The state of Florida has since the time of "San Antonio v. Rodriguez" an education finance system called the Florida Education Finance Plan (FEFP), which makes substantial effort to equalize per-pupil spending in all of the state's school districts, while recognizing the local factors that may necessitate changes in that spending. Still, that system has been subject to state constitutional challenges. This article outlines the two distinct avenues through which the Florida Education Finance Plan and other Florida school funding statutes have been challenged. Each of these approaches involves the education article of the Florida Constitution. The first part traces the historical development of the education article, and the second part examines the early challenges that were based mostly on the uniformity provision of the education article and the initial failed effort to bring what many would call a third-wave challenge to the adequacy of education spending under the education article. The second part also examines the court's perception of its role in Florida's three-branch government and its willingness to fulfill that role in equity and adequacy cases. This article concludes that the unique referendum process through which Florida residents can amend their constitution adds a new dimension to the education finance reform process that shapes the arguments supporting litigation and ultimately may provide a new avenue through which reformers can seek their objectives with minimal court involvement. (Contains 81 footnotes.)