Joint Education Committees: Feb. 2, 2026

House and Senate Education Committees

February 2, 2026

Senator Jane English Good afternoon, everyone. Everybody’s glad to be out of the house, have somebody to talk to. I call this meeting to order. So glad to have you here. And the first thing we have to do is we have to have a motion to accept the meetings– approve the minutes from our last meeting. Thank you. All in favor? All opposed? Thank you very much. 

So first thing up on our agenda is Secretary Jacob Oliva with the Department of Education, and Stacy Smith is the Deputy Commissioner with the Department of Education. And they’re going to talk to us a little bit about child care– childhood. Not child care, childhood. So good afternoon. If you all would identify yourselves, you’ll be recognized. 

Jacob Oliva Good afternoon. Jacob Oliva, Department of Education. 

Stacy Smith Stacy Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Ed. 

Senator Jane English Thank you, you may proceed. 

Update on ABC Childcare

Jacob Oliva Well, first, I’m glad everybody made it here in person after last week. I think a lot of people are asking about the state of our schools. We did have some schools that are dealing with some aftermath of the ice storms and the snow, but we’re pretty happy to say we’ve got a lot of districts reopened today. 

And I am very optimistic that we’re going to get most of the rest of them back on board by tomorrow. So hopefully we keep this bright sunshine and see this snow and ice melt away. It’s been pretty significant. 

So first thing I want to do is also thank you for allowing us to keep this conversation going around making sure we’re expanding and keeping high quality access to child care and child care providers. I think I don’t know if it was in December or maybe in November we talked a little bit about our school readiness program and some of the challenges we were seeing with federal funding and some changes that we need to make. And we had to work with a lot of providers. We pulled together some workforce, some committees. 

So just want to come back and provide an update on how that work is going. We’re continuing to meet with the Early Learning Committee to look at these programs. We actually recently applied for a federal grant. There was a competitive grant that was available to states to apply for. And we applied and we were notified last month that we were one of the states to receive the preschool development grant, which is to help support some of the infrastructure and implementation around early learning.

 So that was a big win for the state of Arkansas because not everybody got that. I want to say there’s only maybe 20 programs that received an award. And for us to get that was something that we’re really excited about and proud of. But then I keep getting asked from legislatures and stakeholders all the time, as we’re looking at investing in early learning, as we are looking at making sure we increase access, is there anything that we should do as a state? 

And one of the things that we kind of circle back and talk about is like, I think it’s long overdue to maybe start having some conversations. And I think it is good to have this update around the state supported early learning program. And that’s what’s called ABC, the Arkansas Better Chance Program. And that’s a state funded program. 

We’ve done a lot of conversations around federal supported programs and all the requirements and the reimbursement rates and how does that work. But we hadn’t really had a lot of conversations around the state program. And interestingly enough, the state programs one of our bigger programs and it currently has about 23,800 slots that are funded by the legislature annually for around $114 million. 

And I’ve kind of gone back and even asked some of our historians at the agency to say, when was the last time we looked at those number of slots. Have we increased that number of slots? Has there been an increase from the legislature? And we can’t find anybody that can tell us how long that that’s been flat. 

So I want to say at least a decade. It’s been a while since we’ve looked at this as a state, as a legislative body to say, is this the kind of estimate that we want to look at? What do we want do? Do we have the right number of slots? Do we the right level of support for early learning? By far our biggest program, like when we talk about the school readiness program, which is where we were meeting for previous months prior to Christmas break, that service is just over 14,000 students. This program serves over 23, almost 24,000 students. 

And a lot of the providers that support this– in fact, it’s about 80% of the providers that supports these slots are school districts. So we’re really happy with the school districts to have these programs because they invest in quality. They make sure they have licensed teachers, they meet all their requirements, and then they get reimbursed on an annual appropriation. There’s almost a daily rate set for those children. 

So one of the things that we’re being asked to do, I think one of things that we’ve had questions on is, we’ve been working with districts on how these slots are allocated. And if there’s one thing that you’re definitely going to hear from your school districts is if you don’t have enough slots, that’s something they really, really want. And we get asked a lot from school districts, how do we get more slots? Well, sometimes we have districts that may have a program that has declining enrollment or they’re going to sunset it, slots become available. 

We may be able to transfer spots because we have a cap on the number of slots. One of the things that we’ve been really looking at and we require every provider, because there are some private providers, annually, July 1 at the beginning of a new fiscal cycle, is that they have to commit to 100% of filling those slots. Because if you get in a signed slot, we want to make sure that you fill that slot. They sign those commitments. 

We have been pulling through the data and we have identified some providers who historically over the last three years have not been filling their slots. So we are notifying them, hey, by the end of this fiscal year, come June 30th, July 1, we’re going to have to reduce your number of slots because we have a lot of other people that want these slots. So we’re working with those folks as we kind of go through and navigate that landscape. 

The other thing that we’ve really realized is that even though these providers commit to filling 100% of their slots, a lot of times we’re going months with slots being open. Now we know we have waiting lists everywhere for childcare. Why we’re not actively recruiting some of these families to fill these slots is something that we really need to encourage districts. 

So we have, I want to say it’s almost a thousand seats annually, we’re at just almost a thousand seats annually that we’re funding that aren’t being filled. We have a waiting list of over 2,000 families. So we have notified school districts, like, hey– or not just school districts providers– hey, by February, if you’re not going to fill these slots, we can’t keep paying for them. It’s almost $5-6 million a year we’re paying for slots that aren’t being filled. And we know we have waiting lists. 

So if folks are telling you, hey, we’re getting our funding cut, no, we can’t pay for seats that aren’t being filled. So if you want to keep your funding, let’s fill these seats, let’s work together. Let’s find our folks that qualify for these programs that are on waiting lists and get them into these programs. So we’re continually having meetings. 

We continue to work with the work group to have strategies and conversations because there’s a finite amount of resources and we want to make sure that those resources are going as far and as wide and as deep as they can as we continue to invest in early learning, as we continue to support quality and increase access. I think it’s important to keep providing updates to the legislative delegation. 

But as we start kind of going into planning for future years, I think, and maybe we can work with our friends at the Bureau of Legislative Research to go back historically and find out, are we investing the right amount of dollars? Are there the right amounts of seats? Are we making sure they’re getting deployed to the right places? So we wanted to come today and provide an update and tell you that this work is continuing, but we still got a lot of work to do. 

Senator Jane English Thank you. Let’s see, do we have some questions? Senator Sullivan. I did it again. 

Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you, Madam Chair. So we have talked a couple of times about choice and how the pre-K program aligns with choice in K through 12. So what are the plans, if any, to make sure we’re aligned with choice– if it works up here, it ought to work down there. 

Jacob Oliva So I think that’s a good question, and it’s maybe a little bit more complicated answer. Because it depends on the program, right? So some of these programs that are federal programs may have, say, income verification requirements in order to go to use your voucher at a certain facility, depending on the programs that offers those types of services. And then ABC has some qualifying components as well. 

But I think that’s why we need to have this conversation, because we have people, we have families that want to choose these programs and get into a provider that has space. But because we don’t have slots, we’re saying no. And so I think that’s part of the conversation, that if we want to have choice, we need to make sure that we have access for the choices. 

Senator Dan Sullivan Let me just kind of clarify that. I want to make sure that choice is a high priority going forward for parents to choose quality programs. I think we’re doing a good job of outlining what quality is, assisting agencies and providing quality, doing the training, all that. And I think you’re doing and I appreciate that. Just want to make sure that parents, that we’re not awarding slots just because somebody wants one, that we’re them based on what their success rate is and how good they’re doing. 

Jacob Oliva So I’m glad you clarified, because we’re addressing that with some of the changes we’ve made as recommendations. Because we have some providers that we are guaranteeing slots and paying them, whether families are choosing them or not. We want to make sure that we’re supporting families and making sure they have access to the dollars to go to the provider that best suits the needs of that family. 

Senator Dan Sullivan Yeah, it’s a simple way to say that it’s the dollars kind of following the child versus going dropping a slot somewhere where they may not have the quality. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. 

Senator Jane English Representative Mayberry. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you. And thank you so much for all your hard work on this. I know that we’ve had many discussions along these lines, and I’m glad you brought up the ABC program and started to talk a little bit about that. So I don’t think I heard in your response though, have you asked the school districts– and maybe you said it and I just didn’t retain what you said. 

But have you asked the school district or those offering ABC, because they’re not all school districts, why are those slots left open? Like, what is the reason for it? What’s the obstacle? Is it the birth rate? Are we seeing less children? Because I know that’s been part of it. Is it competition from other providers in the area? Is it income requirements to be in the program? Have you asked those questions and what are those answers if you have? 

Jacob Oliva So the short answer is yes. And I think you kind of alluded to all of the above, right? I don’t think it’s a simple silver bullet that’s going to answer all those questions. But when we start the year, we verify, let’s say, for example, if your provider has 20 slots, they have 20 slots at the beginning of the year. Well, then maybe a family moves. Maybe they find another program. They may drop down to 19, 18, 17, 16. 

But then those slots just remain unfilled for an entire year. The questions that we want to have is, if you don’t have families, if you have a demand, can we take that slot and give it to a place where we have school districts now that are 100, 200 families deep waiting for a slot that can’t get access to a slot. 

Meanwhile, we have slots sitting over here that nobody’s filled. And then in some of these districts, like, as we’ve been talking with them, I’m going to say districts– I should say providers because it’s not all just districts.

Some of these providers, when we look at historical trends, their enrollment has been down for two or three years but yet they’re still getting guaranteed slots that they haven’t filled. Not even just in the last six months, they haven’t filled them in the last three years. So  we need to reduce your number of slots to get more in line of what you’re able to provide.

Representative Julie Mayberry I guess, what are they saying is the reason why they can’t fill the spot? 

Stacy Smith One of the things that we’re seeing in a lot of these slots is they were full at the beginning of the year, and then they lose one or two kids. And it’s like actively going out to fill the slot. Like that’s what’s not happening. And so as we’re notifying districts that we are going to start going by paying by enrollment, we’ll see those spots start filling up. We have notified 28 programs that have shown a three year trend of being significantly below the slots that were allotted to them. 

And we’re asking those districts to fill out a kind of an action plan on what they’re going to do to correct the situation. But they’ve also already been notified that they are most likely going to have a reduction come June. So again, we’re trying to get really tight on where the slots are and the expectation that those slots are full. 80% of the ABC, the state-funded slots are in our public schools.

 And it follows the traditional school year and the traditional calendar for most of those programs. And so a lot of times they’re doing their enrollment at the beginning of the year, they get their classes full. And then they have a child move or a family, something happens and they lose one or two kids. And they’re not filling them again. 

