Special Masters Report on Compliance in Arkansas, Offer Favorable Views on Early Childhood Education and Consolidation

On April 2, 2004, the special masters appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court submitted their report on the state's compliance with the court's November 2002 Order, in Lake View School District v. Huckabee, which required the state to change its unconstitutional school funding system.

The special masters commended the state for making significant progress and noted areas of non-compliance. They also offered their opinions that (1) early childhood education is essential; and (2) consolidation–by far the most contentious change proposed–is desirable, at least for small high schools.

Scope of Review

The supreme court posed ten questions for the special masters to answer in the process of evaluating the steps taken by the state to implement the court's November 2002 Order and comply with the constitutional mandate. The court's questions covered an Adequacy [costing-out] Study and concerns that the court had expressed regarding equal and adequate opportunity represented in: curriculum, buildings and equipment, teacher salaries, accountability, and state funding and funding priorities.

Special Masters Support Preschool and Consolidation

Despite the supreme court's conclusion in its November 2002 opinion that judicial power does not extend to preschool, the special masters asked whether the state can offer a "substantially equal educational opportunity"–a goal the court found necessary in the same 2002 opinion–absent an early childhood program for disadvantaged children. Their review of the evidence recounted research showing enormous benefits from quality preschool, the state's preparedness to build a system providing quality preschool over the next four years, and the difficulty of remediation later in students' careers if they do not attend preschool.

Regarding the highly volatile consolidation issue in Arkansas, neither the 2002 court order nor the order appointing the special masters mentioned it. Nonetheless, the special masters found consolidation relevant to consideration of per-pupil funding and the ability to provide "substantially equal curriculum" across the state. The masters stated that consolidation is desirable, at least for high schools, because it would "make greater variety of curricular offerings economically feasible." The state's witness recommended high school sizes from 300 to 1,000 students.

No Guarantee, "Not for the Short-winded"

The special masters' last concern, expressed in the report's conclusion, was the need to sustain the reforms that have been enacted and that appear to be in the pipeline. "There is no guarantee that the plan . . . will be followed beyond the 2004-2005 appropriations," wrote the masters. They described the task of bringing education to the constitutional level as difficult and "not for the short-winded."

Special Masters Appointed

On February 3, 2004, the Arkansas Supreme Court appointed two former justices of the court as special masters in the Lake View case. This decision followed the court's November 2002 Lake View ruling, in which it declared the funding system unconstitutionally inadequate and inequitable and gave the governor and legislature until January 1, 2004 to develop a remedy.

On January 2, plaintiffs filed a petition asking the court to force the state to comply with its earlier order, and, after oral arguments, the supreme court decided to appoint the special masters.

Other States

Other state courts have also used special masters in school funding cases in Idaho, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Special masters have played a wide variety of roles in those proceedings. Moreover, a judge who will soon begin assessing compliance in the CFE v. State of New York case has already said that he will use a special master in that process.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, April 7, 2004