Senate Education Committee members and a broad set of school officials spent a lengthy session debating a package of changes that would relocate major provisions of the Opportunity School Choice Act under the general Public School Choice Act and add new limits tied to capacity and expulsions. The committee did not complete final action on the measure after senators said the panel lacked enough votes to pass it.

The bill’s sponsors and district attorneys said the measure would clarify when districts may deny transfers for capacity or disciplinary reasons and preserve an appeal to the State Board of Education. Supporters argued the change would let districts apply consistent, up‑to‑date capacity rules and avoid unforeseen facility and staffing costs.

Opponents said the revisions would reduce independent oversight for students seeking to transfer out of persistently low‑performing schools. Gary Newton of Arkansas Learns told the committee the bill would remove a third‑party backstop that previously required stricter capacity thresholds for Opportunity transfers, and he said the bill also introduces “pending expulsion” as a ground to deny a transfer — a change he called ambiguous and potentially harmful to families seeking relief from failing schools.

Supporters, including Senator Kim Hammer (Sen. Dist. 16) and Jeremy Lasser (attorney for Bryant Public Schools), said the bill does not eliminate Opportunity School Choice but consolidates its provisions into the Public School Choice Act and preserves an appeal process to the State Board. They said the change would allow the Department of Education to promulgate capacity rules for legislative review and would let districts rely on department data on enrollments and staffing when denying transfers.

District superintendents and school administrators described operational pressures that shaped their testimony. Brian Duffy (Alma School District) and Shane Patrick (Solomon Springs School District superintendent) said capacity is more than seats: staffing, special education caseloads, and program‑level limits can make a school unable to accept additional students even if an empty desk exists. They said deference to district capacity determinations, backed by department data, would help avoid unplanned hires and portable classrooms.

The amendment process also surfaced procedural objections. Senator Allen Clark offered a large amendment that would fold additional capacity clarifications into the bill; some committee members said the amendment was too large and had not been read closely enough in advance. After extended debate and a motion to pass, Senate staff conducted a roll call. Members recorded a mix of aye and no votes during the roll call sequence, but the presiding officer concluded the committee did not have sufficient votes and deferred final action.

Because the committee did not reach a final recorded approval, the bill will not be reported to the full Senate at this time. Sponsors said they will continue to work with stakeholders and consider separate measures addressing capacity if members request narrower fixes.

Ending: The dispute highlights the competing goals legislators must balance: preserving a parent’s right to move a child out of a low‑performing school while recognizing district operational limits for classrooms and special education. Sponsors and opponents said they will continue negotiations before the bill returns to committee or is refiled in a narrower form.