Report from the Lake View Case Conference
I attended the case conference today at the Justice Building. The special masters listened to attorneys from the Attorney General's office and from the Plaintiff school districts on all the remaining issues in the Lake View case, focusing on the legislation enacted by the 86th General Assembly in furtherance of these issues. Matt McCoy spoke on behalf of the AG's office (McDaniel was also in attendance), and David Matthews (Rogers SD), Sam Jones (PCSSD), Chris Heller (LRSD), and Brad Beavers (Barton-Lexa/Forrest City group) were also in attendance and summarized their positions. Matthews and Jones complimented the work by the legislature and stated that they believe that all issues have been resolved. Heller raised two issues Jones a third one -- their points of contention are as follows:
Academic Facilities Wealth Index: Heller raised a hypothetical about the funding mechanism using two school districts: a wealthy one from the northwest part of the state and a distressed one in the Delta. He said that the fact that these two schools would be treated the same as far as state contributions is unfair, and that's a core concern of his client. McCoy responded that these concerns weren't raised in the most recent pleadings or in the most recent conferences dating back to November. Master David Newbern asked McCoy whether the legislature appropriated enough money sufficient for the needs of the districts as far as facilities, and McCoy responded with an emphatic "yes."
Here is the response of the 86th General Assembly to this issue (Act 727 of 2007) -- see new language beginning on p. 2, line 11.
Categorical funding (specifically NSLA funding): Heller also raised concerns about a lack of a clear determination of what is adequate for districts seeking NSLA funds. He maintained that the sole reason for this funding category was to equitably bring poor districts up to higher levels through this additional funding. He also raised the point that the Piccus study focuses on this very point, and that it suggested funding at a level higher than what the most recent legislature appropriated. Finally, he responded to an argument that he was attempting to take both sides of the position on accountability that he's not complaining about accountability in academics but that he is merely looking for the logic used in determining NSLA rates for districts. McCoy responded that Little Rock, like other districts, has maintained a positive NSLA balance. Master David Newbern asked Heller whether the lack of clarity issue should be taken up at the district level rather than the state level if the amount of funds appropriated were sufficient to meet the needs (alluding to the fact that there are $46 million in unspent categorical balances).
Disparity in teacher salaries: The third and final issue of contention was raised by Brad Beavers and focuses on the disparity of teacher salaries. Beavers admitted that it's a problem that can't be fixed. After a short discussion of Amendment 74, David Matthews stated that if the "least salary in the state is adequate, then the constitutional standard has been met, and judging on regional adequacy standards, it has been met."
After a brief recess, McCoy summarized by stating that the Supreme Court's opinion in 2005 held that Act 57 [of the 2nd special session of 2003] is the linchpin, and that the Supreme Court wouldn't dictate specific funding levels -- that's up to the General Assembly. McCoy stated that the legislature met all adequacy concerns as defined by the Act 57 study. Master Newbern ended the hearing with a statement that he's leaving the Supreme Court building in this case for the final time -- for the 5th time. The masters will now draft a report to the Supreme Court, and all Plaintiffs asked to review the report before submission.
Academic Facilities Wealth Index: Heller raised a hypothetical about the funding mechanism using two school districts: a wealthy one from the northwest part of the state and a distressed one in the Delta. He said that the fact that these two schools would be treated the same as far as state contributions is unfair, and that's a core concern of his client. McCoy responded that these concerns weren't raised in the most recent pleadings or in the most recent conferences dating back to November. Master David Newbern asked McCoy whether the legislature appropriated enough money sufficient for the needs of the districts as far as facilities, and McCoy responded with an emphatic "yes."
Here is the response of the 86th General Assembly to this issue (Act 727 of 2007) -- see new language beginning on p. 2, line 11.
Categorical funding (specifically NSLA funding): Heller also raised concerns about a lack of a clear determination of what is adequate for districts seeking NSLA funds. He maintained that the sole reason for this funding category was to equitably bring poor districts up to higher levels through this additional funding. He also raised the point that the Piccus study focuses on this very point, and that it suggested funding at a level higher than what the most recent legislature appropriated. Finally, he responded to an argument that he was attempting to take both sides of the position on accountability that he's not complaining about accountability in academics but that he is merely looking for the logic used in determining NSLA rates for districts. McCoy responded that Little Rock, like other districts, has maintained a positive NSLA balance. Master David Newbern asked Heller whether the lack of clarity issue should be taken up at the district level rather than the state level if the amount of funds appropriated were sufficient to meet the needs (alluding to the fact that there are $46 million in unspent categorical balances).
Disparity in teacher salaries: The third and final issue of contention was raised by Brad Beavers and focuses on the disparity of teacher salaries. Beavers admitted that it's a problem that can't be fixed. After a short discussion of Amendment 74, David Matthews stated that if the "least salary in the state is adequate, then the constitutional standard has been met, and judging on regional adequacy standards, it has been met."
After a brief recess, McCoy summarized by stating that the Supreme Court's opinion in 2005 held that Act 57 [of the 2nd special session of 2003] is the linchpin, and that the Supreme Court wouldn't dictate specific funding levels -- that's up to the General Assembly. McCoy stated that the legislature met all adequacy concerns as defined by the Act 57 study. Master Newbern ended the hearing with a statement that he's leaving the Supreme Court building in this case for the final time -- for the 5th time. The masters will now draft a report to the Supreme Court, and all Plaintiffs asked to review the report before submission.
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 4/17/2007 02:55:00 PM | Permalink |
<< Home