Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Legal history of Lake View case is explained

Editor's note: This is the third in a three-part series held by State Representatives Tommy Roebuck and Chris Thomason concerning the educational issue the 84th General Assembly faces. This article deals with the legal aspects and history of the Lake View case.

Jim Franks recently addressed the history of the Lake View lawsuit at a meeting held by State Reps. Tommy Roebuck and Chris Thomason.

Franks, who served two terms on the Prescott School Board, said he's spent a great deal of his adult life in public education.

The Arkansas Supreme Court, he said, gave the state a blueprint on what needs to be done and how to do it. This was done when the ASC rendered its ruling on Nov. 21, 2002.

What was surprising about the ruling, Franks said, was how harsh the language used was.

According to Franks, the problem with Arkansas's education system stems from the 1950's, when the ASC ruled on how education was funded in the state.

The initial ruling stated how the state distributed money was unfair and in violation of the Arkansas constitution.

In 1982, the ASC again ruled the state was not in compliance in how districts were funded.

The Lake View case began in 1992 and was handled in two parts. This took 10 years to resolve.

The first part, Franks said, was the classic inequitable funding case, with the court ruling smaller districts weren't getting their fair share of the money.

In 1994, he said, the ASC ruled the Lake View District was right, and Amendment 74 was passed to equalize millage.

From there, he said, the Rogers School District sued, saying there wasn't enough money being put forth in education to do what the constitution required. The state argued it was providing all the money it could for education.

On Nov. 21, 2002, the ASC agreed, stating the big issue was the current funding formula is unconstitutional.

Article 14, section 1 of the state's constitution spells out the state's responsibility on education. The state, it reads, shall maintain a suitable and efficient system of free public schools.

The ASC ruled the state wasn't living up to what the constitution stated it was supposed to be doing.

In 1995, Franks said, the Arkansas Legislature mandated the Arkansas Department of Education to do an adequacy study. However, the ADE never did the study.

The ASC, in its 1982 ruling, had stated the same thing, but neither the court nor the legislature followed up to make sure the ADE did the study as ordered, and neither took action to correct the problem with the ADE failing to do as instructed.

In the 2002 ruling, Judge Kilgore and Judge Imber looked to the case of Rose v Council for Better Education, Inc., a Kentucky case similar to the one filed by the Lake View District.

The two concurred with the Rose findings, saying an efficient system of education must have as its goal to provide each and every child with at least the seven following capacities:

(1) sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization;

(2) sufficient knowledge of economic, social and political systems to enable the student to make informed choices;

(3) sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state and nation;

(4) sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness;

(5) sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage;

(6) sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and

(7) sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market.

The 2002 ruling states Arkansas has failed to provide such an education for all students.

Franks said consolidation was not mentioned in the court's ruling. Efficiency, he added, is where consolidation comes into play.

"The state has treated this without the priority it deserves," he said. "The funding system is reason enough to adopt a standard of strict scrutiny. We're in dire need of changing the funding formula and bringing it into constitutional compliance.

"The state has failed to provide a general suitable and equitable education. When the state fails, the entire system of education is in jeopardy."