Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THEA~TORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS April 6, 1959 Dr. J. W. Edgar Commissioner of Rducation Texas Education Agency Austin, Texas Opinion No. WW-591 Re: Constitutionality of Section 1, Subsection (&)a, Article 922-13, Vernon's Civil Sta % utes, as amended, relating to allotment of exceptional children teach- Dear Dr. Edgar: er units. We have received your request relating to the constl- tutionality of Section 1, Subsection (&)a of Artlcleq22-13, Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended, when considered In the light of Subsection (A)b of the ssme Article. Subsection (4)a Is as follows: “a. It is the purpose of th~isallotment of exceptional children teacher units to provide competent educational services for the exceptional children in Texas between and fnaludinn the axes of,six, (b) and seven- teen (17), f‘;)r whom-the regular school facili- ties are Inadequate or are not available. 'In interpreting and carrying out the.,pro- viatons of this Act, the words 'exceptional children,*wherever used, will be construed to mean physically handicapped children and mentally retard d hildren; the words 'physi- tally handicappzd thildren' wherever ,used, will be construed to Include any child of educable mind whose body functions 'or members are so imDaired that he cannot be saf~elyor adequately educated In the regular classes of the public schools,wlthout the ,provlsion of special services; and the words 'mental1 retarded c~hildren'wherever used,-!ITid w 1 con- - any child whose mental condi- tion is &ch that~he cannot be adequately edu- . _ Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (Ww-591) cated In the regular classes of the public schools, without the rtrovisionof sneclal services. The term IspecIal services! may be Interpreted to mean transportation; special teaching in the public school curriculum; corrective teaching, such as lip reading, speech correction, sight conservation.and corrective health habits; and the provision of special seats, books and teaching supplies, and equipment re- quired for the Instruction of exceptional children." (Rnphasls added.) Subsection (4)b of such Article reads as follows: "(4)b. In any school district where the parents of the required number of any type of exceptional children, or types which may be taught together, petition the Board of Education of that district for a sneclal class, it shall be the duty of such Board to request the State Commissioner of Educa- tion to cooperatein the establishment of such class or classes. The State Commls- sioner of Education shall allot to such dls- trict such;number of exceptional children teacher units to operate special or convales- cent classes for exceptional children within said district pursuant to rules and regula- tions adopted by the State Board of Education. Provided that districts not eligible for a full exceptional children teacher unit may enter, by vote of their respective Boards of Trustees, into one cooperative agreement to provide exceptional children teacher units, such units to be approved by the County School Superintendent. The teacher for an'exceptional children teacher unit shall be employed by the Board of Trustees of the district in which the class Is to be taught, and such unit shall be adminlstered solely~and exclusively by the Superintendent of ,suchdistrict. The State Commissioner of Education, upon certification of such agreement by the County School Superin- tendent, shall ,allot to each district party to such agreement a fractional part of an exceptional children teacher unit, provided that the sum of m. J. W. Edgar, page 3 NW-591) suah units so allotted shall not be greater than the number of units for which said district would be eligible provided no co- operative agreement existed." (hphasis added.) Section 1 of Artiale VII of the Constitution of Texas reads a8 follows: "Section 1. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the pre- servation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the sup- port and maintenance of an efficient sys- tem of public free schools." The Constitution of Texas provides, In other sections, for the general maintenance, financing ,and operation of pub- lic free sahools and Institutions of higher learning. The constitutional question raised by your request, In our opinion, concerns Section (&)a when considered in the light of Section (4)b, relating to whether the Leglsla- ture is prohibited from imposing a duty upon the Board of Education of a school district "to cooperate (with the Texas Education Agency) in the establishment of such class or classes" for the teaahlng of exceptional children, in Texas. The Constitution requires a system of public free schools to be maintained, and It Is clear that the Leglsla- ture Is vested with broad discretion insofar as providing the details of how suah is to be accomplished. Mumme v. Marrs, 120 Tex. 383, 40~S.W.2d 31, is a landmark case concerning the nature of legislative control over education in this State: 91. * . 'The history of educational legislation in this state shows that the provisions of artl- ale 7, the eduaational article of the Constitu- tion, have never been regarded as limitations by implication on the general power of the Legislature to pass laws upon the subject of education. This Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (am-591) article dlsloses a well-considered purpose on the part of those who framed it to bring about thelestabllshment and maintenance 'of a compre- hensive system of public education, consisting of a general publio free school system and a sys- tem of higher eduaatlon. . . . 