# DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30

In DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30, 279 Ark. 340 (1983), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the state's school-funding system violated the state constitution. Under that system, a school district's funding was determined primarily by the local tax base.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
279 Ark. 340
Jim DuPREE et al. v. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 30 of Crawford County et al.
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, First Division
No. 82-175. --- Delivered: May 31, 1983.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Hickman
* Purtle
* Dissenting Opinion Adkisson
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—EDUCATION CLAUSE REINFORCES APPLICATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE TO PRESENT EDUCATION FINANCING SYSTEM.—The constitutional mandate for a general, suitable and efficient education in no way precludes the Supreme Court from applying the equal protection clause to the present education financing system; the education clause only reinforces the decision that the equal protection clause applies.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—PRESENT EDUCATION FINANCING SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.—There is no legitimate state purpose to support the present education financing system; it bears no rational relationship to the educational needs of the individual districts, rather it is determined primarily by the tax base of each district.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE VIOLATED.—Where some districts supply the barest necessities and others have programs generously endowed, the requirements of the constitution are not met; equal protection is not addressed to minimal sufficiency but rather to the unjustifiable inequalities.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—PROPERTY REASSESSMENT WILL NOT CORRECT FATAL FLAW IN EDUCATION FINANCING SYSTEM.—When all counties are assessed at the proper level, the gap will still exist between the poor and wealthy districts and the mandate of the constitution will remain unfulfilled because regardless of the result of reassessment, the fatal flaw in the distribution method under the present system would still exist.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—AUTHORIZATION TO LEVY TAXES DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A SYSTEM IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.—The constitutional provision that specifically authorizes local districts to levy school taxes, in no way implies that that section authorizes a system in violation of the requirements of equal protection.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—STATE'S ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EDUCATION.—Ultimately, the responsibility for maintaining a general, suitable and efficient school system ​falls upon the state; whether the state acts directly or imposes the role upon the local government, the end product must be what the constitution commands, and when a district falls short of the constitutional requirements, whatever the reason for the violation, it is the state's obligation to rectify it by compelling the local government to act or by meeting its continuing obligation itself.
* APPEAL & ERROR—DECISION NOT OVERTURNED UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.—The decision below will not be overturned unless it is found to be clearly erroneous.
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, First Division; Harrell Simpson, Chancellor by Assignment; affirmed.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: George Pike, Jr., for appellants Little Rock School District and North Little Rock School District.
Seay & Bristow, by: Bill W. Bristow, for appellants Clover Bend School District et al.
Dailey, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield, by: Ben Core; Stephen L. Spitz; and Long & Silverstein, by: David Long, for appellees.
Pryor, Robinson & Barry, by: H. Clay Robinson, for amicus curiae, the Fort Smith School District.
Cearley, Mitchell & Roachell, for amicus curiae, the Arkansas Education Association.
[Opinion of the court by Justice STEELE HAYS. Chief Justice ADKISSON dissents. Justices HICKMAN and PURTLE concur. Justice DUDLEY concurs to the extent that the majority opinion finds a violation of Article XIV, § 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse