Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-317 (2026)

Prohibited transfers

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Boards of directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers under § 6-18-316 when:
1. Either the resident district or the receiving district is under a desegregation-related court order; and
2. The transfer in question would violate the court order.
Each form filed with the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education reporting a legal student transfer must be accompanied by an affidavit signed by each member of both school district boards of directors stating that the transfer does not violate the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
If the transfer fails to comply with subsection (b) of this section, the division shall withhold from each district state aid in an amount equal to that to be generated by the student in question in the respective districts.

History. Acts 1987, No. 762, §§ 2-4; 2017, No. 1065, § 3; 2019, No. 910, § 1528.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “under § 6-18-316 when” for “in the following situations” in the introductory language of (a); in (a)(1), substituted “Either” for “When either” and deleted “or has ever been under such a court order” at the end; and substituted “violate the court order” for “negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order” in (a)(2).

The 2019 amendment substituted “Division of Elementary and Secondary Education” for “Department of Education” in (b); and substituted “division” for “department” in (c).

Case Notes

Applicability.

The making of a choice created by § 6-18-203 does not result in a “transfer” as contemplated by this section; the prohibition of this section is against “legal transfers,” dealt with generally in former § 6-18-306, which provides for petitioning to attend school in a nonresident district, requiring the approval of both the sending and the receiving district. The legislature did not use the term “legal transfer” in § 6-18-203(b), but referred to being “enrolled” in the district where the parent teaches; there is no suggestion in the latter statute that the legislature intended this process to be comparable to “legal transfer”; therefore, these statutes are not irreconcilable. Love v. Hill, 297 Ark. 96, 759 S.W.2d 550 (1988).

Effect of Transfer.

Where alleged constitutional violations were not currently causing racial segregation among the school districts, the trial court correctly refused to order consolidation or an interdistrict magnet school plan. Edgerson ex rel. Edgerson v. Clinton, 86 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: Love v. Hill, 759 S.W.2d 550 (Ark. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Love v. Hill, 759 S.W.2d 550 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 3× “1987) and § 6-18-317 (Supp. 1987), and in failing to find the district is prohibited from enrolling the Hill children under § 6-18-317 (Supp.”

Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 955 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 6-18-317. This statute currently in effect differs from the 2013 Act, but it implicates a student’s transferring from a resident to a non-resident district and permits that student to be treated differently depending on whether either district “has ever been…”

Teague ex rel. T.T. v. Arkansas Bd. of Educ., 873 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (W.D. Ark. 2012). “§ 6-18-203(5), § 6-18-317. Finally, some of the state’s lawmakers themselves have determined that the limitation in Ark.”

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.