by Antoinette Grajeda, Arkansas Advocate
May 29, 2025

The Arkansas State Board of Education voted unanimously Thursday to dissolve the Blytheville School Board and place the district under a Level 5-Intensive Support classification due to ongoing academic, financial and administrative issues. 

The board authorized Education Secretary Jacob Oliva to assume the board’s duties, appoint a superintendent and pursue the possibility of a transformation contract, a provision of the LEARNS Act that allows struggling public schools to partner with an open-enrollment public charter school or another state board-approved entity to create “a public school district transformation campus.”

Education secretary to recommend increased support for east Arkansas school district

Oliva notified the board on May 8 of his intent to recommend the state’s highest support classification. He initially alerted the board to his concerns with the Northeast Arkansas school district last July. 

Over the last year, the Arkansas Department of Education has provided on-site support to the district, ADE Deputy Commissioner Stacy Smith said at the state board’s special meeting in Blytheville Thursday. 

The district is one of the lowest-performing in the state, struggles with declining enrollment and has financial issues, Smith said. Fiscal year 2025 revenue is down by about 15%, and the district has spent $1.5 million that was not budgeted, she said. 

Teachers and administrators have been receptive to the state’s help, and Blytheville has “a bright future,” but more assistance is needed, Smith said.

“People are showing up, but this is a district that is in need of a lot of support to be able to get them out of the hole that they’re currently in,” she said.  

Oliva notified the Blytheville School District of his recommendation of a Level 5-Intensive Support classification and the state board’s special meeting via a letter dated May 14. An ongoing lack of a permanent superintendent, delayed staffing decisions and stalled hiring processes have led to “organizational instability, weakened strategic planning efforts, and impeded the district’s capacity to effectively support students and staff,” according to the letter. 

In addition to an “absence of coherent leadership,” the letter also cited “inconsistent governance structure” and “chronic student underachievement.”

The district appealed the recommendation in a May 21 letter, which prompted a hearing at Thursday’s special meeting. The letter, signed by Interim Superintendent Jennnifer Blankenship and board President Desmond Hammett, argued the district has “worked tirelessly” to implement the education department’s recommendations and “demonstrated both measurable academic progress and consistent good faith efforts to comply with all directives.”

Specific actions include hiring a school improvement consulting firm, increasing the number of fully licensed educators and assigning mentors to novice teachers, the district leaders wrote. The letter also rebuts “chronic student underachievement,” noting that one school improved from an “F” ranking to a “C” ranking in one academic year. 

Additionally, the district’s letter takes issue with Oliva’s past characterization of it as a “failure factory,” which “undermines the morale of educators and students,” its authors said. 

“It is difficult to accept the designation of Level 5-Intensive Support while actively doing everything we were advised to do,” the letter states. “Rather than punitive reclassification, we respectfully submit that BSD’s path would be better supported by continued partnership, encouragement, and recognition of its progress.”

The letter’s authors said they also “strongly disagree” with Oliva’s comments about a lack of “coherent leadership” and “inconsistent governance.” 

Blytheville has had two full-time superintendents and three interim superintendents since 2018, Smith said at the state board’s May 8 meeting. Blankenship was appointed as the current interim superintendent on June 12, 2024. She also served in the interim role from July through December 2021. 

After the previous superintendent was officially terminated last August, the board reviewed candidates in late November and decided to keep Blankenship. A consulting firm hired in February presented two of 13 applicants in late April, but the board declined to interview them and reposted the position, Smith said.

According to the district’s letter, the board voted to delay interviews because it hadn’t received certain requested information.

“Unfortunately, the ADE observer left the meeting without seeking clarification, which may have inadvertently contributed to subsequent misunderstandings about governance stability,” the letter states. 

At Thursday’s meeting, Hammett said the board didn’t refuse to interview the two candidates, but instead extended the application deadline by two weeks to gather a larger pool of applicants.

Arkansas education board removes Lee County’s fiscal distress status

Smith confirmed that Blytheville’s school board decided at its May 22 meeting to interview three applicants. One interview was scheduled for Thursday, and Smith said she “would be embarrassed” to interview a superintendent on the same day that the state board is considering whether to dissolve the school board. 

“While it may be embarrassing to some,” Hammett said, the board was committed to continuing its work. Blytheville has only been working with the state for a year, Hammett said, and he believes the district can continue to improve. 

The state board’s discussion of Blytheville’s circumstances at its May 8 meeting was “disappointing and discouraging,” but the school board “rose to the challenge,” he said. 

“We didn’t tuck our tails, we didn’t run away from the challenge,” he said. “We became more committed, more engaged to show that we’re not dysfunctional, that we’re willing to do the work.”  

Much of Thursday’s discussion centered on frustration with the board’s actions, or lack thereof. Oliva discussed “frustration of how much we have to babysit the people that are elected to govern the district.” 

Meanwhile, members of the public like Blytheville native Bradley Ballard requested the state board dissolve the school board “before more damage is done.”

“This [mess] is the result of a board that is too prideful to lead and too fractured to function,” Ballard said. “We cannot keep pointing fingers while our children fall through the cracks. Today you have the power to stop this. You can cut through the chaos and bring order, accountability and hope back to our schools.”

The state board granted his request and voted to dissolve Blytheville’s school board and give the district a Level 5-Intensive Support classification. Blytheville joins four other districts that already have the state’s highest support classification — Earle, Lee County, Helena-West Helena and Marvell-Elaine. 

