Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state

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 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; .; :, C-p,/'\-f ~ : CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; Office of Oesa~regat:on M01111or,n9 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE - - - -- ~- ---- - ... ,,--~~,._,_J " SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER OF INTERVENOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS I. TO THE SECOND MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE INTRODUCTION As will be more fully explained below, the PCSSD will demonstrate how many features of the new funding system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application when applied to it and therefore violative of the Settlement Agreement. In their response to the PCSSD motion, the Intervenors ask that the U.S. District Court specifically find: "[T)hat the features of the new funding formula of which the PCSSD is critical are fair and rational, of general applicability, and equitably afford equal oportunities to the students of the respective districts to which the state aid is or will be distributed; ... (Answer, at page 6). The PCSSD interprets the Intervenors request to include a court finding that the new funding scheme comports with the Settlement Agreement as well as with the equity requirements of the Lake View decision. For reasons which the PCSSD will review in some detail, the new funding scheme violates both of these provisions. In his definitive work, "Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion" (hereafter "Analysis"), Dr. Benny L. Gooden1 has effectively highlighted and explained the shortcomings of the new system of funding public education in 1Dr. Gooden is Superintendent of schools of the Fort Smith School District. His analysis was published in June, 1996 or some several weeks before the filing of the motion to intervene, and is attached as Exhibit A. The Fort Smith School District numbers among the 52 school districts seeking intervention. 2 Arkansas. Dr. Gooden's analysis centers around the State constitutional concepts of adequacy, equity and efficiency, concepts, as the Court will see, that are closely related to and intertwined with the settlement agreement tests of fair, rational, and of general application2 At page 29 of his Analysis, Dr. Gooden explains: In order to determine the actual increase in state aid for public schools, it is necessary to combine all the categories of funding distributed during 1995-96 and to compare this number with the appropriated and distributed amounts for 1996-97. The 1995-96 categories will include not only those funds distributed directly to local school districts but those transferred directly to other agencies on behalf of school districts for functions which will become a local responsibility during 1996-97 .... It is therefore conceivable that the actual difference in distributed state aid will be consumed within added categories as opposed to providing an increase in the state portion of the Base Local Revenue per student which is of benefit to all districts. Thus, in the PCSSD, the increases in formula funding projected by the State, when considered in conjunction with the unfunded mandates the State has imposed upon the PCSSD, cause the PCSSD to come out worse under the new funding scheme than the old when the entire picture is examined. In his summary, Dr. Gooden concludes as regards the new funding scheme that: It is conceivable that when this methodology is followed and new categories are analyzed for items such as debt service buy-out, facilities, student growth, etc., little or no real increase in revenue from state sources will be realized. 2The PCSSD still relies upon the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which obligate the State to continue the funding of certain programs. Certain of Dr. Gooden's factual conclusions are supportive of this proposition as well. 3 In view of the total analysis of school finance and in consideration of the issues of equity, adequacy, and efficiency, it appears that none of these essential components will be achieved through Act 917: Adequacy appears unlikely in consideration of the declining commitment of state funds to support education with the subsequent loss of comparative school funds relative to neighboring states; Equity appears unlikely in view of the failure of Act 917 to consider student needs and school district demographics; Efficiency may be possible through a streamlined process which mathematically distributes funds by reducing categories and standardizing a means of calculating, but any system which requires "Additional Base Revenue" supplements to more than 200 districts to reach an arbitrary level can hardly be called "efficient". Gooden, at pages 35 and 36. These and other of Dr. Gooden's conclusions will be more fully explored below. Dr. Gooden has advised each school district to make its own analysis to determine just how it is affected under the new regime. The PCSSD has taken the following Gooden advice to heart: Comparisons of actual changes in state aid between 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be somewhat complicated and will require careful analysis on the part of each individual school district. It is clear that when a listing of state aid for each district is published for 1996-97 and a comparison is made to total state aid distributed to local districts during 1995-96, a large increase will be evident. However in order to determine the real difference, it is necessary to compute the payments which become the responsibility of local districts during 1996-97 in areas which were paid directly during 1995-96. Failure to fully describe all funds distributed for use by local schools in combination with school related payments made directly by the state will distort the 4 true picture. It is important for each local district to analyze required