Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTlN April 15, 1939 ~onoreble Pierre L'. Stine county attorney clay county Benrletta, Texas Dear air: 5, 1939, wherein you, adri6.ethat t one-teacher staodardited who nt tc another school of higher to the mount or teeoher salary ai e I;urel nit3Fund under 6llOh the aural Aid ard Equalization rent biennium, f6 Chapter 474 nd Special ia%6 of the 45th ion 19 thereof reed6 a6 tol1ows: ntlre Listrict. Gn the egreezent stees OS the districts conosrned or by a majority of the qualiiied voters d eubjeot to the approval of the county state superintendent, the trustees of a district which zap be unable to naintair a satisfaotory sohool 6ay transfer its entire echolastio enroll.Bmt, or shy number of grades thereot, to a oonvenient 6ohool of higher rank, and In such event, all of the funds of the dietriet, iacludin~ the Soto aid to which the dl6triot would otherwise be entitled under the provisicms of this ,,ot;or ;uoh proportionate part thereof as nay be heoessarp may be used in carrying out aald agreement." Eon. Pierre I,:. Ptine, Aprtl 15, p939, Page 2 ~Section 0 of said Lural Aid iew provides for a oohedula o? taaohers' aelaris6 to be d4emnclnrd by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with the approval of tho State Board of Zduca- tion. It 16 further provided that the be610 Salary paid shall not be lee6 than c85.00 per month on an ei&ht months basis. :#e under- ltand that the Stata Superintendent hes noted in pursuanoa of the authority thw, granted in Section 8 and has Set up euoh a schedule. We undoretand that a teaober in a standardized School must have oompleted three year6 of college work if he 16 without experienoa in suoh a Standardized sohool or he must have had two years of oollage work OoUplpd with,the axpsrianoe of having taught in 6uOh sohool one or both of the past two years, and that a prinoipal in a standardized sohool will receive 25.00 per month more than he would If he nere not a prinoipal under tha schedule. Years OS ax- perienoe taaohing in such a schocl alB0 would make a difrerence in the salary fixed in the Bohedtie. Under SeOtlOn 19, it is plainly,proqided that-the amount of the Ststa kid transferred in Suoh an in6tfinoa66 mentioned 16 the amount which the sanding distriot would have been entitled to reoeive if it had never transferred its sohola6tlo enrollment to the other distriot. Inca the condition6 existing in the receiving diatriot and the qUalifiOatiOn6 Of the tehchers employed by that district are immaterial for the purpose8 of this inquiry. had the-Sending district entered into a contract Rith a teacher prior to the agreement to transfer its BOhOlaStiO enroll- ment to the other 6Oboo1, then the educational qualiiicatione and experience and position of the teacher employed would furnish the pattern for the rtate aid to be extended. :here the sending dia- triot did not have a contract with a teacher however, no one knows and no one aan know just what qualifications and experienoe might have been potsessed by a teaoher who would have been employed it the agreement to transfer the 6ObOlaStiO enrollment had never bean. msda. Ke think, however, that it should be preSUmea that a teacher would have been employed who would fulfill the r.lnlmum requirements of a teacher in a standardized ochool. The nohool being a etandard- ized one, it should‘not be presumed that the trustees would employ a person to teach in that aohool who does not possess the specifioa- tions required of a teacher in a standardized school. Xoxevcr, in the absenoe of a contract with a teacher possess~nf-the qualifica- tions beyond tbe minimum requirod to teach In a standardized sohool, we do not believe for the purposes here oonoerned that the preeump- tion could be extended further than that the trustees could employ someone possesalng the minimum qualifioations reciulreb. liaving Eon. tierre L. Stine, April 15, 1939, Pace 3 failed to enter into a contract vjithon0 possesalne Eore tta tbose qualifi0atlon6, the trustee6 have failed to show that the 60hool i6 entitled to reoeive aid on any other baeir. Our answer to your question, thOrefOra, is that the State Aid to which the raoeivlng dietriot ie entitled under the transfer is the amount which tho sending district would have reoeived had the tranmfer never bean muda, upon the basis of a teacher employed who poesea6ed only the minlmum apeoifioationa required of a teaohar in ssch a standardized school. It ehould be pointed out also that under the last part of section 19, it the whole or such amount is not necessary in carrying out the aq,raementof tramfar, then the dietriot would not be entitled to reoeive such whole amount. Yours very truly ATTORKY GLXRAL OF TEXAS . By@d-.‘dti Glenn R. law16 kkssietant GRL:N AppL---b AT’l’GRNEY GE.XR!.LOF TBIAS