Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

- Hon. J. W. Edgar Opinion No, M-649 Commissionerof Education 201 East 11th Street Re: Are transfers of students, Austin, Texas VIZ., students whose grades are not taught in their home resident district, controlled by Article 2696a, V.C.S., or Section 21.067, et seq., Dear Dr. Edgar: Texas Education Code? In your letter requesting an opinion from this office, you submit the following facts: I, e . D the County Superintendenthas ad- ministratfveresponsibilitiesrelative to common and rural high school districts of the county. "Palo Pinto Rural High School distrfct teaches only the first seven grades. Children of that distrfct who attafn above-grade 7 status must therefore transfer elsewhere to continue their public school education. The adJoining Mineral Wells IndependentSchool Dfstrict operates a twelve-gradeschool system. Parents of the Palo Pfnto district above-grade scholastfcsmade application for their 1969-1970 transfer to the Mineral Wells school district and such were received as formally transferred. "The Mineral Wells district, assuming to apply the provlsfons of the new transfer lawp Artfcle 2696a, V.C,S, (S.B, 435, Acts 61st Leg., R.S., 1969, p. 510) adopted a tuition policy requiring payment by the parent of $233,24 (the difference between State funds realized OQ transfer-scholasticsand the M.W.1,S.D. average coat per student) as tuition for any student transferredto Mineral Wells from Palo Pinto d%strfct, Parents are protesting such policy tuition charge by the Mineral Wells Dfstrfct," -3109- Dr. J. W. Edgar, Page 2(M-649) With regard to these facts you ask the following question: 'Are transfers of students, viz., students whose grades are not taught In their home-resident district, controlled by Article 2696a or under Section 21.067, et seq., Texas Education Code,' Both Article 2696(a), Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Sections 21.067-21.072,Texas Education Code, were enacted by the 61st Legislature in 1969. Article 2696(a) was enacted as Senate Bill 435 (Acts 61st Leg., R.S., 1969, ch. 175, p. 510) and became effective May 9, 1969. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Senate Bill 435 authorize the annual transfer of any child, other than high school graduate, who Is over 6 and under 21 years of age, from his resldent school district to another Texas district, when the parent or person having lawful control of the child and the receiving district jointly and timely agree In writing to the transfer. These sections also provide that the State Board of Education shall issue rules and regulations necessary for the administrationof the Act; further, they provide for the transfer of State per-capita apportionmentand other State aid funds to follow the child. In addition, the receiving district is permitted to charge a tuition fee. Section 4 of the Bill expressly repeals several statutes governing pupil transfers, Including Article 2922L(l),Vernon's Civil Statutes. The provisions of repealed Article 29221(l),most pertinent to our discussion, read as follows: #I . . . "Any pupil between the age of six (6) and twenty-one (21) residing in a-rural district or other district, which levies a lo'calmaintenance tax, who has been promoted to a high school grade not taught in his home district, shall have the right to attend a standardized,classified, or affiliated high school In his home county or in any other county at the expense of his home school district, If such district as determined by Its budgeted expendituresaccording to the General Budget Law Is financiallyable to provide tuition, or otherwise at the expense of the State of Texas. II . . .II -3110- Dr. J. W. Edgar, Page 3 (M-649) Finally, Section 5 of Senate Bill 435 provides, In part, as follows: “Sec. 5. The fact that there Is little unlfotiity In administrationof the statutes governing pupil transfers among counties; . . . and the fact that provisions In current laws governing transfers to an adjoining county are particularlyrestrictive to prohibit transfers of convenienceon pupils who must transfer when eligible from a non-twelve grade system to a twelve-grade system . . . and the further fact that a system permitting pupil transfers under joint approval and agreement of the parent and a receiving district could have the effect to encourage school districts to Improve their course offerings or consolidatewith trelve- grade systems operating enrlched programs, create an emerg$ncy and Imperative public necessity . . . This is the last expression of the Legislature on this subject. The Texas Education Code (H.B. 534, 61st Leg., RiS., 1969, ch. 889, 2735) became effective September 1, 1969. Its Section 2(aP’expressly repeals Article 29221(l), supra. The subject matter of Article 29221(l) was carried forward Into the Texas Education Code as its Sections 21.067-21.072. Section 21.067, Texas Education Code, provides as follows: “Any pupil not mere than twenty-one (21) years of age who has been promoted to a high school grade not taught in his home district shall have the right to transfer to and to attend a standardized,classified,or affiliated high school either In his home county or in any other county in the State. Transfers of funds under such conditions shall be regulated by Sections 21.068-21.072of this code.” Sections 21.068-21.072,Texas Education Code, pro- vide for a high school tultlon fee to be paid by the sending school district to the rece,lvlngdistrict for each pupil transferred. In comparing the provisions of Article 2696(a), Vernon’s Civil Statutes, with those aontained In Seotlona -3111- Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (M-649) 21.067-21.072,Texas Education Code, it is obvious that some of the respective provisions controllingthe transfer of students from their resident districtsto other districts are In conflict. In this regard, Section 5 of the Texas Education Code provides as follows: "Section 5. If any act passed at the same session of the legislatureconflltits with any provlslon,,ofthe Texas Education Code, the act prevails. In view of this Section 5 our opinion Is that where conflict exists between'theprovisions of Article 2696(a) and those of Sections 21.067-21.072of the Education Code that the pro- visions of the Article prevail over those of the Code. Article 2696(a) is silent regarding who pays tuition fees to receiving districts for the transfer of eligible pupils promoted to a high school grade not taught in their resident districts and who desire to transfer to a twelve-gradesystem. Sections 21.068-21.072of the Code specificallyplace this responsibilityon the sending school district. Statutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed to- City of Houston v. Rmmanuel United PentecostalChurch, tiiEherk29S W 26 b79 (Tex.Clv.App. 19b9, error ref. n.r.e.). In&tlcul&: statutes enacted by the same Legislaturerelating to the same subject should be Interpreted,If possible, so as to harmonize their provisions, Slater v. Ellis Count Levee Improve- ment District No. 9, 120 Tex. 272, 3b s.W.2d 1014 9311. Applying these principles of constructionof statutes it is our opinion that Article 2696(a) and Sections 21.067- 21.072 of the Code must be read together so as to require sending school districts to pay tuition fees to receiving school districts for the transfer of eligible pupils promoted to a high school grade not taught in the sending district and who desire to trans- fer to a twelve-grade system. SUMMARY Where conflict exists between the provisions of Article 2696(a) and those of Sections 21.067- 21.072 of the Texas Education Code, relating to transfer of pupils from their resident school district to other school districts, the pro- visions of Article 2696(a) control. -3112- Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 5 (M-649) Article 2696 a), Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Sections 21.0AT-21.072, Texas Education Code, must be construed together; they require sending school districts to pay tuition fees to receiving school districts for the transfer of eligible pupils promoted to a high school grade not taught in the sending districts and who desire to transfer to a twelve-grade system. eneral of Texas Prepared by Ivan R. Williams, Jr. Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Llnward Shivers Richard Chote Ray McGregor Bob Lattimore MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant -3113-