payments as outlined in Act 917 and to make a complete summary of categorical revenues received during 1995-96 in order to determine changes in revenue resulting from the implementation of the act. Gooden, at page 35. Act 917 contains provisions which dramatically change the foundation formula concepts which govern state aid and the treatment of revenue and expenditure responsibilities for each school district and for the state as a whole. Each of these conceptual changes has an overall and specific effect on Arkansas school districts, their programs, and their students. (Emphasis supplied.) Gooden, at page 9. II. TEACHER RETIREMENT At the time of the settlement, the State paid 100% of PCSSD's teacher retirement costs. That money was not, and has - never been, part of any kind of formula, never flowed through any formula, and therefore could never have been subject to any changes or revisions in any formula. On the other hand, if in fact the State calculated a sum of money to include in the new formula by utilizing students as compared to actual individual district costs3 , the PCSSD will demonstrate that this change is neither fair, rational nor equitable. Teacher retirement costs are calculated as a percentage function of district salaries. In districts such as the PCSSD which has high employee costs, basing teacher retirement funds on a per student basis cheats the PCSSD. Under this method, the 3Dr. Gooden confirms that the state in fact utilized this approach. See Exhibit A, page 15 (box). 5 PCSSD will receive approximately only 85% of its actual teacher retirement costs for 1995-96 and, in contrast, the Bryant School District, one of the intervenors, will receive approximately 122% reimbursement or a bonus of 22% more than its actual teacher retirement costs. It is important to note that the teacher retirement program has not been eliminated. The only thing that has been eliminated is the State's direct payment of the school districts' costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has already made the finding that the Pulaski County districts are "employee heavy" and "employee expensive". The comparisons the Intervenors seek to make are thus both irrelevant and, at least in the case of the PCSSD, wrong. The use of certified staff comparisons necessarily fails to take into account that some of the expensive desegregation programs utilized by the PCSSD employ non-certified staff such as the home school counselors. Dr. Gooden has addressed this phenomenon of the change in teacher retirement as well as others. As he states: Some of the major changes in the manner of funding Arkansas schools will require considerable adjustment and will similarly exert a major impact on certain school districts. However, the effects will not be uniform throughout the state as the staffing patterns, demographic makeup of student population, and other factors are considered. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 15. The PCSSD submits that if the effects are not "uniform" they cannot be regarded as "general" either. 6 In a provision which also substantially affects the PCSSD, Dr. Gooden has identified yet another problem: A significant and unanticipated problem associated with teacher retirement lies in retirement contribution for food service employees, adult education staff, and others who function in programs with a limited revenue source. No appropriation increase was provided for adult education in order to fund the required retirement match which was previously paid by the state nor was a line item appropriation provided for separate contributions. School food service employees participating in the retirement system will result in a 12 percent increased labor expense which should appropriately be borne by consumers of school lunches. In view of the fact that a significant number of school lunches are served free or reduced with no means of increasing income, (federal reimbursement is set at a fixed rate per lunch) it appears unlikely that the increased cost could reasonably be recovered through increased charges for paid lunches. Gooden, at page 15. Further, the conclusion he reaches as regards the Fort Smith School District applies to the PCSSD as well: The projected cost for making payments for the retirement matching on Fort Smith Public School employees during 1996-97 is projected to be $4,736,000. It is reasonable to assume that the pro-rated share of the total amount currently being appropriated statewide for retirement matching divided by ADM will result in proportionally less for Fort Smith than for many other districts. This is due in large measure to the higher salary levels enjoyed by our staff in comparison to their counterparts around Arkansas. Gooden, at page 15. III. SPECIAL EDUCATION The elimination of the weighting system for special education students unfairly penalizes the PCSSD for several reasons. It has proportionately more special education students than the state average and, therefore, appropriately received 7 - proportionately more state aid for their education under the old formula. In addition, the special education program of the PCSSD is superior, and more expensive, than the special education programs in most other districts. The PCSSD provides a more intensive level of physical therapy, a more intensive level of occupational therapy, a more intensive level of speech therapy than the average district and, pays these specialists more than does the average district. Thus, the elimination of the weights does not affect the Pesso "to the same degree" as other districts. Dr. Gooden apparently concurs with the position of the PCSSD on this issue. As he explains: Funding for special education has been distributed based upon the sum of pupil weights generated by the various categories of student placement. Students requiring services of high intensity have provided greater weights and subsequently more funding than those whose disabilities require a less intense service