EATTORNEY GENERAL, 

QFTEXAS 

AUSTIN ~~.Tmcx~s 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAI. 

August 12, 1948 

Hon. Preston E. Hutchinson, Accountant 

Joint Le islative Conuittee 

Austin, 4 exam Opinion Ho, V-659 

Appllicability of’ 435 

i 

imitation in ~Artlole 

5 

spal?sely settled ing”,m~“nt sehoel dir4 

We refer to your request Pop an 0pinlOn OOacernlng the applicability of the $35 POP SohoZrStitI 

limitation on equalization aid to independent school 

dic+W&ts, e~lgi~le and applying fop aid, under the 

third paragraph of Section 1, Art. I, H. B0 295, 5Qth 

Legislature. We quote frol youp opiai*e FOqWt, Fo 

pm-t, a8 follows: 

“The first part of this paragraph qualifies school district lirlts aid to 

thirty-five dollars per scholaatlc6 

The ssoond part of tha,paregraph quaefbfies 

indspeadent sohoai c%$Uatriota OD about $h& 

same baels but does not speclfioally r)by 

that such dlst 8 

five dollape ( 

are limited to thirtypop 8chola8tic, Since 

the budgetary need, requirements end qualifications of the above named dlstrlote are 

the same, we feel that It is necessary to 

ask the following question: 

‘lAFe independent districts, qualifying under this special provisl n, llmlted to 

thirty-five dollaF6 ($3S? par 8oho2artio?s 

‘If the above queetioa ie.ansvorsd in the 

negative, the eeoond quostlon would bsi 
Bon. Preston E, Hutchinson, page 2 (V-659) 

“P&e independent school distrio 8, with 

less than one hundred and fifty 150) 

scholastics, as described in Aptlcle 27 3, 

limfted to the thirty-five dollar6 ($35 P 

per soholastlo%B 

“Attaohed is an example of some ten or iiitoen distrlotk qualifying under this spe%lal 

F 

ovi61ene Please note on page 1, item as 

hat said district is on y apply1 

i 

T 

for 

thirty-five dollam ($35 

descpibod in Article 1, 

par scho a8tlC as 

ectlom lp As yeu 

will nete en page 5, with the llmitatien ra* 

r~vol, eald Qlstriotqs salary aid grant VllL 

be ralsrd from twe t 

and eeventy dollars 

usan oighht hundred 

2870) to eight thousand eight hundred and seven dollars ($8807)~ II’ 

The third pmagva 

r 

of Section 1, of AFtiole 

I, Ii, B, 295, read8, Ln par o ar3 follows~ 

“F’z.=ovided thBt sohool di8tPiCtP in 

oatmties having a scholastic population 

equivalent to ons&alf of one pupil pep 

square mile or lesa in the entire county, 

or school dlstriots having a scholastic 

population equivalent to one scholastic 

le or less and containing one 

square miles or mope in area, 

may be exempt from the average dally attendance requirement and the teacher- upil 

quota requirement of this Aot, if P t is so 

recommended by the State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction and approved by the 

lslatlve Accountant, for the purpose of 

Logmaintaining a~high school of, sixteen (, 6) 

or more affiliated units, vfth seven (7 or 

more teachers; but in no inatanoe may,the 

coat of the,Byalisajlon fund exceed thirtyfive dollars $35VO0 Q~P pupil in such d.ls* 

trlot, And be it further prvvided that Independent SC 

hundred (100 P 

001 Districts comprised of one 

sgua~e mile.6 or more9 and, that 

are now a cr dlted and equipped to maintain 

a twelve 1 12 ‘3 grade school with sixteen (16) 

or more afflllated high school units, and . 

hevi 

I@ 

a scholastic population of less than 

1) pep square mile in the district My 

.~ 

one 

be exempt from then average dally ,attipdanoe 

. 
Hon. Preston Z;. Hutchlnson, page 3 (v-659) 

and teachop-pupil quota requirements of 

this Act if it la se Pecommended by the 

State Superintendent and approved by the 

Leglrlativo Aocountant POP the pwpose of 

imintainlng en& accredited schools and 

employi 

lng the 3 

SIX(~) OF mop8 teachers lnaludu)eplntcr*leat. 

The first sentence in the ebooe quoted param Is substantiaUy the saao a8 the third papagraph 

of $ ectlon 1, AFtlola I, S, B, 167, 49th 

The enlj ataHa1 dlfferenaa is that the 

Iatwe raise& th4 lidtatlen figwe fpoa 

The relasinl 

tha 50th Lo 

et’ the quctsd paragraph wan rCr&si by 

wwaph 

In oountise 

having a aoholastlc pepulat 0 one-half 

OP iess in the entire ownhaving scholastic populastlc neP sauaxw mile op ~ 

less arid containing 100 SQuaPo mil&3 o~-mwe In area,” 

urd the $39 U.uitatlon 16 expzwasly avie aa to ‘suoh 

UetFlots 9 

The second atptenoo lxa said quoted pap 

a9eclfioallg oonce~ns ‘Independent School DlstPia s 

yw 

that are now accredited and equipped te Psalntaln a &2- 

grade eohool with at least 16 affiliated high schoel 

UllitB 9 and which have a s$holastic populat&on of less 

than one per square mile In the dfstriot. There ie 

no $35 limitation made with respeot to eald lndepon4ent 

school distpicta, 

We think the ~Oth‘L~gislatwe b y its l 6o tlen 

of thio seaond sentence gwovlslon effectively and 1 &WItional.ly removed In&e 

therein from the Mn.i ? 

endent Qlatplcte as dealgnats 

atiow ~of the fir6t sentenoe Q lie 

oan peroeiee of no peason why the Legislatwe would have 

added this latter ppovioion except to free such deslgNted independent districts from the $35 limftatlon appl%- 

cable ta al.1 school districts covred by the first part 

oi the paragraph i 

Artiole VI ef Ho B. 295 p~otidiw, in pults 

“It shall be tha dut of The State 

Supsrintrndent of Pub110 r znstpuotioa ad 
Hon. Preston E. Hutchinson, page 4 (V-659) 

the Legislative Accountant to take such 

action and to make such rules and pegulatlons not inconsistent wlth the tepms of 

this Act as may be necessary to carry out 

the ppovlslona of this Act, and for the 

best interest of the schools for whose 

benefit the Funds ape appropzlated, ti on 

An examination of the several applications for 

State-aid attached to the opinion pequeat, which were 

submitted by certain Independent achooP districts quallfging under the second sentence of the third paragraph 

of Section 1 of Article I of said Act, reveals that the 

State Superintendent has puled in this matter to the effect that said independent school districts are not limited by the $35 provision applicable to school districts 

qualifying under the first sentence in said paragraph 

four of Section 1, As indicated hereinabove, we think 

the State Superintendent has puled in this mat.ter consistent with the terms of said Act, 

The Leglslatwe, by its enactment of 

the second sentence p~ovlsion in the third 

paragraph of Section 1 of Article I, H. B. 

295, Acts 1947, intentionally removed the 

sparsely settled independent school dlstzicts therein designated from the $35 

limitation applicable to other school dlatricts covered by said Act, 

YOUPS velpy tzulg, 

A'PPOBNEYGEBEBAL OF TEXAS 

CEO:mw 

Chester E, Clllson 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

~, $ik.& jL.2 

ATI'OREEY GENERAL