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Arkansas education board dissolves Blytheville school board appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This article provides a factual and balanced account of the Arkansas State Board of Education’s decision to dissolve the Blytheville School Board due to academic and administrative failures. It includes statements from both state officials advocating for intervention and district representatives defending their progress, offering multiple perspectives without apparent editorializing. The tone is neutral, focusing on governance, accountability, and educational outcomes without promoting a particular political ideology or partisan framing. Overall, the content adheres to straightforward reporting on policy and administrative actions within public education.

SUMMARY: The manhunt for escaped killer Grant Harden, former Northwest Arkansas police chief, continues into its fifth day in North Central Arkansas. Harden fled the North Central Unit in Calico Rock, where he was imprisoned for a deadly shooting and rape in Benton County. US Marshals searched Faulner County following a tip, but no confirmed sightings have occurred since Harden’s Sunday escape. Authorities believe a corrections officer opened the gate, allowing Harden, disguised in a makeshift uniform, to flee. Hundreds of officers face challenges navigating narrow terrain as they conduct meticulous searches. Experts say Harden’s law enforcement background makes him particularly dangerous but likely still hiding nearby.

Officials are investigating a new lead as the search for escaped inmate Grant Hardin enters the fifth day. Here’s what we know so far.

Source

by Ariana Figueroa, Arkansas Advocate
May 28, 2025

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is arguing that a Maryland federal court lacks the authority to require the return of wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia because he’s in prison in El Salvador — even though the U.S. Supreme Court has directed administration officials to “facilitate” his return.

In addition, the judge in the highly publicized case has denied the Department of Justice’s request for another 30 days to extend its time to submit briefs. Abrego Garcia has remained in prison since March.

DOJ lawyers said in a brief filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in Greenbelt, that because the administration has not brought back Abrego Garcia, the court cannot act on his case. “This Court lacks jurisdiction because Abrego Garcia is not in United States custody, his injury is not redressable by this Court…,” according to the DOJ brief.

It’s the same argument DOJ attorneys made before another federal judge in the District of Columbia. That judge is deciding whether hundreds of men deported to El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — are in U.S. custody, rather than El Salvador’s custody, and therefore can be required to be returned.

The United States is paying the Salvadoran government up to $15 million to detain the men at a brutal mega-prison, CECOT.

Abrego Garcia was among the nearly 300 men on the deportation flights to CECOT, but was not removed under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration has admitted his removal to El Salvador was an “administrative error,” because Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections from El Salvador since 2019 due to concerns he would face violence if returned to his home country.

Need for additional time ‘rings hollow,’ judge says

The DOJ motion to dismiss the case being heard by District Court Judge Paula Xinis came after Xinis on Monday denied the Trump administration’s request for additional time.

In that request, the Department of Justice asked for 30 days to submit documents as part of an expedited briefing schedule to determine actions the government has taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.

“The Court ordered expedited discovery because of Defendants’ refusal to follow the orders of this Court as affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court,” she wrote in her order denying the request for more time.

“The Court has conducted no fewer than five hearings in this case and at no point had Defendants even intimated they needed more time to answer or otherwise respond,” she continued. “Thus, to say now that additional time is needed to do that which the law requires rings hollow.”

In the DOJ brief, the Trump administration argues that even though the Supreme Court in April ruled that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, the high court did not rule on the issue of the lower court having jurisdiction over the case.

“Those decisions do not ‘squarely address’ these jurisdictional issues and therefore are not binding as to whether Abrego Garcia’s claims are proper, his injury is redressable by this Court,” according to the DOJ filing.

The Trump administration also argues that the suit Abrego Garcia’s family and attorneys must bring is a habeas corpus claim, which allows people in the U.S. who believe they are being unlawfully detained to petition for their release in court. It can be used to challenge immigration detention.

“Because Plaintiffs seek Abrego Garcia’s release from allegedly unlawful detention on the grounds that it was effected illegally, they make a core habeas claim and must bring it exclusively in habeas,” according to the DOJ brief. “But there is no jurisdiction in habeas.”

Travels to El Salvador

Two Maryland Democratic members of Congress – Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Glenn Ivey – traveled to El Salvador to meet and advocate for Abrego Garcia’s return.

Van Hollen said that Abrego Garcia had been moved from CECOT to a lower-security prison. He added that Salvadoran officials told him that Abrego Garcia was being held because of the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador.

While Van Hollen was able to meet and speak with Abrego Garcia last month, Ivey was not.

Ivey returned from El Salvador last weekend, and said Salvadoran officials would not permit him to see Abrego Garcia, who is a resident of his congressional district.

According to Maryland Matters, Ivey said that Abrego Garica remaining in El Salvador despite the Supreme Court’s April order is inching the U.S. toward a “constitutional crisis,” because it seems like the Trump administration is “refusing to comply with court orders. That’s scary.”

At the last hearing before Xinis, DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Guynn said the Trump administration was complying with all court orders and defended statements from Trump officials, including President Donald Trump, who have stated Abrego Garcia would not return to the U.S.

Guynn said that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comment that Abrego Garcia “will not return” to the U.S. meant that if Abrego Garcia was back in U.S. custody he would be removed either to another third country or back again to El Salvador.

“He’ll never walk free in the United States,” Guynn said.

Last updated 7:02 p.m., May. 28, 2025

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Trump administration contends U.S. courts can’t rule on Kilmar Abrego Garcia appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content reflects a center-left bias as it critically examines the actions of the Trump administration, highlighting legal and humanitarian concerns regarding immigration and deportation policies. The article emphasizes the perceived failures of the administration to comply with court orders and focuses on efforts by Democratic lawmakers to advocate for the deportee’s rights. The tone is factual but leans toward questioning the government’s stance and defending the individual’s legal protections, aligning with a center-left perspective that prioritizes immigrant rights and judicial oversight.