The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 V. a.~-- ~ ...." '1 rr=l'l~ (! - n PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL r~U~.\~ ~j :1 G,'.Y DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC 3 0 1996 DEFENDAfrrs INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS AMICUS CURIAE'S MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD, NLRSD AND PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME T ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING The LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment challenging - those portions of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Pulaski County Districts do not allege, nor is there any showing, that the Districts receive less money under the new system. To the contrary, they receive more. By petitioning this Court for an Order directing the State to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have this Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of "equal treatment" to which all students are entitled.1 While the Settlement Agreement permits "fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability", the Pulaski County Districts suggest, by implication, s1;1ch an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs 1Ark.Const.Art.Il, Sections 2, 3, and 18, DuPree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90,279 Ark. 340 (1983). jmljr/kl/9017 more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. In all previous assaults on the school funding formula, the Pulaski County School Districts have argued the formula violated the following terms of the Settlement Agreement: 1. "The State shall take no retaliatory action against the District" and, 2. "Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability shall not be considered to have an adverse impact even if it reduces the proportion of State aid to the Districts." Here, however, the Pulaski County School Districts do not expressly contend either provision of the Settlement Agreement has been violated. Rather, they simply refer to the decision of the Eighth Circuit2 and invite this Court to interpret that decision as meaning they are entitled to claim more - money than they will receive under the new funding formula. This argument is misplaced. The Eighth Circuit, in dealing with whether the elimination of the worker's compensation program in its entirety violated the provisions of the Settlement Agreement obviously determined in obiter dictum that it did not because it was fair, rational and of general applicability. Had the inquiry stopped there, as it must here, there would have been no finding of a violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It was the seed money that resulted in disproportionate funding and therefore a funding formula which lacked general applicability. In the matter now before this Court, the new funding formula with its per pupil funding is clearly comparable to the total elimination of the worker's compensation program in its general applicability as opposed to the disproportionate distribution of seed money which raised the concern of this Court and of the Eighth Circuit. That concern is not present in this case because the program for teacher's retirement, like worker's compensation, has been totally eliminated, and there has been no seed 2Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). 2 Jmljr/kt/9017 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation. The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact o. 42. The - Court found that "The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools." Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms "general, suitable and efficient", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined "efficient" as a system which required "substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students" and 3 j mljr/kt/90 I 7 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation.  The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact No. 42. The Court found that "The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools." Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms "general, suitable and efficient", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined "efficient" as a system which required "substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students" and 3 jmljr/lcr/9017 which required that the educational system be "adequate, uniform and unitary." Id. at 192. The Court concluded that an 'efficient' system of common schools should have several elements: 1 . The system is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly. 2. The tax effort should be evenly spread. 