Case Information

*1 OFFiCE bF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

O”OYI” scu.=-=

&yor*lr. o.imrrr

IIonorabla j'i. E. Kin&I Aocomtent

,roint Legislative Committoe

Austin, Tcxss

Dear Sir;‘

letter of recent date re- questing the o

e,hs'd e'%ese to~arise no sahool, within the ccessible to fourteen siane school would teeoh the f.our- its for en amount equivalent to.

approvsdby the State Deportment of Educat$on.

"Pursuant to this situation, we should lilce to have your opinion on the-following question:

Since these pupils, although not transferred out,

are being schooled without the State of Texes,

may the sending district omit them from the per

oapfta computation fn~ t&e receipts of the kppliL

ce.tion for Equalization Aid? Or ~nuay it be charged

In the current expenditure section of the Equalize- tion kid Dudget under Item J, in addition to &he

limitations 63 prescri.bed in Article I+, Section 1, for other current expenses?1V

Hon. w. B. King, page 2

.-

In order to enswer.the questions contained in your letter, it is necessary to determine by what authority the fourteen pupils may be permitted to attend sohool in the Louisiene district am3 heve an mount equivalent to

their per. cepite money paid to the Louisiana district by the oomuon school district iu Pnnola County. After oonsid- eriug the Frovisious of many statutes, we have conoluded that Article 2699s, 'F.A.C. Si, is pertinent to your inquiry.

hrticle 2699a, provides.:

vAny child who would be entitled to attend the public school of .eny district that lies on

the bcrd.er of .Louisiane, Arkanses, Oklehone $?&I

New luerico. end r;ho msy find it more convenient

to attend the publio school in e district of e county of s6id State contiguous to said distriot

inTexas, nay have the State end County per oapite apportionment of the Available Soh'ool Fund' paid to said district in said State andmey have

edditionel tuition, if necessary, peid~ bythe ': district of his residence onsuch terms es may be

sgreed upon between the ,trustees of the distriot ,! 0.f residence of suoh ohild, subjeot,to the approve1 of the County Superintendent endtbe County'.Boerd : of Trustees of the Tex&s district and county; pro- vided, thet the restrictiona of the Texas Statutes.

shall apply to the emount psid.for high sohool

tuition. Ads 1931, l&d Leg., p. 192; oh. 113,

% 1."

We think thet the foregoing Artiole contemplates en egreemont between the Texas distriot tmd the out of State district viith~reference to the Texas pupils' attending school.

in the out of Stste district, end vie assums that when the County Superintendent of Ponol~ County end the Superintendent : ,- of the De Sota Perish School were in agreement that the Louisiana school wonld teach the fourteen puails for en..,ei&o'/unt equivalent to their per capita eamings,~seid. arrangemi&t vies satisfactory to and eoquiesced in by the trustees of each of the Ustricts concerned.

In Ojinion ?Zo. O-5805, this department held that Article 2699a provided a method of. lxaosfer of 'such pupils ~enl authorized the payment of the enount'of the per oapite to the reaeiving district.' In this ease, the per dapi.ta money on the

.$., 5’53 HOO. W. B. .King, page 3 .i.

fourteen pupils is paid~to the common school dist&ot in pa'nola County,'and under the provisions of Article 2699a, *fAny child who v;ould bs entitled to attend the public school of any district that lies on the border of Louisiana :., . . . . . .', and who may find it more convenient to attend the

public school in a district of a county of said Sate con* tiguous"to said district in Texas, may have the State and County per capita apportionment of the Available School Fund paid to seid~ district in said State....." In view of thia provision, and the circumstances in this case,~c think that the Texas district should pay to the Louisiana district such amount as it receives as per Capita RG:K?~ on the fo'urteen pupils who are attending school in said Louisiana, district, and soid amount would not constitute a resource for the operation of the sohool in the Texas district, but would, in fact; constitute~a transfer of resources for the benefit of the reoeiving district. In no way does this amount oonstltute a true asset or resource for the ,benefit of the ohildren who are in,attendanoe in the home district. YJe think'that the Equalizatiou Aid Law contemplates that the resouroes of the.

home distriot derived from the per capita of pupils .for whom .~ instruction is ~provided locally, together with the~lo~oal maintenance 'tax, shall be useri to pay the expendi,tures,,which . are limited to designated items for the purposeof proviiiing instruction for said pupils, and whenever the ~exj?enditures for said purposes are greater than the aforesaid resources of the home district, the State~balances the budget by,means of Equalization Aid.

In view of the foregoing statutory provisions and inview of ~the facts submittecl, it in our opinion that the amount representing the per capita money of the fourteen pupils who are attending school in the Louisiana district should not be included in the computation of the per capita ti‘resources of the district in l?anola County in its Application

for Equalization Aid. It is our further opinion.that said amount should not be oonsldered in the computation of the expenditures in the Equalization Aid Application,

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, vie 'remain

Yours very troly,