Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFiCE bF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN O”OYI” scu.=-= &yor*lr. o.imrrr IIonorablaj'i. E. Kin&I Aocomtent ,rointLegislative Committoe Austin, Tcxss ' Dear Sir;‘ letter of recent date re- questing the o . e,hs'de'%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$on. "Pursuant to this situation, we should lilce to have your opinion on the-followingquestion: Since these pupils, although not transferred out, are being schooled without the State of Texes, may the sending district omit them from the per oapfta computation fn~t&e receipts of the kppliL ce.tionfor Equalization Aid? Or ~nuayit be charged In the current expenditure section of the Equalize- tion kid Dudget under Item J, in addition to &he limitations 63 prescri.bedin Article I+,Section 1, for other current expenses?1V Hon. w. B. King, page 2 .- In order to enswer.the questions contained in your letter, it is necessary to determine by what authority the fourteen pupils may be permitted to attend sohool in the Louisiene district am3 heve an mount equivalent to their per.cepite money paid to the Louisiana district by the oomuon school district iu Pnnola County. After oonsid- eriug the Frovisious of many statutes,we have conoluded that Article 2699s, 'F.A.C.Si, is pertinent to your inquiry. hrticle 2699a, provides.: vAny child who would be entitled to attend the public school of .enydistrict that lies on the bcrd.erof .Louisiane,Arkanses, Oklehone$?&I New luerico.end r;homsy find it more convenient to attend the publio school in e district of e i county of s6id State contiguous to said distriot inTexas, nay have the State end County per oapite apportionmentof the Available Soh'oolFund' 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 ,trusteesof the distriot ,! 0.fresidence of suoh ohild, subjeot,to the approve1 of the County Superintendentendtbe County'.Boerd : of Trustees of the Tex&s district and county; pro- vided, thet the restrictionaof 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 contemplatesen ' egreemont between the Texas distriot tmd the out of State district viith~referenceto the Texas pupils' attending school. in the out of Stste district, end vieassums that when the County Superintendentof 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&tvies satisfactoryto 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 'suchpupils ~enl authorized the payment of the enount'of the per oapite to the reaeiving district.'In this ease, the per dapi.tamoney on the . .$., 5’53 i HOO. W. B. .King, page 3 .i. fourteen pupils is paid~to the common school dist&ot in pa'nolaCounty,'and under the provisions of Article 2699a, *fAnychild who v;ouldbs entitled to attend the public :., school of any district that lies on the border of Louisiana ......',and who may find it more convenientto 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 circumstancesin 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 operationof the sohool in the Texas district, but would, in fact; constitute~atransfer of resources for the benefit of the reoeiving district. In no way does this amount oonstltute a true asset or resource for the ,benefitof the ohildren who are in,attendanoein the home district. YJethink'that the EqualizatiouAid Law contemplates that the resouroes of the. home distriot derived from the per capita of pupils .forwhom instructionis ~providedlocally, together with the~lo~oal .~ maintenance'tax,shall be userito pay the expendi,tures,,which. are limited to designated items for the purposeof proviiiing instructionfor said pupils, and whenever the ~exj?enditures for said purposes are greater than the aforesaid resources of the home district, the State~balancesthe budget by,means of EqualizationAid. , In view of the foregoing statutory provisions and ' inview of ~thefacts 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‘resourcesof the district in l?anolaCounty in its Application for Equalization Aid. It is our further opinion.that said amount should not be oonsldered in the computation of the expendituresin the Equalization Aid Application, Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, vie'remain Yours very troly,