Can an Arkansas agriculture school formed under the 2015 pilot program detach from its existing district, qualify for school funding, and operate with both a Governor-appointed board and a local elected board?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2016. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner Johnny Key asked four questions about Act 1286 of 2015, which set up a pilot program for K-12 agriculture schools in Arkansas. The Department needed to know how to implement the law, but the Act had several ambiguities.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge answered three of the four questions and could not definitively answer the fourth:
- Detachment. The Act's exemptions from Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1501(a)(2) and § 6-13-1502 remove the minimum-student-count and geographical requirements for forming a new school district, but the new agriculture school district would still have to meet all other detachment requirements.
- Administrative consolidation. Yes, an agriculture school district would still be subject to the Public Education Reorganization Act (the consolidation list and the 350-student ADM rules), subject to the waiver provisions Act 377 of 2015 created.
- Governing board role. The AG could not definitively answer because the Act was insufficiently clear about how the Governor-appointed seven-member statewide agriculture school board interacts with elected local school boards or open-enrollment charter school boards. The Arkansas Supreme Court generally defers to reasonable agency interpretation, so the Department of Education's regulations would likely control.
- Funding. Agriculture schools created as part of an existing district or as open-enrollment charter schools receive normal state foundation and categorical funding through Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305. A school created in some other form (e.g., a partnership with an institution of higher education) would receive funding through legislative appropriation, not under § 6-20-2305.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Detachment with limited exemptions
Act 1286 specifically exempted agriculture schools from two statutory hurdles: the 2,500-student minimum for a new school district (Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1501(a)(2)) and the minimum geographical/attendance requirements (Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1502). But the Act's "savings clause" provided that "[a]ll other laws and rules applicable to a public school are applicable to an agriculture school unless specifically exempted under this [Act]." The AG used the expressio unius canon: exempting two specific provisions implies all the other formation requirements still apply.
So an agriculture school could detach to form a new district under § 6-13-1501 et seq. as long as it met all the remaining requirements, and it would have to be approved for grades K-12 if state law or State Board rules required that.
Consolidation list and Act 377 waivers
The Public Education Reorganization Act (Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1601 et seq.) requires the Department of Education to publish two annual lists by January 1: districts with average daily membership (ADM) under 350 in the previous year, and a consolidation list of districts that fell below 350 for the prior two years. Listed districts face administrative consolidation to reach the 350-student threshold.
The Act 1286 exemption did not extend to the Reorganization Act. So an agriculture school district could end up on the consolidation list. However, Act 377 of 2015 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1613) lets a listed district request a waiver of the 350-ADM requirement. The State Board must grant the waiver if the district shows: (1) no academic, financial, or facilities distress; (2) no probationary status for accreditation violations; (3) adequate academic facilities; and (4) it would be in the students' best interests to prevent long bus rides. The waiver applies to agriculture school districts as it does to other small districts.
The governing-board ambiguity
Act 1286 created a seven-member statewide board appointed by the Governor to govern "an agriculture school" in the pilot program. But the Act used the plural "schools" in the same sentence, suggesting one board for all agriculture schools statewide. It also created a separate seven-member "advisory board" for each individual school.
The Act did not address how the statewide board interacts with the local elected school board (if the agriculture school sits inside a regular school district) or with the open-enrollment charter school board (if the agriculture school is structured as a charter). The AG noted that under the Act's savings clause, the local-board authority (Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-620) would still apply, but the Act did not specify how that authority coexists with the statewide board's "shall be governed by" language.
Citing Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Taylor, the AG noted that the Arkansas Supreme Court typically defers to a reasonable interpretation adopted by the agency charged with administering the program. Because the Department of Education was in the process of promulgating implementing rules, the AG declined to speculate. She also urged the legislature to clarify the statute.
Funding sources
For schools that fit within established structures:
- Agriculture school inside an existing district. State foundation and categorical funding flow to the host district under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305, then to the agriculture school as part of the district's allocation.
- Agriculture open-enrollment charter school. Receives state foundation funding equal to the amount a public school would receive under § 6-20-2305(a), plus categorical funding under § 6-20-2305(b), under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-23-501.
- Agriculture school created in another form. The AG could not see how § 6-20-2305 funding would reach a school that was neither an open-enrollment charter nor a regular school district. Such a school (the AG hypothesized one created in partnership with a higher-education institution like the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Science, and the Arts) would have to be funded through legislative appropriation to the partner institution, plus grants and donations.
Common questions
Did the pilot program actually launch?