And so we’re continuing to pay and there’s not a kid sitting there. So one of the things that we’re also doing is we’re charging our local leads to kind of cross check our waiting list for those counties where we have kids on the wait list for the SRA program, where we might actually have an open ABC slot, and trying to connect families and programs so that we can get kids off the waitlist. 

Representative Julie Mayberry And one more follow up, if that’s okay. Kind of along the lines of what you just said is that it does follow the school calendar. So there are probably some parents who would love to use the ABC school, the system, but can’t because they work year round. And so could that potentially be something that maybe could be looked at that? That part of the program goes all year long?

Stacy Smith Yeah, we do have public school districts in the state who opt to have summer programming and go throughout the summer. And then that gets paid for through CCDF funds. We have in the past been able to utilize ABC funds to provide some summer programming. It’s a matter of where the money is, how it’s getting budgeted, and what’s being forecasted. But definitely you have public schools districts who are offering summer programming, sometimes out of the CCDF pot and sometimes out of the ABC pot. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Okay, thank you. 

Senator Jane English Representative Duke. 

Representative Hope Duke Thank you, madam chair. Thank you all for being here today. I always enjoy your reports. My question is a little bit of line on Representative Mayberry’s. As far as the ABC grants that go out there, you answered one of them. Because I was trying to understand how, if they weren’t filling the spots, they were able to afford the staff. But if you’re paying them for kids that aren’t there, so I am glad that we’re addressing that issue because that would probably motivate people to fill those spots. 

But when you’re having these conversations about why those slots are not filled, I’ve heard, and I’m assuming this with ABC, because I think that’s, like you said, a lot of those are in the public schools. I’ve gotten complaints from parents over the realm of time when I was on the board and now that we just barely miss the income. And so they want their kids to be there, but they can’t because they make just a little too much money. 

So when you’re looking at reviewing this, if ABC is ours, are we going to look a little bit on changing some of those income requirements? Because I heard that a lot from people saying, I would like my kid to go here, my other kids go to school here, and there’s slots that are open, but they can’t because they make just a little bit too much money. So if you could address that. 

And then also I would like, and I would imagine some of the other members would too, as you’re collecting this data from the schools on why they’re not able to fill those slots, I would like to see that. Because I’m guessing the direction you’re going is maybe potentially increasing these slots, which would increase funding coming from us, coming from the taxpayers, which we’re entrusted with. 

I’d like to see what that’s looking like right now and as you progress with that data. So if you all would make that data available to us, that would be, I think, extremely helpful for us in making decisions. But can you speak as far as the income and are you looking at adjusting that at all? 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, so, one, I think we’d be happy to even get more of a formal survey together to provide to the committee, first more anecdotal. Maybe we can get a little bit more sophisticated and that would probably be helpful information. So we’d be happy to do that. And two, I think we have to, right? And I think if we go back and we look at this program and look at those roles, and that’s why I keep asking our historians, how long has it been since this was updated? 

So if the income levels have been set to a decade ago, it’s probably a lot different today, especially with inflation and market rate. I think that’s the kind of work we want to bring with our committee. And if we’re going to make a formal recommendation moving forward on suggestions to ABC to modernize it, that would definitely have to be part of that conversation. 

Representative Hope Duke So I also am curious, my understanding is, if they cannot, there’s like an age, but if they can’t fill it with the 4 year olds, they can drop. Is that correct? 

Stacy Smith ABC is mainly 3 and 4, but this last legislative session you combine the two different ABC laws and it allows it to go infant to 5 now. But most of the programs are 3 and 4 year olds. And most of them do the preference where they start at 4 and then they back down and allow 3-year-olds in the program 

Representative Hope Duke Okay. And then my final question, I think, is as you’re looking at the financial side of this and the structure of it, are we also looking at maybe giving some freedom in the curriculum side and the academic side of it? Because I have had preschool teachers– and they’re certified, they’re preschool teachers in the public school systems– who have mentioned, some of the ways that they want us to administer our education for these children is not even in line with what our district would prefer to see. 

So I know at one point, a district said, you know what, we’re just going to try and do this ourselves so we don’t have to have all the strings of the ABC grant. And it was a little too complicated and couldn’t fill the slots the same way. 

But I hope that as you guys are looking at this, are you looking at giving them a little bit more freedom with curriculum? Or is it going to be very structured in how you can even speak and address a child and how they can walk down a hallway? 

Stacy Smith The ABC curriculum requirements right now are pretty loose. This is kind of a national conversation around the quality of curriculum programs and early childhood programs. And so most definitely right now the department is looking at what can we do to support, not just ABC programs, but even our private mom and pop providers being able to actually have access to a quality curriculum for instruction in the classroom. 

There has been for a couple of years now a disconnect between early childhood and what’s expected coming into kindergarten and the philosophy behind that. And so there are big conversations happening right now about what does curriculum look like in the early childhood space and what role could the state play in that to provide something of quality for those providers. 

Representative Hope Duke ABC is funded by us and we’re not taking any federal money from it, is that correct? 

Stacy Smith Correct. 

Representative Hope Duke So we can write the rules for what we want it to look like so that it lines up with what we want our K through 12 systems to look like as well. Because I don’t think they mesh. 

Stacy Smith No, you’re correct. 100% on spot with that. One of the things that you have seen recently is with the K-12 AD Department of Education’s ESSER money a couple years ago, we funded Pre-K Rise, which was purchasing early childhood curriculum specific to early childhood that was aligned to the science of reading, and then tried to pour in a lot of training behind that. 

But that was during the transition from DHS to the Department of Ed. But we have seen in early childhood centers that actually implemented that and participated in the training and implemented that curriculum, we’ve seen growth in those programs. And so as we continue to move forward and looking at what could this look like statewide, those are the conversations right now. 

Jacob Oliva But I think it’s also important, if we set those expectations, we support local control and let them pick from like maybe an approved list of curriculums or approved set of expectations that they know is going to work best for the students and families they serve. So it’s really about finding that balance, making sure that it’s aligned while respecting local control. 

Representative Hope Duke Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator Jane English Representative Garner. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. And thank you guys for all the help you’ve given us in talking about all this stuff. Can you tell me a little bit, I didn’t hear you mention about the daily rate. But I hope we’re looking at the daily rate for ABC programs and the fact that they haven’t been changed in a while either and how we can make– one of the things that I’m really concerned about is making childcare sustainable for the providers as well across the board. 

And there’s a big difference between an ABC program that has school funding and an ABC Program, obviously, that has to pay for their own rent and food and all of that kind of stuff. So I hope, and then the question is, are we looking at reimbursement rates? Are we looking at what we can do to make early childhood sustainable across the board for these programs? 

And the second question is, for these folks that are in federal programs that qualify for federal program and didn’t pre-K, federal pre-k and don’t qualify, and in addition to what Representative Duke was talking about, are they going to be grandfathered into a program for these kids that have been in 3-year-old and 4-year old? What happens? Will they be grandfathered in or will they get preference to CCDF funds? Or what’s going to happen to those kids? 

Jacob Oliva So I’ll take a stab at the first part, then I may have to bring in an expert here on the second part. But I think to your point around the daily rate and does that need to be adjusted, does the pot of money need to be adjusted? I think that’s part of why we need to have this conversation and why we’re working with the early childhood committee. Because I don’t think it’s been increased in a while. 

So when you look at the cost of doing business– I’ll use that term loosely– today, it’s probably different than what it was a decade, maybe 15 years ago. We don’t know how long ago these rates were set. So I think as we’re going through as a state, looking at building out state budgets, legislative investments, this could be a place to look at. If we start getting more formalized surveys and data on, where are seats, do we have the right number of seats, do we need maybe less seats and more money, do we more seats, more money, I think we need to pull some data to come back to you with an informed recommendation. 

But I think anecdotally, we would hear that we need a bigger investment in early learning if we’re going to serve the amount of families and students that want to participate and support the schools that want to offer these programs. Because, I mean, we get calls almost every day of people wanting to expand programs. They see the value in making sure we get this started right. 

The question around federal pre-k, I want to make sure that we’re a little clear on that because that definition is kind of, I think, used synonymously with the SRA program. So it’s not necessarily a different set of qualifications or a different way to be a part of that program. What’s happened is under this kind of federal pre-K, certain providers, and it was about 30 of them, I’m going to say, rough or take, were guaranteed a certain amount of slots out of a federal allocation, whether they filled them or not. 

It doesn’t have anything to do with the qualifications of the student, doesn’t anything to the qualifications of the family. It doesn’t change the status of the program. They could still operate these programs. Basically, what we’re saying is if you are guaranteed 30 slots and you have 30 folks in those slots, nothing’s going to change. You’re not going to see any difference. Some of these programs have waiting lists. A lot of them do. But if you were guaranteed 30 spots and you’re only filling 10, we can’t guarantee and hold the funding for 20 additional slots when we know we need them somewhere else. So no families should be interrupted. No support to the provider should be disrupted if they’re filling their seats. 

Stacy Smith Yeah, you covered it. So when you talk about specific families that were in these pre-K contracted seats prior to, the student is the one who’s eligible. And so once they’re in the system there, it would follow them. 

Okay, so let’s say that they were a 5 year old currently in a program, and the next year they’re going to go to kindergarten. They would still qualify them for the after-school part of it because they’re within the system. The provider is just not guaranteed those 30 seats anymore. They would have to get 30 families that were a part of the program and they could bring them into their program. Did that make sense? The individual kid is not losing their status. 

Senator Jane English Representative Vaught.

Representative DeAnn Vaught Thank you, madam chair. Will you go back, Stacy? I’m pretty sure you explained, but I want to make sure that– Southwest Arkansas needs seats, Northwest Arkansas is not filling their seats. Can those seats go to Southwest Arkansas? How does that work? Does it have to be within a certain area or can we move them from one part of the state to a part of the state that needs them? 

Stacy Smith Great question. Where we’re at right now is we have more demand for seats than we have seats. And that’s statewide. Every year we basically do kind of a coordinated funding request and we identify how many seats are being requested in all the different areas. 

And we literally look at county by county to see what’s the percentage of students being served by some type of state or federal program. And we look for need. And so slots then are allocated back to districts or providers based on their request and based on us looking at a map and trying to allocate where seats are needed the most. 

Currently right now, when you see these slots not being used, a lot of times it’s about 6 percent. It’s 1,000 seats out of our 23,000 seats. But it’s spread apart. So it may be a program that they had 20 slots, which is a single classroom, and they don’t have one of those slots filled. So it would be hard for me to say, I’m going to take that one slot and send you over here. 

What we’re doing in February to all of the providers is, you have to have someone enrolled in that seat or we’re not going to fund you for it, all right? That, for us, one, is going to make the reality for our providers that you can’t sit with a classroom of 16, 17 or 18 just because someone moved. You need to actively let people know that you have open slots and fill it up. 