level. Beginning in 1996-97, funding to support special education is included in the base equalization amounts distributed on the basis of ADM without regard to the special education population or the level of services required in any individual school district. The great diversity between the composition of a disabled population among various school districts makes this category a great contributor to inequities resulting from provisions of Act 917. Districts with high concentrations of seriously disabled students will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to districts whose student population does not include such severe disabilities. Gooden, at pages 18 and 19. IV. NEED BASED AID VERSUS HEAD COUNTS Basing State aid almost exclusively on a head count of students ignores reality. Such a system benefits districts that 8 pay low salaries because they will receive more money for teacher retirement than they actually pay. Such a system benefits districts which manage to avoid providing health insurance to large numbers of their employees as they will be paid more than their health insurance costs. Such a program benefits districts which are not desegregating or which otherwise do not transport large numbers of children because they will be paid more than their actual transportation costs. The new system also benefits districts which make little local effort to pass maintenance and operations millages because under the new system the State will come in and "make up the difference" to squeeze them within the equity guidelines. The new funding system ignores the high costs of special - education, ignores the high cost of desegregation, ignores the wide disparity among districts in salary requirements and, because of these reasons and others, cannot be regarded as fair and rational even if it is general. As Dr. Gooden explains: The first item requiring a paradigm shift for Arkansas educators lies in the dramatic departure of the school aid formula encompassed by Act 917 from an earlier format. Specifically, the prior formula distributed school aid to school districts in a large number of categories including general Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) based upon the weighted number of students; special education aid determined by the cumulative pupil weights reflecting the intensity of service requirement; transportation aid based upon a formula reflecting routes, students, and density; vocational aid reflecting the sum of pupil weights determined by the assumed relative cost of providing vocational programs; gifted and talented aid determined by the number of students served up to an established limit; and specific categorical aid for alternative programs, 9 summer school, limited English proficient students, and compensatory education. The school aid formula reflected by Act 917 in effect combines all the current aid provisions detailed above into one item of aid-per-student which is calculated based upon the simplest factor: Average Daily Membership (ADM). The concept of varying needs based upon the composition of the student population, the program of instruction provided, the geographic terrain, or other factors is not considered under the new formula. School districts with high wealth and/or high-cost students with regard to special education, limited English proficiency, costly vocational offerings, or extensive transportation systems may be expected to be adversely affected using this methodology. Gooden, at pages 9 and 10. Specifically, attempts to meet the Court-adopted standard of the Federal Range Ratio have led to an exacerbation of prior formula provisions contained in the "second tier" equalization funding. By including an additional funding category of "Additional Base Funding" supported by a line-item appropriation, the departure from an orderly formula distribution based upon wealth, student needs, and district characteristics has been lost. An additional problem associated with the implementation of this formula characteristic lies in the provision of a disincentive for local districts to increase millage rates when revenue increased through local taxation would be deducted from Additional Base Funding provided to more than 200 Arkansas districts. This unanticipated consequence is a serious defect which can only depress support for Arkansas schools by making it unlikely that many communities will tax themselves in order to supplant state revenue. one subtle yet significant effect of using simple ADM as opposed to Weighted Average Daily Membership (WADM) in order to adequately reflect the student need/service composition of each school district is that this procedure creates an illusion of greater wealth in those districts with extensive special education services and vocational programs. The effect of this phenomenon is not dramatically evident in school districts with only limited special education and vocational services. However, for demographically 10 complex districts with extensive offerings and student needs, there is a significant shift in apparent local wealth. Gooden, at page 10. V. LOSS FUNDING AND DECLINING ENROLLMENT The state's decision to eliminate loss funding from the new funding system came about after the State was ordered by the District Court to recalculate the method by which it paid loss funding to LRSD and PCSSD and to reimburse them for the shortages. As Dr. Gooden has observed: The most adverse effect of this methodology will be experienced by districts losing student population. Whereas the earlier method averaged daily membership for a three-year period to allow a gradual adjustment in funding if enrollment declined, Act 917 provides for no gradual reduction in aid. The effective result will be a loss of an amount equal to the Base Local Revenue Per student immediately when student enrollment declines. School districts in portions of the state losing enrollment may not survive this dramatic loss. Gooden, at page 10. Dr. Gooden