Florida leaders counting on more than $3.5 billion from a massive federal stimulus package to shore up the state's education budget learned Thursday there could be a catch. The state may not qualify for the money because the Legislature has cut its schools budget too much.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic-recovery plan Wednesday. Under that bill, money in a special "state stabilization fund" would go only to states that could fund schools for the next two years at the levels they had in the 2005-06 school year.

But the state is below that threshold. In fact, school funding coming directly from the state is now lower than it was in the 2004-05 school year. With Florida's budget shortfall for next year ballooning toward $4 billion, it's not clear it could meet that requirement.

More than two years ago, the state stopped giving tuition vouchers to students who wanted to leave failing public schools for private school. Since then, Florida's other two programs that pay private-school tuition for disabled kids or poor children have grown by 21 percent and 65 percent respectively. Today, 42,000 Florida students attend private school on the public's dime. And a new study touting voucher benefits could trigger more expansion.

Why is the number growing? As more people learn about the programs, more sign up. Low-income families are thrilled they can afford to find a school that meets their children's needs. Why are these 2 programs still allowed?

..."A 1999 lawsuit that challenged vouchers targeted only Opportunity Scholarships, offered to students at public schools that had received two F grades in a four-year period. The Florida Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to do that.

But no one has fought the two other programs in court. The state's teachers union, one group that sued to kill Opportunity Scholarships, isn't planning to go after those two because of the cost and time involved. Critics argue the court ruling should apply to all three programs because they are so similar. But the Supreme Court justices noted it would be improper to make that assumption.