Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS
    JOHN CORNYN
    July 11,200l
    The Honorable Royce West                             Opinion No. JC-0398
    Chair, Jurisprudence Committee
    Texas State Senate                                   Re: Whether section 25.092 of the Education
    P.O. Box 12068                                       Code, which relates to minimum attendance for
    Austin, Texas 787 1 l-2068                           class credit, is applicable to a student who is
    exempt from compulsory attendance under section
    25.086 (RQ-0360-JC)
    Dear Senator West:
    You have requested our opinion regarding the relationship between section 25.086 of the
    Education Code, which relates to excused absences from compulsory school attendance for medical
    reasons, and section 25.092, which provides that a student may not be given credit for a class unless
    he is in attendance for at least ninety percent of the days the class is offered. See TEX. EDUC. CODE
    ANN. $5 25.086, .092 (Vernon Supp. 2001). You ask how excused absences for medical reasons
    under section 25.086 are to be counted in computing the ninety percent attendance-for-class-credit
    requirement under section 25.092. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that a student, in
    order to receive credit under section 25.092, is required actually to attend class for the requisite
    period regardless of whether his absences are excused or unexcused.
    Subsection 25.085(a) of the Education Code states that “[a] child who is required to attend
    school under this section shall attend school each school day for the entire period the program of
    instruction is provided.”    
    Id. 5 25.085(a).
      Subsection (b) declares that, “[ulnless specifically
    exempted by Section 25.086, a child who is at least six years of age, or who is younger than six years
    of age and has previously been enrolled in first grade, and who has not yet reached the child’s 18th
    birthday shall attend school.” 
    Id. 5 25.085(b).
            Section 25.086 exempts a child “from the
    requirements of compulsory school attendance,” whenever the child:
    has a physical or mental condition of a temporary and remediable
    nature that makes the child’s attendance infeasible and holds a
    certificate from a qualified physician specifying the temporary
    condition,   indicating the treatment prescribed to remedy the
    temporary condition, and covering the anticipated period of the
    child’s absence from school for the purpose of receiving and
    recuperating fi-om that remedial treatment;
    
    Id. 5 25.086(a)(3).
    Section 25.087 deals with excused absences. A person who is “required to attend
    school,” and thus not exempt from attendance under section 25.086, “may be excused for temporary
    absence resulting from any cause acceptable to the teacher, principal, or superintendent of the school
    The Honorable Royce West - Page 2                   (JC-0398)
    in which the person is enrolled.” 
    Id. 5 25.087(a).
    Subsection (b) requires a school district to excuse
    a student from attending school “for the purpose of observing religious holy days, including
    traveling for that purpose.” 
    Id. 8 25.087(b).
    It also directs a district to:
    excuse a student for temporary absence resulting from health care
    professionals if that student commences classes or returns to school
    on the same day of the appointment.       A student whose absence is
    excused under this subsection may not be penalized for that absence
    and shall be counted as if the student attended school for purposes of
    calculating the average daily attendance of students in the school
    district. A student whose absence is excused under this subsection
    shall be allowed a reasonable time to make up school work missed on
    those days. If the student satisfactorily completes the school work,
    the day of absence shall be counted as a day of compulsory
    attendance.
    
    Id. These statutes
    set forth the compulsory school attendance requirements, note exemptions
    from those requirements in specific instances, and provide for two kinds of excused absences-
    permissive and mandatory. The statutes describe the minimum standards with which a person must
    comply if he is to avoid committing an offense under section 25.094 for “failure to attend school,”
    a class C misdemeanor, and with which parents must comply to avoid violating section 25.093,
    which makes it an offense for a parent to thwart the compulsory attendance law, also a class C
    misdemeanor.    See 
    id. $9 25.093,
    .094.
    Subsection 25.092(a), on the other hand, has an entirely different purpose from that of section
    25.086. It provides that, “[elxcept as provided by this section, a student may not be given credit for
    a class unless the student is in attendance for at least 90 percent of the days the class is offered.” 
    Id. 8 25.092(a).
    This statute furnishes a clear contrast with the compulsory attendance laws. Unlike
    those statutes, it does not contain exemptions or make allowance for excused absences. Rather, it
    states unequivocally that, as a prerequisite for receiving class credit, a student must attend class “for
    at least 90 percent of the days the class is offered.” See 
    id. On the
    other hand, section 25.092 makes
    allowance for extenuating circumstances:
    (b) The board of trustees of each school district shall appoint
    one or more attendance committees to hear petitions for class credit
    by students who are in attendance fewer than the number of days
    required under Subsection (a). Classroom teachers shall comprise a
    majority of the membership of the committee. A committee may give
    class credit to a student because of extenuating circumstances. Each
    board of trustees shall establish guidelines to determine what
    constitutes extenuating     circumstances   and shall adopt policies
    establishing alternative ways for students to make up work or regain
    The Honorable Royce West - Page 3                     (JC-0398)
    credit lost because of absences. The alternative ways must include at
    least one option that does not require a student to pay a fee authorized
    under Section ll.l58(a)( 15).
    
    Id. 9 25.092(b).
        Furthermore,   subsection (d) declares:
    (d) If a student is denied credit for a class by an attendance
    committee, the student may appeal the decision to the board of
    trustees. The decision of the board may be appealed by trial de novo
    to the district court of the county in which the school district’s central
    administrative office is located.
    