concludes at page 37 that the elimination of averaging annual ADM in district's losing enrollment prevents gradual funding reduction and that a solution may be to provide ADM averaging for districts losing enrollment, a matter that should be given priority consideration. Gooden, at page 38. In sharp contrast to the elimination of loss funding is the fact that a form of student growth funding is retained by Act 917. As Dr. Gooden explains: The current formula provides for an adjustment during the current school year when enrollment has increased. Act 917 continues this concept by providing for an adjustment in aid from a categorical set-aside when the student popultion increases above that of the prior 11 year. The amount of of funding equals approximately $3,000 per student. This factor will be beneficial to rapidly growing school districts. Gooden, at page 21. Upon information and belief, the only school districts in Arkansas that are experiencing rapidly growing enrollment are either overwhelmingly white or are all white. On the other hand, and upon further information and belief, a statistically significant number of the districts that are experiencing enrollment decline are majority black or have substantial black populations including the PCSSD. Thus, in combination, the elimination of loss funding coupled with the continuation of growth funding has a racially discriminatory effect and cannot be said to be either fair or rational or of "general" application when the disparate impacts are demonstrated. For instance, as previously pointed out, the Bryant School District will receive a bonus of funds in excess of its actual teacher retirement costs. The Intervenors' contend that the PCSSD enrollment decline should result in less state aid because: "This condition is no different in Pulaski County than throughout Arkansas." This ignores the fact that the PCSSD loses students to the Bryant School District. By paying the Bryant School District a bonus while at the same time penalizing the PCSSD, the new funding scheme simply better positions the Bryant School District to continue to attract and host families which move from the PCSSD or which elect to locate initially in the Bryant School District even when they work in Pulaski County. 12 VI. THE NEW FORMULA OVERALL In his introduction, Dr. Gooden posits the following: Should an orderly formula distribution not address the varying needs of Arkansas' school districts; should the means of distributing revenues not be simple and clearly understood by educators and the public; and should the level of combined local and state funds be less than is required to meet the educational needs of Arkansas students, the formula must be found inadequate and less than acceptable. Gooden, at page 7. Dr. Gooden has also found that: Although Act 917 includes references to "Student Classroom Teacher Funding, Student Unit Funding, and student Needs Funding," the subtle wording effectively precludes the allocation of any state aid for these categories in the foreseeable future. The threshold of equity funding (Student Equalization Funding) which must be achieved is so high as to make it doubtful that any of these categories will be funded in our lifetimes. They were obviously added to the formula to confuse and/or calm those who were attempting to understand its provisions. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 11. Another feature of the new funding scheme which negatively impacts the PCSSD is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: While Act 917 provides assistance in the payment of bonded indebtedness to districts by utilizing a wealth index and provides for a line item appropriation for this purpose, the act also allows millage rates dedicated to the retirement of debt to be calculated in such a way as to reduce the minimum required level of local support below the stated 25 mill minimum. This formula provision excludes from consideration that portion of the school millage required to make annual payments on bonded debt after applying state debt service supplement payments. This characteristic creates an illusion of less wealth for those districts who have chosen to incur significant bonded debt and have dedicated major portions of local millage for these purposes. 13 This status is in sharp contrast to those districts whose voters chose to dedicate a portion of total millage for capital outlay purposes. Act 917 attempts to categorize capital outlay millage along with maintenance and operation millage and attempts to treat revenues produced as equals. This is a clear misrepresentation of facility funding plans adopted by local voters consistent with applicable statutes authorizing capital outlay taxes. Capital outlay millages approved prior to 1995 are restricted by statute for certain purposes and are not the equivalent of maintenance and operation revenues. Gooden, at page 12. Increases in the charged local millage under the old system were to the benefit, not the detriment, of the PCSSD. VII. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION/SUMMER SCHOOL The PCSSD is also adversely impacted in these areas as explairied by Dr. Gooden: Funding for compensatory education/summer school programs for 1996/97 and thereafter is included in the state equalization funding, distributed on the basis of ADM to all school districts. This is a departure from the previous method of distributing funds which considered the at-risk student needs reflected by the Title I formula as well as student achievement in basic skills. Gooden, at page 16. The Settlement Agreement provides that the ADE shall monitor the districts' implementation of compensatory education programs. The Settlement Agreement further provides at page 13 that: If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the Court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). The State has not sought the permission of the District Court to reduce the level of compensatory education