3. The system must provide the necessary resources throughout the state -- they must be uniform. 4. The system must provide an adequate education. 5. The system must be properly managed. Paragraph 11: The equal protection provisions of the Arkansas Constitution are applicable to school funding. DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 345 (1983) ("The constitutional mandate for a general, suitable and efficient education in no way precludes us from applying the equal protection clause [to school funding]".) Paraeraph 12: Although money is not the only measure of equity, there is a correlation between the money spent and the quality of education received. See Tennessee Small School Svs. v. McWherter, 851 S.W. 2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Washakie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980). Judge Imber considered three statistical measures to evaluate school funding. First, she looked to the federal range ratio and found the State out of compliance with that measure. Next, she looked to the coefficient of variation by which measure the State was again out of compliance. Finally, she looked to the Gini coefficient by which the State was in compliance. Each of these statistical measures looks to the distribution of revenue or expenditure on a~ Pmill basis. Clearly, Judge Imber focused on providing substantially equal funding~ Pmill as opposed to 4 jmljr/kt/9017 general funding of school district operations. In his concurring opinion in Alma, Judge Hickman focused on this point: .. .I cannot justify on this record, any formula of distribution except on a per pupil basis. I do not say any formula, except one based on a per pupil basis, would fail legal examination; but it would certainly have a more difficult time surviving legal scrutiny. The evidence to justify any distribution, other than a per pupil basis, should be both clear and convincing. 279 Ark. at 351, 352. In response to Judge Imber's ruling, which granted the State two years to bring the funding system into compliance, Act 917 and related legislation became law in Arkansas. More recently, Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution was approved by the voters creating an equalized method applicable to all Arkansas counties to raise a minimum level of funding for education. The funds raised by Amendment 74 will be pooled and that money combined with State funds. The - total will be distributed on a~~ basis that is in compliance with the statistical measures, particularly the federal range ratio, to provide an equalized distribution. It is this system of financing education in a general and rational manner which the Pulaski County Districts would have this Court throw out by creating exclusions for them. In the strictest of the statistical measures, the federal range ratio, Judge Imber determined that the Little Rock School District sets the standard for measurement of equitable funding in Arkansas. Finding of Fact No. 58, Exhibit 2. Using the federal range ratio, the State funding system was redesigned to bring all students to within 80% of the funding provided Little Rock students. In making this calculation, funds paid to the Pulaski County Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement in this Court, are not included. Therefore, as to Little Rock students, not only do they receive State and local funds that establish Little Rock School District as the curvesetter for the State, but they receive additional funds flowing through the desegregation Settlement Agreement that are not counted. The distribution of State funds to North Little Rock and Pulaski 5 jmljr/lct/9017 County assures them of being funded within 80% of the Little Rock School District, on a per pupil basis plus they also receive whatever funds flow through the Settlement Agreement. It is no wonder that 111 school districts object to this attempt by the Pulaski County Districts to be excluded from what they perceive to be burdens under the new funding system while taking full advantage of the benefits of the new system. If the Pulaski County Districts are awarded additional money outside the State funding system, then funding to 400,000 students outside Pulaski County will suffer. The State funding system will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which this Court might order. Increasing funding to Little Rock will mandate corresponding increases to all districts. The Pulaski County Districts argue that their retirement costs are greater because of the additional staff and extra payroll costs that they must incur because of the Settlement Agreement. Careful analysis does not support these conclusions. Examining their costs for certified salaries as - a percent of the current expenditures3 (which excludes funds distributed under the Settlement Agreement) North Little Rock only spends 58.76% of its current expenditures for certified salaries. Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. This means that of its current expenditure money, North Little Rock has 41 % after pavment of certified salaries for other expenditures. Pulaski County is in better shape spending only 58.25% of its current expenditures for certified salaries with nearly 43% left over. The Little Rock School District, the curve-setter for the State funding system, is better off than each of the other two spending only 57 .27% of its current expenditure money for certified salaries. There are only five school districts--Newark, Altheimer, Turrell, Paron and Grady--that spend less of their current expenditure money for certified salaries than Little Rock. As to Pulaski County, only those five districts plus Lead Hill spend less for certified salaries, and as to North Little Rock, only those six plus River Valley, Perry-Casa and Leslie 3Expenditures are the current expenses which include all expenditures for the benefit of the current year, including reimbursement for textbook expenditures and amounts spent on behalf of districts by other districts or cooperatives, less capital outlay, debt service and amounts received from other school districts. Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas. 6 jmljr/kl/9017 spend less than North Little Rock of their current expenditure money on certified salaries. Every school district in Arkansas spends more of its current expenditure money on certified salaries than these eleven districts. 299 of the 311 schools districts in Arkansas have less money left over after paying certified salaries than the North Little Rock School District. For example, Russellville West Memphis Alma Blytheville Fort Smith Texarkana Eldorado Jonesboro Camden Fairview Hot Springs Percent of Current Expenditures for Certified Salaries4 74.01 % 71.84% 69.04% 68.28% 68.08% 67.33% 66.07% 65.99% 65.20% 63.31 % The retirement funds which the Pulaski County Districts seek to have funded are a fixed percentage of certified salaries. Therefore, if the percentage of certified salaries paid by the Pulaski County Districts is lower than other districts, then the cost of teacher retirement will be lower than the same components of other districts. Each district will be affected in the same way. Mathematically, retirement funding is 12% of the prior year certified salary. The relationship between the Pulaski County Districts and the rest of the State remains the same when the retirement cos: is added to the cost of certified salaries. Arguments by the Pulaski County Districts that the cost of living is higher, requiring higher salaries and, that the obligations of the Settlement Agreement cause them to incur additional salary all fall by the wayside when the facts are known. f 4Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. 7 jmljr/k!/9017 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Tristan Greene submitted by the State demonstrates that the Pulaski County Districts received the following increases in State funding in 1996-1997 when compared with 1995-1996: Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $2,733,988 $637,161 $710,476 This clearly evidences that these districts did not lose money when the State moved from Act 34 (1995-1996) to Act 917 (1996-1997). Summary The Pulaski County Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. The adoption by the State of a new school funding system based on equalized l2IT J;l1lllli funding is a fair and rational method of funding. Over nearly three decades the legislature and the Courts have considered school funding and evolved to this system. The application of the formula to every - student in Arkansas aptly demonstrates the general nature of the new system. There has been no allegation that the new formula is retaliatory; and since the funding system is fair and rational, and of general application, it is not violative of the Settlement Agreement. At the very least, there are disputed questions of material facts which make summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these issues. Respectfully submitted, Amicus Curiae 8 William P. hompson, .. A. #64044 James M. Llewellyn, Jr., AB.A. #66040 THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: (501)785-2867 Telecopier: (501)782-8046 jmljr/kt/9017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Lewellyn, Jr., state that I have on this z.J.