Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. .. RECE~VED FILED FEB 181997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~"0AfJ~~~l./,~~,~::,c:A~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB '1 0 1997 DESEGREi~~: ~tNITOR!NG WESTERN DMSION JAr..'.[:i W. NICvlJrtMnul'\, liL~RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL By: ____ -:;::;;-;:;-;;-;;;;- oEP CLERK FEB 1 ::- 10 OFFiC2 ..,, DESEGREGATIOt~ MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") responds to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's "Statement of Material and Undisputed Facts" with respect to issues of health insurance, special education and loss funding as follows: Fact No, 1: State EquaHzation Funding - Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The ' I State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFP A included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and (sic) Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding (Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium, ("ABS") p. 29). Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funds to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas (ABS p. 29). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that the Districts have accurately quoted the ABS. However, the statement that the purpose of Equalization Funding is to "equalize the disparities of property wealth" between districts is an oversimplification. The formula for calculating Equalization Funding takes into account local assessed property values, miscellaneous funds, the amount of funds available for Equalization Funding, and the number of students in the State and in each district. See generally Sections 4(d), 4(n), 4(s) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-203(4), (14) and (19)). More precisely stated, the purpose of equalization funding is to reduce the disparity of total state and local funds available to school districts for the education of children. 2 I Moreover, the Districts inaccurately state that the quoted passage from ABS comes from the "Agency Program Commentary" section. In fact, the quoted passage comes from the section entitled "Analysis of Budget Request," which is drafted by the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and not ADE. Fact No. 2: Prior to this fiscal year, the _$tate distributed formula aid utilizing weighted average daily memberships ("W ADM''). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that W ADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). Fact No. 3: The previous Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) used W ADM to determine the amount of money a school district received. The formula added weights to account for the high cost of educating certain students and provided more money for those students. The add-on weights included: special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growing district, loss funding, and vocational centers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 8) ADE's Response: It is undisputed that WADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 3 - 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). It is also undisputed that the calculation of W ADM included weights for special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growth funding, loss funding, and vocational centers. Fact No, 4: It was not clear that the add.-on weights that were assigned were sufficient to meet the needs of the students. For 1994-95, the W ADM was approximately 505,000, of which 435,000 was actual students and 70,000 was addon weights. The percentage of add-ons in districts ranged from 6% to 40%. There were some students who, because of their high need, generated three times the SBER (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 9) (Gooden p. 17). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 5: Any aid distributed for health insurance matching this fiscal year will be distributed on an "equalized" ADM basis and will not consider employee costs or numbers of employees. ADE's Response: Disputed. There is no appropriation for "health insurance matching" for school district employees in Act 1194 of 1995 for 1996- 97, and there are no identifiable or earmarked "health insurance matching" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. Rather, under Section 14 of Act 1194 of 1995 the responsibility for paying the health insurance contribution rate for eligible employees has now been shifted to school districts 4 throughout the State. A school district may satisfy this obligation in total or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, and it may satisfy this obligation in part or in whole with local revenue. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not "equalize" ADM. Rather, the formula "equalizes" or "adjusts" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No. 6: The State has terminated its payment of health insurance matching for the employees of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM"). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 7: The responsibility for funding health insurance matching for employees of the ODM has now become the responsibility of the three school districts in Pulaski County and their contributions to the budget of the ODM have been increased accordingly. ADE's Response; Disputed. The obligation for paying for health insurance matching for ODM employees now rests with ODM. The total ODM budget is funded by contributions from the three Districts and the State. Fact No. 8: For 1994-95, $36,315,000 was budgeted for public school employee insurance which was paid (by the State) to Blue Cross Blue Shield for insurance for teachers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24(8)). 5 ADE's Response: Disputed. The $36,315,000 budgeted for public school employee insurance was budgeted for the payment of health insurance matching for all eligible employees who elected to participate in the Public School Health Insurance program. The pool of eligible employees included teachers and other eligible "non-teacher" school district employees~ Fact No. 9: Public School Employee Insurance - provides for health insurance contributions for employees of the Cooperative Education Service Areas, Vocational Centers and the school operated by the Department of Correction. The priority request of$36,030 in FY98 and $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% growth in rates of employees (ABS p. 13). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 10: Public School Employee Insurance - This program pays the health insurance contribution rate established by the State Board of Education for employees of the Cooperative Education Services Areas, Vocational Centers, and the school operated by the Department of Correction (ABS p. 32). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 11: Any aid distributed and thus available for special education costs this fiscal year will be distributed on an "equalized" ADM basis and will not consider the costs of educating special education students. (Rossmiller, p. 99) 6 ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony of Dr. Rossmiller concerned the formula for calculation of state equalization funding. While Act 1194 contains appropriations for 1996-97 for, e.g., Special Education Services and Early Childhood Special Education, there is no general "special education" appropriation for distibution to school districts, and there are no identifiable or eannarked "special education" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. School districts may fund special education programs in whole or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, from local revenue, or from federal funds. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not "equalize" ADM. Rather, the formula "equalizes" or "adjusts" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon, among other things, a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No, 12: School districts located in urban centers with extensive medical services available can anticipate a high concentration of high cost special education students. (Gooden, p. 17) ADE's Response: Disputed. The Districts have not produced any evidence that they have such a "high concentration" of such "high cost" students. School districts with small enrollments may have a higher percentage or 7 - concentration of severely disabled students than school districts located in urban areas. Sydoriak Deposition at 62: 17-63 :8. Fact No, 13: At page 14 of the ABS, the ADE has commented in part concerning residential centers that: "Students are the responsibility of the district where the facility is located." ADE's Response: It is undisputed that these Districts have accurately quoted page 14 of the "ABS." However, the statement is not accurate. The District where the facility is located is responsible for the children if it is known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days. If it is not known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days, the district from which the child originated is responsible for the first 60 days, and the district in which the facility is located is responsible for the child beginning with day 61 of placement. Sydoriak Deposition (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) at 8:22-9:5. Fact No, 14: Residential Centers - This is a special education program to provide reimbursement to school districts for educational costs associated with students in approved residential tre.atment facilities. Prior to 1996- 97, the ABS asserts, the program was funded as an add-on weight through the minimum Foundation Aid program. The 1995-96 reimbursement of approximately 8 $6 million funded 710 beds in 8 approved residential treatment facilities. The Department has budgeted $6,512,000 for FY97 (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 15: The priority request of$856,662 in FY98 and $908,062 for FY99 is to provide additional funding for anticipated growth in student placement at approved residential treatment facilities and/or juvenile . detention facilities (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 16: For the 1996-97 school year, the special education specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education calculated that an appropriation in excess of $12,000,000 would be necessary to fund the costs for residential education. ADE's Response: Disputed. In May of 1996 the administrator for grants and data management for ADE's Special Education division calculated that approximately $12 million would be necessary for funding of students in residential treatment facilities under the fund distribution method that existed prior to the enactment of Act 917 of 1995. At the time the calculation was made, the individual who made the calculation was unaware that the method of distribution had been changed by Act 917. Sydoriak Deposition at 15:19-17:23. The new fund distribution method, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to 9 - the enactment of Act 917, is a pure funding "pass through" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The amounts distributed under the prior and new law are therefore, by definition, "adequate." Sydoriak Deposition at 39:11-40:12. Fact No, 17: For the 1995-96 school year, the State reimbursed school districts approximately $57 per child per day for treatment in residential treatment facilities. For this school year, those school districts, including the districts in Pulaski County, have been advised that this per diem reimbursement has been reduced to just over $44 per child per day for the same treatment. ADE's Response: Undisputed. It is also undisputed that no treatment facility, including the facilities located in Pulaski County, is charging any school district in excess of the state's current per diem reimbursement rate. ~ response to Fact No. 16. Fact No, 18: Pursuant to Act 1194, there was no line item appropriation for student growth funding for the previous fiscal year but the line item appropriation for this fiscal year is $29,000,000. