OFFiCE bF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

O”OYI” scu.=-= 

&yor*lr. o.imrrr 

IIonorabla j'i. E. Kin&I Aocomtent 

,roint Legislative Committoe 

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. 

"Pursuant to this situation, we should lilce 

to have your opinion on the-following question: 

Since these pupils, although not transferred out, 

are being schooled without the State of Texes, 

may the sending district omit them from the per 

oapfta computation fn~ t&e receipts of the kppliL 

ce.tion for Equalization Aid? 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?1V 
Hon. w. B. King, page 2 

.- 

In order to enswer.the questions contained in 

your letter, it is necessary to determine by what authority 

the fourteen pupils may be permitted to attend sohool in 

the Louisiene district am3 heve an mount equivalent to 

their per. cepite money paid to the Louisiana district by 

the oomuon school district iu Pnnola County. After oonsideriug the Frovisious of 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 .eny district 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 contiguous to 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 

edditionel tuition, if necessary, peid~ bythe ': 

district of his residence onsuch terms es may be 

sgreed upon between the ,trustees of the distriot 

0.f residence of 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 restrictiona of the Texas Statutes. 

shall apply to the emount psid.for high sohool 

tuition. 

% 1." 

Ads 1931, l&d Leg., p. 192; oh. 113, 

, 

We think thet the foregoing Artiole contemplates en ' 

egreemont between the Texas distriot tmd the out of State 

district viith~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 

equivalent to their per capita eamings,~seid. arrangemi&t vies 

satisfactory to and eoquiesced in by the trustees of each of 

the Ustricts concerned. 

In Ojinion ?Zo. O-5805, this department held that 

Article 2699a provided a method of. lxaosfer of 'such pupils ~enl 

authorized the payment of the enount'of the per oapite to the 

reaeiving district.' In this ease, the per dapi.ta money on the 

i 

: ,- 
i 

.i. 

:., 

. 

HOO. W. B. .King, page 3 

.$., 5’53 

fourteen pupils is paid~to the common school dist&ot in 

pa'nola County,'and under 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 convenient to attend the 

public school in a district of a county of said Sate con* 

tiguous"to said district in Texas, may have the State and 

County per capita apportionment of the Available School Fund 

paid to seid~ district in said State....." In view of thia 

provision, and the circumstances in this case,~c think that 

the Texas district should pay to the Louisiana district 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 constitute a resource for the 

operation of the sohool in the Texas district, but would, in 

fact; constitute~a transfer of resources for the benefit of 

the reoeiving district. In no way does this amount oonstltute 

a true asset or resource for the ,benefit of the ohildren who 

are in,attendanoe in the home district. YJe think'that the 

Equalizatiou Aid Law contemplates that the resouroes of the. 

home distriot derived from the per capita of pupils .for whom 

instruction is ~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 

instruction for said pupils, and whenever the ~exj?enditures 

for said purposes are greater than the aforesaid resources 

of the home district, the State~balances the budget by,means 

of Equalization Aid. 

, 

In view of the foregoing statutory provisions and ' 

inview of ~the facts submittecl, it in our opinion that the 

amount representing the per capita money of the fourteen 

pupils who are attending school in the Louisiana district 

should not be included in the computation of the per capita 

ti‘resources of the district in l?anola County in its Application 

for Equalization Aid. It is our further opinion.that said 

amount should not be oonsldered in the computation of the 

expenditures in the Equalization Aid Application, 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your 

inquiry, vie 'remain 

Yours very troly,