The opinion notes the pilot was supposed to provide at least one agriculture school for grades 7-12 in the 2015-16 school year and at least one for K-6 in 2016-17. Whether and how it actually launched is beyond the AG's review and would require checking the Department of Education's implementation history.
What does "governed by" the statewide board actually mean?
The opinion could not say. The verb "to govern" can mean anything from setting overall standards to running daily operations. The Department of Education's implementing rules would resolve the question subject to judicial review under the deferential standard.
Can a single school district board still operate a school that is also part of the pilot?
The opinion implies yes (because the savings clause preserves local-board authority), but the AG could not specify how the two layers of authority would coexist. That was the core ambiguity the AG asked the legislature to clarify.
Source
Subject
Q1) Act 1286 of 2015 exempts an agricultural school that is part of the pilot program from Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501(a)(2) and 6-13-1502. Does this exemption allow an agricultural school to detach to
Source
Official summary
Q1) Act 1286 of 2015 exempts an agricultural school that is part of the pilot program from Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501(a)(2) and 6-13-1502. Does this exemption allow an agricultural school to detach to form its own school district under Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 et seq.? If so, would the agricultural school have to be approved for grades K-12 before any detachment as a school district could occur? Q2) If the law allows an agricultural school to detach to form its own school district under Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 et seq., would that district be subject to the Administrative Consolidation provisions set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1601 et seq., as amended by Act 377 of 2015, including, but not limited to, placement on the lists set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1602(1) and (2)? Q3) Act 1286 of 2015 calls for a board appointed by the Governor to be the governing body for an agricultural school. What is the role of this governing board? What role does an elected board of directors or board of directors of an open enrollment charter school have if a school under the direction of an elected board or open enrollment charter school board is also an agricultural school under Act 1286 of 2015? Q4) What funding is available for an agricultural school under Act 1286 of 2015? If an agricultural school is not an open enrollment charter school and not a "school district" as defined in Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-2303(18), can the agricultural school receive funding under Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-2305? RESPONSE: Q1) The exemptions you reference only remove certain impediments to the creation of an agriculture school district by way of detachment from an existing school district. However, such a proposed new school district would still have to meet all other requirements for the creation of a school district, whether by detachment or otherwise. Q2) "Yes," subject to the waiver provisions of Act 377 of 2015. Q3) I am unable to definitively answer this question, as the Act provides insufficient information or guidance, but I note that the Arkansas Supreme Court typically will defer to a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions adopted by the agency responsible for administering the program. Q4) The Act presumes that any agriculture schools created under the pilot program will be public schools that are eligible for funding from the public school fund and all other sources allowed by law. The answer to the second part of this question is "no."
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2015-102
January 8, 2016
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Johnny Key, Commissioner
Arkansas Department of Education
Four Capitol Mall
Little Rock, AR 72201-1019
Dear Commissioner Key:
I am writing in response to your request for an opm1on on certain questions
concerning Act 1286 of 2015 (the "Act"). This uncodified, temporary legislation,
in short, establishes a pilot program for elementary and secondary agriculture
schools in the state. 1 You have presented the following questions, which you state
have arisen in the course of the Department of Education's efforts to implement
the Act:
- Act 1286 of 2015 exempts an agricultural school that is part of
the pilot program from Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-13-150l(a)(2) and
6-13-1502. Does this exemption allow an agricultural school to
detach to form its own school district under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-
13-1501 et seq.? If so, would the agricultural school have to be
approved for grades K-12 before any detachment as a school
district could occur? - If the law allows an agricultural school to detach to form its own
school district under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1501 et seq., would
that district be subject to the Administrative Consolidation
provisions set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1601 et seq., as
1 See Acts 2015, No. 1286, § 1 (identifying the Act as temporary language that is not to be
codified). Under the Act, the pilot program was to provide for at least one agriculture school in
the state for grades 7 through 12 for the 2015-16 school year, and provides for at least one such
school for kindergarten through the 6th grade for the 2016-17 school year.
323 CENTER STREET. SUITE 200 · LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 · FAX (501) 682-8084
ARKANSASAG.GOV Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 2
amended by Act 377 of 2015, including, but not limited to,
placement on the lists set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1602( 1)
and (2)? - Act 1286of2015 calls for a board appointed by the Governor to
be the governing body for an agricultural school. What is the
role of this governing board? What role does an elected board of
directors or board of directors of an open enrollment charter
school have if a school under the direction of an elected board or
open enrollment charter school board is also an agricultural
school under Act 1286 of2015? - What funding is available for an agricultural school under Act
1286 of2015? If an agricultural school is not an open enrollment
charter school and not a "school district" as defined in Ark. Code
Ann. § 6-20-2303(18), can the agricultural school receive
funding under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305?