Right now we are looking at, do we have additional seats and can we move them? We do that all year long. But right now, we are trying to be very laser-like focused and making sure that this program is very efficient. And we feel like right now paying for slots versus enrollment is not the intended purpose. So again, we have more demand than not. So I can’t necessarily just take that one seat and plop it over here. 

Jacob Oliva In theory, I think in theory, technically you could. But the reality of it is a little bit more of a balancing act. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught Can I touch on a couple other things, Madam Chair? So I would just reiterate what Representative Duke said. In my area, some are missing it by just a few dollars of their income. And they can’t afford really to send their kid to this other spot. But they would send their child if that cutoff wasn’t where it is right now. 

And then I would also back up what Representative Garner said and say in my area, I know that the amount of money that they get for those seats is really, really tight right now. And then being able to provide the food because just food in itself has gone up so much that it’s really hard not to get that raised. 

Stacy Smith Yeah, I think this really kind of segues in with what Secretary Oliva started with, in terms of, we have a demand. And for the last two years we have had discussions, should we increase the per student amount for ABC? But there is such demand that if we were to increase the amount we’re paying out right now, we’d reduce the number of seats that we have based on her budget, right? And so it’s going to be a give-or-take. 

As you guys are discussing what we should be doing in this realm of funding for it, we’re going to have to decide, is that an increase in seats, an increase in daily cost, or both? What does that look like? The more that we qualify on income, the more demand there’s going to be for those seats, right? I agree with everything you said. You see a lot of our programs having mixed delivery programs. They’ll have paying slots. 

They’ll have, in our ABC, we have a scale. So some are partially, they’re splitting the cost of the care. So mixed programs is what we want to encourage for our school districts. There is a 40% match on the school districts who run ABC programs. And again, a lot of them can use their school funding, other federal funding to help kind of offset that. I agree with you. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught I’ll say what I think kind of holds schools back is the amount of available rooms that they have on campus. And right now we have this thing, if you add on or do something, you’ve got to build this safe room. And a lot of our schools can’t afford to build that safe room for tornadoes– or I think that’s what they’re called. I could be wrong, Secretary, you can correct me if I’m wrong. 

But they’ve got to build this safe room also at the same time, so it’s harder for them to actually add on rooms when they know they’re going to also have this other big cost that they don’t get any funding for. So I think that’s something else to kind of consider whenever we’re asking school districts to add on. Because I’m 100 percent, I think if we want kids to read by third grade and read proficiently and read above grade level, we’ve got to start when they’re in preschool. And a good preschool, I think, would help with that. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator Jane English Representative Mayberry. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you. I realize we probably can talk for a really long time on early childhood education, and I know we have lots of discussion coming up on adequacy. And so I was just going to ask our chairs if maybe we could set forth another meeting date with the subcommittee of the Early Childhood Education Committee to explore this topic at much greater length. 

And if we could ask BLR to maybe help research that information that our department was saying they would like help getting some historical information on it. Basically what is that income requirement? But when was the last time that it was increased? Ask our wonderful researchers behind us. They come up with amazing things and can prepare and maybe get into a much further discussion. I think that there’s a real need here. 

Thankfully, Senator Davis’ bill for increased maternity leave and all that, I’m so grateful that we passed that. But really, this is the next step. If we want our teachers to return to the classroom, we need to make sure that there’s good quality care for those babies as well after that 12 weeks of leave. 

And I do know that a lot of the school districts, because it does go down to infant care, that this is where a lot of teachers are being luckily able to place their child so they’re close to them. So it’s really important. And just hoping that we can maybe move to another committee meeting date and have greater discussion. 

Senator Jane English We can do that. Thank you. That’s a good idea. Representative Rye. 

Representative Johnny Rye Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Miss Chairman. Let me ask you this. Let’s just say that you had 100 that were actually not filled and you had another school that actually had room for 30 or 40. Would you be using the same bussing line to pick those children up as you would normal children? 

Jacob Oliva So I think if I understand the question correctly, I’m not sure if most of the pre-k children, it may be different from district to district, participate in the same school transportation. They may, depending on the district. But if the slots move from one district to another district, I think it’s hard to compare the two because they’re going to run different programs and have their own nuances. 

Representative Johnny Rye So you don’t think there’s going to be a problem at all making that shift from one school to the other? 

Jacob Oliva Well, I hope not. And that’s been the current practice. So I know at least annually we bring to our state board because our state or goes through the process to approve ABC slot reallocation. So that’s not something new to the state. I think that the conversation is, to the point that Miss Smith made earlier, we’re seeing more demand than there is slots. 

And so it’s not as easy as saying, oh, well, we need a hundred slots down here, but there’s a hundred there. It’s not working that way. And that’s why I think Representative Mayberry talks about pulling together the subcommittee to go deeper. And this is a good suggestion because we could belabor this all day. 

And we need to come up with strategies and recommendations. We need to pull some data. I mean, this is good feedback that we’re getting on the direction that the legislature would like to engage. So that’ll help us inform our next steps as well. 

Representative Johnny Rye Thank you so much. 

Senator Jane English Representative Walker? 

Representative Steven Walker Thank you, Madam Chair. Mine’s just a clarification question about, I think there was a letter that went out the other day regarding ABC funding. The concern that was expressed to me was over the 100% attendance, which is impossible when you’re dealing with illnesses and things along that line, and having loss of funding if you don’t have 100% of attendance or possibly something along that. 

And I understand what you guys are getting at with the people that aren’t filling the seats, but is this also going to be looked at for kids that miss less than 10 days for illnesses and falls below that 100%? 

Stacy Smith Yeah, it’s not about attendance. It’s about enrollment. So you have to have someone enrolled in the seat. So if you’re out for the flu, you’re still enrolled in this seat, right? So the change in February is, if you’ve got 20 seats, you have 20 kids enrolled in those seats. If you moved, you’re filling it back up. If not, that means you have 19 seats enrolled. We’re going to pay you for 19 kids. So it’s based on attendance. 

Representative Steven Walker Which makes sense. I wanted to be sure. Thank you. 

Senator Jane English Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, thank you very much. And we are going to form a subcommittee, early childhood, so we can have that opportunity to start talking about this. Because it really is a big issue and it’s getting to be a bigger issue across. Just think of all the young people that have 3 and 4 year olds across the state. 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, and I think it’s great. I want to also recognize the work that our early childhood work group does. And there’s some legislators that have been very active in participating and attending those. So that’s appreciated because when we can kind of build a grassroots program that works best for the state, it seems to get the desired best outcomes. 

Senator Jane English Well, we can figure out what we want it to look like. As you said, it’s been a number of years since we’ve done anything really major with this program. So it’s time to start looking. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here And now we will get started on our adequacy things. 

So first we’re going to have Taylor Lloyd who’s going to give us a presentation of the legal framework of adequacy. Where is Taylor? Oh, she’s coming. Right there, okay. There she comes. Thank you, ladies, for being here. So, if you’d introduce yourselves, you will be recognized for your presentations. 

Adequacy legal history

Taylor Lloyd Hi, I’m Taylor Lloyd. I am with the Bureau of Legislative Research. I am the education attorney and I’ve been with the Bureau for a few years. I think this is my third or fourth adequacy study now. So it’s a really interesting process and I love talking about it because every single time I learn something new. 

And I was looking over this presentation before giving it today and realized it really is– you’ll hear me say that it’s such a fluid concept. It’s always evolving. And it really is, even for us, from our perspective because truly you learn something new every time. So with that, I’ll begin. So I’m going to begin by discussing the setting. 

So setting the stage for how we got to where we are today with respect to education funding and discussing what the legislature’s ongoing role is with respect to maintaining an adequate education. So at the outset, it’s important to note that there are three kind of foundational blocks that I’m going to discuss during this presentation. These are the aspects to adequacy in education throughout today and throughout the ongoing study over the next few months. 

We’ll have the constitutional duties. We have the case law, which is Dupree vs Alma. And then, as many of you know, the Lakeview case, which we will harp on quite a bit. And then finally, the statutory duties, which is why we are here today. So this is going to kind of guide my discussion today. 

First and foremost, we have the constitutional duties. I list that first because everything we do with respect to adequacy is rooted in the constitution. So the Lakeview case that you’ll hear me talk a lot about, obviously it’s rooted in the constitution. So article 14, Section 1 provides that the state shall ever maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure the people the advantages and opportunities of education. 

Senator Jane English Could you pull that microphone up to you just a little bit? 

Taylor Lloyd Yes, ma’am. Is that better?

Senator Jane English That’s better. 

Taylor Lloyd Good deal. And we also have equity. So equity is really fleshed out a lot in the Dupree case, but also in the Lakeview case. So one thing I also want to emphasize here is that while the General Assembly will define, study, fund, and determine what adequacy is and monitor adequacy throughout the process, which is what we’re doing here, the courts will have the ultimate authority to determine whether or not adequacy is actually meeting this definition in Article 14, Section 1. So now we’re going to transition to case law.

 So like I said, we have the Dupree case, which is really where we see the Supreme Court first touch on educational funding in the state and how it was at the time inequitable. And then we’re going to transition over to the Lakeview cases. Those lasted for 13, 14 years, something like that, a long time, a lot of cases. And hopefully this presentation will kind of flesh it out for you all so that you can kind of see the building blocks for where we are today. 

So the Dupree case, at the time, this was really one of the first cases that evaluated the constitutionality of public education in Arkansas. This is where we saw the Supreme Court determine that education funding at the time was unconstitutional. So it was based on each district’s local tax base. This meant that funding varied significantly according to where a student lived, where a school district was located. 

It was based essentially on a system unrelated to actual educational needs of specific students and districts. And this resulted in a lot of sharp disparities among school districts. This is where the court was looking at expenditures per pupil and education opportunities available. So this was reflected by staff, class size, curriculum, facilities, equipment, things like that that were available to the students. What was and wasn’t available basically was dependent upon where the student lived. So simply put, basing the funding system on property taxes was inherently inequitable, especially in light of the outcomes that the court noticed. 

So the state, interestingly, in the Dupree case argued, well, we provided equal funding. We disbursed it to the districts. The districts then had local control to determine, okay, here’s how we’re going to spend our money. But this is where the Supreme Court stepped in and said if the local government fails, the state must compel it to act. So essentially the Lake View court reinforced this point, basically deference to local control isn’t an option for the state. 

And this is what you’ll hear me say later on in the presentation that adequacy is in the province of the General Assembly, which is why we’re here, to be defined and determined and studied throughout this entire process. Essentially, Dupree is, you can’t defer to local control. That’s a big part that it harped on. 

So, as many of you know, the Lake View case is deeply significant with respect to education today. So while Dupree focused more on equity, Lake View helped to further underscore the differences between adequacy and equity and how to better differentiate the two from a constitutional perspective. Importantly, the Lake View case is not just about funding, it’s also about accountability. 

