Can a Texas school district run buses into a neighboring district without an interlocal agreement?

Plain-English summary

The Coryell County District Attorney asked the AG whether a public school district may operate a transportation system outside its own geographical boundaries without an interlocal contract, under Education Code section 34.007. The factual setting: Gatesville ISD sits in Coryell and Bell Counties. Neighboring Jonesboro ISD sends its buses daily into Gatesville ISD to pick up students who live inside Gatesville ISD's boundaries but have been granted transfers to attend Jonesboro schools. There was no transportation agreement between the two districts, and none was planned.

The AG said section 34.007 does not authorize that without an interlocal contract. The statute lets a county or district board of trustees establish and operate an economical public school transportation system in the county or district, or outside it only if the district enters an interlocal contract under Government Code chapter 791. The AG found no court or AG opinion previously construing the provision, so it applied the plain language. School districts have only the powers expressly or impliedly conferred on them. Here the Legislature gave districts authority to run a transportation system to take students to and from school, but confined that operation to the district's own boundaries except as allowed by subsection 34.007(a)(2), which permits outside operation only with a chapter 791 interlocal cooperation contract.

So section 34.007 authorizes a district to run its to-and-from-school transportation outside its boundaries only through subsection (a)(2)'s interlocal contract. Without one, the AG concluded, section 34.007 does not authorize Jonesboro ISD to operate a public school transportation system inside Gatesville ISD's boundaries to regularly transport students to and from school. The AG added two boundaries to that holding. First, the provision is about operating a transportation "system" for to-and-from-school transportation, which is distinct from transportation for an extracurricular activity or field trip, and distinct from operating "a school or program" outside the district under section 11.167 (which has no interlocal-contract limit). Second, if some other legal authority required a district to transport specific students outside its boundaries (for example, federal law on keeping foster children in their school of origin), an interlocal contract might not be needed for that, but the AG found no such authority for voluntary transfer students.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The requesting district attorney (as the opinion described it): The opinion answered that section 34.007 does not let a school district operate a to-and-from-school transportation system outside its boundaries without an interlocal contract under Government Code chapter 791.

School districts running buses into a neighbor (as the opinion described them): The opinion treated regular to-and-from-school transportation outside the district's boundaries as authorized only through subsection 34.007(a)(2)'s interlocal cooperation contract.

Districts receiving transfer students (as the opinion described them): The opinion read section 34.007 as not authorizing a district to send its own buses into another district to carry voluntary transfer students absent an interlocal agreement, while leaving extracurricular trips and out-of-district "schools or programs" under section 11.167 to their own rules.

Common questions

Can a school district send buses into a neighboring district to pick up transfer students?
Under this opinion, not for regular to-and-from-school transportation without an interlocal contract. The AG concluded section 34.007 allows out-of-district operation only through a chapter 791 interlocal cooperation contract.

What is the interlocal contract requirement?
Subsection 34.007(a)(2) permits a district to operate its transportation system outside the district only if it enters an interlocal contract under Government Code chapter 791. The opinion treated that as the path for lawful out-of-district operation.

Does this apply to field trips and extracurricular trips too?
The opinion distinguished those. It noted section 34.007 is about the to-and-from-school transportation "system," which the Education Code separates from transportation for an extracurricular activity or field trip.

What about operating a school or program in another district?
The opinion pointed to section 11.167, which lets a district operate "a school or program" outside its boundaries without an interlocal-contract limit, as a separate authority from the transportation-system provision.

Are there situations where no interlocal contract is needed to bus students out of district?
The opinion said if some other legal authority required transporting specific students outside the district (it gave the example of federal law on foster children's schools of origin), a contract might not be required, but it found no such authority for voluntary transfer students.

Background and statutory framework

The Education Code allows an eligible child to voluntarily transfer from the child's district of residence to another district under certain circumstances (Tex. Educ. Code § 25.036(a)). Section 34.007(a) authorizes a board of county school trustees or a school district board to establish and operate an economical public school transportation system in the county or district, or outside it if the district enters an interlocal contract under Government Code chapter 791 (Tex. Educ. Code § 34.007(a)). Finding no prior court or AG opinion construing the provision, the AG applied the statute's plain language (ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Tex. 2017), citing Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. 2008)).

Independent school districts possess only powers expressly or impliedly conferred on them (Wasson Interests Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 429-30 (Tex. 2016)). The Legislature authorized a district to operate a transportation system to take students to and from school but confined it to the district's boundaries except as provided by subsection 34.007(a)(2) (Tex. Educ. Code § 34.007(a)(1)), which the Education Code distinguishes from transportation for an extracurricular activity or field trip (Tex. Educ. Code § 34.010(b)). Subsection 34.007(a)(2) makes out-of-district operation contingent on a chapter 791 interlocal cooperation contract (Tex. Educ. Code § 34.007(a)(2)). The AG noted that section 11.167 separately lets a district operate a school or program outside its boundaries without an interlocal-contract limit (Tex. Educ. Code § 11.167), and that if other legal authority required transporting specific students outside the district, a contract might not be needed (citing 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(5)(B) on foster children), but found no such authority for voluntary transfer students. Accordingly, section 34.007 does not authorize Jonesboro ISD to run a to-and-from-school transportation system inside Gatesville ISD's boundaries without an interlocal cooperation contract.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Educ. Code §§ 11.167, 25.036(a), 34.007(a), 34.007(a)(1), 34.007(a)(2), 34.010(b)
• 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(5)(B)

