Title: Lake View School District No. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, et al. v. Mike Huckabee, Governor of the State of Arkansas, et al.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS,
No, 01-836

LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. | Opinion Devered 531-07
25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
ET AL. (NOW BARTON-LEXA),

APPELLANTS/APPELLEES,

vs.
MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF

‘THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL,
‘APPELLEES/APPELLANTS,

ROGERS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 30,
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,
AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

INTERVENORS/ APPELLEES,

MASTERS’ REPORTS ADOPTED
MANDATE ISSUED

 

ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice

(On November 30, 2006, ths court issued an opinion deferring isuance ofthe mandate
in this cate for 180 days and reappointing the Special Masters, Bradley D. Jeson and David
Newber to fle an addtional report evaluating whether the constitutional deficiencies referred
10 in this cour’ opinion of December 15, 2005, had been cured. See Lake View School Dist
No. 25 v. Huckabee, 364 Ark. 398, __S.W.3d.__ (2005). Specifically, we refered to the

lack of final legislative action raised by the intervenors/appellees Rogers School District No.
30, Barton-Lexa School District, Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special
‘School District (“School Districts”) in connection with the following issues

+ Academic Facilities

+ English Language Leamers

+ Student Growth Funding

+ Collection Rates for Local Taxes

+ Teacher Raises and National School Lunch Aid

"The Masters filed an Interim Report with this court on March 16, 2007, and filed their
Final Report with this court on April 26, 2007. Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure
53(e)), the parties had twenty days to file objections to the Masters’ findings of fact. No
objections have been filed. Rusle 53(¢)(2) farther provides that aplication for action on the
report shall be by motion, No application for action has been filed. According to this court’s
caleulations, the 180 days for deferring issuance of the mandste expired on May 29, 2007. On.
this cour’s own motion, we adopt the two Masters’ Reports and direct the clerk of this court
to issue the mandate forthwith, To emphasize the unanimity of the court on this matter, each

justice has affixed his or her signature at the end of this opin

 

“The Lake View ligation has resulted in numerous opinions and orders from this court.
Sulice it to say that the seminal decision was Lake View Schoo! Dist. No. 20 v, Huckabee, 351
Ark. 31, 91 S.W3d 472 (2002), where this court found that public school funding was
inadequate and that substantially equal educational opportunity was not being afforded to

Arkansas students. As a result, this court held that there was a violation of the Arkansas

- 01-836
‘Constitution. Since that time, the Masters have been appointed by this court three times and
have issued four Reports on the constitutionalty ofthe State's funding of public education

‘This court expresses its heartfle thanks and deep appreciation to the Masters for their
‘work in this case. Itis not hyperbole to say their review of the ficts and documents when
‘compiling their reports has been essential to elevating Arkansas educational system to one that
‘meets constitutional status. We would be remis if we failed to thank the members of the
General Assembly and the Governor and his agencies in making great progres, especially in
the recent enactments that assure that those legislative and executive bodies will continue their
cffors with the vigilance necessary to maintain and improve Arkansas’ education system.
While we have sought the Master’ assistance on three different occasions to gather the
information to address and decide the constitutional question before us, we are now able to
direct the isuance of the mandate in this case due to the hard work of the Masters, the General
‘Assembly, and the executive branch. This cour, the people of Arkansas, and the generations

‘to come are indebted to them for their commitment to education.

1, Masters’ Report

A, Masters’ Findings of Fact

a. Public School Facilities

"Previous reports were filed on April 2, 2004, and October 3, 2005.

3 01-836
In Lake View School Dist. No, 25 v, Huckabee, 364 Ark. 398, _S.W.3d__ (2008),

this

 

out listed the legislative enactments by the General Assembly in 2008 affecting academic
facilities and also the actions by the Joint Committee on Educational Facilities and the ‘Task
Force on Educational Facilities. We then concluded that “appropriations for the Immediate
Repair Program and Priority One facilities construction and repair for safe, dry, and healthy
facilities were grosly underfunded and, thus, inadequate.”

‘The Masters have now found that the General Assembly “addressed the need for state
assistance with public school academic facilities in a substantial and commendable fishion."
‘The Masters listed the following actions:

+ Referring to the October 1, 2006 Academic Facilities Master
Plan, the Masters gave the following status report for actions
taken in 2006,

— The General Assembly appropriated an additional
$50,000,000 for facilities with a “carry-forward”
provision in the Second Extraordinary Session of
2006.

