**OFFiCE bF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **O ”OYI”**  **scu.=-=** **&yor*lr.** **o.imrrr**

IIonorabla

j'i. E. Kin&I Aocomtent ,roint LegislativeCommittoe Austin, Tcxss '
Dear Sir;‘

questing the o letter of recent date ree,hs'd e'%ese . to~arise no sahool,within the ccessible to fourteen

siane school would teeoh the f.ourits for en amount equivalent to.

approvsdby the State Deportment of Educat$on.
"Pursuantto this situation,we should lilce to have your opinion on the-following question: Since these pupils, although not transferredout, are being schooledwithout the State of Texes, may the sending district omit them from the per oapfta computationfn~ t&e receipts of the kppliL ce.tion for EqualizationAid? Or ~nuay it be charged In the current expenditure section of the Equalizetion kid Dudget under Item J, in addition to &he limitations 63 prescri.bed in Article I+,Section 1, for other current expenses?1VHon. w. B. King, page 2

.-

In order to enswer.thequestions contained in your letter, it is necessary to determineby what authority the fourteenpupils may be permitted to attend sohool in the Louisiene districtam3 heve an mount equivalentto their per.

cepite money paid to the Louisiana district by the oomuon school district iu **Pnnola** County. After oonsideriug the Frovisiousof many statutes,we have conoluded that Article 2699s, 'F.A.C. Si, hrticle 2699a,provides.: is pertinent to your inquiry.

vAny child who would be entitled to attend the public school of .enydistrict that lies on the bcrd.er

of .Louisiane,

Arkanses, Oklehone$?&I New luerico.

end r;ho

msy find it more convenient to attend the publio school in e district of e county of s6id State contiguousto said distriot inTexas, nay have the State end County per oapite apportionment of the Available Soh'ool Fund' paid to said district in said State andmey have edditioneltuition, if necessary,peid~ bythe ': district of his residenceonsuch terms es may be sgreed upon between the ,trustees of the distriot 0.f residenceof suoh ohild, subjeot,to the approve1 ,! of **the** County Superintendent endtbe County'.Boerd : of Trustees of the Tex&s district and county; provided, thet the restrictionaof the Texas Statutes. shall apply to the emount psid.forhigh sohool tuition. % 1." Ads 1931, l&d Leg., p. 192; oh. 113,

, We think thet the foregoingArtiole contemplatesen ' egreemontbetween the Texas distriot tmd the out of State districtviith~reference to the Texas pupils' attending school. in the **out** of Stste district,end vie assums that when the County Superintendent of Ponol~ County end the Superintendent of the De Sota Perish School were in agreement that the Louisiana school wonld teach the fourteen puails for en..,ei&o'/unt equivalentto their per capita eamings,~seid. arrangemi&t

vies satisfactoryto and eoquiesced in by the trustees of each of the Ustricts concerned.

In Ojinion ?Zo.

O-5805, this departmentheld that Article 2699a provided a method of. lxaosfer of 'such pupils ~enl authorizedthe payment of the enount'of the per oapite to the reaeivingdistrict.'In this ease, the per dapi.ta money on the i

: ,-i

.i.

:., .

HOO. W. B. .King, page 3 .$., 5’53

fourteenpupils is paid~to the common school dist&ot in pa'nola County,'andunder the provisions of Article 2699a, *fAny child who v;ould

bs entitled to attend the public school of any district that lies on the border of Louisiana

......',

and who may find it more convenientto attend the public school in a district of a county of said Sate con* tiguous"tosaid district in Texas, may have the State and County per capita apportionmentof the Available School Fund paid to seid~

district in said State....." In view of thia provision,and the circumstancesin this case,~c think that the Texas district should pay to the Louisianadistrict such amount as it receives as per Capita RG:K?~on the fo'urteen pupils who are attending school in said Louisiana, district, and soid amount would not constitutea resource for the operationof the sohool in the Texas district,but would, in fact; constitute~atransfer of resources for the benefit of the reoeivingdistrict. In no way does this amount oonstltute a true asset or resource for the ,benefit of the ohildrenwho are in,attendanoein the home district.YJethink'that the Equalizatiou

Aid Law contemplatesthat the resouroes of the. home distriot derived from the per capita of pupils .for whom instructionis ~provided locally, together with the~lo~oal .~ maintenance 'tax,

shall be useri

to pay the expendi,tures,,which

. are limited to designated items for the purposeof proviiiing instructionfor said pupils, and whenever the ~exj?enditures for said purposes are greater than the aforesaid resources of the home district, the State~balancesthe budget by,means of Equalization

Aid.

, In view of the foregoing statutoryprovisions and ' inview of ~the

facts submittecl,

it in our opinion that the amount representingthe per capita money of the fourteen pupils who are attending school in the Louisiana district should not be included in the computationof the per capita ti‘resources

of the district in l?anola County in its Application for EqualizationAid. It is our further opinion.that said amount should not be oonsldered in the computationof the expenditures

in the EqualizationAid Application, Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry,vie

'remain
Yours very troly,