~day of December, 1996, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. SamuelJones,III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 9 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL AND STREET First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Ste. 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Jmljr/kt/9017 .. . : Ri::CElVEU AEA NOV 2 1981 -:;.- IN THE CHA!.;CC:RY COURT Of" PULASKI COUNTY, ARY.A ~SAS i:IRST DIVISION Al.11A SCHOOL DISTR.i:CT NO. 30, ec al PLAIN:'I:75 V. NO. 77-406 JIM DuPRE"='., ~ al CLOVER Brno SO!OOL DIS:::tICT NO. 12 of Law-rence County,~~ FINDINGS O!'" FAC: Frora che t2scl..l:lony and e..v:hibi:s as inc::-oduced, che scacei:::encs and sci?ulacions of counsel, and ocher rn.a.cc2rs, chings, files and proof, che Cou::-'C finds as Eaccs: L. There were 382 operacing School Discricts in Arkansas L, 1978-79, 37~ in 1979-60, and 370 in 1980-8~- 2. ~~blic schools in Arkansas derive revenues from local and scace sources, and co a fa::- lesser e..~cenc from the federal gove=menc. r~ 1976-79, sc.ace revenues for public el=enc~=7 and. seconda::_-:J educacion cocale<l. abou~ $235 million and consci~~ced 51.6% of all public school revenues. Loe.al revenues a=unccd co $210.6 million a::- J8.l 7. of cecal revenues. feuer~L revenues a~ $57,_ million provided the re=ini.--::g 10.37. of public school suppo-:-c. -::-:e propor-cians of federal-scace-local reve..'1ues ;;e::::e fai::Ly conscanc bec-~ee..'1 1973-7~ and 1978-79 . J. School disc::-iccs, by voce, lev-1 ca:t. races o-:millage races on Frcpercy wichin c_he disc::-iccs. This p::-ovides the bulk of local recei?cs. Ocher minor sources include ::-enc, inceresc, dor.acions, :-evenue in lieu of caxes, revenue f::-ol!l che Counc:y and ocher miscellaneous receipcs, and are al_ included L, cbe cacego-;:-y "lac.al revenues", and e2ch local dscricc recains and ex;,ends all che local school caxes collecced wichin ics boundaries. f+ . . The Arkansas school t.lis cric cs va=7 widely in che amounc of caxable properry wealch per pupil wichin chei= boundaries, ant.I because of variacions in assesse& valuacion per ?upil, ~~~: discicts in che scace have g-::eacer fiscal ~~~~~cy co raise revenue for education f=om local caxes c!'lan EXHIBIT 1  do many ocher distticcs in che scace . 5. Local =evenues a=e based in stated assessments as cercifed by the assessment co-ordinacion divi~ion of che St.ace ?ublic Service Co=ission which is responsible for certifying of=icial =acios co che Seate Deparc~e..~c of Educacion. 6. Each county in che stace has a County Board of Equalization for seccing or arriving at or levying assessmencs on Che majority of che icems of property in the cou.-:ty. Schools of che various counties are permitted to select represencacion on t."le board, and some schools dis ciccs employ individuals co ai~ assessors in locacing propercy to be assessed or re-assessed. .T. All counties are under-assessed in Arkansas,. and it: c.oes not. appear chat Arkansas Cons c.ic:uc.ional Amendz:lenc. No. 59, adopted in Novembe=, 1980, will a.:::ord any a?preci.3.ble relief c.o the. present: school f:.:1.ance system. 8. After any future re-assessment. it is eviden= tha.t. c..he. presently wealthy school disc.rices will sc::.J.l have g-:-eater assessed. values and therefore g=e.a::er rever.ues :o;::educacion than pla::...::.cif:: districts and ocher prope~, poor dis c:ric cs . 9. Ace: tfo. 1100 of che 1979 Arkansas General Assembly, kno;m as che School FL..ance Act of 1979, i~ Section 3(B) (1947 Ark. Scat. 1980 Replacement 00-050.J(B) ) provides a=ng oc.'ier chings, co c."le ef:::ecc chac che Resource Decerminacion Rate for each district: is calculaced by dividing ics adjusted base aid olus 45 mills applied co charged assessed valuation by che previous year's adjusted Average Daily M=bership, ADM. Each discricc's charged assessed valuacion is based on personal income. le. is compuced by applying its portion .of che tot.al assessed valuation in the county for the previous year to the county's charged assessed valuations. The laccer is decermined by multiplying che councy's 2 proporc:ion of cocal scace per~onal income for che lase: th=ee years by che cecal scace's assessed valuacion for che previous year less public serJice cor.unission assessnec1c:s. Utility and car::-ier assessmencs and 40~ of paymencs in lieu of tax-ation a=e added to c:he personal income component: of a disc:=icc:'s charged assesscenc to ar=ive ac a dist=icc's charged assessment:. 