funding previously paid to the PCSSD, which reduction is prohibited by 14 the Agreement in any event. Rather, as part of the changes it has enacted, it has simply included these funds as part of the ADM driven formula and will disburse certain funds to the PCSSD without regard to its needs. This will result in a reduction in the amount of money the PCSSD receives for compensatory education for which the State has neither sought nor obtained Court approval. VIII. VOCATIONAL AID Vocational education is a component of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The impact of the new system is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: Funding to support vocational programs in 1996-97 must be derived from state and local funds realized by school districts as Base Equalization Revenues. Unlike student-enrollment-based funding in the past, districts will receive the same amount of funding regardless of the number of vocational courses offered or the number of students enrolled in them. The previous system of providing state foundation funds relative to the weighted-pupil factors determined by the various vocational courses was repealed by Act 917. Gooden, at page 17. IX. MINIMUM SALARY LAW The new minimum salary requirements substantially interfere with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and the state provides no funds to fulfill this unfunded mandate. Dr. Gooden has observed that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities. Gooden, at page 25. 15 It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Gooden, at page 26. x. CONCLUSION Dr. Gooden has concluded that: The true measure of effectiveness in this funding formula revision will lie in analyzing the degree to which the tests of adequacy, equity, and efficiency are met. If all of these characteristics are not satisfied, the formula revisions contained in Act 917 are little more than an exercise in futility. Gooden, at page 7. The dramatic conceptual changes in the method of financing public education in Arkansas were enacted in haste and apparently without careful consideration of the three imperatives of educational finance: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency Act 917 of 1995 represents an exercise in cost-shifting and moves from a funding scheme based on needs to one which attempts to consider certain aspects of wealth without a balancing need--driven resource component. Gooden, at page 37. The cost shifting components of the new system violate the Settlement Agreement because these are programs for which the State provided funding in the past and for which the Intervenors acknowledge the State will provide no funding in the future. The State is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to provide funding to the PCSSD for these programs. The underlying basis of State aid, which simply distributes pro-rata based on numbers of 16 students, is not fair and rational, especially when applied to the PCSSD, because it ignores the substantially higher costs of the PCSSD in areas such as teacher retirement costs, special education, vocational education, and desegregation related expenditures. The defects identified in the new system as identified by Dr. Gooden are the reasons why the formula as a whole cannot satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that the new State funding formula violates those provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require the State to continue funding the PCSSD for the programs described herein, that the changes wrought by the new system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application, that, at a minimum, the PCSSD programs should be funded at the percentage levels of the highest funded programs in other school districts in the state under the new system, for its costs and attorneys' fees and all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ .....,..'---',,---F""'-'""--------- M. I (76060) At laski County S ecial Sc oo District 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 18 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 AR NSAS School Fun~ing _Plan __ ;;:~ .. ~ ... ":1..: 2.1 . :. ... l l I I EXHIBIT 4 Arkansas School Funding Plan An Analysis and Opinion by Benny L Gooden, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools June 1996 1 tForl ~mith Public Schools "Iii\-_~,~, ~~~~~~F~ort~S~mith~,A~rka~nsas~ _ V V .J Foreword Dramatic chl111ges in Arkansas school finance resulting from the passage of Act 917 of 1995 have gencr:ued considerable discussion regarding the overall concept of the acL its impact upon school districts of all sizes, and its potential to solve or cx.accrbatc the financial challenges facing Arkansas educators. In an anempt to analyu: the plethora of components contained in the act and in the incerest of identifying potential problems and possible solutions, I have prepared this opinion paper regarding Act 917 and its impact upon Arkansas sdlools. While the :ictual effecu arc different for each of Arkansas' schools distticts, I have utilized data for the Fon Smith Public Schools to illusauc the immedia1e impact of Act 917 provisions. ll is imponant to note uw the impact upon an urban school district With a significant industrial w: base will be dramatically differcru than the impact upon rural school disuicL~ with an a~cullur~l or eitc::iusively residential taX base. I..ikcwise. the student demographics and district financial mucturc will affect tllc ultim:ite outcome. ~b school district must thoroughly analyze its own !iituation utilizing and interpreting the financial data provided by the Ark.in.sas Department of Education as well as other local daia. This position paper is intended only for infonnation purposes and will hopefully provoke discussion lo encourage improvements to the financing of schools in Arkansas for the benefit of :ill students. Benny L. Gooden I. II. Conceptual Chaages ,-------------------9 Need-Based vs. Equal Aid Equity Comp~ ADMvs.