Ark. Code Ann. » Title 6 Chapter 18
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (2026)

Limitations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. If the provisions of this subchapter conflict with a provision of an enforceable desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan, either of which explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts, the provisions of the order or plan shall govern.
    2. Annually by January 1, a school district that claims a conflict under subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall submit proof from a federal court to the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education that the school district has a genuine conflict under an active desegregation order or active court-approved desegregation plan that explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts.
    3. Proof submitted under subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall contain the following:
      1. Documentation that the desegregation order or court-approved desegregation plan is still active and enforceable; and
      2. Documentation showing the specific language the school district believes limits its participation in the school choice provisions of this subchapter.
      1. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of proof under subdivision (a)(2) of this section, the division shall notify the school district whether it is required to participate in the school choice provisions of this subchapter.
      2. The division may reject incomplete submissions.
      3. If the division does not provide a written exemption to the school district, then the school district shall be required to participate in the school choice provisions of this subchapter.
    5. The division shall maintain on its website a list of school districts that are not required to participate in the school choice provisions of this subchapter.
    6. The State Board of Education may review a decision of the division upon written petition of the affected school district and may affirm or reverse the decision of the division under the rules promulgated by the state board to implement this subsection.
      1. There is established a numerical net maximum limit on school choice transfers each school year from a school district, less any school choice transfers into the school district, under this section of not more than three percent (3%) of the enrollment that exists in the school district as of October 1 of the immediately preceding school year.
      2. If the application for a transfer that causes the school district to meet or exceed the three-percent numerical net maximum limit under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section is on behalf of a sibling group, then the school district shall allow all siblings in the sibling group to exercise school choice under this subchapter.
      3. A student eligible to transfer to a nonresident district under § 6-15-430(c)(1) [repealed], the Arkansas Opportunity Public School Choice Act, § 6-18-227, § 6-18-233, or § 6-21-812 shall not count against the cap of three percent (3%) of the resident or nonresident district.
    2. Annually by December 15, the division shall report to each school district the net maximum number of school choice transfers for the next school year.
    3. If a student is unable to transfer due to the limits under this subsection, the resident district shall give the student priority for a transfer in the first school year in which the district is no longer subject to subdivision (b)(1) of this section in the order that the resident district receives notices of applications under § 6-18-1905, as evidenced by a notation made by the district on the applications indicating date and time of receipt.

History. Acts 2013, No. 1227, § 6; 2015, No. 560, § 6; 2017, No. 988, § 2; 2017, No. 1066, § 4; 2018 (2nd Ex. Sess.), No. 9, § 1; 2018 (2nd Ex. Sess.), No. 14, § 1; 2019, No. 754, § 4; 2019, No. 910, §§ 1580-1582.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment added (a)(2) and redesignated (a) as (a)(1); deleted former (b) and redesignated former (c) as present (b); substituted “enrollment that exists in the school district as of October 15 of the” for “school district's three-quarter average daily membership for the” in (b)(1)(A); deleted “and siblings who are counted in the denominator as part of the average daily membership shall count as one (1) student” at the end of (b)(1)(B); added (b)(1)(C); in (b)(2), substituted “December 15” for “June 1” and “next school year” for “current school year”; and, in (b)(3), substituted “the first school year in which the district is no longer subject to subdivision (b)(1) of this section” for “the following year”.

The 2017 amendment by No. 988 inserted “§ 6-18-233” in (b)(1)(C).

The 2017 amendment by No. 1066 substituted “either of which explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts” for “regarding the effects of past racial segregation in student assignment” in (a)(1); in (a)(2), substituted “Annually by January 1, a school district that claims a conflict under subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall submit” for “If a school district claims a conflict under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, the school district shall immediately submit” and substituted “that explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts” for “with the interdistrict school choice provisions of this subchapter”; and added (a)(3) through (6).

The 2018 (2nd Ex. Sess.) amendment by identical acts Nos. 9 and 14 rewrote (b)(1)(B).

