Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Newsletters Weather Puzzles/games

SILLY TAXPAYER and school patron. Here you thought the state provided a minimal level of funding for education as a floor. Who knew so many thought it was supposed to be a ceiling?

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Editorial, Pages 14 on 12/04/2012

Print Headline: A spot-on decision

Sponsor Content


You must be signed in to post comments
  • Dontsufferfools
    December 4, 2012 at 11:39 a.m.

    The flaw in this editorial is that the lake View ruling didn't demand that all students be provided a "minimum' education, but that there should be some equity in funding of schools and in the quality of education, especially in regard to facilities and teacher salaries. The dilemma the state faces is that if the school districts with more property wealth (the Fountain Lake district, for example, contains a big chunk of Hot Springs Village, which provides a lot of property tax revenue but not that many students, a lucrative ratio for the district) spend a lot more per student that the state average, then the state must either funnel more and more sales tax revenue into the formula, or let the funding inequities drift back to pre-Lake View ruling days, and invite another lawsuit. And don't forget that not long ago, the same Supreme Court ruled that city TIF districts couldn't capture the post-development value of the 25 mills and divert it to paying for infrastructure bonds, because the court ruled the 25 mills were a state tax.

  • JakeTidmore
    December 4, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.

    Editorial seems to support an old school philosophy: separate and unequal is OK.