Cases:

• ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017)
• Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008)
• Wasson Interests Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2016)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0166
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2017/kp0166.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

October 3, 2017

The Honorable Dustin H. Boyd Opinion No. KP-0166
Coryell County District Attorney
702 East Leon Street Re: Authority of a public school district to
Gatesville, Texas 76528 operate a transportation system outside of its
geographical boundaries under section 34.007
of the Education Code (RQ-0156-KP)

Dear Mr. Boyd:

    You ask whether a "public school district may operate a transportation system outside of the district's geographical boundaries in the absence of an interlocal contract" pursuant to Education Code section 34.007. [1] You explain that Gatesville Independent School District ("ISD") is "a public school district located in Coryell and Bell Counties." Request Letter at 1. You also tell us that "Jonesboro Independent School District, a neighboring school district located in Coryell, Hamilton, and Bosque Counties, daily sends Jonesboro ISD buses into Gatesville ISD to transport students that live within Gatesville ISD's boundaries but [who] have ... been granted transfers to attend Jonesboro ISD schools." [2] Id. at 1-2. You further explain that no agreement related to providing transportation services exists "between Gatesville ISD and Jonesboro ISD, nor is one contemplated at this time." Id. at 2.

    You ask specifically about subsection 34.007(a), which provides that

            [a] board of county school trustees or a school district board of trustees may establish and operate an economical public school transportation system:

                 (1) in the county or district, as applicable; or

                 (2) outside the county or district, as applicable, if the county or school district enters into an interlocal contract as provided by Chapter 791, Government Code.

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 34.007(a). We find no judicial or attorney general opinion construing this provision. In addressing your question, the "objective in construing a statute is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, which requires us to first look to the statute's plain language." ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Tex. 2017) (citing Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. 2008)). When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we construe the statute by its plain meaning. Id.

    Independent school districts "possess only such powers and privileges as have been expressly or impliedly conferred upon them." Wasson Interests Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 429-30 (Tex. 2016). Here, the Legislature provided school districts authority to operate a public school transportation system—transporting students to and from school—but limited the operation of that system to the confines of the school district except as provided by subsection 34.007(a)(2). TEX. EDUC. CODE § 34.007(a)(1); cf. id. § 34.010(b) (distinguishing the operation of a public school transportation system, which involves the "transportation of students to or from school," from the "transportation for an extracurricular activity or field trip"). Subsection 34.007(a)(2) provides authority for a school district to operate its public school transportation system outside its territory contingent upon an interlocal cooperation contract under Government Code chapter 791. [3] Id. § 34.007(a)(2). Thus, section 34.007 authorizes a school district to operate its public school transportation system outside of its geographic boundaries to regularly transport students to and from school only as provided by subsection (a)(2). Accordingly, section 34.007 does not authorize the Jonesboro ISD to operate a public school transportation system outside of its boundaries and within the boundaries of Gatesville ISD to regularly transport students to and from school without an interlocal cooperation contract under Government Code chapter 791. [4]

                                SUMMARY

                  Section 34.007 of the Education Code does not authorize the Jonesboro Independent School District to operate a public school transportation system outside of its boundaries and within the boundaries of the Gatesville Independent School District to regularly transport students to and from school without an interlocal cooperation contract under Government Code chapter 791.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      KEN PAXTON
                                      Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

CHARLOTTE M. HARPER
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Dustin H. Boyd, Coryell Cty. Dist. Att'y, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Mar. 23, 2017), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] The Education Code allows an eligible child to voluntarily transfer "from the child's school district of residence to another district in this state" on an annual basis under certain circumstances. TEX. EDUC. CODE § 25.036(a).

[3] Section 11.167 of the Education Code authorizes a school district to operate "a school or program" outside of the school district's boundaries without limitation of an interlocal government contract. TEX. EDUC. CODE § 11.167. The Legislature adopted section 11.167 in 2001. See Act of May 27, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 734, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1458, 1458 (codified at TEX. EDUC. CODE § 11.167). The Legislature added section 34.007(a)(2), authorizing operation of a transportation system outside of the district pursuant to an interlocal contract, in 2007. Act of May 21, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 449, § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 799, 799 (codified at TEX. EDUC. CODE § 34.007(a)(2)). As the later-enacted provision, subsection 34.007(a)(2) makes it clear that an independent school district operating a public school transportation system outside of its district must have an interlocal agreement.

[4] If legal authority exists apart from section 34.007 requiring a school district to transport specific students outside of its district, an interlocal contract may not be required for those purposes. Cf. 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(5)(B) (requiring school districts, in certain instances, to provide transportation to maintain children in foster care in their schools of origin). However, we find no such authority for the transportation of voluntary transfer students.