10. The sc:ate receives c:he income figu=es chac: ic used in the Resource Decer::iinacion Race calculation f=cm the Induscrial Research Exc:ension Center of che Universi:y of Arkansas. 11. The=e is no relation be~1een che local property wealth and the personal income index used to deter..iine district wealth in Arkansas. In addition, account is nae taken as to whether generated from L,duscrial or commercial property, and chis can resulc in some districts being charged L, assessed valuations ~~ey do noc have, and this L, cu::-:. can resulc in such dis cricts :-ec eiving less ttininn.u:a Fou:1da c::.on Prcg:-am, MF?, aid than they should. 12. Ace: No. 278 of the A::kansas Ge:1eral Asse~bly of 1951 was known as the Minimum School Budget: Law, and i: provided. a. base aid or hold-ha=less feature -..;hich g.ia::anteed that no school discricc: would receive less MFP aid in any year chan ic received the previous year. Thereafter, the amount of hold-harm.less funds increased from school finance ace co succeeding schooL finance ace so as to include any additional aid a school districc received in che previous year. Any equalization aid discribuced b:1 the stace became unavailable for equalizacion purposes in the :allowing year because it became pare of che hold-harmless aid in the year afcer ic was discribuced as equalization aid, and as result, the more recenc the base ye.a.r the less :.ione;' is available for equalization. 13. A further result under the provisions of Ace 278 of 1951 and succeeding school finance statutes for soce JO years thereafter is that lfFP aid per pupil increased in some dist-::-icts wich declining enrollments, even though the declining enrollment also result~d in an increase in yroperty wealch per pupil. lfuile Ace 1100 yrovides Ear adjust:.lents in base aid for changes in enrollillent, the adjustment does not eliminate the effects of district hold-har:nless prior to 1980. 14. Act 384 of 1977 contained a provision concerning making some adjuscnenc relative co the base for changes in average dailT attendance, and until the second year after the. passage: of Ace No. 1100 of 1979, base aid was held. ha=less on a per discicc basis. u:. In 1978-79 $220,000 ,COO or 71. li:. of all stace aid. was dist::ibuted. under the If:?, and. base. aid. accounted. for approx:.:nacely- 807. of MF? aid. 16. In. addition ta base aid, MF? aid has concai::ed a small equalization component. The equalization portion of MF?  .rs escablished i:1 Ace 384. of 19 77 caused dis cribution of aid in inverse relationship to local wealch on a 2.5 to L scale, and. established. a ceiling of eligibility-. fa 1978- 79 a total of $43,380,000 was distributed. under the. equalization portion of !ITT. This represented 19. 97. of MF? f-.!nds and 15.27. of all state reve.~ues. 17: The equalization under Ace 384. of 1977 was at a 2~ to 1 ratio, but Ace No. 1100 of 1979 eq~lizes at about 1 6/7 co 1, bec;iuse one-half of the funds are disc:ributed as flat grants; and because of the flat grant provision the 1979 Act will continue co be less equalizing than the 1977 Ace regardless of how aiuch equalizing money is available. 18; Under Ace No. 1100 of 1979 there is included a flat granc component in the equalizing funds. After base aid is allocated, one-half of any additional state lfF7 fi.mds for education are allocated in the form of flat grants on a per pupil (ADl1) basis, calculated by dividing the total avail- able funds by che Stace's adjusted ADl1 for che previous 1ea=. Sach dist:=icc =eceives the same Jollar amount regardless of property T,,/'ealch. 19. Ace '.lo. 1100 of 1979 provides :or adj us c:ients in base aid for c:.anges i:1 en=olluienc, but ch'e adjust.nenc does not elil!li::iace che effects of che district hold-har.;iless prior to 1900, and und~ Act 1100 of 1979, ear_ier inequities built into the system ~"'ill continue to be carr~ed forwa=d on a per pupil bas is . . ?lac ~ants and T,,/'eighcing can be disequalizing factors. 20. Under Act No. 1100 of 1979, one-half of the funds left ave= after che dist=ibution of base aid is allocaced as "equalization aid". The funds are allocated on the basis of a 4 co 1 ratio on a graduated sliding scale bec~een key discicts =e?resencing che 5th and 95th percencile of all scude.~ts i., the scace ranked on thei= resource dece=i::iacion :-ate per AD11, a measure ot wealth. Disc:icts :,;ii:...'1. up co 200~ of w'i.e state average resou=ce rate par::ici?ate in the sliding scale aid. Discricts below che Sch per::encile receive che same amount of aid as disc=icts a:: w'i.e Sch percentile, although chey are poorer. 