But "happily ever after" fails,
And we've been poisoned
by these fairy tales,
The lawyers dwell on small details,
Since daddy had to fly.
--Don Henley
The lawyers in the dispute between four south Arkansas school districts and . . . well, state law . . . are dwelling on the small details, which might make big differences for the futures of dozens of kids, maybe more.
Over the past 10-15 years, the General Assembly of Arkansas has tried to make it easier for students to flee failing school districts. But state money follows the students, so some school districts have tangled themselves up in legal knots trying to fence off their boundaries. Keeping students in failing schools at least keeps the money flowing. Which might tell you all you need to know about the priorities of some school districts and their leaders.
The Ledge decided a few years back, to the relief and cheers of many, to pass the School Choice Act, which allows families to move their kids out of failing schools into other districts. Four school districts in south Arkansas--Hope, Junction City, Lafayette County and Camden Fairview--decided to fight that law, and have won a couple of important battles. But not the war. Not yet.
The districts and their attorneys found a neat trick in the books to keep the students (and the money) in these poorly performing districts. Many school districts in the South are still under desegregation orders, and the kids who'd like to go to better schools might could be white, leaving behind a school that might could be more Black or Brown than before, and that's called resegregation not desegregation.
Some of these desegregation orders go back to the 1960s. The one mentioned specifically in Cynthia Powell's story Thursday (Junction City's order) goes back to 1970. Some grandparents of kids in south Arkansas weren't even born by 1970. But, like diamonds, federal court orders are forever. Even if the whole world changes around them.
A U.S. district judge in south Arkansas ruled in favor of the districts. A three-judge panel for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed. Students and their families were told to tough it out.
Then this week the 8th Circuit said it would allow a rehearing.
Strangely, instead of a rehearing before the whole court, the issue is heading back to a three-judge panel. If it's the same three-judge panel, then what would be the point?
But perhaps there is hope now. Let's hope it turns into more than hope. Because right now it appears as though the attorneys are fighting a matter of details. Does anybody in court understand that for every semester this drags on, another group of kids must endure schools that aren't educating them?
"A plain reading of the consent decrees shows that they were intended to prohibit all forms of racial segregation," the panel said last time out. The Arkansas AG's office turned that argument back on itself, complaining about "long-dormant desegregation decrees." Or as Leslie Rutledge and her team described these rulings and affirmations: "[D]istrict courts may now reopen decades-old decrees and bar children--based solely on their race--from exercising school choice under state law and transferring to better performing schools."
The U.S. Justice Department is now involved, and its lawyers are finding their own details. Whether that turns out to be good for these students in south Arkansas remains to be seen. For the record, the department pushed for the re-review by the three-judge panel.
From the story: "The Justice Department team said a hearing before the full court is necessary when a three-judge panel's decision conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court or with a previous decision by the appeals court or is otherwise of exceptional importance."
The kicker: The team argued that the previous decision to exempt these school districts "creates no such exceptional conflict."
Maybe not to Justice Department lawyers. But to these families, the School Choice Act is of exceptional importance, indeed.