— As of October 1, 2006, 178 of 301 projects had
been completed in academic facilites to correct
immediate hazardous conditions. The balance will
bbe completed in 2007. ‘The State participation in
the 301 projects cost $35,000,000.

— Asofthe same date, 106 of 213 approved projects
had been completed for new construction or
additions to academic facilities for which debe was
incurred or funds spent between January 1, 2005,
and June 30, 2006. ‘The completion date forall
projects is estimated to be March 2008. The State's
participation in these projects is $87,000,000.

4. 01-836
— The Academic Facilities Partnership Program is for
future academic facilities construction.
$$300,000,000 in state assistance has been approved.
‘The State's share is estimated to be $48,000,000 in
fiscal year 2007, $185,000,000 in fiscal year 2008,
and $67,000,000 in fiscal year 2009.

+ Act 1237 of 2007 appropriated $456,000,000 for public school
academic facilities in addition to $150,000,000 available from
‘unspent fund balances and $35,000,000 for each year ofthe next
biennium. This, the Masters found, will “flly fund the State's
share of approved academic facilities requests for the next two
years.”

+ Bach School District in the state as well as the Facilities
‘Commission is now required to adopt a ten-year master plan for
school ficilties and to prioritize needs. Guidelines and a Public
School Academic Facility Manual have been adopted.

+ Regarding the Academic Facilities Wealth Index, Act727 of 2007
‘now provides some state assistance to every school district based
‘on actual need for facilities in the individual school districts as
‘well as the school districts ability to pay.

+ Act 995 of 2007 provides state loans for facility construction in
school districts with rapid enrollment growth.

+ Act 1021 of 2007 authorizes the Facilities Commission to issue
'$750,000,000 in bonds to finance additional academic

+ Act 996 of 2007 provides a mechanism for the State to declare a
school district in academic-facilities distress with resulting state
sanctions.

b. Foundation-Funding Aid

01-836

 
‘The Masters found that per student foundation funding has been increased for these
school years by Act 19 ofthe Fint Extraordinary Session of 2006 and Act 272 of 2007, whereas

initially the General Assembly had provided no increase for the 2005-2006 school year:

+ 2005-2006 $5,486
+ 2006-2007 $5,662
+ 2007-2008 $5719
+ 2008-20009 $5,789

‘Act 272 of 2007, in addition, authorizes the State to make up the difference ifthe actual
school tax collection in the school district is less than the formula of the uniform rate of
‘taxation (25 mills) multiplied by 98% of the assessed value of property in the school district.
‘This assures that basic per-student foundation funding is being met.

By Act 273 of 2007, the General Assembly added per student funding in excess of the
amount considered adequate. ‘The additional amounts are:

+ $51 for school year 2007-2008

+ $36 for school year 2008-2009

¢. Growth Funding.

In 2006, the Schoo! Districts raised an isue about the lack of contemporaneous funding
{for school districts experiencing rapid growth in student enrollment. The Masters found that
‘Acts 20 and 21 of the First Extraordinary Session of 2006 and Act 461 of 2007 dealt with this

issue by providing “declining enrollment funding” to ease the burden of ongoing expenses

6 01-836
‘where the student population declines. Act 461 also increases per-student funding for districts
‘which have rapid student growth, The intent of the General Assembly was to make the

appropriate adjustments as quickly as possible.

4. Categorical Funding
"The Masters found that Act 272 of 2007 increased special-needs funding considerably
in these eategories
+ Funding for students placed in alternative learning environments
increased from $3,750 in school year 2006-2007 to $4,063 in
school year 2007-2008.
+ Foundation finding for English language learners increased from
{$195 to $293 per learner in 2007-2008, as recommended by the
Adequacy Study Oversight Committe.
+ State funding for students qualifying for national school-Iuneh

assistance was increased bated on the percentage of qualified
students

«Teacher Salaries

“The Masters found that a report of the Adequacy Study Ovenight Subcommittee, as
amended and adopted by the fill House and Senate Education Committees on January 22,
2007, ranks Arkansas second in average teacher pay among the six surrounding states and ninth
among sixteen states represented by the Souther Regional Education Board. They bo found
that Act 272 of 2007 raised the minimum teacher salaries depending onthe academic degree

and experience of the teacher:

