P 

THE A GENERAL, 

0atober 11, 1949 

Hon. L. A. Wood8 Oplnlon lF0. v-933. 

State bup6rlntendent 

Department oi Education Re: lbueerrrtrng in the 

Austin, Texas school oewus tllore 

non-rtmQ?ant scholastics whose traulsfer 

hw not been approved 

by the State CommisDearSir: aloner of Eduoatlon. 

We refer to your opinion request wherein you 

state, in substance: 

,-- 

51st 

Paragraph 2 of Article III, Senate Bill 116, 

Legislature, reads: 

"Provided that 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 oounties have reported to tha Sohool CanIIUB Dire&or of the State Department of Eduoation transfera of soholastiar whose grades are taught in their home 

distrlat. 3wh traasiera beer the approval of the Uounty 

School Board.. 

Fhere are aany transfer8 that~ve@e approved by 

the County Boards but then disapproved by the State Commissioner of Biuoation. 

Does that disapproval ramova 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 reoeiring distrlot? We do not know whether to leave 

tha pep oepita money in the sending district or credit It 

to the reoeivlng district. 

Articles 2696 and 2697 of Vernonta Civll3tatutw 
Eon. 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 

Trustees who 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 auperIntendout of 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 govePntng dlstrlbtitlon of the 

available sohool fund, the per oaplta apportiionment Is 

distributed to the dlstrlot in, whioh the aoholastlo is 

enumerated, usually his home district. Texas Constitution, Art.p‘IE, 3eos.5 and 7g,Arts.2665, 2692, V.C.3. 

The statutes p?ovide for the tPansf8r of scholastics In 

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 transferred ln the manner 

presorlbed by law, the per oapfta apportionment follows 

him to the diatrlot to whioh he is transferred. Exoeptlug the lnstames when the soholestio is legally tranrferred, the per oaplte apportionment for that scholastio 

is payable only to the district wherein 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&: 

District X0.76, 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 Available Fund. Article III thereof is 

the law governing the matter of teaoher ellglbillty for 
lion. L. A. Woods, page 3 (v-933) 

purposes of the minimum foundation program. It sets out 

the formula by whioh any school district may d&&mine 

the amount of minimum foundation funds it may expsct to 

receive. 

Paragraph 2 of Art3018 III provides that nonr8esideat soholastfos whose -grades 'ara teught in their 

hceuz-district shall not count toward teacher eligibIlity, unless their transfer has been epprov8d by the County School Board a the State CommiesLoner of Eduoetlon. 

Undar that paragreph soholestios, sohool dlstriots, end 

county boards or8 clearly apprised of the oonsequenees 

where transfers 'approved by the county board do not reoelye the subs 

7! 

uent approval of the State Commissioner. 

Under Artiole 2 % school dlstrlots have been afforded 

the opportunity to voice their d1ssetIsfeotion with eny 

transfer mode by the County SuperIntendeat and the right 

to appeel to the County Sohool Boerd. 

The effect of paregraph 2 of Artlols III (oonsidered with 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 transfer has been properly approved by the County 3ohool Board and the State Commissioner. 

The purposes of these provlaio~are to enoourege ettenden08 of soholastlos in their home districts when their 

grades ar8 taught therein end to eoonomise on transportation coats authorteed in the foundetion program. 

Thus, Artiole 26% end Article III peregre h 2 

deal with dlstinot end separete subjects. Article 2 ii 96 

concerns legal (perental) transfers and plecea the jurfsdiotlon over the some in oounty boards and offloers. It 

governs In the distribution of Stete Ayalleble Funds for 

ohildr8n transferred by vlrtU8 of the statute. Paragraph 

2 of Artiole III concerns teacher elIgibIlIty of sohool 

distriots under the Gllmer-AIkIn lows, and applies to 

ellgIbillty for the mInImum foundation school funds. Senote Bill 116 contains no provision governing the matter 

of distribution of State Available Funds wher8 legaltransfers ar8 consummeted under Article 26%. In short, we do 

uot think It the Intention of Senete Bill 116 to teke control and discr8tIon In matters of soholastlo transfers out 

of the local oountg school boards end place it In the hands 

of the State Commissioner of Bducstion In all Instanoes. 

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

State Commissioner of 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 another distrlot, suoh rsfusal 

rould hove uo effeat on the right of the r8oeIving distrlot 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 reoeiving dlstrlot. 

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 affected by any mlIng of the Btate Commissioner of EduCatIOn 

mad8 under Senete Bill 11.6, Art1018 III, 

paragrsph 2, Aots 51st L8gIslsture 199, OouOeruing the transfer. .,I*< 

Youra very truly, 

A!CTOHlEY CEBRRAL OF lWXA3 

cRo::bh:mw 

Chester B. Ollison 

Assistant 

FIBST A3313TApT 

ATTOIWEY o$IIEBAL 

-,