From the court's decision

Some excerpts from Tuesday's ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal that state-funded private school tuition vouchers do not violate the state Constitution's requirement that education be provided "through a system of free public schools":

Although, in establishing the Opportunity Scholarship Program, the Legislature recognized that some public schools may not perform at an acceptable level, the Legislature attempted to improve those schools by raising expectations for and creating competition among schools, while at the same time not penalizing the students attending failing schools.

* * *

We note that the Legislature has, in the past, established a program providing public funds for certain students to attend private schools.

(In an earlier case) the Supreme Court upheld a legislative program authorizing the payment of private school tuition for students whose needs could not be met in the public schools and specified that, in implementing this program, students could not be deprived of "a right to a free education." By analogy, the Opportunity Scholarship Program statute does not deprive students of "a right to a free education" and requires participating private schools to "[a]ccept as full tuition and fees the amount provided by the state for each student."

* * *

The trial court did not find that (the Constitution) expressly prohibits state-funded scholarships for children to attend a private school; instead, the trial court found an implied prohibition. Specifically, the trial court found that "[b]ecause Article IX, Section 1 directs that public education, K-12, be accomplished through a "system of free public schools,' that is, in effect, a prohibition on the Legislature to provide a K-12 public education in any other way." Despite the fact that the Constitution does not, by its terms, expressly direct that the state may only fulfill its obligation to provide education "through" the public school system, the trial court arrived at the "evident" negative implication.

* * *

In this case, nothing in Article IX, Section 1 clearly prohibits the Legislature from allowing the well-delineated use of public funds for private school education, particularly in circumstances where the Legislature finds such use is necessary.

We therefore reject the trial court's finding that the Constitution not only mandates that the state "make adequate provision for the education of all children" in Florida, but that it also prescribes the sole means for implementation of that mandate. Contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, and the argument advanced by appellees, Article IX, Section 1 does not unalterably hitch the requirement to make adequate provision for education to a single, specified engine, that being the public school system.