01-836

 
Year Bachelor's Degree and ‘Master's Degree and
‘No Experience. 15 Years Experience

2006-2007 28,611 40,402
2007-2008 28,897 40,731
2008-2009 29,244 41,130

“The Masters further noted that Act 1590 of 2007 permits the continuation of using
‘excess national school lunch money to supplement certain teacher salaries, which was first
‘enacted by Act 30 ofthe First Extraordinary Session of 2006. In addition, they found that Act
1044 of 2007 allows for a continuation of incentives, frst enacted by Act 101 of the Second
Extraordinary Session of 2003, to attract and retain teachers who teach in high-priority
distiets. It provides annual bonuses of $4,000, $3,000, and $2,000 for such teachers, The
Masters stated that the parties agree there is no remaining issue with respect to teacher

retirement and that the teacher-retirement contribution increase has been funded.

B, Masters’ Findings of Facts and Conchsions of Law?

"The Masters report that some school districts have large balances or reserves of funds
set aside to offet catastrophe or pethaps for future projects. The Masters emphasize that Act
28 ofthe Fint Extrordinary Session of 2006 requires school districts toile annual reports with
the Department of Education concerning daily expenditures, fund balances, and funding

sources as well a an explanation of the reasons for maintaining fund balances.

* See Atk. R. Civ. P. 53

 

01-836
“The Masters emphasize that accurate information furnished by the school districts tothe
Department of Education is essential. They underscore the necessity of a comprehensive
School improvement plan to assure that students are receiving an adequate education. Reports
‘on teacher salaries as well as school budgets are required. ‘The Masters say that this
“monitoring legisation . . . should help in exercising the constant vigilance to ensure the
constitutional goal is met.”

‘The Masters also emphasize Act 57 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003, Act
108 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003, Act 20 of the First Extraordinary Session of
2006, and Act 1204 of 2007, which highlight the need for continual assessment and evaluation
by legishtive committees on whether a substantially equal opportunity for an adequate
‘education is being afforded to Arkansas students and which establish, as well, that education
is the State's fist funding priority. ‘The Masters find that the General Assembly i in
‘compliance with those acts and understands now that the job for an adequate education system
is “continuous” and that there has to be “‘continued vigilance” for consitutionality to be
maintained,

‘The Repor reflects the Masters’ findings as follows:

“The framework for'a much improved Arkansas public education system is now

in place, The finds to support it are now at hand. We have no doubt that a

succesful future for Arkansis’s public schools will depend, in large measure,

upon the continuous financial and standards review that the General Assembly

has undertaken at this point. Meeting the challenge of using the support which

is in place, and that which will ensue, to give adequate education to Arkansis's

children now passes to the local school districts. They should have the means

to meet the challenge if the State remains committed to the all-important
practice of funding education fist.

 

» 01-836
MI. Conclusion

‘This court adopts the Masters’ Interim Report and Final Report. We hold thatthe
General Assembly has now taken the required and necessary legislative steps to assure thatthe
school children of ths state are provided an adequate education and a substantially equal
‘educational opportunity. A critical component of this undertaking has been the
comprehensive system for accounting and accountability, which has been put in place to
provide state oversight of schookdistrict expenditures, What is especially meaningfl to this
courts the Masten finding that the General Assembly has expresly shown that constitutional
compliance in the field of education is an ongoing task requiring constant study, review, and
adjustment. In this cour’s view, Act 57 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003,
requiring annual adequacy review by legislative committees, and Act 108 of the Second
Extraordinary Session of 2003, establishing education as the State's first funding priority, are
the comerstones for asuring future compliance.

Because we conclude that our system of public-school financing is now in
constitutional compliance, we direct the clerk ofthis court to iste the mandste in this case

forthwith

106 01-836

 
( Jie QR Wibed’. 2 ica
Chiét Yastice Jim Hannah Justice Robert L. Brown

s,

 

Tustice Tom Glaze Jim Gunter

Justice Don Corbin Justice Paul Danielson

    

‘Special Justice Carol Dhlby

ImpeR, J., not participating,

one 01-836