Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee

Decision Date03 February 2004
Docket NumberNo. 01-836.,01-836.
Citation356 Ark. 1,144 S.W.3d 741
PartiesLAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, Arkansas, et al. v. Governor Mike HUCKABEE, et al.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Lewellen & Associates, by: Roy C. Lewellen, for appellant class.

Wilson Law Firm, P.A., by: E. Dion Wilson, for appellant school district.

Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Timothy Gauger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellees.

Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A., by: David R. Matthews, for intervenors Rogers and Bentonville Public School Districts.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Christopher Heller, for intervenor Little Rock School District.

Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, by: Clayton R. Blackstock and Mark Burnette, for amicus curiae Arkansas Education Association.

Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A., by: Regina Haralson, for amicus curiae Arkansas Public Policy Panel.

PER CURIAM.

On January 22, 2004, this court issued a per curiam order in which we recalled our mandate issued on January 1, 2004, and reestablished jurisdiction over this case. In that same per curiam order, we announced that we would appoint a Master to advise this court regarding compliance with our November 21, 2002 opinion, Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002).

We hereby appoint Bradley D. Jesson, former Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, and David Newbern, a former Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, to serve as Masters to this court in this case. The task of the Masters will be to examine and evaluate legislative and executive action taken since November 21, 2002, to comply with this court's order and the constitutional mandate that the State "maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and ... adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education." Ark. Const. art. 14, § 1. The Masters will then report their findings to this court. We direct that the Masters examine and evaluate the actions taken by the legislative and executive branches both before January 1, 2004, and after January 1, 2004, in reporting their findings to this court.

The report of the Masters shall focus on what steps the legislative and executive branches have taken to bring the educational system of this state into constitutional compliance since this court's opinion of November 21, 2002. The Masters shall examine and evaluate the following items and present their findings to this court:

(1) The Adequacy Study prepared for the General Assembly and the steps taken by that body to implement the study;

(2) The steps taken by the State to put in place a system to assess, evaluate, and monitor public school curricula offered in all primary and secondary schools in the state;

(3) The steps implemented by the State to assure that a substantially equal curriculum is made available to all school children in this state;

(4) The steps taken by the State to assess and evaluate public school buildings and educational equipment across the state;

(5) The steps taken by the State to implement measures to assure that substantially equal school buildings and school equipment are available to all school children in this state;

(6) The measures in place to assure that teacher salaries are sufficient to prevent the migration of teachers from poorer school districts to wealthier school districts or to neighboring states;

(7) The accountability and accounting measures in place for the State to determine per-pupil expenditures and how money is actually being spent in local school districts;

(8) The accountability and testing measures in place to evaluate the performance and rankings of Arkansas students by grade, including rankings in-state, regionally, and nationally;

(9) The measures taken by the General Assembly to enact a school funding formula and to fund it so that the school children of this state are afforded (a) an adequate education, and (b) a substantially equal educational opportunity so as to close the gap between wealthy school districts and poor school districts; and

(10) The measures taken by the General Assembly to assure that funding education is the priority matter in the budgetary process.

The Masters, in addition, are authorized to examine and evaluate any other issue they deem relevant to compliance with this court's November 21, 2002 opinion and to report to this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 9, 2005
    ...of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Masters shall have the same powers and authority as set forth in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741 (2004) (per curiam). The Masters are authorized to examine and evaluate the issues listed in this opinion, but also any oth......
  • Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2004
    ...filed their report in this matter as directed by this court's per curiam order of February 3, 2004. See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741 (2004). On that same date, this court asked that any objection to the report by the parties be filed within twenty days......
  • Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2005
    ...of a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools. However, to the contrary in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 356 Ark. 1, 2, 144 S.W.3d 741, 742 (2004), the special masters were instructed to "examine and evaluate the legislative and executive action taken s......
  • Iseeo v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 21, 2005
    ...Court) and outlined ten questions plus "any other issue they deem relevant" for them to evaluate. See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741, 741-42 (2004). The masters were to conduct the inquiry in a fashion very similar to a proceeding at the trial court leve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT