P 

### THE 

## A GENERAL,

0atober 11, 1949

Hon. L. A. Wood8 Oplnlon lF0. v-933. State bup6rlntendent Departmentoi Education Re: lbueerrrtrng in the Austin, Texas school oewus tllore non-rtmQ?antscholastics whose traulsfer hw not been approved by the State CommisDearSir: aloner of Eduoatlon.

We refer to your opinion requestwherein you state, in substance:

,-- 51st Paragraph 2 of Article III, Senate Bill 

### 116,

Legislature,reads:

"Providedthat the attendmae oi nonnsident soholastios whose grades Bre~teught in their home diatrlota shall not oount towards teaoher eligibility, unless the trensfer of such roholasties has bean approved by the County 3ohool Board and the State Commiaaloner of Education."

Many oountieshave reported to tha Sohool CanIIUB Dire&or of the State Departmentof Eduoationtransfera of soholastiar whose grades are taught in their home distrlat. 3wh traasierabeer the approvalof the Uounty School Board..

Fhere are aany transfer8that~ve@eapprovedby the County Boards but then disapproved by the State Commissioner of Biuoation.

Does that disapprovalramova the ohild iran the transfer raport and leave the per oaplta~ apportionment

Ln the home (sending) diatrlot? If not, vi11 the name remain on the transfer report ,and the per osplta be paid to the reoeiringdistrlot? We do not know whether to leave tha pep oepita money in the sendingdistrict or credit It to the reoeivlngdistrict.

Articles 

### 2696

and 

### 2697

of Vernonta Civll3tatutwEon. L. A. Yoods, page 2 (V-933)

set oat In detail the prooedure to be followed in effecting the transfer of ohlldreix fraa one dlstrl.ot

to another. These statutes also provide that if any dis,triot is dlssatisfied

vith any'transfer

made by the County 3uperintendent it mar appeal from suoh aotion to the County Board of Trusteeswho shall have the right to oanoel the transfer. Artlole 2696 also providea:

"

. Upon the oertifioation of the tzansfk'of any ohlld, from one dLatrZot to mother diatrlot,by the oou&y auperIntendoutof the oounty in which the ohild resides at the time of the tramfer;the atate Departwnt of Eduuatfon #hall-Ruthorl%e the Jtate Treasurer to pay over direotly the per oapita apportionment, In tnde (5OOY ndent distrlats of five hundred

or more soholastio population,to the dlstlrlot

to whioh swh ohlld is trensferred; and in all other dirtricts;~T-to aounty ruperlntendents, to be pe1d.b~ him to the nrpeetive dirtrlctr t6 Thlob~-iiueh ohlldren are tranaf8sred; pPovlded,PO transfer ahall be made efter August 1st."

Under the law govePntngdlstrlbtitlon of the availablesohool fund, the per oaplta apportiionment Is distributedto the dlstrlot in, whioh the aoholastlois enumerated,usuallyhis home district. Texas Constitution, Art.p‘IE, 3eos.5 and 7g,Arts.2665, 2692, V.C.3. The statutesp?ovide for the tPansf8r of scholasticsIn the Instames enmerated and in the manner provided. brts.2696-2699;

3.B.116,Art.111,par.3, Aots 51at Leg., 1949. Wher&a sbholestics is transferredln the manner presorlbedby law, the per oapfta apportionment follows him to the diatrlot to whioh he is transferred. Exoeptlug the lnstames when the soholestiois legally tranrferred, the per oaplte apportionment for that scholastio is payable only to the districtwherein he is enumerated. Art.2699-Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex.351, 40 3X.26 20 (19311;

JNeCor~eC~ia~~tees of,R;b;<o; 3prinas3z&: DistrictX0.76, f County 2

. . 1048 ( 0 Clv.App.193U).

3enate Bill 116, however,provides State aid to finanoe the mlnlmum program established by that Bill, in addition to those State moneys payable to districts out of the State AvailableFund. Article III thereof is the law governingthe matter of teaoher ellglbilltyforlion. L. A. Woods, page 

### 3 (v-933)

purposes of the minimum foundationprogram. It sets out the formulaby whioh any school districtmay d&&mine the amount of minimum foundationfunds it may expsct to receive.
Paragraph 2 of Art3018 III provides that nonr8esideat

soholastfos

whose -grades

'arateught in their hceuz-district

shall not count towardteacher eligibIlity, unless their transferhas been epprov8dby the County SchoolBoard a the State CommiesLoner of Eduoetlon. Undar that paragreph soholestios, sohool dlstriots,end county boards or8 clearly apprisedof the oonsequenees where transfers'approved by the county board do not reoelye the subs

7! uent approvalof the State Commissioner. Under Artiole 2 % school dlstrlotshave been afforded the opportunity

to voice their d1ssetIsfeotion with eny transfermode by the County SuperIntendeat and the right to appeel to the County Sohool Boerd.

The effect of paregraph 2 of Artlols III (oonsideredwith aubd.b,38o.2, and 3ec.l of Art.V of 3.3.116) is that no State aid will be granted out of mInImum foundation funds for th8 8dwetlonel.oosts of non-r8sident scholastics,

whose grades ar8 taught in their home distriots, unless their transferhas been properly approved by the County 3ohool Board and the State Commissioner. The purposes of these provlaio~are to enoourege ettenden08 of soholastlosin their home districtswhen their grades ar8 taught therein end to eoonomiseon transportation coats authorteedin the foundetionprogram.

Thus, Artiole 26% end Article III peregre h 2 deal with dlstinot end separete subjects. Article 2 96 ii

concerns legal (perental) transfersand plecea the jurfsdiotlon over the some in oounty boards and offloers. It governs In the distributionof Stete AyallebleFunds for ohildr8n transferred by vlrtU8 of the statute. Paragraph 2 of Artiole III concerns teacher elIgibIlItyof sohool distriots under the Gllmer-AIkInlows, and applies to ellgIbilltyfor the mInImum foundationschool funds. Senote Bill 116 contains no provisiongoverningthe matter of distributionof State AvailableFunds wher8 legaltransfers ar8 consummetedunder Article 26%. In short,we do uot think It the Intentionof Senete Bill 116 to teke control and discr8tIon In matters of soholastlotransfersout of the local oountg school boards end place it In the hands of the State Commissionerof Bducstion In all Instanoes.

Aooo~ingly, it Is our opinion,that if theHon. L A. Woods, page 4 (p-933)

State Commissionerof Edcwation, aotlng under Art1010 IYI, paragraph 2, refuses to approve (for teaoher elIgibilIty purposer) transfer of a saholaatI8 (afroso grades oretamt In his hosa dintriot) to anotherdistrlot, suoh rsfusal rould hove uo effeat on the right of the r8oeIvingdistrlot to Feallse the per aaplta apportIoum8nt on thst lego1 trausfer, as provided In Ar$161e ”‘@@6. The name of the legal trausfer should r8saIp on the trsusfep report, and the per Oapita be paid to th8 reoeivingdlstrlot.

Per osplta apportionment on legal transfers of public sohool students oonsummated uuder Artiole 2696, V.C.3., is governed by that artiole, and Is not affectedby any mlIng of the Btate Commissionerof EduCatIOn mad8 under Senete Bill 

### 11.6, Art1018 III, paragrsph2, Aots 51st L8gIslsture199, OouOeruing the transfer. .,I*<

Youra very truly,

A!CTOHlEYCEBRRAL OF lWXA3

cRo::bh:mw ChesterB. Ollison Assistant

FIBST A3313TApT ATTOIWEY o$IIEBAL

-,