http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/12/17/beebe-asks-to-file-brief-in-school-finance-case Comments On: Beebe asks to file brief in school finance case by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 22 May 2013 20:30:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by plainjim]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:47:43 -0600 Arkansas Times
However, I can see the majority's reasoning for these reasons: (a) Amendment 74 was drafted in response to the initial lower-court ruling in Lake View, based on the 1983 Dupree ruling's "equity" requirement, but BEFORE the Supreme Court's later Lake View rulings that added the concept of "adequacy". (Neither "equitable" nor "adequate" appears in the Constitution; the court used "equitable" in Dupree, and "adequate" in Lake View, to describe the school-funding requirements imposed by two different constitutional provisions.) (b) When Amendment 74 was drafted, it was assumed that "Robin Hood" alone would meet the "equitable" requirement; but the Lake View "adequate" number proved to be so much higher than expected that only a handful of districts met it on URT alone. (The legislature that implemented Lake View also asked voters for an increase in URT, as permitted by Amendment 74; the voters rejected it.) (c) While Amendment 74 itself still permits "Robin Hood" as to the URT, it left the specific mechanism to the legislature; the underlying statutes are unclear as to whether or not it's required. (d) The court essentially ruled that since school funding is now "adequate" under Lake View it is also "equitable" under Dupree as modified by Amendment 74; in that case "Robin Hood" on URT is neither required by the Constitution nor (in their view) permitted by law, so the districts can keep their excess URT. Most of us here would disagree (the court did get Amendment 74 wrong as Gov. Beebe points out), but I doubt the majority will change its mind.

Bottom line: Though technically the districts won, I believe the court's intent was for the legislature to fix the situation by adding an express "Robin Hood" rule to the statute, i.e., excess URT will be withheld by the state and redistributed to poorer districts so as to reduce the general revenue needed to meet the "adequate" target. That will probably be made clearer in a supplemental opinion denying the motion.
Posted by RBBrittain]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:00:24 -0600 Arkansas Times
I worked in a school where, when you removed the wet ceiling tile, you could look up and see sky. I checked a library book that said that one day man would walk on the moon twenty years after the fact (Ithrew it away). I live in a district where the right fielder couldn't see the batter because of the drop-off of the ground. There is a difference between the educational ability of a district where one parent works and the other is available to one where both parents work to scratch out a living. The small districts can't solve this differential-it will take the state or a law suit like the state has spent millions on over the years.
Posted by couldn't be better]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:27:03 -0600 Arkansas Times
The Arkansas Supreme Court did not rule that a law granting the state the authority to take excess funding from the the 25 mil minimum property tax was unconstitutional. The court ruled that no such law exists. The amendment gives the state authority by law, but the authority was left out of the legislation.

The state law that everyone thought gave the state authority to keep excess funds from the local 25 mil minimum property tax doesn't. The law refers to a section of the law that should have given that authority, but apparently the authority was accidentally left out. If the state legislature fails to correct the law to give itself the necessary authority, and if it refused to find alternate funding to meet foundation funding, then it would be choosing to violate the Lakeview ruling.

The recent SC ruling does not undo the Lakeview case as some are claiming, because the state can fund the foundation funding from other sources until new legislation is passed. I repeat. The ruling does not prevent the state from giving some districts more funding than others. It also does not prevent the state from passing a law to allow it to redistribute local tax revenue to other schools.

Also, neither the state constitution nor the Lakeview ruling requires equal funding (I wish it did). It requires the state to make sure that all schools have enough funding to provide an adequate education to each student. Ironically, that actually requires more spending on some students than others.

The constitutional amendment did not create a state property tax. Instead, it required a 25 mil minimum to be levied locally. The only reason the state tried to argue it was a state property tax is so the money would already be state revenue. That would make the law the state thought it had passed but didn't unnecessary. Everyone thought state law gave the state the required authority to demand the excess from the local 25 mil minimum property tax, but that authority was left out of the legislation. The court ruling stated that the state could pass such a law, but it failed to do so. Now the state has to correct the oversight in January.

And to those afraid the new legislature wouldn't pass a correction to the law, I point out that the same legislature with a simple majority could undo all laws related to foundation funding, if it wanted. Surely we still have enough reasonable Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to fix the legislation. If not, then something else will have to be done or the state will be sued again.
Posted by Kurt Sims]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:47:45 -0600 Arkansas Times
And incidentally, it matters little what the state or federal constitution says. Ask the Supremes (you know, Scalia and the Gang of Four) who stand the U.S. Constitution on its head every court session.
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:46:36 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:44:38 -0600 Arkansas Times
The constitution requires the STATE to maintain a free, general, suitable and efficient system of public schools.
Posted by PVNasby]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:35:49 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:18:48 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by PVNasby]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:10:20 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:06:01 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://www.inouye.senate.gov/news/press-re…
Posted by radical centrist]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:56:20 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Verla Sweere]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:30:03 -0600 Arkansas Times