Arkansas Department of Education not big fans of 'equity' (2024)

Brian Chilson

According to state law, the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education is required to “develop and implement a comprehensive accountability system for Arkansas public schools and school districts that assesses whether all students have equitable access to excellent educators.”

That seems reasonable enough, and in fact there are deeply rooted historical and legal reasons for that language, as former Little Rock School District superintendent Baker Kurrus explicated last week.

But under Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Department of Education seems to have different ideas.

In my roundup of the State Board of Education meeting last week, I noted in passing a curious edit to a slate of department rules regarding new teacher incentives under Arkansas LEARNS, the state’s education overhaul law passed last year:

I mostly mentioned this because it shows how obsessive the busybody bureaucrats are forced to be under Sanders and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. They are so frightened of the word “equitable,” they have to make this fussy little edit to scrub its very mention out of obscure agency rules — in this case, from a list of the stated “purposes” of the rules of themselves. It’s weird and pathetic.

I’ve asked a department spokesperson why this alteration was made and thus far have not gotten a response. It’s hard to imagine any purpose beyond leaders in the executive branch being so far down the rabbit hole of “anti-woke” politics that they’re more invested in childishly crossing out words to own the libs than they are in providing the best possible educational opportunities for every kid in every district in the state. Political showmanship rules the day. Again, these are rules regarding a new merit bonus incentive program for teachers. Is it really even germane to claim that the state’s goal is to “provide access” rather than “equitable access”?

Indeed, part of what makes this so silly is that I would be shocked if this tweak to the language has any substantive change to actual policy at all. Be that as it may, it’s nevertheless a disturbing bit of symbolism that reveals this administration’s broader priorities. An aim to provide “equitable access” to good teachers for all students is apparently intolerable to the state’s department of education. It’s boilerplate language, perhaps, but it represents a fundamental principle that has been a bedrock standard for the state’s K-12 public education system for the last three decades.

To see how strange this is, it’s worth taking a step back to review the rule-making process. When legislation passes, agencies within the executive branch are often tasked with promulgating rules that actually spell out the nuts and bolts of how the law will play out. This makes sense: We don’t want lawmakers micromanaging every nitty-gritty aspect of the process, and we want the expertise of the given department to sort through the most effective means to carry out the law.

In the case of rules regarding K-12 public education, the process typically goes like this: The first step is for the education department to draft rules. Then the state board will review them and send them out for public comment, over a period of 30 days. Then, assuming there are no substantive changes after the public comment period, the rules come back to the board for approval. The final step is approval from the Legislative Council.

Typically, if you look at just about any slate of rules of this kind, a lot of the language is the very same language found in the relevant statutes. That’s because the purpose of such rules is not to make new laws, or change existing ones — it’s to implement the laws as written.

That’s the most disturbing part of the department’s edit: Under state law, “equitable access to excellent educators” is not just a goal. It’s a mandate that the department is required to assess. In gratuitously scribbling out the language in existing rules that mirror the law, the department is thumbing their noses at the explicit statutory priorities. They are thumbing their noses at the law.

This might be a worthy question for the Legislative Council when they conduct the final review of these rules, but I won’t hold my breath.

I asked a department spokesperson what the reasoning was behind this new divergence from the statutory language introduced in this rules change and have thus far not received a response.

I got several comments last week via social media suggesting that this rules alteration would be a problem for LEARNS in a potential lawsuit. I’m no lawyer, but I doubt it. Again, I can’t see how this represents any substantive change in practice, which is why it’s so peculiar that they bothered to make what almost just amounts to a style change within obscure department protocols. (That said, if this issue winds up as a footnote in some future lawsuit about the state’s intent or some such, I will happily pat myself on the back for bothering to actually read the department’s tedious rules.)

The rules in question have to do with a new incentive program under LEARNS by which teachers can earn a bonus of up to $10,000 for good performance.

It’s telling that a stray use of the word “equitable” in the merit incentive rules’ “purposes” section got the department’s attention, but the fact that several administrators wrote public comments advising that one key component of the selection process was unworkable went ignored.

These merit awards, by the way, are being doled out in June. A department official told the state board last week, “Teachers don’t understand this right now. That is clear.”

Given that, it was also notable what the rules did not include. There was no information about the actual application or selection process. How do teachers apply, or how are potential candidates identified? Do the teachers apply directly or does someone nominate the teacher? What are the due dates, or the timeline for applications and consideration? Who reviews the applicants and makes the final decisions?

I asked about these details and a department spokesperson replied, “Processes are being developed and will be released via a Commissioner’s Memo.”

Until then, I guess there’s one thing we know for sure: However state officials select which teachers are deserving of awards, they absolutely won’t be aiming to provide excellent teachers in every district to ensure that every single student in every single district has a fair shot when it comes to educational opportunities. That would be “equitable.” And we wouldn’t want that.