    Id. 8 25.092(d).
    The substance of the section 25.092 requirement has been apart of the Education Code since
    1984. In its first incarnation as House Bill 72, it provided that “[a] student may not be given credit
    for a class if the student has more than five days of unexcused absence during a semester.” Act of
    June 30, 1984,68th Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 28, § IV-El, Part D, sec. 1, 1984 Tex. Gen. Laws 117, 167
    (amending chapter 2 1, Education Code). In 1989, the legislature amended the statute in Senate Bill
    1112 to exclude any reference to “unexcused absence.” The provision adopted that year states:
    “Except as provided by this section, a . . . student may not be given credit for a class unless the
    student is in attendancefor at least 80 days . . . during a semester.” Act of May 22, 1989,71 st Leg.,
    R.S., ch. 353, 5 1, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1430 (emphasis added). The bill analysis to Senate Bill
    1112, which enacted this version, declares in relevant part:
    H.B. 72 established strict guidelines for student attendance,
    disallowing credit for a class if the student has more than five days of
    unexcused absences in a semester. The Joint Interim Committee on
    High School Dropouts, the Senate Select Committee on the Juvenile
    Justice System, and the State Board of Education have found this
    requirement to be punitive, and should be modified to encourage
    students to remain in school.
    Many districts have reported an increased number of excused
    absences since H.B. 72. While the absences do not count against the
    student for the purposes of eligibility, the student is still out of the
    classroom, misses the instruction and must make up any assignments
    missed. The effects are the same on the student regardless of the type
    of absence, yet only those with unexcused absences are subject to the
    five day limit.
    Unexcused absences over the five day limit may also have the
    effect of causing at risk students to become actual dropouts. Students
    that have the academic potential for success and are satisfactorily
    The Honorable   Royce West - Page 4                (JC-0398)
    passing classes may not receive credit for the courses if they have
    more than five unexcused absences. With no incentive to stay in
    school, they become prime candidates to be dropouts.
    This legislation would require that a student attend class for
    80 days in a semester in order to receive credit, and makes no
    distinction between excused and unexcused absences. Since the
    calendars for schools call for between 86 and 89 school days, this
    would allow a student to miss between six and nine total days and
    still receive credit. Additionally, districts would be required to set up
    attendance committees that could grant credit to a student who
    attends school less than 80 days due to extenuating circumstances.
    The districts would decide how extenuating circumstances are
    defined. This wouIdprovide for a system that would teach students
    to be responsible for their absences regardless of the reason.
    HOUSECOMM. ON PUBLICEDUCATION,BILL ANALYSIS,Tex. S.B. 1112, 71st Leg., R.S. (1989)
    (emphasis added). The eighty-day requirement was amended in 1993 to reflect the present version
    of the statute, which now states that “a student may not be given credit for a class unless the student
    is in attendance for at least 90percent of the m days the class is offered.” Act of May 28, 1993,
    73d Leg., R.S., ch. 347,§ 8.27, sec. 21.041,1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 1479,1552 (emphasis in original).
    Legislative history thus makes clear that at one time excused absences had to be factored in
    when computing the minimum attendance for class credit. Since 1989, however, the legislature has
    specifically removed excused absences from consideration in making this determination.         On the
    other hand, any possible hardship resulting from this change has been mitigated by the “extenuating
    circumstances” provision of section 25.092. See TEX. EDUC.CODEANN. 5 25.092(b) (Vernon Supp.
    2001).
    Finally, the Texas Education Agency is in accord with this construction of section 25.092.
    A letter from the Agency’s General Counsel, David A. Anderson, dated March 8,2001, states:
    It is the position of the Agency that the 90 percent attendance
    requirement in 5 25.092 applies regardless of whether the student is
    exempt from compulsory attendance under 4 25.086 for the period of
    the absence or whether the absence is otherwise excused by the
    school district. Therefore, the attendance committee procedure and
    the district policies under 9 25.092 apply to class credit for any
    student whose attendance since enrollment is less than 90 percent
    minimum requirement. Although the section applies regardless of the
    purpose of the absence, a district is not prevented from considering
    the reasons for absence in establishing and applying local policies
    The Honorable       Royce West - Page 5                 (JC-0398)
    regarding extenuating     circumstances    and alternative   methods     of
    regaining credit. ’
    It is well established that the “construction of a statute by an agency charged with its execution is
    entitled to serious consideration so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the
    plain language of the statute.” Simplex Elec. Corp. v. Holcomb, 
    949 S.W.2d 446
    , 447 (Tex.
    App.-Austin 1997, pet. denied). Thus, both legislative history and administrative construction point
    irrevocably to the conclusion that the requirement of section 25.092 - that a student must attend
    class for ninety percent of the days on which the class is offered in order to receive credit for the
    class - is applicable without regard to whether the student is exempt from compulsory attendance
    under section 25.086.
    ‘Letter from David A. Anderson, General Counsel, Texas Education Agency,   to Merri Schneider-Vogel,
    Bracewell     & Patterson, L.L.P. (Mar. 8,200l) (on file with Opinion Committee).
    The Honorable Royce West - Page 6                 (JC-0398)
    SUMMARY
    The requirement of section 25.092 of the Education Code -
    that a student must attend class for ninety percent of the days on
    which the class is offered in order to receive credit for the class - is
    applicable without regard to whether the student is exempt from
    compulsory attendance under section 25.086.
    Section  25.092 does, however,      make allowance        for
    extenuating circumstances.    Students who are in attendance fewer
    than the number of days required may petition for class credit before
    an attendance committee appointed by the board of trustees of a
    school district. See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 8 25.092(b) (Vernon
    Supp. 2001). A student may appeal an adverse ruling of the atten-
    dance committee to the board of trustees and ultimately to a district
    court. See 
    id. 5 25.092(d).
    Attorney General of Texas
    HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    NANCY FULLER
    Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel
    SUSAN D. GUSKY
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Rick Gilpin
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JC-398

Judges: John Cornyn

Filed Date: 7/2/2001

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017