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Under the school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1996, student growth funding was not a separate line item appropriation but rather was generated through a ''weight" as part of Minimum 10 -' . .1 Foundation Program Aid. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-302(1) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July l, 1996). Fact No, 19: Student Growth - This provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students over the .. previous year's ADM. Prior to 1996-97, student growth was part of the Minimum Foundation Aid calculation (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 20: In 1995-96 the state funded growth of approximately 7,400 additional students times the State Base Equalization [sic] (SBER) of $2,754 for a total of $20.3 million. For 1996-97 growth funding is calculated as the Base Local Revenue Per Student ("BLRPS") (currently $3,759) times .4 plus $1,500 for a total of $3,003 per student This rate is then multiplied by the increase in the district's ADM for the first quarter over the previous year's ADM. For FY97 the Department has budgeted $22.6 million for Student Growth (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 21: Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Student Growth funding for 1996-97 is provided from available funds in a line-item appropriation within the Public School Fund. See Sections 3(b )and 4(u) of Act 917 of 1995, Ark. Code Ann. 6- 11 - - 20-303(21), 6-2~307(a). All districts with inar.asing ADM, including PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD, will receive growth funding for the 1996-97 school year. See Declaration of Tristan Greene in Opposition to 1his Motion ("Greene Declaration"), 12 and Exh. A Fact No, 22: Subsection (b )( 4) foDd that there were 24,166 students in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the state's largest school district. ADE's Response: As written, this "f.acf' is unintelligible. Assuming the Districts are referring to Section 2(bX4) of Act 917 of 1995, it is undisputed. Fact No, 23: The state's largest school district is the Little Rock School District. ADE's Response: Assuming this .. fact' refers specifically to a comparison of school districts by the.ir Average Daily Membership, it is undisputed. If this "fact" refers to geographic area, it is disputed. FactNo.24: In fiscal year 1995 State funds for public schools totaled approximately $1.2 billion, of which $941 million was distributed through the Minimum Foundation Program Aid Formula ("MFPA") and approximately $300 million was distributed outside ofMFPA (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 6) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 25: School districts received money outside the Act 34 MFPA formula to help offset the costs of transportation. The Act 34 formula took 12 into account the size of a district, the number of students to be transported and the age and size of the buses used. Under the Act 34 formula the state used to disburse transportation funds, some districts received more money than they actually spent on transportation and some districts did not receive enough money to cover their actual costs of transportation. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 28) ADE's Response: The school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1995 contained no formula for distribution of transportation funds. Transportation funds were distributed based upon a formula contained in Rules and Regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education. With the foregoing qualification, Fact No. 25 is undisputed . Fact No, 26: Transportation aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula (ABS, p. 32). ADE's Response: It is unclear what is meant by the term "incorporated into." It is undisputed that Act 1194 contains no specific line-item appropriation for Transportation Aid for 1996-97. It is also undisputed that Act 917 includes "Transportation Aid" in the definition of "Student Needs Funding." See Section 4(v) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-303(22)). However, to the extent the Districts claim that there is some identifiable amount of"Transportation Aid" being distributed as state equalization funding, the fact is disputed. There are no 13 identifiable or earmarked "transportation aid" funds in state equalization funding. School districts may pay their transportation costs in whole or in part with funds received from the State as state equalization funding or in whole or in part with local revenue. See Section 3(a) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-309(a)). Fact No. 27: Page 14 of the ABS_contains a new request by the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") for $10,000,000 each fiscal year "to assist districts with high cost transportation." This is a "priority request" of the Arkansas Department of Education. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ADE has requested an appropriation of $10 million for fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to assist districts with high transportation costs. The Executive Recommendation, however, is for a total of $10 million dollars for each year to be used for assisting districts with high transportation costs and for funding safety training for school bus drivers and mechanics. So that the Court will not be misled, "priority request" is a tenn of art that simply means a request for an appropriation that is in excess of Base Level. All such requests are called "priority requests" in the ABS. Fact No, 28: For 1994-95, the State of Arkansas forecasted general revenue at $2,527,765,452, including Education Excellence Trust Funds. Of that amount 48.8%, or $1,233,546,155, was spent on the Public School Fund. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). 14 -' -' . 1 __ .. - .. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 29: The Public School Fund provides the primary state financial assistance to Arkansas public elementary and secondary schools. For FY97, the Public School Fund is projected to receive General Revenue funding of $1,261,159,912. The Educational Excellence Trust Fund forecast for the Public School Fund will provide an additional $142,454,921. For FY97, the Public School Fund will receive approximately 47% of the State's Revenue Stabiliz.ation allocations. With Educational Excellence included, the Public School Fund is scheduled to receive 49% of the State's General Revenues (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 30: Money is not the only factor which affects the quality of a student's education. Factors other than money which affect the quality of education include (1) the education level of the family, (2) the socioeconomic level of the community, (3) the curriculum, (4) the teachers, (5) the percentage of money going into the classroom as compared to other costs, such as administration and capital expenditures, and ( 6) the course-taken patterns of the students. The Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) did not take these factors into account in determining the amount of aid available per student. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 130) 15 ADE's Response: Undisputed. While the formula for calculating MFPA did not take these factors into account for purposes of calculating MFP A, other statutes, funding programs and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education took into account these factors. Fact No, 31: Neither Act 917 nor ,Act 1194 take into account the factors set forth in paragraph 31. ADE's Response: Disputed. Among other things, the new funding scheme includes teacher salary requirements that can affect the "percentage of money going into the classroom." Moreover, because the distribution of equalization funding takes into account the local wealth of the district, it roughly takes into account the "socioeconomic status of the community." Further, as was the case prior to July 1, 1995, there are other existing statutes and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education that take into account the listed factors. Fact No, 32: There have been no studies to show how much it costs per pupil to provide a "general, suitable and efficient" educational opportunity to Arkansas school children. The amount of money spent on a student's education in Arkansas is directly related to the amount of money available to be spent. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 132) ADE's Response: Undisputed. 16 Fact No, 33: Equality does not necessarily mean equal dollars spent per student because some students have greater needs and require more money to educate. Equality means equal access to programs. Differences in money should depend on the cost and the need. High cost students should receive more money. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 133). ADE's Response: To the extent the third and fourth sentences of this "fact" are understood to be reffering to the total amount of state, local and federal funds available to and expended by school districts, it is undisputed. Fact No, 34: As part of Act 917, the three districts in Pulaski county will be required to expend state and local revenue on special education students "in accordance with existing federal and state laws and department regulations" and based further upon criteria including a formula derived from a three year average percentage. The three districts in Pulaski County have three year average special education expenditures which are more than double those required by Act 917. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 35: Neither the expenditure requirements of Act 917 for special education nor the distribution of aid that could be utilized for special education factor in the actual education expenditures of these three school districts. ADE's Response: This "fact" is unintelligible and is therefore disputed. 17 Fact No. 36: Act 917, at Section 3, established four categories of State funding. The first is State Equalization Funding for students. The last category, Category 4, is Student Needs Funding. Section 3 prohibits funding Category 4 until Categories 1, 2 and 3 are fully funded. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ... . Fact No. 37: During its last session, the Arkansas Legislature appropriated $250,000,000 for students (sic) needs funding. However, Section 29 of Act 1194 authorized the Director of the Department of Education to transfer funds from one category to another. The Director has transferred all $250,000,000 from Category 4 to Category 1. There will be no distribution of student needs funding during 1996-97. ADE's Response: Section 29 of Act 1194 authorizes the Director of ADE to request appropriation transfers and other budget-related adjustments with the approval of the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State and after review by the Arkansas Legislative Council. With that qualification, Fact No. 37 is undisputed. The transfer of $250,000 from Category 4 to Category 1 was done because Category 1 was not fully funded and, pursuant to Section 3(a) of Act 917, the $250,000 appropriated for Student Needs Funding could not have been distributed to school districts at all unless it was moved to Category 1. 18 Fact No. 38: Act 917, at Section 4( v) defines Student Needs Funding to include "[T]he amount of state financial aid provided to each Local School District from available Special Education funding." ADE's Response: Undisputed. However, section 3(i) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-309(a)) expressly permits school districts to expend Category 1 funds for "student needs funding." Fact No, 39: There are three ways to identify at-risk children within a district: (I) low test scores, (2) the number of children receiving free or reduced lunches within a district, and (3) the number of households below the poverty level within a district. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 137) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 40: At page 13, the ABS contains the following commentary by the Arkansas Department of Education: "State Equalization Aid the priority request of$79,255,218 in FY98 and $157,750,338 in FY99 provides for a 6% increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5,203,218 budgeted from FY97 fund balances for potential desegregation cost." ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 41: At-Risk Grants and Training - Act 917 of 1995 (The Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and 19 - combined approximately $30 million into the State Equalization Funding fonnula. The Department is requesting that this be established as a line item once more at $17,100,000 each year (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or earmarked "At-Risk Grants and Training" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No. 42: Acts 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk funding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid (ABS p. 11) ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or eannarked "At-Risk Grants and Training" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No, 43: Act 1194, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 44: Page 44 of the ABS reflects actual expenditures for at-risk grants and training in 1995-96 of $29,784,239. ADE's Response: Undisputed. 20 . - Fact No, 45: Act 917 defines at-risk funding as "Financial aid provided to Local School Districts based upon the number of students with low test scores, the number of children receiving free or reduced price lunches, the number of households below the poverty level, or the number of children with limited English proficiency." ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 46: Act 1194 appropriated $34,000,000 for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96. There was no appropriation for this category for 1996- 97. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Section 1, Item (28) of Act 1194 of 1995. Fact No, 47: Grants to School Districts - These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who can't get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district, and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of$27,000 for the 1997-99 biennium (ABS p. 34). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 48: In Act 1194, $27,000 was appropriated for "grants to school districts" for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. 21 . . # ' . - -- ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 49: Mr. Charles Dyer is Superintendent of the Alma School District. Mr. Dyer was Superintendent of the Alma School District when Alma v, Dupree was tried. It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that moneys previously distributed as MFP A, transportation funds, teacb"er retirement payments, and health insurance payments, all as previously made under Act 34, were put into one large pool to be distributed pursuant to Act 917. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his "understanding." Mr. Dyer's "understanding," however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. Fact No. 50: It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that together with additional money of approximately $60,000,000, that all of this added up to the appropriation of $1,300,000,000. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his ''understanding." Mr. Dyer's ''understanding," however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. 22 Fact No, 51: It is the sworn testimony of Dr. Bobbie Davis that the total dollars that previously went to public schools under Act 34 were all consolidated into equalization funding under Act 917. (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7). ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony related specifically to transportation aid, and Dr. Davis also testified iliat there are no specifically earmarked or identifiable funds for transportation being distributed as equalization funding. Davis Deposition, pp. 6-7. Fact No, 52: 1996 is accurate. Exhibit "F" to the Districts' reply dated December 23, ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,~ 2 and 7 and Exh.A. Fact No, 53: Even though the Newark School District will not receive state equalization funding, it will nevertheless receive State aid in the form of additional base funding so that its expenditures per student will be at the minimum level required by the State. ADE's Response: Disputed. The Newark school district will receive additional base funding for 1996-97 because, due to a "quirk" in Act 917, Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 is less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-308). As a result of the 23 enactment of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, Newark will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 54: In terms oflocal wealth, Newark is either the richest or second richest school district in the state. ADE's Response: lfthe Districts are defining "local wealth" as base local revenue per student calculated at a millage rate of 25 mills, Fact No. 54 is undisputed. Fact No. 55: Newark votes a millage of23.6 mills. This millage rate does not result in an amount of money per student sufficient to satisfy present state expenditure per student requirements. ADE's Response: Disputed. Newark's millage for purposes of 1996-97 state funding was 19.28 mills, and as a result Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 was less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-308). As a result of the ratification of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, however, Newark's maintenance and operation millage has been increased to 25 mills and it will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 56: The three Districts in Pulaski County all vote millages approximately 20 mills higher than the Newark School District. 24 ADE's Response; Disputed, particularly after the effect of millage rollbacks and Amendment 74 are taken into account. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 57: The three Districts in Pulaski County vote millages that are among the highest in the State. Only four other districts exceed the millage rate voted in LRSD-and PCSSD. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 58: The Umpire School District has one of the smallest student bodies in t