A good education is expensive, and the additional funding recently approved by legislative committees in attempt to meet an Arkansas Supreme Court public school funding mandate is a sobering amount. That is why, while endorsing this legislative expenditure, I am proposing legislation aimed at ensuring these funds are being spent in the classrooms, not administrative board rooms.

A bill I plan to offer during an upcoming special legislative session accomplishes the same goals the House and Senate education committees approved during their recent hearings. It additionally adds a section, however, to limit administrative expenditures to an amount that is equal to 8 percent of the teacher salary fund, operating fund, and debt service fund. If approved by legislators, the bill would mean school administrators would most likely be forced to spend new money on classroom activities instead of administrative actions.

I know several legislators are frustrated and alarmed at the large amount of funds being considered. I understand and share their frustration, but the 8 percent administrative cap would ensure these funds are spent directly for the benefit of students. Such restrictions allow me to feel more confident of the distribution of these new funds.

In my bill, administrative expenditures are defined as central office administration. This classification does not include building principals or their support staff, nor does it include staff members who work with students, like literacy or math coaches. It does include those in supervisory positions that provide district-wide supervision, like transportation directors, athletic directors, personnel directors, and curriculum supervisors.

The limitation was set at 8 percent because it was slightly above the state average, and districts should not have a problem meeting this cap. This is a reasonable amount because it allows districts of all sizes room for unforeseen expenses. There is also a provision for districts that find themselves in special circumstances, like absorbing administrative contracts from a district through school consolidation. A waiver can be granted by the director of the Arkansas Department of Education in such instances.

Of course, this entire school funding dilemma was brought about by the ongoing Lake View lawsuit which confronts the way public schools in Arkansas are funded.

To provide you with some background:

On August 19, 1992, the Lake View School District sued the State of Arkansas, contending the funding formula used to finance schools in Arkansas was unconstitutional. That lawsuit set off a lengthy, contentious, costly, and tedious debate that has consumed legislative and school officials in the state. Nearly 14 years later, it's an issue that our state is still addressing.

After numerous attempts to satisfy the state Supreme Court, the state lost its argument last year that school districts are adequately funded. That loss means we must again address school funding issues.

What was at issue in the Lake View case was the disparity in funds available for education in school districts across the state under the then existing school funding system. In 1994, school districts received approximately 30 percent of their revenue from local funds, 60 percent from state assistance, and 10 percent from federal funds. Local funds were collected from the local tax base tied to property values within the districts. School districts with higher property values obviously generated higher local taxes and more money available for education.

This formula resulted in significant disparities, according to the Supreme Court. For example, variations in per pupil expenditures in the 1992-1993 school year ranged from $4,064 spent per pupil in the Little Rock School District to $2,270 spent per pupil in the Mountain View School District, the Court cited. One of the purposes of state assistance was to equalize per pupil expenditures regardless of the wealth of the school district and to make available equal educational opportunities for all students.

In its original Nov. 9, 1994 order, the chancery court judge who heard the case ruled there was no rational basis for the variation in available school funds among poor and wealthy school districts under Arkansas' school funding system. The court further concluded that the school funding system violated Article 14, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution by failing to provide a "general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools." The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

While the Lake View School District (which is now no longer in existence) was the original party, other school districts have joined the lawsuit through the years, further adding to the depth of the lawsuit. Several legislative sessions and special legislative sessions have addressed the school funding issues in a number of ways since 1994, which leads us to our latest task at hand.

Late last year, the Supreme Court ruled that no cost of living increase was added to the $5,400 per-student amount allocated to each school district. A cost of living increase of 1.875 percent had been recommended by the Department of Education, which would have lifted the funding amount by approximately $101 per student each year. The Arkansas General Assembly disagreed -- contending that a cost of living increase had been given through an additional $35,000 for the teacher health insurance fund and additional facilities funds -- and that it was waiting to see how $380 million in newly appropriated funds were being spent before throwing more money into our state public schools. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ordered the state to provide cost of living increases, and gave the state until Dec. 1 of this year to rectify the situation.

I did not agree with the most recent ruling, nor do I agree with it now. But my personal opinion cannot stop the fact that we have been ordered to answer these complaints, and we are in no position to fight the Arkansas Supreme Court.

That is why I am faced with calling the Arkansas General Assembly into a special session. I am encouraging our legislature to act, and I have proposed several pieces of legislation that I believe will finally put this lengthy lawsuit to rest. What is most clear in this debate is the need to put the money we are spending on lawyers and courtrooms into the place the money actually belongs - our classrooms.