The Attorney General of Texas 

March 15, 1978 

Honorable Neal T. Jones, Jr. 

County Attorney for Hill County 

Hillsboro, Texas 76645 

Opinion No. H-1136 

Re: Construction of section 

17.99, Texas Education Code. 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

You inquire whether section 17.99 of the Texas Education Code requires 

the reclassification of rural high school districts as independent school 

districts. Section 17.99, which was enacted in 1975 as one section of House 

Bill 226, reads as follows: 

On September 1, 1978, all common school districts 

located in a county and in counties with no common 

school districts, rural high school districts, or independent districts with less than one hundred fifty flSO> 

ADA that do not support county school administration 

from ad valorem tax revenue generated pursuant to 

the provisions of Chapter 18 of this code. shall be 

reclassified as independent school districts by the 

Central Education Agency, and thereafter the districts 

shall be governed by the provisions of law applicable to 

independent school districts. Members ~of the governing boards of a common school district reclassified as 

an independent school distrmt shall continue to serve 

as trustees of the district until their respective terms 

of office expire. Each district shall continue to be 

governed by the same number of trustees elected for 

the same terms of .office in effect immediately 

preceding the district’s reclassification. 

@l17phasis added). 8ducation Code S 17.99; Acts 1975, 64th Leg.,.ch. 478, at 

After studymg House B111 226 with particular attention to the 

underlined language, we have concluded that section 17.99 does not require 

the reclassification of any school districts. 

House Bill 226 as introduced would have terminated State funding for 

all county school superintendents, leaving the county and school districts the 

p. 4628 
Honorable Neal T. Jones, Jr. - Page 2 (R-1136 ) 

option of supporting county school administration. Its six sections, enacted with 

amendments as sections 17.94 through 17.99 of the Education Code, provided for the 

abolition of any county school administration that was not funded locally. Section 

17.99 in the original version of the bill reclassified as independent school districts 

all common school districts located in a county that chose not to support county 

school administration. However, the Senate amended sections 17.94, 17.95, and 

17.99 by adding the underlined language. The bill as enacted applied only to 

“counties with no common school districts, rural high .school districts, or 

independent districts with less than one hundred fifty (150) ADA.” See Attorney 

General Opinion H-1103 (1977). 

- 

The Senate Education Committee, which amended section 17.94, discussed 

this change at a meeting on April 16, 1975. Tape recording of Senate Education 

Committee, filed in Senate Staff Services Office. It was explained that if a county 

had one independent school district with less than one hundred fifty average daily 

attendance, the office of the county superintendent would not be abolished. If the 

county had one common school district, the office would not be abolished. Thus, 

the discussion reflected a decision not to end State funding for a county with even 

one of the enumerated districts. 

The amending language was added to sections 17.95 and 17.99 on the Senate 

floor. Daily Senate Journal, 64th Leg., R.S., 1975, at 938. Its addition to section 

17.95 merely conformed it to section 17.94. The addition of the amendment to 

section 17.99, however, rendered that provision very difficult to interpret. As 

amended and enacted, section 17.99 applies to “4 common school districts located 

in a county and counties with no common sctiool districts. . . .ll (Emphasis added). 

This description is self-contrad%tory, and no school distri~ct fits it. The provision 

therefore applies to no school districts, with the effect that no common school 

districts will be reclassified as independent school districts pursuant to its 

provisions. 

This result, however, is consistent with the apparent legislative purpose 

expressed during the bill’s consideration. The reclassification of common school 

districts as independent would have prepared them for the loss of county 

administrative services by enabling them to perform those services themselves. 

Compare Education Code SS 22.08 - 22.10 with 23.01 - 23.31. Since the bill as 

enacted did not withdraw State funding for county school administration in counties 

with even one common school district, there was no need to increase the powers of 

those districts. Thus, our conclusion that section 17.99 has no effect actually 

furthers the legislative intent reflected in House Bill 226 as a whole. 

We are aware of a construction that would give section 17.99 some meaning. 

It could be interpreted as applicable to common school districts located in a county 

having no school district, whether common, rural, or independent, with less than 

one hundred fifty average daily attendnnce. Rowever, the legislative history of the 

bill and other provisions of the Education Code show that the independent school 

P. 4629 
Honorable Neal T. Jones, Jr. - Page 3 (H-1136) 

district with less than one hundred fifty scholastics belongs in a discrete class of 

school districts. Educ. Code S 23.02 (independent school district having fewer than 

one hundred fifty scholastics); S 22.01 (common school district); SS 25.01, 25.02 

(rural high school district). The limitation of one hundred fifty students does not 

apply to the common and rural districts. We decline to edopt a construction which 

is contrarv to the legislative intent ascertainable from the bill and the Education 

Code taken as a whole. See State v. School Trustees of Shelby County, 239 S.W.2d 

777 (Tex. 1951). 

- 

SUMMARY 

Section 17.99 of the Education Code does not require the 

reclassification as independent districts of any school 

districts. 

APPROVED: 

Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4630