RESPONSE
It is my opinion in response to your first question that the exemptions you
reference only remove certain impediments to the creation of an agriculture school
district by way of detachment from an existing school district. However, such a
proposed new school district would still have to meet all other requirements for
the creation of a school district, whether by detachment or otherwise. The answer
to your second question is, in my opinion, "yes," subject to the waiver provisions
of Act 3 77 of 2015. I am unable to definitively answer your third question, as the
Act provides insufficient information or guidance, but I note that the Arkansas
Supreme Court typically will defer to a reasonable interpretation of the statutory
provisions adopted by the agency responsible for administering the program. With
respect to the first part of your fourth question, the Act presumes that any
agriculture schools created under the pilot program will be public schools that are
eligible for funding from the public school fund and all other sources allowed by
law. The answer to the second part of this question is "no," in my opinion.
DISCUSSION
Question 1: Act 1286 of 2015 exempts an agricultural school that is part of the
pilot program from Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-13-1501(a)(2) and 6-13-1502. Does
this exemption allow an agricultural school to detach to form its own school Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 3
district under Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-1501 et seq.? If so, would the agricultural
school have to he approved/or grades K-12 before any detachment as a school
district could occur?
In section 1 ( c )( 1 ), Act 1286 of 2015 specifically exempts an agriculture schooi2
from the statutory requirements that any new school district created by detachment
(1) not have fewer than 2,500 students,3 and (2) meet the minimum geographical
and attendance requirements.4 But the Act makes clear, in the very next
subsection, that "[a ]ll other laws and rules applicable to a public school are
applicable to an agriculture school unless specifically exempted under this [Act]."5
Since the Act provides no other statutory exemptions, all other laws pertaining to
the creation of school districts in Arkansas remain applicable to any agriculture
school district that may be created pursuant to the Act. 6
Accordingly, the answers to these specific questions are: (1) the exemption allows
an agricultural school to detach to form its own school district under Ark. Code
Ann. § 6-13-1501 et seq. so long as it meets all the remaining legal requirements
for such detachment and creation of a new school district; (2) the agricultural
school would have to be approved for grades K-12 to the extent that state law or
rules promulgated by the State Board of Education require K-12 approval.
Question 2: If the law allows an agricultural school to detach to form its own
school district under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1501 et seq., would that district be
subject to the Administrative Consolidation provisions set forth in Ark. Code
Ann. § 6-13-1601 et seq. [the Public Education Reorganization Act], as
amended by Act 3 77 of 2015, including, but not limited to, placement on the lists
set forth in Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-1602(1) and (2)?
2 Acts 2015, No. 1286, § l(c)(l).
3 Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-150l(a)(2) (Supp. 2015).
4 Id. at§ 6-13-1502.
5 Acts 2015, No. 1286, § l(c)(2).
6 This plain reading of the Act is consistent with the doctrine of statutory interpretation known as
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, whereby the express designation of one thing may properly
be construed to mean the exclusion of another. MacSteel Div. of Quanex v. Arkansas Oklahoma
Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 31, 210 S.W.3d 878, 883 (2005) (citing Gazaway v. Greene County
Equalization Bd., 314 Ark. 569, 864 S.W.2d 233 (1993)). Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 4
As stated in my response to Question 1, the Act grants any future agriculture
school districts two specific exemptions from the body of law governing school
districts. The Act does not specifically exempt an agriculture school district from
the Public Education Reorganization Act7 ("Reorganization Act"). Thus, in my
opinion, the Reorganization Act would apply to any such school district.
The Reorganization Act states that the Department of Education must publish, by
January 1 of each year, (1) a list of all school districts that had an average daily
membership ("ADM") of fewer than 350 students during the previous school year;
and (2) a consolidation list of school districts that have had an ADM of fewer than
350 students during the prior two school years.8 If a school district is placed on
the consolidation list, it risks being administratively consolidated with one or more
other school districts to create a district with an ADM of at least 350 students.9
Therefore, an agriculture school district created by detachment, which as noted
above is exempt from the minimum 2,500-student requirement for a school
district's creation, would still have to be named on either list as warranted.