So in this regard, the Lake View court spent some time noting the overlap between adequacy and equity. So they basically asked, are we going to look at whether state revenues paid to districts determine equality, or are we going to look at actual expenditures and whether that leads to equity and equality? And as you’ll find out and as you might have guessed, they’re going to look at actual expenditure. So the focus is on the actual expenditures per pupil and not whether the state is disbursing equal amounts of funding to each district. 

So what we take from this is essentially that equity and equality are not the same thing. So maintaining equality in state funds is insufficient on its own to lead to constitutional equity. The status of public education funding, like I said, is largely a product of Lake View. This is a relevant chronology of Lake View milestones. 

Like I said, it was a really long process. It took a long, long time. You do not need to memorize any of this. This is just for informational purposes. So I’m not going to delve into all the nuances of this, but I am going to kind of provide a general overview of some of the major high points of the Lake View case throughout the years. So in the original Lake View ruling, the lower court held that the disparity resulting between public school funding for wealthier and low-income districts was unconstitutional. 

So following this ruling, the General Assembly changed the state’s education funding and based it instead off of a district’s enrollment account, which we know now as average daily membership. This was then equalized based on the wealth of a district. So this case, of course, was appealed to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court once again determined that this was insufficient to pass constitutional muster. 

So you’ll see on the screen several of the reasons why it was still constitutionally deficient. So at this point in time, there was no actual definition of adequacy. There wasn’t an adequacy study. They were kind of, at one point, I think the court determined that they were flying blind, the legislature was flying blind. They looked at the actual outcomes too. At the time, you saw that educational rankings and benchmark scores were very low and remained low. There was still a high need for remediation. Teacher salaries were low, especially as compared to other states, surrounding states. We had other issues with regard to teachers, such as poor recruitment and retention. Students had needs that were not being met. 

So this is kind of where the Lake View court delved into the equity basis of this. School districts also had needs not being met. You had low income or high growth areas that were not getting the funds that they needed to address the issues that resulted from having lower income or higher growth, higher student growth areas. 

So as we move forward with the presentation, and as you’ll see with our research division as they continue on throughout the next few months, you’ll see how a lot of some of these issues from 2002 manifest in what is studied throughout the adequacy presentation. So, for example, teacher salaries, that’s something that’s studied. Or high growth, declining enrollment funding, how all of these aspects are examined today and what the outcomes are today. And this kind of gives you a guide into why we’re even doing that in the first place. 

So the 2002 Lake View court also gave us, this is the first time we saw concrete requirements from the court with regard to the General Assembly’s duties. This is where we see some of these primary tasks. In other words, the Supreme Court said, the state has to actually define adequacy. You can’t create an adequate education if we don’t know what adequate means with respect to Arkansas, with respect Article 14, Section 1 that I mentioned earlier. 

There’s also the requirement that the state has to assess, evaluate, and monitor the entire spectrum of public education. So what does that look like? This, the adequacy study. That’s something that the adequacy study is continually monitoring and looking at, do we need to change something? Is something better or worse? How do we address what adequacy looks like with respect to the definition and the outcomes we’re seeing today? 

And then finally, the state has to know how state revenues are spent and whether true equality in education is being achieved. So this goes back to what I said with the Dupree case about actual expenditures. So not just delving out an equal amount of money, but how are school districts spending the money that they get? Is it enough to give everybody an equal opportunity for an adequate education? 

So in 2003, the General Assembly enacted a lot of new laws to respond to the 2002 case. One of the most significant laws at that time was Act 108, which is known as the Doomsday Provision, which sounds terrifying, but that’s what it’s called. So this, as many of you might know, it forces funding cuts to other state agencies if the educational adequacy fund and other available resources aren’t sufficient to meet what you all, as the General Assembly, has defined as an adequate educational system. 

So following a petition to reopen the Lake View case, the Supreme Court ultimately held in 2005 that serious constitutional deficiencies still existed. I’m telling you, this case just went on for a long time. I think it’s really important to know why the Supreme Court found education to still be inadequate and inequitable at the time.

 I think that’s important to inform what you do now and how you study adequacy now. So on the screen, you’ll see a number of issues that the court found at the time. So once again, the legislature hadn’t completed the adequacy study. So they hadn’t sat down to complete what you all are doing now. Education needs were not funded first. This is despite that Doomsday Provision. 

Funding was based on funds available and not what was needed. So this is an important one in terms of, you’ll see this a lot now when we talk about the matrix later as well. So you all define, you all complete the adequacy study, you define adequacy, you determine what’s necessary to achieve adequacy and equity, and then you fund education. It can’t be the other way around. 

That was a big issue in the Lake View case in 2005. Facilities funding was insufficient. And so that was a big one too. So the Supreme Court basically said, constitutionally adequate education requires safe and functional school buildings to actually achieve adequacy. School districts weren’t receiving equal funding when the funding aid formula assumed a uniform rate of tax. 

So basically, even if every district levied the same tax rate, certain districts, like I mentioned in the Dupree case, would inherently generate more money because equal tax rates do not mean equal dollars. So this is simply a result of different property valuations throughout the districts. So this translates now into equity is what districts actually receive, not what a formula assumes they might receive. So the disparities that resulted at the time weren’t equalized by the legislature. 

And so that’s kind of what the Supreme Court was getting at with respect to the equal funding with the formula. National school lunch funding calculations, which are now known as enhanced student achievement funds, didn’t account for an increase or decrease in the average daily number of students. And finally, the funding formula didn’t address the economic stability of school districts that lost students. So for example, we see now declining enrollment funding. 

So in response to this ruling, the General Assembly once again held another special session, during which time it attempted to respond to these deficiencies once more. So after another legislative session, the court finally found in 2007 that the General Assembly had satisfied its constitutional duties. Why? Again, it’s important to know, why did the court conclude this so we understand at the time what was sufficient. And that’s why we’re moving forward the way that we are. 

So at the time, the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act of 2004 was enacted. I’ll get into that later, but that’s essentially what we’re doing now. It’s the adequacy study. The educational adequacy fund was created and enacted. There were actions taken related to facilities. 

Like I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court said that constitutionally adequate education requires safe and functional buildings. Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution was enacted. This is that 25 mil URT uniform rate of tax that is used solely for maintenance and operation of schools. Categorical funding was established. I’ll get into this a little bit more and then Jasmine and her team will definitely flesh it out.

 But this is kind of where we see more of the equity conversation come into play. So similarly situated students and similarly situated districts might need similar things as compared to others, depending on what their needs are. Foundation funding was established, growth and declining enrollment funding was established, minimum teacher salaries, and then incentive bonuses. So you can see, if you kind of notice the pattern, they’re responding to the issues of teacher recruitment, teacher salary disparities, the declining enrollment funding. 

So again, this is just showing that the legislature was responding to a number of the issues that the Supreme Court had raised in previous years. In addition to everything that was done before, this is where we see the four essential components for continued constitutional compliance come into play. So the adequacy review is being conducted. That’s the big one. Education was funded first. That’s another big one. And all of these are big. I shouldn’t say that after each one. 

The comprehensive system for accounting and accountability for providing state oversight of school district expenditures. So in other words, that’s when we see it’s the duty of the state, not localities, to ensure that equity and adequacy are being achieved. And then there’s the maintenance of the ongoing duty to study review and adjust public school needs and funding. So this is the requirement that not only are we conducting the adequacy study and examining what’s going on in the outcomes, but you’re also reacting to it. 

So you might be making legislative changes, whether that’s increasing foundation funding amounts or categorical funding amounts or enacting new laws entirely, you’re responding to the research and the evidence that’s provided. Given all of this, I think a question that comes up year after year is whether the General Assembly has to complete all of these things every single year. Does adequacy, in other words, have to look the same year after year? Maybe not. 

Ultimately, like I said, the court has the final say so, in terms of whether or not Constitutionality is met. The legislative branch can’t determine that. Only the judicial branch can. And because adequacy is such a fluid concept, I think it’s important to note that the court is going to look to whether or not there’s a system in place to achieve adequacy and equity. So, the court would look to, have you completed an adequacy study? Are you reacting to it appropriately given the evidence you’ve been presented? Is there some kind of system in place by which you can ultimately lead to adequacy and equity in education? 

So now we’ll transition to the final kind of branch I’ve talked about of adequacy, which is the statutory requirements. That’s the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act of 2004, which is why we’re here today. So the General Assembly recognizes that it’s the responsibility of the state of Arkansas to develop what constitutes an adequate education and conduct the adequacy study and to know how revenues are being spent and whether true equality and educational opportunity is being achieved. 

So that’s the basis for the study that we’re conducting now. So what does it take for the General Assembly to maintain equity? I think Lake View really emphasizes that adequacy and equity go hand in hand. So adequacy will look to what must be provided and equity will look into how funding is actually distributed. So in other words, adequacy is about what an education must include and whether the state’s funding system provides enough resources to deliver that. 

And then equity is about the fairness of the distribution of resources necessary to lead to the adequate education as defined by you all. So we know what Dupree and Lake View have said, but how can we put that in the context of the duties that you all have today? So one thing that’s really important is school districts don’t have to provide an identical education. And I think you all know that. I think y’all see that, obviously. It simply means that adequacy is provided to all public school children on a substantially equal basis.

 In other words, are all districts able to offer a substantially equal level of adequate education based on what the state has provided to begin with. So in other words, this means that once money is received, some school districts might provide more than what you all as the state have deemed an adequate education. That’s where we see differences in property taxes, for example.

 So ultimately the court is going to look, like I said, to an equal educational opportunity as provided, such that adequacy and therefore equity can be achieved. I think it is easy to look at adequacy and equity as a pie. So equity will ask if the pie is divided fairly and adequacy will ask is the pie big enough to divvy it up in the first place. So in relevant terms, adequacy will ask whether the system provides sufficient resources for students to meet constitutional educational standards, whereas equity will ask whether students receive substantially equal educational opportunity to receive an adequate education. 

So I think another important aspect of this is that equality of revenues is going to be the floor. That’s the floor for education funding. This goes back to what I said earlier in that you can have equality, yet not meet equity requirements. How do I mean? I think that this can be such a confusing conversation each year, especially when you kind of look at the semantics of all the words. 

But the Lake View Court itself states that equity is an objective question. It asks how much funding students receive as compared to other students. So equity is something that is measurable. It is comparable. Like I said earlier, our similarly situated students and districts treated similarly. So this is where we’ll study per pupil funding, teacher salaries, facilities, program and resource availability, things like that, that you can actually put side by side, measure, compare and determine, are there any disparities? And if there are, how are we the state and are we as the state making up for those disparities? 

So we’re not asking what education should be. We’re asking whether resources are distributed fairly, relative to one another. Adequacy, on the other hand, Lake View has stated it is a subjective question. So this asks what the Constitution, what Article 14, Section 1 means by general, suitable, and efficient free public education. What does that mean to you all? 