The 2019 amendment by No. 754 substituted “October 1” for “October 15” in (b)(1)(A).

The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Division of Elementary and Secondary Education” for “Department of Education” in (a)(2); and substituted “division” for “department” throughout the section.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Brinkley Beecher Cook-Campbell, Comment: “Schoolhouse Block”: Why the Arkansas Public School Choice Act Should Be Improved but Not Eliminated, 67 Ark. L. Rev. 927 (2014).

Dorothy Vaughan Goodwin, Recent Developments: An Eighth Circuit Panel Addresses the Constitutionality of Blytheville School District #5's Declaring an Exemption to the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013, 68 Ark. L. Rev. 863 (2015).

Case Notes

Equal Protection.

School district's claim of exemption equally impacted all students, regardless of race, as no student could transfer out of the district because of the district's taking of the exemption under the Public School Choice Act of 2013, § 6-18-1901 et seq.; alternatively, even assuming that differential treatment existed upon which to base an equal protection claim, the district had at least a rational basis for believing that the 2013 Act authorized it to take an exemption. Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. #5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015).

Mootness.

Parents' appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to require the school district to rescind its resolution to opt out of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013 for 2013-2014 school year was moot because by the motion's own terms, the time period in which the requested relief would have been effective had expired, and the mootness exception for claims capable of repetition, yet evading review, was inapplicable. Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. #5, 762 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2014).

Appellants could potentially recover money damages for any constitutional violation arising from school district's alleged violation of the Public School Choice Act of 2013, § 6-18-1901 et seq.; therefore, the money-damages claims were not moot, and accordingly, the court addressed appellants' underlying due process and equal protection claims. Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. #5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “While the 2013 Act did require the District to "notify the [ADE] by April 1 if in the next school year the school district intend[ed] to" declare an exemption, Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (b)(3), the 2013 Act did not become effective until April 16, 2013.”
Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. 5, 762 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “'" Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (b)(1). The Act requires a school district to "notify the [Arkansas Department of Education] by April 1" if the district intends to declare an exemption "in the next school year.”
United States v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 14 F.4th 658 (8th Cir. 2021). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (b)(1) (2013).”
United States v. Junction City Sch. Dist. (W.D. Ark. 2019). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (a)(2). Accordingly, for Junction City to receive an exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars “inter-district” student transfers.”
Milton v. Clinton (W.D. Ark. 2019). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (a)(2). Accordingly, for Camden-Fairview to receive a total exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars “inter-district” student transfers not only as…”
Davis v. Franks (W.D. Ark. 2019). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (a)(2). Accordingly, for Hope to receive an exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars “inter-district” student transfers.”
Turner v. Lewisville Sch. (W.D. Ark. 2019). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (a)(2). Accordingly, for LCSD to receive an exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars inter-district student transfers.”
United States v. Junction City Sch. Dist. No. 75, 361 F. Supp. 3d 809 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). · cites it 2× “Under the current iteration of Arkansas' school choice law-the 2017 Act-a school that claims a conflict with participating in school choice must show that it is subject to an active and enforceable desegregation court order or plan that "explicitly limits the transfer of…”
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 955 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(b). Plaintiffs challenge the Blytheville District’s ability to opt-out of Act 2013 at all for the 2013-2014 school year.”
United States v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 984 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2020). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906 (a)(2). Notably, this remedy does not relieve the Districts from performing a stale or unworkable condition in the decrees; it creates an express conflict (and the only conflict) with Arkansas law.”
Townsend v. Watson (W.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 6-18-1906(a)(1). The 1971 Order is an enforceable desegregation court order regarding the effects of past racial segregation in student assignment.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(a)(1) — 1 case
Townsend v. Watson (W.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 6-18-1906(a)(1). The 1971 Order is an enforceable desegregation court order regarding the effects of past racial segregation in student assignment.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(b) — 1 case
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 955 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Ark. 2013). “Ark.Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(b). Plaintiffs challenge the Blytheville District’s ability to opt-out of Act 2013 at all for the 2013-2014 school year.”
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.