Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1901 (2026)

Title — Legislative findings

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Public School Choice Act of 2015”.
The General Assembly finds that:
1. The students in Arkansas's public schools and their parents will become more informed about and involved in the public educational system if students and their parents are provided greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their individual educational needs. There is no right school for every student, and permitting students to choose from among different schools with differing assets will increase the likelihood that some at-risk students will stay in school and that other, more motivated students will find their full academic potential;
2. Giving more options to parents and students with respect to where the students attend public school will increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the state's schools because teachers, administrators, and school district board members will have added incentive to satisfy the educational needs of the students who reside in the district; and
3. These benefits of enhanced quality and effectiveness in our public schools justify permitting a student to apply for admission to a school in any school district beyond the school district in which the student resides, provided that the transfer by the student does not conflict with an enforceable judicial decree or court order remedying the effects of past racial segregation in the school district.

History. Acts 2013, No. 1227, § 6; 2015, No. 560, § 2.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment substituted “2015” for “2013” at the end of (a).

Case Notes

In General.

Relevant precedent did not support proposition that parent's ability to choose where his or her child is educated within the public school system is a fundamental right or liberty, and accordingly, appellants failed to prove that they had a protected liberty interest; further, the Public School Choice Act of 2013, § 6-18-1901 et seq., did not create a property interest in exercising public school choice because appellants did not have more than a mere subjective expectancy of school choice under the Act. Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. #5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015).

School districts' motion to terminate their desegregation agreement was properly denied because the districts had not shown evidence of full compliance, and the change in the law, i.e., the repeal of the Arkansas School Choice Act of 1989 and enactment of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013, § 6-18-1901 et seq., was not enough to warrant termination of the agreement; even assuming a relevant change in the law, the districts, which asked for full termination of the agreement, failed to show that the purported change affected the entire agreement. Davis v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist., 833 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2016).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 762 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 762 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “16, 2013), codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1901 et seq. The Act contains a "broad school choice transfer option.”

Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015). “at 18 (quotation omitted), to "choose from among different schools with differing assets," Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1901 (b)(1) (2013), and when the Blytheville District wrongly and unconstitutionally exempted itself from the 2013 Act, the Blytheville District unlawfully deprived…”

W.T. Davis v. Cutter Morning Star Sch., 833 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “provision preventing the receiving school district from discriminating on the basis of race. The Act included, however, a carve-out restriction: Under the 2013 School Choice Act, nonresident transfers were only permitted “provided that the transfer by the student does not…”

Vincent Standridge, in His Pers. Capacity as a Parent; & Minor Child, by & Through His Father & Next Friend, Vincent Standridge v. Fort Smith Pub. Schs.; Dr. Terry Morawski, Superintendent, in His Off. Capacity; Dalton Person, Sch. Bd. President, in His Off. Capacity; Phil Whiteaker, Sch. Bd. Vice-President, in His Off. Capacity; Davin Chitwood, Sch. Bd. Sec'y, in His Off. Capacity; Matt Blaylock, Bd. Member, in His Off. Capacity; Susan Kraft, Bd. Member, in Her Off. Capacity; Lynnett Lott, Bd. Member, in Her Off. Capacity; Talicia Richardson, Bd. Member, in Her Off. Capacity; & Michael Beaumont, Dir. of Athletics & Activities, in His Off. Capacity, 2025 Ark. 42 (Ark. 2025). · cites it 2× “]” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1901 (b)(3) (Repl. 2021) (emphasis added).”

United States v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 14 F.4th 658 (8th Cir. 2021). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (b)(1) (2013).”

Townsend v. Watson (W.D. Ark. 2024). · cites it 4× “Citing Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1901 (b)(3), the Agencies assert that “Arkansas has adopted broad school-choice policies letting any student “apply for admission .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.