It is very important to understand, however, that, under the provisions of Act 377
of 2015, 10 such a school district could apply for a waiver from administrative
consolidation. Act 3 77 allows school districts that are placed on the consolidation
list to annually request from the State Board of Education a waiver of the
minimum 350-student ADM requirement.11 Act 377, in my opinion, would apply
to agriculture school districts as well. Thus, if an agriculture school district that is
placed on the consolidation list requests a waiver and meets the four criteria listed
in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1613(b)(2), 12 it would be entitled to the waiver like any
other similarly situated school district.
7 Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-1601 et seq. (Repl. 2013 and Supp. 2015).
8 Id. at§ 6-13-1602 (Repl. 2013).
9 Id. at§ 6-13-1603 (Supp. 2015).
1° Codified at Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-1613 (Supp. 2015).
11 Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1613(a).
12 This subsection states that the State Board of Education shall issue the waiver if the requesting
school district can show that 1) it is not in academic, financial, or facilities distress; 2) it is not in
probationary status for violation of state accreditation standards; 3) the district's academic
facilities are adequate; and, 4) it is in the best interests of the students to prevent long bus rides to
and from school. Ark. Code Ann.§ 6-13-1613(b)(2) (emphasis added). Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 5
Question 3: Act 1286of2015 calls/or a board appointed by the Governor to be
the governing body for an agricultural school. What is the role of this
governing board? What role does an elected board of directors or board of
directors of an open enrollment charter school have if a school under the
direction of an elected board or open enrollment charter school board is also an
agricultural school under Act 1286of2015?
Before turning to your specific questions, I feel it important to set forth certain
relevant principles of statutory construction as stated by the Arkansas Supreme
Court:
The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to
construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary meaning
and usually accepted meaning in common language. We construe
the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant;
and meaning and effect are given to every word in the statute if
possible. When the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory
construction. When the meaning is not clear, we look to the
language of the statute, the subject matter, the object to be
accomplished, the purpose to be served, the remedy provided, the
legislative history, and other appropriate means that shed light on the
b. 13 su ~ect.
Furthermore, it is well-established that in construing statutes, the court will "look
to the language under discussion in the context of the statute as a whole."14
Your questions here seek to understand the role of the board created by section
1 (b )(2) of the Act, and the interplay between that board and an elected board of
directors or board of directors of an open-enrollment charter school.
The Act states that "[a]n agriculture school that is part of this pilot program shall
be governed by a single seven (7) member board of directors of agriculture
schools appointed by the Governor."15 The quoted language states that an
13 MacSteel Div. of Quanex, supra note 6, 363 Ark. at 30, 210 S.W.3d at 882-83 (internal
citations omitted).
14 Green v. Mills, 339 Ark. 200, 205, 4 S.W.3d 493, 496 (1993) (internal citations omitted).
15 Acts 2015, No. 1286, § l(b)(2) (emphases added). Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 6
agriculture school is to be governed by a single seven-member board of directors
for agriculture schools. This use of the plural noun "schools" seems to suggest
that this one board will govern any and all agriculture schools statewide that are
created as a part of this pilot program, whether created as new school districts or
within already existing school districts, or as open-enrollment charter schools.
The Act is silent as to the meaning of the "shall be governed by" language and
whether (or to what extent) this board supplants or takes precedence over the usual
authority of a local school district board of directors or that of an open-enrollment
agriculture charter school's board. The verb "to govern," in its transitive sense,
means "[t]o make and administer the public policy and affairs of [an entity]; to
exercise sovereign authority over."16 But that does not tell us at what level and
with what particularity this board is intended "to govern." For example, if this
board exercised authority over every minute detail of a particular school's
operation, we could certainly say the school was "governed by" the board. But if,
rather than overseeing every minute aspect of a particular school, this state-wide
board instead developed and oversaw the implementation of mandatory standards
for the agricultural program of these schools, we might well also say a
participating school was "governed by" the board.
Reading the relevant statutory provision in context does not add much to the
dictionary definition. While section I (b )(2) of the Act sets up a supposed state-
wide board, section I (b )(3) sets up an advisory board for each particular school. It
is thus a reasonable inference that the state-wide board is supposed to concentrate
on state-wide issues affecting all schools in the program. But that again does not
clearly tell us what or how much authority or responsibilities this board is to have
over local school boards. 17
While the statute does not mention a local school district board of directors or an
16 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 749 (5th ed. 2011).