This is where you all define adequacy. What skills and outcomes are we going to look at as relevant to determine whether adequacy is being met? So this is where you’ll look at the per pupil amounts or the teacher salaries. You’ll look at the black and white numbers to compare. But in order to get there, you have to determine, is this relevant to what is adequate and equitable in education today? And that’s the subjective part. It’s policy-based. 

And so that’s where the Lake View Court says it’s the province of the General Assembly alone to determine what adequacy is, because this is a policy-based question. This is something that only you all, as legislative members, can determine, that only you all can define. So, this means also that the legislature’s provisions of equal revenues to districts is not necessarily enough. This is, again, where we’re looking at actual expenditures and whether those result in an equal educational opportunity for students. So to conduct the adequacy study, the General Assembly, like I said, must first define adequacy. 

This is, like I said, a very subjective analysis and thus it’s something that only you all can do. And you might, we might all as staff members get questions, you know, is this how it should be defined? What do you all think? And that’s, you’ll hear us say quite often, we’re not able to answer that because it really is something that you all as legislators are the ones to answer, the ones to determine. And once again, remember, adequacy is a fluid concept. 

So the definition of adequacy can change a little bit, a ton, or not at all, year after year. No previous legislature is going to bind another. And so you all can kind of determine what you want adequacy to be, adequacy to be defined as. I do think right now it’s important to emphasize what it currently is defined as. So currently the three components of the adequacy definition are curriculum and career and technical frameworks. 

So this is the specific grade level curriculum included in state’s curriculum and career and technical framework in those 38 mandatory Carnegie units defined by the standards for accreditation. There’s also the standards included in the state’s testing system. And then there’s also whether or not sufficient funding to provide adequate resources as defined by you all at the General Assembly. 

So this adequacy study as a whole serves as the basis for making decisions with respect to public education funding and any statutory changes you all choose to make. So how has the adequacy study been put into action? This is where the matrix comes into play. Many of you have heard a lot about the matrix, I’m sure, and it’s such a nebulous concept because it’s not in statute. 

So it can get confusing because you see this giant image of a matrix and you’re thinking, okay, well, where is this in the code? Why is it like this? Why are we including this and not that? And that’s where we’re going to go back and say, that’s entirely up to you. The resources are, or the matrix is the resources needed to provide an adequate education as defined by you all. And it’s studied each biennium throughout this study. So the components of the current matrix were developed in 2003 by Odden and Picus. This was one of the original adequacy studies throughout the Lake View court, or Lake View opinions. 

So importantly, the matrix is a tool used to measure whether adequacy is being met. This is where you’re going to see the foundation funding amounts and how that amount is actually determined. So how much a school counselor is paid, a principal, very specific information like that. So the matrix, importantly, is a funding matrix. It is not a spending matrix. This means that basically public schools are not required to mirror the spending patterns seen in the matrix. These are unrestricted funds. 

So just because the matrix contemplates a certain amount being spent on teacher salaries, for example, does not mean that’s what the districts will actually have to spend, if that makes sense. The matrix is also, and this originated from the Odden Picus study as well, it’s based on a prototypical school of 500 students. 

I also want to emphasize again, like I did earlier, so allocations in the matrix are based on money that is available– or should not be based on money that is available, but instead on what’s necessary to fund an adequate and equitable education. So this is why you’re doing the study first, determining what is adequacy, are adequacy and equity being met? If not, what do we need to do to change it? And then we’re changing the funding, if you choose to change the funding, at the very end. 

So this is kind of why we do things in that order. Not included in the matrix are things like categorical funds, which that will be gotten into quite a bit by Jasmine and her team. But those aren’t part of the matrix. Those are restricted funds. Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they’re allocated. So for example, English learners or alternative learning environment. 

We also have the reaction component to adequacy. So a lot of times, a question that we’ll get is, can we make changes to the matrix? That answer is going to be entirely up to you. So the General Assembly needs to be sure that the change in funding will continue to ensure an equal educational opportunity for an adequate education. Again, everything you do is going to go back to our adequacy and equity being met. 

Importantly, the questions I have up here are not, these aren’t bright line rules necessarily. These are kind of extrapolated from the Lake View case, but they are some questions to look at if you choose to make changes to the matrix. So is it evidence-based? And that’s something you can ask, if it was discussed during the adequacy study itself. If we’re reacting to the adequacy study based on information we received, it’s likely evidence-based. Is it based on need and not the availability of funds? 

So this goes back to what I said earlier, that the matrix itself is based on what’s needed to fund an adequate and equitable education and not based on funds that are available. So ultimately, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with respect to conducting the study is remembering how dynamic a concept adequacy is. So what was adequate in 2007 at the end of the Lake View case or 2010 or 2024, even now in 2026, it could look very, very different from year to year. 

Constitutional compliance ultimately requires an ongoing study. So not only are you conducting the study, but you’re also reacting to it. And I think it’s important to emphasize that this is your study as a body. And you all kind of get to choose the direction you choose to go and what you want to study, how you want to study and how you want to react to what you studied. With that, I’ll be happy to take any questions. Thanks. 

Senator Jane English Thank you very much. Do we have some questions from the committee? Not seeing any, everybody already knows everything. Thank you. So we will move on to the next presentation and that is the presentation of the legal– the presentation the historical framework of adequacy. And that’s Elizabeth Bynum. 

Historical framework of adequacy

Elizabeth Bynum Elizabeth Bynum with the Bureau of Legislative Research. And I’m here this afternoon to present the historical framework. I’m going to start by talking about the purposes of this report. This was originally a separate report beginning in 2022. One of the reasons it was pulled out as a separate support is so that when we get to our substantive reports tomorrow and going forward, we can dive right into evidence and we don’t have to go through a lot of history before we get to that evidence. 

The other purpose of this report is to ensure that you as the committee have a common understanding of how we got here and what has transpired to get us to this point. Some of you have done this many times, but every biennium we have new members of this committee and so we want to be sure that we all have the same common understanding moving forward. 

The way that this presentation is structured is around the court cases that Taylor just talked to you about. And I’m going to go into more detail about how the General Assembly has responded to each of those court cases, and then talk about post-2007 how the adequacy process has continued. And then in the next presentation, Jasmine will give you more details about what will happen in this adequacy study. 

So we’ll start it back in 1983 with Dupree vs Alma. And here you see a number of actions that the General Assembly took in 1983, establishing standards of accreditation, requiring yearly testing in grades three, six and eight, requiring curriculum content guides, changing the school funding formula to the minimum foundation program aid, passing a one cent sales tax to fund schools and creating isolated funding. 

So throughout this report, I’m going to mention some of our current funding streams and when they were established and a little bit of information about what they are for. Next month in March, we’ll be going through the funding report and the resource allocation report. So you’ll hear much greater detail about all of these funds and how schools and districts are using these funds. 

As established in 1983, isolated funding require districts to meet several criteria related to student density, distance, the size of the district, the number of students and road conditions. Once the district met those criteria, they would receive funding according to a formula based on district enrollment. Student growth and declining enrollment are the other two supplemental funds that are based on either enrollment or geographic challenges. And so I’ll talk about them a little later. 

Now we move to 1995. As we heard in Taylor’s presentation, the Pulaski County Chancery Court had a trial and issued a ruling on Lake View in 1994. And then following that ruling, the General Assembly met in its regular session in 1995. And here you see some of the actions the General Assembly took in 1995. 

They changed the funding system, replaced the minimum foundation program aid with equalization funding, added several additional programs, created fiscal crisis relief funding to assist districts that were adversely affected by the new funding system. The General Assembly created fiscal distress, which we’ll talk about tomorrow, created academic distress. 

We’ll talk tomorrow about the new accountability system that has replaced academic distress and created student growth funding. Student growth funding, like it sounds, is funding for districts that are experiencing gains in enrollment. It is funded based on a formula that looks at the district’s average daily membership, which is a measure of enrollment. 

Now moving on to 2001, the Lake View case was tried a second time in Pulaski County Chancery Court, and that court issued a ruling in 2001. The judge that presided over that case, Collins Kilgore, included in his ruling a list of data measures that were later cited by the Supreme Court in its 2002 Lake View decision. These are measures related to assessment scores, graduation rates, college going rates, and median income. In previous adequacy studies, we’ve looked at Judge Kilgore’s measures and compared those with the most recent data available to see how Arkansas is doing compared to that data that he compiled in 2001. 

A number of these are achievement-related, and so you’ll see the assessment results and the graduation rates tomorrow, and Adrienne Beck will take us through those. But right now we’re going to look at the college going rates and the medium household income. 

That first item, the college-going rates, is from the Division of Higher Education. I want to make a note here, the measure has changed since 2001. That 2001 measure is including all high school students. The most current data available for fall 2021 is looking only at public high school student. And you can see in 2001, 53% of all high school graduates attended college. And in fall 2021, 42% of public high school graduates attended college 

The remainder of the data on this slide is from the US Census Bureau and it includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. You can see that in 2001 and currently, Arkansas ranks 49th in the nation for adults over 25 with a bachelor’s degree. Adults over 25 with a graduate or professional degree, in 2001, Arkansas tied for last place in the nation. And as of 2024, is ranked 50th in nation. 

And finally, median household income. In 2001 Arkansas ranked 49th in the nationwide. And in 2024, ranked 48th in the nation. Now we move to 2003-2004 and the actions of the 84th General Assembly following the 2002 Supreme Court Lake View ruling. This is the longest section of the report because there’s a lot that happens here. Everything until we get to 2006 is happening in 2003 and 2004. 

So to start, in the regular session of 2003, the 84th General Assembly created the Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy and appropriated money for the expenses of the committee. And then the committee takes a number of actions. First, the committee adopts a definition of adequacy. And the committee hires Picus and associates. We’ll hear us refer to them as Odden and Picus or O and P. Odden and Picus issued a report on September 1, 2003. 

They include the adequacy definition that the committees adopted, and Odden and Picus has stated in their report that they used that adequacy definition to guide their report and their recommendations. The General Assembly went into special session on December 8th of 2003. The Joint Committee dissolved on December 31st, 2003, as stated in the enacting legislation. The special session continued. And in 2004, the General Assembly passes Act 57, which is the Continuing Adequacy Act, the adequacy statute. 

And this is what codifies that it is the House and Senate Education Committee’s responsibility to define adequacy and define what an adequate education looks like in the state of Arkansas. Okay, now getting into some detail about the matrix. As Taylor mentioned, this is a tool that the General Assembly uses.

 A little bit more about how we got to the matrix, Odden and Picus made their recommendations in their 2003 report based on three schools of 500 students, so an elementary, middle, and high school, each with 500 students. Odden and Picus made resource-based recommendations. The committees chose to convert those to per pupil recommendations using a district that had one K-12 school of 500 students. 

