LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — An ongoing legal battle over Arkansas’ educational funding through tax dollars has stirred significant debate regarding the constitutionality of the state’s school voucher program. This program allows parents to use government funds for private, religious, or homeschool education for their children, igniting a contentious fight between proponents and opponents of the policy.
Representing four plaintiffs seeking to overturn what critics call the “education freedom accounts,” Little Rock attorney Richard Mays argues that diverting $100 million from public schools to private sectors could have a detrimental effect on public education. “While I support the existence of private schools, siphoning such substantial funds from public education could undermine its efficacy and accessibility,” Mays remarked.
The education freedom accounts, a major element of last year’s Arkansas LEARNS Act, have been touted for empowering parental choice in education. However, skeptics like Mays assert that they violate Article 14, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, which mandates the state to maintain an efficient system of public education.
Conversely, Joe Gay, a lawyer defending the voucher program pro-bono and backed by the Institute for Justice, contends that the constitution only sets a minimum requirement for public education, not a limitation, thus allowing the state to extend beyond it. “Arkansas has fulfilled its constitutional obligation by establishing public schools. The law simply builds on that foundation,” Gay explained.
This legal confrontation in Arkansas reflects broader national debates and legal precedents. Similar education voucher issues have been contested in West Virginia and Kentucky, where state supreme courts have upheld the voucher systems, highlighting the variability in state constitutional interpretations.
Support for the voucher program isn’t just legal but also personal. Affidavits from parents, included in the court filings, detail how vouchers have significantly benefited children with learning disabilities, who have thrived in private school settings tailored to their needs. Critics like Mays, however, argue that these personal stories, while compelling, should not distract from the constitutional issues at hand.
“If the constitution’s provisions are deemed inadequate or outdated, the proper channel would be to amend it, not sidestep it,” stated Mays, who also expressed concerns about the standing of the Institute for Justice in this lawsuit, generally a role reserved for the state Attorney General.
This case is expected to slowly make its way through the state’s legal system, continuously probing the delicate balance between fulfilling constitutional educational obligations and accommodating evolving educational preferences and needs.
In response to the ongoing legal challenge, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin expressed appreciation for the support from legal organizations like the Institute for Justice and EdChoice, emphasizing his commitment to defending the LEARNS Act. Meanwhile, Gay underscored the potential upheaval for families relying on the voucher program for the forthcoming school year, describing any abrupt cessation as potentially “devastating.”
As the lawsuit proceeds, it continues to raise fundamental questions about taxpayer obligations and the scope of legislative power under state constitutions, ensuring this issue remains at the forefront of educational policy discussions in Arkansas and potentially beyond.