21. In Arkansas there is a scong relationship between a disc:icc's properi:"f wealth and its available state and local revenues for elenentary apd secondary education. Dist.rices in the scace with high property wealth tend co have greater revenues for education, T,,/'hile low wealth districts tend to have less stace and local revenues. 22. The major determi.,anc of local revenues is disttict property wealth, and the amount of local r~venues thac a school district can raise is directly related to its property wealth. 23 .. There is a subs t.antial variation in che distribution of property wealth, mensured as equalized  assessed valua:ion per pupil in ave=age daily attendance (ADA) among the state's school dis::::-icts. In 1978-79 che range was f::-om $73,773 pe= pupil in Arkansas Ci.::y to $1853 in Gosnell. The state average assessed value per ADA in 1978-79 was $9611.18. 24. The wealthiest discricts, on average, raised about $753 more in local property taxes per pu?il than low wealth discric:s in 1978-79, and with scace aid, high wealth dist:=icts had approximately $532 more in state-local =evenues per pupil, or about 1;5 times the revenues of low wealth districts. 25. /!TI' aid increased 96. 757. per pu;i:..l in Li.:::le. Rock be~~een 1973-74 and 1980-31 or fron $229 co $452. Plai...,ti:: districc Al.~a's ai~ inc=e.aseci 119.87., or f=cm $306 co $704. 26. L, 1978-79, state and locaL revenues pe::pupil ranged from. a high of $2378 in A=kansas City co So73 in Caboc, one o= the. plai.,ti.= dis::::-iccs, a di:'::erence. of S1505 per pupil.. When the wealt:hiest: and the. pooresc a=e disregarded, c~e variation is from $1576 in Lierle. Roe~ ac c!ie. 95th pe=e..'1ci.le to $937 in Cedarville ac:. c..'1e 5c::i percentile. The. state average =evenues per ADA in 1978-79 1,;as $1158. 48. 27. :he range in revenues ai:,ong school dis.:=ic:s in Arkansas a::::ects a large number of children and is not Limited to c..~e ~ccremes of the disc=ibu:ion. Over 7~ of the pupils resided in school disaiccs with over $1500 per pupil in the state--ocal revenues while over 2ll resided in districts with less than $1000 in s cace-local revenues. fa 1978- 79, 2U dis::ricts with 239,725 students were below the state mean. This represented 557. of the districts and 567. of the students in the state. 28. \Jhen school districts are classified by size it is sho= that wealth disparities in revenues are prevalent among both large and small districts. Among small districts with less than 350 s~Jdents, the highest wealth disc-ices =aise  a~out $583 more in local revenue pe= pupil than the lowest wealth dist=ic:s, buc receive only abouc $100 less in minimum foundation aid and in total stat?. aid , and a di~ference of some $481 in total sca:e-Local revenues occurs bet~een high and low wealth small districts. T~e sa  e pat:ern exists Eor large districts. The highest wealth districts raised $768 more per pupil than the lowest wealth districts. Eowever, minimum foundation program aid was only $203 less in high wealth districts, and other st.ace aid was r.early equa_ in the high and low wealth groups. As a result, high weal:h districts had about $563 more in scace-local revenues per pupil chan low wealth disc:iccs. 29. In che rare instances where some school districts in Arkansas do not need st.ace aid, they yec continue co receive ic. 30. '.1oney is a necP.ssicy :er achieving qu.ali:-:J education. There is a wide range in ~'<?endicures per pupi~ among Arkansas school disc:iccs, and the variation in e::qiendicures is st::::-ongl:, related co c!isc:icc ;,ropercy ,;ealc.h and. st.ace and local revenues. 31. Disparic.ies in ~~pendi~~res per pupil among school disc-ices, co the ~~tent chat. they are , caused by variations in local distticc fiscal abili~,. a=e w-it.hout legitimate educational justi..:icacion and result in unequal education opportunities being made availalbe co chilc!re.n by Arknasas School disc=icts, including the eleven plaint.if: distticts. Students in lo_w-wealc.h districts receive inadequac.e and inferior educational opportunities compared to the high quality educational opporcunicie.s offered to students at.tending schools in high wealth districts, and there is a subscantial range a=ng school discricts in educational expendic-ures in the state, In 1970-79 the Ross Van tless e.i;penditures per pupil for the current operating expense amounted to $1859, -. while Ca.bot' s aounte.d to $693, or a difference of $1166 per pupil. The range. bet:1-1een Little Rock's $1466 ac the 95th percentile to plaintiff district Sheridan's $807 ac the Sch   percentile shows a difference of $659. The scace average for cu=ent: ~--q,endicures in 1978-79 was $1031.98. 32. Oiscriccs in che