The matrix is still calculated using that 500 student number. You’ll see a lot more on school size and district size in our reports coming up in March, but here I want to point out that in the 2025 school year the state had 259 traditional school districts and open enrollment public charter systems. Of those, 56 had fewer than 500 students or about 22% of all districts and charter systems. 

A few other notes about the matrix, it’s never been in statute. It’s a tool used to calculate the foundation funding amount. And as Taylor said, it’s a funding model and not a spending model. It’s not intended to reimburse districts for their expenditures. The components of the matrix came out of that Odden and Picus report in 2003. In the 84th General Assembly, the General Assembly set the foundation funding rate for the 2005 school year using the matrix and the matrix has been used to set the foundation funding rate ever since then. 

So the components of the matrix are divided into three categories, school level staffing, school level resources, and district level resources. And I’m going to discuss each of these categories briefly. Starting with school level of staffing, you can see here the staff positions, the number of positions provided in 2005, and the number positions provided in 2025. I want to note that classroom teachers includes both core teachers and teachers who teach electives like music, PE, or electives. 

Our next category is school level resources. And again, you can see the type of funding, the 2005 amount and the 2025 amount. Some of these are very self-explanatory. I do want to make a couple notes on some that may be less evident. Extra duty funds are stipends provided to teachers who coach athletics or supervise other extracurriculars. Supervisory aides are non-certified staff that assist with non-instructional time, so supervise children getting on and off the bus in the morning, lunch, recess, those types of things. 

The teacher continuing education pay was removed from the matrix in 2008, and we’ll see in a few minutes that professional development is included as a categorical fund. The salary enhancement for other employees was not added to the matrix until 2024. The all other personnel health insurance contribution rate was also added in 2024. As of 2027, that will no longer be figured as part of the overall foundation funding rate. 

Act 909 of 2025 shifted that responsibility for paying that contribution from the districts to the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. And the final category is the district level resources. And you’ll see the 2005, it’s all listed as the carry forward. In the 2003 Odden and Picus report, they listed a category of expenses that they thought would carry forward in the same manner. And that’s where that language comes from. Those were separated out beginning in 2008 into operations and maintenance, central office and transportation. 

Now looking at categorical funding, we have alternative learning environment, English language learners, enhanced student achievement, and professional development. These are awarded on a per-student basis. So for alternative learning environment and English language learners, they’re awarded based on the number of students actually participating in those programs. 

Enhanced student achievement is awarded based on the numbers of students eligible for free and reduced lunch under the National School Lunch Program. And you’ll note the name of the funding was originally the National School Lunch Funding until 2019 when it changed to Enhanced Student Achievement. Enhanced Student Achievement, the amount a district receives is based on the percentage of students in the district eligible for free and reduced price lunch. 

So the districts that have a higher percentage of students eligible are receiving a higher amount for that funding. Professional development is awarded on a per-student basis for each student. Now looking at the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and looking how this has changed since it was originally passed in 2004. 

In 2004, the legislation established the broad study requirements. The 2007 amendments provided specific steps for accomplishing those requirements. In 2011, the General Assembly added the requirement that the adequacy study include the review of new laws or rules approved in the biennium. 

So where that’s applicable in our upcoming reports. You’ll see us mention legislation that was passed in 2025 that could affect adequacy. In 2017, the General Assembly removed the requirements to study the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Assessment and Accountability Program and No Child Left Behind. Those were replaced by the requirements to study The Arkansas Educational Support and Accountability Act, which is the state’s accountability system and the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is a federal accountability system. 

And both of those we’ll discuss tomorrow. In 2017, the statute was also changed from requiring study of curriculum frameworks to requiring review of the Arkansas academic standards. And finally in 2019, the General Assembly removed the study to the requirement to study the AXIT program, which was part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Assessment and Accountability Program. The General Assembly in 2004 passed the Arkansas Educational Financial Accounting and Reporting Act. You heard Taylor discuss that the Lake View court was concerned with the way that districts and schools were spending their money. 

This court found that the General Assembly has a duty to know how state revenues are being spent. So this law requires that the Department of Education create a uniform chart of accounts known as the financial handbook and mandates that districts enter the required information into the Arkansas Public School Computer Network. Any districts not following that requirement should be placed in fiscal distress. And here you can see requirements for the financial handbook. 

So the first two columns are showing categories of expenditures that must be reported. And then the column on the right mandates that expenditures from certain fund sources must be report in. And as we go through the resource allocation reports next month, you may notice that not all of the state fund sources that we’ll be looking at are included in that list. Other legislation in 23-24, the General Assembly raised the minimum teacher salary as well as the other steps on the teacher salary schedule and made changes to isolated funding. 

The original isolated funding required that a district have fewer than 350 students. As many of you will remember, in 2003 and 2004, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring consolidation or annexation of any districts with fewer than 350 students, the effect of that being that no districts would be eligible for isolated funding. 

So the General Assembly also passed legislation creating isolated school areas so that districts could continue to receive that isolated funding. The final actions in 2003-2004 are new taxes and funding. Two new funds created, Adrian Beck and Katie Walden from our Fiscal Division are going to discuss those new funds next month in our funding report. Odden and Picus did not recommend specific ways to raise revenue for education, but the General Assembly did pass new taxes that you can see on the screen in order to fund those recommendations. 

Now we move to 2006 and we know from Taylor’s presentation that the Supreme Court rules again in Lake View in late 2005 saying that the state was still not meeting its constitutional obligation. And the General Assembly responds in another special session in 2006. The Adequacy Study Oversight Committee, which was established in 2005, hired Odden and Picus to do a recalibration, basically to assess foundation funding levels and determine how they needed to be adjusted. 

The General Assembly then increased the foundation funding rate, created a separate division at the Department of Education for facilities and transportation, increased teacher salary again, addressed uniformity in property tax and created declining enrollment funding. Declining enrollment funding first became a topic in the special master’s report. The Supreme Court had hired two special masters to look into whether the state was meeting its constitutional obligations. 

And the special masters noted that a loss in students did not necessarily translate into a loss, a reduction in the district’s financial need. The adequacy subcommittee held hearings on the issue and the final acts creating declining enrollment were passed in April 2006. Declining enrollment is based on a formula and, like student growth, it’s based on the district’s average daily membership. 

Looking further at the actions of the Adequacy Study Oversight Committee, the subcommittee was established in 2005 and began planning in the fall for a 2006 interim study on adequacy. They contract with Odden and Picus to do the recalibration. The Supreme Court issues its ruling in December. And then the sub-committee and the Bureau and Odden and Picus go forward with the adequacy study. That study included testimony from stakeholders. Odden and Picus and the Bureau surveyed superintendents and conducted site visits. 

Odden and Picus issued their recalibration report in August 2006, and the subcommittee issues a separate report in January 2007. The subcommittee report contained a definition of adequacy similar to the definition previously adopted in 2003. This subcommittee definition added the language that you see in the adequacy definition today that Taylor mentioned in her presentation about what Arkansas students are to be taught, the specific grade level curriculum, and the mandatory 38 Carnegie units. 

Now we moved on to what happened post-2006. So we know from Taylor’s presentation that the Supreme Court rules in 2007 that the state’s funding system is constitutional, but continuing compliance requires constant study, review, and adjustment. So now we’ll look at how adequacy studies have been conducted from 2006 to the present. 

Looking first at the participants, obviously the House and Senate Education committees. Until 2012, the adequacy studies were conducted by an adequacy subcommittee. Beginning in 2012, the full committees have conducted this study. The Bureau of Legislative Research, Jasmine’s going to talk in her presentation more about the Bureau’s role in this process. 

Under the adequacy statute, the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Division for Career and Technical Education, and the Division on Higher Education are required to provide assistance and information to the committees as requested. And the Attorney General’s office is requested to provide as assistance as needed. Arkansas Legislative Audit is required to issue a report on funding. Stakeholders from education organizations have provided testimony. Educators have been involved through the superintendent, principal, and teacher surveys. 

And since 2006, the committees have chosen twice to hire consultants. Odden and Picus returned in 2014 for a desk audit. And then in 2019, the committees hired Augenblick, Palaich and Associates. We will refer to them as APA. And they issued their final report in late 2020. Now looking at the components, data from the Bureau, from the Department of Education, and Arkansas Legislative Audit, and occasionally other state agencies, our stakeholder testimony, the superintendent survey, which has occurred in every cycle since 2006, site visits, the teacher surveys, and the principal surveys.

 Looking again at the adequacy definition, two changes since 2006. The committee’s added some career readiness language in 2017, and then in 2018 removed that language and added the career and technical frameworks language that is currently in the adequacy definition. And finally, looking at supplemental funds that have been created since 2006. Most of these are restricted funds and you’ll hear more about these next month. 

You can see when the funding started, the original amount funded and any funding for 2025. A couple of notes here, the additional professional development funding was reallocated to fund implementation of the LEARNS Act. And the General Assembly has not passed any funding for that category for 26 or 27. 

The additional enhanced student achievement funding is grant funding and districts are reimbursed for providing tutoring, pre-kindergarten and before and after school programs. The enhanced teacher salary funding was awarded over four years to assist districts in raising teacher salaries and reducing salary disparities with surrounding, excuse me– enhanced teacher salary funding was awarded over four years to assist districts in meeting the minimum teacher salary.

Teacher salary equalization is awarded based on a formula to assist districts in raising teacher salaries and in reducing salary disparities with other states. That’s currently funded on a formula that gives districts $185 based on the prior year average daily membership. That concludes my presentation. And I’ll be happy to take questions. 

Senator Jane English Thank you. We do have some questions here. Representative Mayberry. 

Adequacy and equity for home school students

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you. Okay, so in the the matrix, it’s been outlined the things that, at least the committee in the past, has felt that are things that a school district is going to need and therefore kind of expected that you use this money in a certain way to pay for X, Y and Z. For example, classroom teachers, guidance counselor, a nurse, even health insurance, there’s the operations and maintenance, which is electricity and water and all that. So it’s very much expected that the school district would use these things in that way to pay for that stuff. I’m understanding this correct, right? 

Elizabeth Bynum The districts have the discretion to spend it however they see fit for their particular district. It is a funding model. It’s not a spending model, so it’s not expected– those are obviously expenses. Most of them are expenses that all districts will have, but it’s not expected that they spend it in any particular way. 

Representative Julie Mayberry But obviously we’re saying you have an electric bill and you can use this money to pay that electric bill. 

Elizabeth Bynum That’s correct. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Okay, so I guess I’m trying to understand, and I’m just asking the questions to make sure that we’re crossing our T’s and dotting our I’s, so if we have a homeschooler who also has an electricity bill, also has– maybe mom’s the teacher. Mom obviously has health insurance or a family has health insurance. What in law actually says that they can’t use it for that? 

Because I don’t think that right now we allow them to use that. So I’m trying to figure out, if we’re saying this is adequacy and it’s equitable and we’re trying to be equal and I know we get into all the discussions over all those words, but help me to understand that. 

