Analysis of Florida’s Expanded “Schools of Hope” Program and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A report from a Sarasota County School Board member raises significant concerns regarding Florida’s recently expanded “Schools of Hope” program, codified in Senate Bill 2510. The legislation is presented as a direct threat to the stability of public education and undermines several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Key Legislative Provisions and Reported Concerns

Expansion of Charter School Access to Public Facilities

The updated law broadens the authority of charter school operators, allowing them access to district facilities that are deemed “underused, vacant, or surplus.” This provision is a point of contention, as it can be applied to schools experiencing temporary enrollment shifts, regardless of their academic performance. This policy directly affects even high-achieving districts, such as the A-rated Sarasota County district.

• Charter operators can take over or co-locate within public school facilities.
• This access is granted even in academically high-performing districts, shifting the program’s focus from academic intervention to facility acquisition.

Financial and Operational Burdens on Public School Districts

A primary concern is the financial model established by the law, which places a significant burden on public school districts. This model is seen as a diversion of taxpayer resources to private operators, which conflicts with the principles of sustainable and equitable resource management.

• Charter operators using public facilities are permitted to operate rent-free.
• The host school district is required to cover operational costs for shared spaces, including transportation, food service, security, and maintenance.
• This arrangement redirects public funds that would otherwise support the district’s students and programs.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The legislation is reported to compromise the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education. By diverting resources and potentially destabilizing established public schools, the law threatens the educational foundation for all students within the district.

• The financial strain on districts could lead to reduced funding for essential programs, impacting the quality of education for public school students.
• The failure of a previous “School of Hope” takeover in Jefferson County serves as a precedent, where student outcomes suffered rather than improved.
• The potential closure of neighborhood schools disrupts stable learning environments, which is contrary to fostering quality education.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The law creates an inequitable framework where private charter operators receive public subsidies without bearing proportional financial responsibility. This creates an unequal playing field between public and charter systems.

• Public school districts are forced to subsidize the operations of competing private entities, exacerbating financial inequalities.
• The focus on “underused” facilities rather than academic need may disproportionately affect schools in communities with shifting demographics, potentially widening inequality gaps.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

Public schools are integral components of sustainable communities, serving as social and educational hubs. The legislation threatens this community infrastructure by facilitating the private takeover of public assets.

• The potential closure or transfer of a “beloved neighborhood school” weakens the social fabric and undermines community cohesion.
• The policy reduces the capacity for local democratic control over essential public infrastructure, which is a key element of sustainable community governance.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Concerns are raised that the legislation weakens strong public institutions—namely, local school districts—by bypassing their authority and transferring control of public assets to private operators. This challenges the principles of justice, transparency, and accountable governance.

• The law allows charter schools to seek authorization directly from a college or university, circumventing the oversight of the local school district.
• This process is described as a “quiet handoff of taxpayer resources,” raising questions about institutional integrity and the just use of public funds.

Recommendations and Proposed Amendments

Call for Legislative Reform

To protect public education and align state policy with sustainable development principles, the Sarasota County School District is advocating for amendments to the law. The long-term objective stated is a full repeal of the legislation, but immediate revisions are sought to mitigate its harmful effects.

1. Advocate for targeted, common-sense amendments to protect students and district resources.
2. Ensure that charter operators bear the financial responsibility for the services and facilities they use.
3. Restore the authority of local school districts in the authorization and oversight of all schools within their boundaries.

Specific Revisions Advocated

• Clear Definitions: Establish a precise and transparent definition of an “underused” facility to prevent the takeover of viable school campuses.
• Safety and Appropriateness: Require grade-level alignment for co-located schools to ensure a safe and age-appropriate learning environment for all students.
• Cost Allocation: Mandate that “Schools of Hope” operators cover the full costs of services they use, including transportation, security, and maintenance.
• Public Advocacy: Encourage parents, educators, and citizens to engage with legislators to demand accountability and support for public education.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG, as the article directly discusses the threat to public education posed by Florida’s “Schools of Hope” legislation. It raises concerns about the quality of education, equitable access, the use of school facilities, and the financial stability of the public school system.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article touches on inequality by explaining the program’s original intent to help “persistently low-performing” schools. However, it argues the expansion now threatens even high-performing districts, potentially creating new inequalities by diverting public resources to private charter operators and forcing the closure of neighborhood schools.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The potential closure of a “beloved neighborhood school” and the handover of public facilities (like gyms, fields, and libraries) to private operators impact community infrastructure and social cohesion, which are key components of this goal.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article critiques a specific piece of legislation (SB 2510) and its impact on local governance. It highlights a lack of transparency and accountability, as charter schools can bypass local school districts. The author’s call for citizens to “advocate for our schools” and “ask tough questions” relates to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article argues the legislation threatens the “very foundation of public education” in an “A-rated district,” which could undermine the quality and equity of education provided.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all. The core issue is the takeover of public school facilities. The author’s call for “safeguards for transportation, safety staff and specialized programs” directly relates to maintaining effective and safe learning environments.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The article cites the case of Jefferson County, where a similar takeover “failed” and “student outcomes suffered,” indicating that such policies can worsen educational outcomes and thus increase inequality.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces for all. The article mentions that charter operators gain control of shared public spaces like “cafeterias, gyms, fields and libraries,” raising questions about the management and accessibility of these community assets.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The author criticizes the law for allowing charter schools to “bypass local school districts altogether,” which undermines the accountability and effectiveness of local educational institutions. The call for transparency is a recurring theme.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The author’s plea for “parents, educators and citizens to speak up” and “elect leaders who are committed to protecting public education” is a direct call for participatory decision-making to influence policy.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For SDG 4 (Quality Education)

  • District Academic Rating: The article explicitly mentions Sarasota as an “A-rated district” and an “Academically High Performing School District,” which serves as a direct indicator of educational quality.
  • Student Outcomes: The failure in Jefferson County was measured by the fact that “student outcomes suffered,” an indicator of educational effectiveness.
  • School Enrollment and Facility Usage: The legislation targets facilities deemed “underused,” which is determined by enrollment data. The number of school closures is another clear indicator.

• For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  • Performance of Schools: The program’s initial focus on “persistently low-performing” schools uses school performance data as an indicator to identify and address inequality.

• For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Legislation and Policy: The existence and content of Senate Bill 2510 is an indicator of institutional action. Proposed “targeted amendments” would be an indicator of institutional responsiveness.
  • Civic Engagement: The level of public advocacy from “parents, educators and citizens” can be seen as an indicator of participatory decision-making.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: heraldtribune.com