December 9, 1952 

Hon. J. W. Edgar Opinion No. V-1544 

Commissioner of Education 

Texas Education Agency Be: Authority of the CommisAustin, Texas sioner of Education to 

conduct appellate review 

in disputes involving 

Dear Sir: junior college districts. 

In your request for an opinion from this office 

you ask: 

"Does the Commissioner of Education 

have jurisdiction to hear appeals from 

decisions of the 

junior colleges?" 

governing boards of 

Section 4 of Article 28l5h, V.C.S., the junior 

college district law, provides in part as follows: 

11 

. . 0 The said board of education of 

such junior college.distri&t, under the provisions of this Act, shall in addition to 

all of the powers and duties .vested in them 

by the terms of this Act, be furthermore 

vested with all the rights; powers, privileges, 

and duties conferred and imposea upon trustees 

of independent school districts by the General 

Laws of this State, so far as the same may be 

applicable thereto and not inconsistent with 

this Act." 

Section 5 of Article 2815h, V.C.S., reads as 

follows: 

"The Board of Trustees' of Junior College Districts shall be governed in the 

,establishment, management and control of 

the Junior College by the General Law governing the ,establishment, management and control 

of Independent School District; in so far as 

the General Law is applicable. 
‘._ 

Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (V-1544) 

Section 1 of Article 2654-5, V.C.S., one of 

the Cilmer-Aikin laws which created the Texas Central 

Education Agency, provides in part as follows: 

?fhere is hereby established the position of State Commissioner of Education. All 

powers and duties heretofore vested in the 

State Superintendent of Public 'Instruction 

shall be discharged by the Commissioner, provided said powers and duties are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act. O . *' 

Article 2656, V.C.S., provides in part: 

?l%e State Superintendent shall be 

charged with the administration of the school 

laws and a general superintendency of the 

business relating to the public schools of 

the State, and he shall have printed for 

general ~distribution such number of copies of 

school laws as the State Board of Education 

may determine. He shall hear and determine 

all appeals from the rulings and decisions 

of subordinate school officers, and all such 

officers and teachers shall conform to his 

decisions. Appeal shall always be from his 

rulings to the State Board." 

Section 1 of Article 2654-7, V.C.S., reads as 

follows~ 

"Parties having any matter of dispute 

among~them arising under provisions of the 

school laws of Texas, or any person or 

parties aggrieved by the actions or decisions of any Board of Trustees or Board of 

Education, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner of Education who, after due notice 

to the parties interested, shall examine in 

a hearing and render a judgment without cost 

to the parties involved. However, nothing 

contained in this Section shall deprive any 

party of a legal remedy." 

Section 2 of Article 2654-1, V.C.S., provides: 

"The Central Education Agency shall 

exercise, under the Acts of the Legislature, general control of the system of public 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (V-1544) 

education at the State level. 

with persons under twentv-one (21 "7 vears activity of 

age, which is carried on-within.the"State by 

other State or Federal Agencies, exce t hi her education in approved colleges, -5iih%+ 

its educational asuects be subject to the 

rules -and regulations of the C&tral Education Agency. (Emphasis added.), 

Prior to.the enactment of Article 2654-7, 

Article 2656 had been construed as making an appeal to 

the school authorit1es.a condition precedent to a 

right of any party complaining of the decision of a 

oublic school board to bring the matter in controversv 

berore the courts. Trustees of Chilicothe ,Independent 

School Dist.,v. Dudney 142 S W 1007 (Tex.Civ.App. 

1911); Warren v0 Sange: Indeplndent School Dist,, 116 

Tex. 183 288 S.W. 1 9 (1926)*'Huntington Independent 

School Dist, v. Scro~ains. 9 i.'W,2d 171 (Tex.Civ.ADv. 

92tsl . However,. I meen impliedly held that the 

governing bodies of institutions of higher learning were 

not within the term "subordinate school officers',' in 

Article 2656 and an appeal from their decisions could 

be taken directly to the courts. Foley v. Benedict, 122 

Tex. 193, 55 S.W.2d 805 (1932). In Williams v. White, 

223 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Tex.Civ.App. 1949 error ref.) 

the court held that junior colleges art institution: 

of higher learning and are not part of the public free 

school system, saying: 

"Appellant suggests that the provision 

relating to the formation of districts embracing 'parts of two or more counties' was 

adopted in 1909 to meet the decision of the 

Supreme Court in Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11, 

111 S.W. 726; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W. 

529, wherein it was held that the Legislature, under the Constitution as it then existed, could not create a district embracing 

territory lying in more than one county. We 

think this is correct, but the Constitution 

seems to make a distinction between the public 

free schools (the first seven sections of 

Article 7 of the Constitution) and other types 

of educational institutions such as colleges 

and universities which are above the hdgh ~._ 

school level of difficulty and generally 

referred to as institutions of higher learning. 

This distinction seems to have been recognized 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (V-1544) 

by the legislative and executive branches of 

our government as pointed out and discussed 

by Chief Justice Cureton in the case of 

Mumme v. Marrs, 120 Tex. 383, 40 S.W.2d 31. 

We regard the case cited as authority for the 

proposition that the asserted limitation of 

Article, 7 8 3, of the Constitution is not 

applicable to junior colleges." 

It would follow from this holding that appellate jurisdiction of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction under Article 2656 did not extend to rulings of 

junior college governing boards. 

There has not been a judicial determination of 

whether Article 2654-7 has changed the former rule under 

Article 2656 so as to give an aggrieved party a chocie 

of appealing to the Commissioner of Education or of appealing directly to a court. Be that as it may, we are 

of the opinion that neither Article 2654-T nor any other 

statutory provision has increased the Commissioner's 

jurisdiction to include review of decisions of governing 

bodies of junior colleges. In our opinion, the appellate 

jurisdiction conferred in Article 2654-7 is substantially 

the same as that theretofore vested in the State Superintendent under Article 2656 and is limited to disputes 

and controversies in matters over which he has general 

administrative control. While the Commissioner of Education and the Central Education Agency, of which he is 

a part, perform certain specific duties with respect to 

publicly supported junior colleges, they have no general 

jurisdiction or supervision over activities of junior 

colleges as they have over the activities of the public 

free schools. This lack of general jurisdiction over 

institutions of higher learning is recognized in Section 

2 of Article 2654-1, which expressly excepts their 

activities from the Central Education Agency's general 

control of education activities affecting persons under 

21 years old. Therefore, it is our opinion that the 

Commissioner ofEducation does not have jurisdiction to 

hear appeals from the decisions of the governing boards 

of junior colleges, 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 5 (V-1544) 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioner of Educqtion has no 

jurisdiction to hear appeals from the dealsions of the governing boards of junior 

colleges. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

Mary Kate Wall 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

PRICB DANIEL 

Attorney General 

m&e+ 

Assistant 

BA:am