Elizabeth Bynum Are you referring to the Education Freedom Accounts? 

Representative Julie Mayberry Yes. 

Elizabeth Bynum I think that’s a question for Taylor. 

Representative Julie Mayberry We have the EFA. They get $7,000-$8,000. It’s going to change. It goes a little bit lower if it’s homeschooled, percent taken out. So what keeps that person from saying, well, I have an electric bill, I have insurance. I’m the teacher of my child. Is there anything in law right? 

Taylor Lloyd Taylor Lloyd, BLR. I think under LEARNS with respect to the Education Freedom Accounts, the EFAs, there are very specific requirements with respect to how the funds being received can be spent. And those are further fleshed out in DESE rules. I think that’s what one would turn to, to look, not only what the law requires, but also what the rules require and prohibit to determine whether something like that is permissible. 

Representative Julie Mayberry We don’t have any case law on this. No one has challenged that. And I’m just thinking that that’s kind of open to being challenged. If the school district can use– it’s the same source of funding– and if a school district can use it to pay for an electric bill, what keeps a homeschooler from not being able to use it for an electric bill? 

Senator Jane English I think, Representative Mayberry, I think what we’re asking is them to give an opinion. And we really need to be able to ask them to find some facts to present to us and we can make those decisions. It’s really not fair to ask them to give an opinion. 

Representative Julie Mayberry I’m just asking the question and just trying to figure out how do I find that out. Let me move on. So then let me ask this question, too. When it says, let’s see, this is on page 17 and slide 32 and 33, we refer to stakeholders in there in every cycle. So I guess my question is stakeholders, is there a definition somewhere already out there as to what a stakeholder would be. And as we begin this adequacy study, since we now are allowing homeschoolers to receive funding and private school to receive finding, are they being asked questions and are they considered a stakeholder? 

Elizabeth Bynum In the past, the stakeholders that we hear from is up to the discretion of the committees. And so at times, it’s been different organizations, at different times. I believe there are times that they’ve come to give testimony in person. There’ve been years where they have submitted written testimony. And so that’s up to the discretion at the committees, who you all want to hear from. 

Senator Jane English Representative Duke.

Representative Hope Duke Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all again for the presentation. And I guess I’ll kind of throw this out here with that question. My understanding is that Lake View and the Constitution is dealing with the public education, not what we do privately. So I don’t know. 

And I’m not an attorney at all, not even pretending to be one on TV. And I’m not expecting you to answer that question. That’s kind of how I’m processing it right now, Representative Mayberry, is that your Constitution is talking about a public education. And that equity is not guaranteed if you choose to homeschool or private school. But that’s how I’m processing it. But again, I’m not an attorney. And I think to the Chair’s point, it is an interesting question, but maybe not for you guys to answer. 

My question has to do with kind of digging back into time a little bit, and I don’t even know if this is– I guess that’s why I’m asking you all the question. Average daily membership is what we’re using. Was there not a point in time when we did in the state of Arkansas, it was average daily attendance, that it was what the funding was determined by, not who was enrolled. I got people nodding in the background. I’m digging back in time to my father’s reference to, why do we only count it by average day membership, who’s enrolled versus who actually is showing up to school? Do you all know that? 

Elizabeth Bynum I don’t know that off the top of my head but I can find it for you.

Representative Hope Duke I would appreciate that because when we have attendance being a part of some of our school grades and things like that, I think attendance is important. And maybe we should look at going back to average daily attendance versus average daily membership. 

So that’s something I would like to have a little bit of information on. The other question I had, and I think I asked this last time we had adequacy study, and I’m going to ask it again. Because I know unless it changed and I’m missing it, I still don’t see school board members being surveyed. Is that accurate? 

Elizabeth Bynum That’s accurate. I think the issue there is that we don’t have access to their contact information. We’re not aware, and the department can very much correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe we’re aware of anywhere where we can get all of their information and have email addresses for them. The way that we’re able to survey teachers and superintendents and principals is with the department’s database of those email addresses. 

Representative Hope Duke Well, I believe it’s required by law, isn’t it, that they have to have that  public information on their website, contact information for the school board members? 

Taylor Lloyd That sounds, I need to go back and double check. I feel like we did something like that recently. 

Representative Hope Duke I think it’s been that way for a while. 

Taylor Lloyd I think, within the past few years, we maybe made that change. But let me go back and double check. I don’t recall off the top of my head. 

Representative Hope Duke I do think that that is, I don’t know when it went into law, but I think it’s been there for at least a little while that they have to do that. So we should be able to access that, certainly if it’s public information too. 

Jasmine Ray Jasmine Ray, Bureau of Legislative Research. I just want to add to that. I’m sure we can find the email addresses for the school board members. In my next presentation, when I will be going over the types of recommendations you all can make, that would be like a recommendation that we would want to see made so we can put that as part of the next iteration of the adequacy study. 

So we already did the educator surveys for this adequacy study. So for the 2026 adequacy study, if you all decided you wanted us to start surveying the board members whenever we send out all those educator surveys, we can certainly do that. 

Representative Hope Duke And this would be the question for the chair. I would think audit, at least we know audit has the contact information for school board members because they mail them the packets, right, whenever they get the reports. So it may not be emails, but we know they have mailing addresses. Madam Chair, how do we do as far as if we wanted to make that as a recommendation, what is the process for us to do that as committee if we wanted to do it with the school board? 

Representative Keith Brooks So first, I’ll clarify on the contact information. That was a bill that Senator English and I ran this past session to require that contact information for school board members be listed. And I think it’s a fabulous idea for us to get as much information from them as well as a part of this process. 

So I’ll defer to our experts at BLR, but if it’s just a recommendation or request that we can make as a committee, I’m certain that we would have broad support to do that. And then secondly, on the average daily membership, yes, so it’s set at the end of– the numbers that we work off of in terms of the recommendation we make is end of Q3 or the prior school year. And that’s how we come up with the average daily membership. 

But I’m in full support of us having conversations about average daily attendance as we look forward to additional changes in our funding model, how we may modernize things. I think that’s part of the conversation. I think it’s a healthy part of the conversation. 

Representative Hope Duke My question was, I believe it used to be average daily attendance. And at some point in time, it changed to average daily membership. And I guess that’s kind of the history I would like to know, is that accurate? That’s my understanding, but that’s just what I’ve been told. I haven’t heard that as far as from you all.

And so, and I guess I should just commend the districts that have gone above and beyond before it came into code. Because I know lots of districts were already putting the school board information out there for contact. So I’m glad that we do have it in code for everybody to do it and commend the ones that were doing it beforehand. 

But I am interested in pursuing getting that information from our school boards too. I think they are elected representatives for our school districts and for our people. And so for them to be able to give feedback that we can see, I think would be really super helpful as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you guys for the report. 

Senator Jane English Thank you. Let’s see. Representative Painter. 

Representative Stetson Painter Thank you, Madam Chair. What percentage of the amount of money that we send to school districts is like line item specific use for this and the other one is at their discretion? Because earlier you said something about, it’s at the discretion. So what percentage is that? And if you don’t have it, that’s fine. If you get it to me, that’s great. I’m just curious. 

Elizabeth Bynum I don’t have that right this minute, but I can get that to you. 

Representative Stetson Painter Because that’s one of the things I hear all the time is, it’s kind of like we’re a pass through entity. We send money to the districts and they have a broad latitude of what they want to do for it. And sometimes it’s for good intentions and sometimes it’s not. So that’s why I’m just curious about what is the amount of percentage of latitude that they have to move those funds. And I appreciate you getting that to me. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Elizabeth Bynum And we’ll talk about that more next month when we talk about our funding and the resource allocation. 

Senator Jane English It looks like that’s all the questions we have for this presentation. Thank you very much and we will move on to the next one. And that is Jasmine Ray. She’s going to talk to us about the 2026 adequacy study process. 

2026 Adequacy Study preview

Jasmine Ray Good afternoon. Jasmine Ray, Bureau of Legislative Research. Thank you for all of you who are still here. Now that you’ve received the case law from Taylor and some history on the past adequacy studies from Elizabeth, I will now provide an introduction to the 2026 Adequacy Study. 

And as a roadmap, this is what the presentation will cover. We will go over the roles, the study components. Then we will go over the guiding documents, which, if you want to follow along, once we get to that section, those can all be found under tab one of your binders. And then we will close out with the final report and recommendations. 

So getting started with roles. In answering these questions on who informs about statutory responsibilities and provides evidence-based reports, tracks recommendations, discusses relevant legal issues and drafts the final report and policy decisions that you all come up with, that is the role of us, the Bureau of Legislative Research, our staff. In answering these questions, who defines educational adequacy, how is adequacy, if adequacy is being met, the components of the adequacy study and the resources required, as well as who makes the policy and funding recommendations based on the evidence that is provided, that is you, the education committees. 

So that is the distinction between our roles. So now for the study components. The major study component are the BLR reports. And not just one single adequacy report is the adequacy study itself. Each report covers statutorily required topics and we will go over what those statutorially required topics are in just a minute. And then lastly, they provide information intended to help you all make recommendations and formulate additional questions that lead to recommendations. 

So here is a list of what BLR’s reports typically include, history and legislative intents, relevant statutes and rules, lots of data. You will be receiving lots of the data beginning tomorrow. We also provide national and regional comparisons when that is relevant or applicable, rather, and then also relevant research. What they do not include are opinions, judgments, recommendations or determination of adequacy or equity. That is completely up to you all. 

So as previously shared during the November meeting whenever Julie and Lori presented the educator survey results, ever since BLR has provided these reports, we have always included four types of evidence, and that has been data from Arkansas. So what is happening particularly in Arkansas schools, then other states’ data, so comparisons usually within the SREB, so surrounding states, and in some cases, national comparisons. 

We also provide stakeholder feedback and then research and best practices. When thinking about the additional stakeholders, as just got brought up, those have typically included whoever the committee decides are additional stakeholders. It does include the Department of Education. 

We send every adequacy report to the Department, specifically the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, for them to review in advance of these meetings so they can provide feedback that we incorporate into these reports before their final version. They also provide, they answer questions, programmatic questions that come up. Then we have educators. Elizabeth talked about these too. Our teachers, our superintendents, our principals, and it sounds like eventually our school board members will respond to the surveys that we send out as part of the adequacy study, or rather it’s in preparation of the adequate study. 

Then we have the educational advocacy organizations. We solicit written testimony from them. And ultimately that testimony is incorporated into the final report. So now the guiding documents. Again, these are all behind tab one of your binders. This is a list of all the guiding documents and where to find them in your binder. And we will be going over each of these. 

So the first guiding document found under tab one is the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act of 2004, which Taylor and Elizabeth both touched on. I’m not going to go through that in its entirety, but it is there provided for you. This outlines the eight broad areas that education committees must review each biennium, and these are fully detailed on the tracking sheet, which we will go over next. 