11 . . . I‘ . ‘. . the Constitution has been liberally construed with reference to the creation of insti- tutions of higher education, and the same liberal rules should apply in determiningthe power of the Legislature with reference to the public school system. We cannot readily suppose that those who framed the Constitution would have left the Legislature with plenary power to areate and maintain a system of higher eduoatlon, and at the same time have intentionally so drawn the instru- ment that the legislatfve hands would be tied when changed oondit,ionrendered it desirable or neces- sary to give aid to the public school system in the manner outlined in the law before us. II. . . 1, . in asoertaining the power which the Legislature may constitutionally exeralse with reference to the school svstem. we are not to limit or restrlot that power, including the power to assign revenue derived from sources other than those spealfiaally named, to~the school fund, un- less we find In the Constitution itself a specific limitation or one whloh arises by necessary-lmpli- cation from the language used. . . . (Emphasis by the Court.) "Under our Constitution, public education is a division or department of the government, the affairs of which sre administered by public offlaers, and In the conduct of which the Legls- lature has all legislative power not denied It by the Constitution. . . . "Under the Constitution, our public schools are essentially state schools, and authority to control their operation, except as otherwise pro- vided, Is inaluded among the power conferred upon the Legislature. Webb County v. School Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 5 (M'W-5911 Trustees, 9.5Tex. 132, 135, 65 S.W. 878; Con- stitution, art. 7. . . . I,. . . Since the Legislature has the mandatory duty to make suitable provision for the support and ma1ntenanc.eof an efficient system of publlc.free schools, and has the power to pass any law relative thereto, not prohibited by the Constitution, It necessarily follows that it has a choice in the selection of methods by which the object of the organic law may be ef- fectuated. The Legislature alone is to judge what means are necessary and appropriate for a purpose whiah the Constitution makes legiti- mate. The legislative ,determinatlon:of the methods, restriotions, and regulations is final, except when so arbitrary as to be viola- tive of the constitutional rightsof the citizen. . . . 11 . . l "Theword 'suitable' used in connection with the word 'provision' in this section of the Constitution, is an elastic term, depending upon the necessities of changing times or condl- Mans, and elearly leaves to the Legislature the rightto determine what is suitable, and its de- termination will not be reviewed by the courts if the aot has a real relation to the subject and object of the Constitution. . . ." In our opinion, the Constitution of Texas does not prohibit the Legislature from providing that exceptional children, as defined by Section (4)a,shall be taught or trained, to the extent that they may be, by the free public schools of this State. We are not concerned with whether such determlna- tlon is in accordance with accepted educational policies. We do not imply that it is not in accord. Our limited inquiry here is only if it is prohibited. It is true that the Legislature may not divert or require the diversion of a public fund created for educational purposes to other than educational purposes. (See Love v. City of Dallas, 40 S.W.2d 20). 'Ihis,doesnot imply-the Leglsture is prohibited from establishing provisions for . . Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 6 (WW-591) courses for ahildren who oannot compete, for physical or mental reasons, with the students In the regular normal curriculum; nor Is It implied that the Legislature is pro- hibited from making provision for suoh children in their home community, even though an Eleemosynary Institution is maintained by the State for children who may reside in an area which does not have such services available, It is within the provision of the Legislature to determine the entrance requirements of Eleemosynar Attorney General's Opinion WW-975 ~&~~itUtI~oZ~ o~R?on, the Legislature is not prohibited from providing for these services by the looal school dlstriots. We call your at- tention to an Attorney General's Opinion, dated June 4, 1917, addressed to Honorable W. F. Doughty, concerning the Act, whloh provided for the establishment and maintenance of free kindergartens upon petitions of parents or guardians: "In our opinion the language used in this Act Is mandatory and that upon a filing of a proper petition executed by the required number of parents or guardlans the Trustees of every district in the State, when so petitioned, may be required to Institute the free kindergarten so prescribed in the Act. We are also of the opinion that this Act applies to all districts, whether they be aommon school districts or in- dependent districts created under any of the various modes authorized by law for their creation." In our opinion Seation 1, Subsection (&)a, of Article Z&l3 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended, Is constitu- when consiideredin the light of Subsection (4)b. SUMMARY Seation 1, Subsection (4)a of ~~~~~~s~~~-~e~pde~~~o8~::g~~~~l tlonal insofar as It requires a looal sehool'distrlct, upon proper petition, to provide the enumerated . -. , Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 7 NW-591) services for exceptional children, as defined by Subsection (&)a. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas BY Tom I. McFarling Assistant TIM:mfh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman W. Ray Scruggs Robert T. Lewis Wallace Finfrock REUEWED FOR'THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY; W. V. GEPPERT