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s charter in 2023 on religious grounds, the school appealed, arguing that as a legally private entity under contract with the state, it was protected by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause — especially given that other religious institutions already receive public funding.
Oklahoma’s ruling against St. Isidore, which countered that charter schools are legally public schools and subject to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause regardless of their private management, will stand following the recent SCOTUS decision.
At first glance, some features of Florida’s charter schools appear more private than public. They are nonprofit organizations overseen by independent Governing Boards, which hire and manage their own employees and design their own educational model.
Unlike traditional zoned district schools, charter schools are also allowed to have specific enrollment preferences in Florida—some charter schools, for example, cater exclusively to students with disabilities.
Florida statute, however, unambiguously states that “all charter schools in Florida are public schools and shall be part of the state’s program of public education,” and, unlike private schools, must be “nonsectarian in [their] programs, admission policies, employment practices, and operations.”
And while separate Boards oversee them, charters are ultimately funded by and accountable to their school district, which must monitor their progress, and to the state.
Unlike private schools, charter schools are defined by their “publicness.” The wave of nationwide education reform that began in the 1990s and led to the creation of charter schools in Florida was guided, in the words of noted education scholar Chester E. Finn, by “standards and accountability” and “access to better schools for kids who need them and families who want them.”
Charter schools provided an alternative to failing urban district schools for low-income families — a public option to parallel the private schools that only wealthy families could afford. While their relative autonomy was intended to foster efficiency and innovation, charter schools were always accountable to the state and the broader public.
This is not to suggest that private schools are at odds with charter schools — the booming popularity of the state’s scholarship program underscores Floridians’ desire for private options. If the looming Supreme Court decision compels change in Florida, however, lawmakers should protect the distinct role charter schools play in the state’s educational landscape.
That means, most importantly, preserving charter schools’ full access to state and federal funding, their inclusion in the state’s school accountability system, their adherence to the state’s academic standards and assessment system, and their commitment to open enrollment.
If the issue returns to the Supreme Court with all justices involved, it could lead to a definitive ruling on the legal status of charter schools. If that ruling applies to all charter schools nationwide and renders them legally private organizations, it would compel Florida to revise its statutory definition of a charter school.
In parallel, the Court could leave the legal definition of charter schools up to individual states. Given the school choice movement’s newfound momentum in Florida, lawmakers may be empowered to consider changing the legal status of charters anyway.
School choice in Florida, however, doesn’t just mean a move toward more private options — it implies a balance of private and public offerings that empower families to make the best decision for their kids.
Charter schools are a longstanding part of Florida’s education system and have made good on their autonomy with public accountability — a vital feature that state lawmakers, as they await a potential future ruling from the Supreme Court, should embrace.
___
Thibaut Delloue is a policy fellow at the Florida Charter Institute.
