JIM MAlTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12548 

Austin. TX. 78711. 2548 

512/4752501 

Telex 9101874-1387 

Telecopier 51214750285 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75M24508 

214l742.6944 

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso. TX. 759052793 

915633-3484 

MO1 Texas, Suite 700 

uston. TX. 77002.3111 

flY223-5888 

808 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 

806/747-5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 75501-1885 

5W882-4547 

MO Main Plaza, Sulle 400 

San Antonlo. TX. 782052797 

512l2254191 

An Equal OpportunityI 

Affirmative Action Empbyer 

P 

The Attornesy General of Texas 

June 19, 1986 

Eonorable Allen R>ss Hightower 

Chairman 

Law Enforcement Cnnmittee 

Texas Rouse of Representatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 73769 

Opinion No. JM-504 

Re: Whether section 16.02(e) of 

the Education Code, which authorises a school district to receive state funds in accordance 

with maximum price differential 

index, is applicable beyond the 

1984-85 academic year 

Dear Representative Hightower: 

You ask the op~inion of this office as to whether section 16.102(e) 

of the Education Code is applicable after the 1984-85 school year. 

Section 16.102(e) authorizes a school district that meets specified, 

criteria to receLve state funds in accordance with a maximum price 

differential index [PDI]. We conclude that the provisions of section 

16.102(e) are intended to apply only to the 1984-85 school year. 

Section 16.102(e) was enacted into the Education Code in 1984 by 

House Bill No. 72, Sixty-eighth Legislature, 2nd Called Session, as 

part of the chapter providing for the Foundation School Program. 

Section 16.102 established a price differential adjustment of the 

basic allotment jior each school district. Subsection (a) of section 

16.102 provides th.at 

(a) 'The basic allotment for each district is 

adjusted by multiplying the amount of the basic 

allotment by an. index factor that reflects the 

geographic variation in resource costs due to 

factors 'beyond the control of the school district. 

Subsection (b) scpplied a formula for adjust&g each district's basic 

allotment, a forwla that was to be used in each school year until a 

different formula, was adopted by the State Board of Education under 

subchapter E of #chapter 16. The price differential index is one 

element of that formula. Subsection (c) established a formula for 

calculating the PI11 for each school year until a different PDI was 

adopted by the !;tate Board of Education under subchapter E. Subsection (d) contains additional criteria for the PDI based on the 

ranking of schoo:l districts in the order of index values determined 

under subsection 1:~) of section 16.102. It relates .only to the PDI 

determined under subsection (c). Subsection (e) reads as follows: 

p. 2312 
(e) Notwithstanding other provisions 

section a school district is entitled 

of this 

to the 

maximum PDI if located in a county in which the 

number of full-t,lme state employees at pay grade 

10-14, plus the number of public senior college or 

university faculty at the rank of instructor or a 

higher rank, employed within the county as of May 

31, 1984, exceeds 125 percent of the number of 

nonfederally funded teachers employed in that 

county as of that date. 

Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 2 (JM-504) 

Subchapter C is com~~ased of sections 16.101-16.104 and subchapter E consists of sectLons 16.176-16.180. Section 16.179 directs 

the State Board of Education , not later than the 30th day before the 

1st day of each regular se!,c;ion of the legislature, to adopt a PDI to 

be used in adjusting the i.llotment of state funds for the following 

biennium. Accordingly, th, PDI for use during the 1985-87 biennium 

was adopted by the board prior to the beginning of the Sixty-ninth 

Session in 1985. It is the "different price differential index 

adopted under subchapter E" which is referred to in section 16.102(c). 

"The price different:ial index is designed to reflect the 

geographic variation in I'esource cost due to factors beyond the 

control of school distr:icts." SM. 16.176. Section 16.178 

establishes an advisory csnomittee appointed by the State Board of 

Education to advise the board in the development of the PDI. Section 

16.177 requires the comIltroller of public accounts to collect 

biennially, and report to the State Board of Education and the price 

index advisory committee, price information necessary to the 

development of the PDI based on an econometric model that considers 

the effect of school distl,ict characteristics on prices paid in the 

school district for goods and services. 

No inflexible rule can be announced for the construction of 

statutes. However, the dominant consideration in construing statutes 

is the intention of the legislature. That intention is derived from a 

aeneral review of an entire! enactment and. when ascertained. shall be 

given effect to attain the object and purpose of the legislature. see 

City of Houston v. Morgan Guaranty International Bank, 666 S.W.2d 524. 

529 (Tex. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 

Subchapters C and E provide for the calculation and adoption of 

the PDI. When their provisions are read together, it appears that the 

legislature intended the determination of the PDI to be governed by 

section 16.102 of subchaptcz C only until, beginning with the 1985-87 

biennium, the State Board o:E Education began the adoption of the PDI 

for each biennium under subchapter E. Thus 516.102(b) provides: "For 

each school year until a different formula is adopted under Sub 

chapter E . . ." the commiz~ioner shall follow this section. Similar 

language is in 516.102(c). Subsection (d) of section 16.102 exuresslv 

is iim?ted to the ranking csf school disiricts in the order of inde; 

values determined under subsection (c) of section 16.102. Subsection 

(e) states that, notwithstanding other provisions of section 16.102, a 

p. 2313 
Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 3 (~~-504) 

school district meeting cert:ain criteria on May 31, 1984, is entitled 

to the maximum PDI. Thir; language indicates that the legislature 

thereby intended to make an exception to the calculation of the PDI 

that was calculated under section 16.102, which itself was intended to 

be temporary. 

Subchapter E prescribes! procedures for the ongoing collection of 

information and data to be used for the development of a PDI for each 

biennium by the State Boar,d of Education with the advice and recommendation of the advisory committee. By subchapter E, the legislature 

provided that the PDI for each biennium is based on changing factors 

and is not determined permanently on the basis of criteria and 

conditions that exist at a certain point in time. It is our opinion 

that the legislature inter& section 16.102(e) to be part of the 

calculation of the PDI only until the State Board of Education began 

its biennial adoption of the PDI as provided by sections 16.176-16.180 

of subchapter E. 

We conclude that the maximum PDI which is authorized for certain 

school districts by section 16.102(e) is not applicable after the 

1984-85 school year. 

SUMMARY 

Section 16.102(e) of the Education Code, 

authorizing certs:ln school districts to receive 

state funds in accordance with a maximum price 

differential ind,ex, is not applicable after the 

1984-85 school year. 

Very truly yours 

. 

J-/k 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney Gczneral 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attornc:y General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney G#eneral 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee! 

Prepared by Nancy Sutton 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2314