17 The Act also calls for an agriculture school in the pilot program to have a seven-member
"advisory board." The Act's wording strongly suggests that each agriculture school will have its
own advisory board. See Acts 2015, No. 1286, §l(b)(2)-(3). This interpretation is buttressed by
the inclusion on this advisory board of a representative of "the local agriculture business
community." Id. at§ l(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added). As we know, the "local agriculture business
community" in one area of the state where an agriculture school is located may not be the same as
that of another. But it is not clear from the Act what the purpose of this school-specific advisory
board is or how it is intended to interact with other entities. Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 7
open-enrollment agriculture charter school's board, the absence of such language
cannot weigh heavily in the analysis. As noted above in my response to your first
question, the Act includes a "savings clause" that makes "[a]ll other laws and rules
applicable to a public school . . . applicable to an agriculture school unless
specifically exempted under this chapter."18 Arkansas law calls for local boards
to govern school districts.19 Accordingly, the absence on language in this Act
concerning local boards is-at best-inconclusive concerning how the General
Assembly intended the state-wide board to function vis-a-vis local school boards.
A plain reading of the statute thus fails to answer your questions unambiguously.
The object and purpose of the statute includes:
• "creating kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) agriculture schools
across the state" to "provide deliberate, focused instruction that will
address the state's agriculture-based economy[;]"
• "encourag[ing] small rural communities to participate in the pilot program .
. . [;]" and
• Requiring "[t]he Department of Career Education, in collaboration with the
Department of Education" to "develop, administer, and oversee" the
program.
None of this provides unambiguous direction to determine the exact role of the
state-wide board created by the Act, nor the extent of its power and role vis-a-vis
locally elected school boards. There are strong arguments to make that numerous
different divisions of power and responsibilities would serve the statute's varying
purposes and objectives.
Given the ambiguity present in the situation, I cannot provide a definite answer to
your questions, other than to say that the Arkansas Supreme Court typically will
defer to a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions adopted by the
18 Acts 2015, No. 1286, § l(c)(2)
19
See generally Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-620 (Repl. 2013) (stating the various powers and duties
of school district boards of directors). Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 8
agency responsible for administering the program. 20 Because the agency charged
with rule-making under the Act is currently in the process of promulgating such
rules, it would be inappropriate for me in an advisory opinion to speculate on what
the agency's final rules will or should be, or how the court might evaluate such
rules once they are in effect.
Question 4: What funding is available/or an agricultural school under Act 1286
of 2015? If an agricultural school is not an open enrollment charter school and
not a "school district" as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2303(18), can the
agricultural school receive {state foundation and categorical} funding under
Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305?
In response to the first part of this question, the Act states that an agricultural
school opened as part of the pilot program "may receive funding from the public
school fund21 and other sources as allowed by law."22 If an agriculture school is
opened as part of an existing school district, similar to a magnet school or a
conversion charter school, then state foundation and categorical funding would
continue to flow to that school district under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305 (Supp.
2015).
If an agriculture school is created as an open-enrollment charter school, pursuant
to Ark. Code Ann. § 6-23-301 et seq. (Repl. 2013 and Supp. 2015) and the rules
promulgated by the State Board of Education, then it is to receive state foundation
funding equal to the amount that a public school would receive under Ark. Code
Ann. § 6-20-2305(a) as well as categorical funding under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-
2305(b).23 Such a school would also be entitled to any other funding that a public
charter school is entitled to receive under law or under rules promulgated by the
State Board of Education.24
20 See, e.g., Arkansas Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Taylor, 2013 Ark. 37, 425 S.W.3d 738. In my view,
however, legislative clarification would be useful because of the ambiguities in the Act discussed
above.
21 See Ark. Code Ann.§§ 6-20-203, -204 (Rep!. 2013).
22 Acts 2015, No. 1286, § l(e).
23 See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-23-50 l (Rep I. 2013).
24 Id. Johnny Key, Commissioner
Ark. Department of Education
Opinion No. 2015-102
Page 9
Beyond these methods of creating an agriculture school, I do not see under the
terms of the Act how such a school could be created so that it would receive
funding under section 6-20-2305.25 Because your question asks only about
funding under that specific section of the Code, I am compelled to note that my
response is similarly limited.
Sincerely,
c--~/A---
LESLIE RUTLE~;~
Attorney General
25 If an agriculture school were created in partnership with an institution of higher education-
such as the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Science, and the Arts, which is a part of the
University of Arkansas System-then such a school would receive its funding via appropriation
to that institution from the General Assembly, see, e.g., Acts 2015, No. 369 (the appropriation act
for personal services and operating expenses for the University of Arkansas System, which
includes an appropriation for the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Science, and the Arts), and
through grants, contributions, and donations. Such a school would not be entitled to receive
funding through the state public school fund.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2016 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.