The decision to suspend vouchers to the Islamic Academy of Florida didn't come from the Department of Education, underscoring the image of the DOE as a spectator to its own program.
Published July 29, 2003
Public vouchers have been suspended, for the time being, at a private Islamic school in Tampa the FBI claims was a front for Palestinian terrorists. But the fine print is that the Department of Education, charged with overseeing the state's $88-million corporate voucher program, had little to do with it.
Education Commissioner Jim Horne issued a cryptic statement on the matter, saying he had "spoken with" the organization, Florida PRIDE, that provided roughly $350,000 in vouchers to the Islamic Academy of Florida last school year. He said the decision was "based on" an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement. But the reality, according to PRIDE chairman John Kirtley, was that the organization decided on its own and didn't even know the FDLE was investigating. Kirtley said he was afraid that political reaction to recent news stories about the school would harm the entire corporate voucher program.
"I'm saddened these children have become pawns in a political game," Kirtley told reporters.
This distinction is worthy of note, because it helps define the larger problem of accountability. Just a few days earlier, Horne had defended his oversight of the vouchers by writing that "DOE maintains identification records for each private school and works closely with the (funding organizations) to review and approve school eligibility." Of those who criticize DOE, he wrote further, "fortunately for students in the program, we're more thorough when assessing schools for our voucher dollars."
Thorough? Really? Then if the suspension of vouchers at the Islamic Academy was related to criminal investigations, as Horne said, why didn't DOE act when federal agents raided the school five month ago? Why wait for Florida PRIDE and news stories and angry legislators?
The Islamic Academy incident only reinforces the image of DOE as a spectator to its own voucher program. Whether the removal of vouchers was just or unjust, the decision was made by Kirtley, not DOE. In fact, Kirtley's organization can be credited with a variety of accountability measures that neither the Legislature nor DOE has required. PRIDE has called for a relatively strenuous financial and compliance audit method, a thorough evaluation of family income for recipients, some disclosure for regulators and the public, and a consistent standard for all seven voucher organizations.
DOE, on the other hand, has yet to adopt even an auditing standard, much less operating standards. Two years after the Legislature directed that DOE "shall adopt rules necessary to administer" the voucher law, what rules are in place? Why are different voucher organizations using different methods?
Horne is headed to Tampa on Wednesday as part of what he calls a "roundtable dialogue" with the voucher organizations to "discuss what they are doing to ensure accountability in participating schools." That could certainly be enlightening, but he might want to begin within his own agency. What is DOE doing to ensure accountability? Did DOE really not know vouchers were going to a school with alleged ties to terrorism?