So the next guiding document is under tab 1B and this is the statutory requirements tracking sheet. The first column here, which I’ve highlighted, shows you the eight broad study requirements. This one is going to continue. This is the first four. And then the second, which this includes examining the entire spectrum of public education in Arkansas, reviewing the components of an adequate education and evaluating the costs of an adequate education. 

The second column lists how the study, the duties, how those will actually be accomplished. Then the third column provides you the report that the Bureau of Legislative Research provides align to what is outlined underneath that second column. I don’t know, I think my clicker’s not working. Here we go. So, for example, the Accountability and Achievement Report, which is what you will hear tomorrow, it addresses the four bullet points that you see outlined here underneath the second column. And then the last column provides you the date in which we will present. 

Moving on to the next two broad areas in the language for how those are accomplished. I want to point out that for readability and coherence, reports are organized by topic rather than by the order of the law’s requirements. So you will see that the teacher salary report is listed twice. The resource allocation report listed here addresses expenditures from the isolated school funding, national student lunch funding, which I believe is now is actually called something else now, but it’s still in statute as national student lunch funding. Declining enrollment, student growth, and special education funding. 

But you’ll also see later on on the tracking sheet that it is listed as completing an expenditure analysis and resource allocation review. And all of those reports we will go over in March. In a couple of places you will notice that the report listed says all. And what that means is that it’s basically every report that we provide you is covering some aspect of that. 

So for example, we identify legislation enacted that align with the topics covered in these reports, but we do not determine if there’s been any impact on educational adequacy. That is for you all to decide. You will also see on the tracking sheet that we’ve included this section of the statute, which basically says that as a guidepost conducting deliberations, the committee shall use the opinion of the Supreme Court and other legal precedent. The next guiding document is under tab 1C, and that is the definition of adequacy. 

As Elizabeth stated, or already shared, this was last updated by the committees in 2018. And as a reminder, this definition is what is used as the basis for identifying the resources required for adequate funding. The next tab has the adequacy recommendations worksheet. So getting into talking about how do recommendations ultimately get documented and then put into the final report. So this is under tab 1D. 

And the chairs really liked the idea of having the worksheet available to you all so members can see how the information that we’re presenting to you ultimately gets embedded as part of final recommendations and into the report. I won’t go through the entire worksheet, but we’ll briefly cover some examples. 

So while most of the lines of the worksheet are associated with funding, not all of them are. So you will see in this first example where we have a definition of adequacy, this would be if you decide you want to make a change to the definition of inadequacy, you could document that here. The next one is the adequacy study. So you all as the committee, you decide the direction of the adequacy study. You decide what reports we present, what topics are covered, everything, what surveys, if we do surveys, who we survey, that is all up to you at your discretion. And so if there are any changes to the reports that we provide, even the data we analyze, this would be a great opportunity in this section of the recommendations worksheet for you to document that. 

Moving further down the worksheet, you will see topics listed either that correspond to the lines in the matrix, if it’s a foundation funding recommendation, or in the case of categorical and supplemental funding, those specific funds will be listed. This header right here that I’ve circled, foundation funding, it will change to categorical or supplemental as you go down further in the worksheet and that tells you what those lines are associated with. 

Again, for most topic areas, the specific report where these are addressed are identified under the BLR reports column. For example, the matrix line shown here will be discussed in the funding overview and resource allocation reports. You will also see where there is an opportunity for you to document any recommendations for new matrix items. But as a note, if there’s a matrix item that maybe you want to see deleted, you would note that on the actual matrix line itself. 

And I also want to say the same opportunity for making the new recommendations for categorical and supplemental funds, there’s a line for that down further in the worksheet. So Taylor provided some great questions the committee could ask when making changes. Here are some examples of recommendations the committee can make and consider in conjunction with answering the questions Taylor presented. These are just examples. They’re not comprehensive by any means. 

But you can see there could be funding recommendations, but there could be recommendations that are not associated with funding whatsoever. They could be education policies with changing of staffing levels. Could also be recommendations for changes to the adequacy study itself. What I just mentioned, the types of reports we present, the data we analyze, et cetera.

 A really good example of this was in the 2012 study when the committee passed a motion requesting mandatory app scan coding changes to facilitate the collection of data for expenditure reports. So something else you will see in our reports is if we have any limitations to our data analysis, we have that documented in our report. And so you may see that and say, we may want to make a recommendation to help ensure the next time there’s an adequacy study that limitation to our analysis doesn’t exist. 

So the next five slides show the information found on the matrix and the other funding summary behind tab 1E. I’m not going to go through every one of these, but just want you to see that they correspond with the information in the guiding documents. These directly relate to resource allocation and expenditure reports that we will present in March. When the resource allocation reports are presented, you may decide to document some initial thoughts on changes. 

You may like to see on that recommendations worksheet that you have. The last guiding document under tab 1F is the tentative schedule, which is a quick look at meeting dates and important due dates. And once all individual reports are presented, a final report must be drafted, along with recommendations. According to statute, the final report, for the final record, the education must submit the final report of its findings by November 1st. For this adequacy study, it would be November 1st of 2026. 

And then each recommendation, the report is supposed to include proposed implementation schedules with timelines, specific steps, agencies and persons responsible, the resources needed, and drafts of bills proposing all necessary and recommended legislative changes. 

And then that report, the draft report is supposed to be published 14 days before submitting it to the president, pro tempore, and the speaker. Statute further requires before the fiscal session, the Education Committees meet to review the funding recommendations. 

So for this cycle, it would be the funding recommendations that were made in the 2024 adequacy report, review any other matters identified by the Education Committee that could affect the state’s obligation to provide a substantially equal opportunity for an adequate education, and then amend, if necessary, the 2024 recommendations and advise in writing of the findings and amendments to the adequacy report. And that has to be done before March 1st. 

So in closing, after hearing feedback during the last meeting, we thought it would be a good idea if we shared with you where you can find all current and past adequacy study materials. And we’re also happy to email out this link. But if you go to this link here, it will take you to this page. Well, it’s not showing on the screen. I guess it’s on. How do I get back to that? There we go. T

his is what it looks like whenever you go to it. You will see that there are folders for every year that there has been an adequacy study. So every two years. So if you go to the 2026 link and you open up that folder, you will see all of the materials up until this point that we’ve gone over. And then you can go all the way back. I think it goes down to 2003. Yeah, 2003. And so you can see all the information. And with that, I welcome any questions.

Senator Jane English Okay, thank you very much. This has been a lot of information, ladies. Thank you. Representative Carr. 

Representative John Carr Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, ladies, for the presentation and information. Just a quick question I would ask, has there been any suggestion or conversation about finding a place for student resource officers into the matrix? 

Jasmine Ray He asked if there’s been any discussion about adding school resource officers into the matrix. And I do not recall there ever being a formal recommendation that has come up through this process. I know there’s been discussion of it, but I don’t think there’s ever ultimately been a recommendation placed on that worksheet. 

Senator Jane English We have talked about in the context of safety, but it’s not gone any further than that. 

Representative John Carr All right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator Jane English Are there any more questions? Co-Chair, do you have questions? Comments? 

Representative Keith Brooks Sure, let me just make a quick comment based on Representative Carr there. I think the point was made a number of times from BLR that this is our process as a joint committee. So we get to decide and determine what is in the best interest of the funding. 

We get to decide and determine what is in the best interests of students and schools. And so if there are recommendations and suggestions, those are certainly things that the committee can take up as a part of this process, which is why it is so broad and so long. My encouragement would be, and I’ll probably do it tomorrow when a few more people are back, is that we just engage in the process. 

That’s one reason why Senator English and I made a little bit of a departure from what we’ve done previously, to have the worksheet included in there now. Because once you get to the end in October, a lot of this has gone by the wayside in your mind. And so it’s very, very important that we’re engaged in the processes very, very extensively as a whole committee, not just as a few people. And I think that makes us get to a better place and better outcome for our schools, which is ultimately what we’re trying to do. 

Senator Jane English I agree. Representative Painter. 

Representative Stetson Painter Thank you. And this is probably a question for the chairs. On that final report, I know we can make, if we look at 2024 and we want to make some changes or whatever like that, it says by March 1st. We don’t meet again until March 9th, supposedly, on the schedule. So how do we do that? Do we look at it tomorrow and then go through that? Or do we email you after? Or how does that work? 

Senator Jane English What is it you want to change? The dates for some of the hearings? 

Representative Stetson Painter No. I’m just saying, on that slide, it says if– and they were talking about the 2024. If we wanted to make a recommendation, if we didn’t think something was right, how do members do that if we have to do it by March 1, how do we do that? Because we don’t meet until March 9th. I’m not saying we would or not, but how is that mechanism? 

Representative Keith Brooks Recommendations from ladies at the table on what those changes may be. So is this if we want to make a change in the process for what’s included in the matrix?

Representative Stetson Painter So it says, if we– 

Representative Keith Brooks I’m trying to get to that slide. 

Representative Stetson Painter It’s slide 29. It says final report. If we want to make recommendations or any changes that could affect the 2024, have them done by March 1st. Well, we don’t meet until March 9th again. So how do we do that? What’s the process? 

Jasmine Ray Well, again, the process is always up to you all, but I will give some examples of in the past what has happened whenever we’ve had to have changes. So, typically it has been, and Taylor, you might want to chime in, like if there’s been an increase in like the retirement contribution rate for teachers, like it necessitated us going back and amending the prior adequacy study report because that wasn’t included in the amounts. Does that make sense? The same thing for employee health insurance. I believe last– 

Taylor Lloyd That was done before the 2024. 

Representative Stetson Painter So, if that’s the case then, to make that change, we’re going to have to have a meeting to do that before March 1st. 

Jasmine Ray If there are recommendations that need to be made, then, yes, there would have to be a meeting before March 1st. 

Representative Keith Brooks Okay, I just wanted to understand. And these recommendations would be relative to the bill passed in the 25 session? 

Representative Stetson Painter Correct. 

Representative Keith Brooks So in essence, you’re saying if there’s things that you recommend that we modify and alter in what we passed in the general session back in April of 25 for us to consider in the fiscal session, then we would have to have those prior to. So I would say since we don’t have a meeting that’s scheduled again before March 1st, just send them in by email to both chairs as well as staff. 

Representative Stetson Painter Okay. Thanks. 

Senator Jane English Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate all the information. It is a lot. It’s a lot to absorb. But it is really, really important, as Representative Brooks said, for people to be engaged. Because at the end of the day, we’re all going to be asked to make our recommendations. And you can’t make recommendations– it’s very complicated– if you haven’t been here and you haven’t been involved. So thank you very much for all of you being here. I appreciate it. And we will see you in the morning at 9 o’clock. The meeting is adjourned.