Untitled California Attorney General Opinion ( 1989 )


Menu:
  •                   OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    State of California
    JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
    Attorney General
    ______________________________________
    OPINION            :
    :         No. 89-601
    of              :
    :         OCTOBER 24, 1989
    JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP      :
    Attorney General       :
    :
    RONALD M. WEISKOPF      :
    Deputy Attorney General    :
    :
    __________________________________________________________________
    THE HONORABLE ARLO SMITH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY AND
    COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, has requested an opinion on the following
    question:
    Is a ballet teacher employed by a private ballet school
    required to report instances of child abuse under the Child
    Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act?
    CONCLUSION
    A person who teaches ballet at a private ballet school is
    required to report instances of child abuse under the Child Abuse
    and Neglect Reporting Act.
    ANALYSIS
    The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen. Code,
    § 11165 et seq.) creates a system whereby "child protective
    agencies" (i.e., police and sheriff's departments and county
    welfare and probation departments) can be promptly notified of
    suspected instances of child abuse so that they can take timely
    action   if   necessary  to   protect  the   children.1     (65
    1
    The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (the "Act") is
    codified as article 2.5 (§§ 11165-11175.5) of chapter 2 of Title 1
    of Part 4 of the Penal Code. Before 1987, when it received its
    current name (§ 11164 added by Stats. 1987, ch. 1444, § 1.5), it
    was sometimes referred to as the Child Abuse Reporting Law. (See
    e.g., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 255; 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 235 (1984); 65
    1.                            89-601
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 347 (1982); cf., Planned Parenthood
    Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 258, 267, 272,
    279; see also, Krikorian v. Barry (1987) 
    196 Cal. App. 3d 1211
    , 1216­
    1217.)   The Act does this by requiring certain categories of
    persons whose occupations place them in contact with children to
    report to a "child protective agency" when, in the course of their
    work, they come to know or reasonably suspect that someone under
    the age of eighteen has been a victim of child abuse. (§ 11166,
    subd. (a).) These persons are provided with an absolute immunity
    from any civil or criminal liability in connection with any report
    they are required or authorized to make under the Act (§ 11172,
    subd. (a); cf., Krikorian v. 
    Barry, supra
    , 
    196 Cal. App. 3d 1211
    ,
    1215), but their failure to make a required report is a
    misdemeanor, carrying a maximum punishment of six months in jail
    and a $1,000 fine. (§ 11172, subd. (e).)
    Among the persons who are required to report instances of
    child abuse are "child care custodians" (§ 11166, subd. (a)), a
    broad category that includes teachers, day care workers, and a
    variety   of   public   health   and   educational   professionals.
    (§ 11165.7; cf., § 11166.5, subd. (a); Planned Parenthood
    Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    ). We are asked whether a ballet
    teacher who teaches ballet at a particular private ballet school is
    included among them. We conclude that such a person is included in
    the category of persons who must report instances of child abuse
    under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
    Since the nature of the position and the school has
    prompted the request for this Opinion, we describe it here as it
    has been described to us in information accompanying the opinion
    request:    The San Francisco Ballet School is an arm of the San
    Francisco Ballet Association, a private non-profit organization
    which operates independently from the City and County of San
    Francisco.    The School derives operating revenue from student
    tuition for its classes and from funds provided by the Ballet
    Association. The Ballet Association does not receive general fund
    revenue from the City and County of San Francisco, but it does
    receive a grant award as a non-profit private entity from the
    latter's Publicity and Advertising Fund which is established
    through the collection of hotel tax revenue.
    The Ballet School holds an "Authorization to Operate As
    a Private Postsecondary Educational Institution" issued by the
    State of California Department of Education because it has been
    accredited for its nondegree objective by a national accreditation
    agency (the National Association of Schools of Dance) recognized by
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 345 (1982).)     All unidentified statutory
    references herein will be to the Act as codified in the Penal Code.
    2.                            89-601
    the U.S. Department of Education. (Ed. Code, § 94311, subd. (c)2;
    see    generally,   68    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.    278   (1985);    67
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 250 (1984).) The school may participate in the
    Student Tuition Recovery Fund", and since it meets the Department
    of Health, Education and Welfare's definition of an institution of
    higher education, it is eligible to apply for participation in
    various student financial assistance programs administered by the
    Federal Office of Education.
    The teaching staff of the Ballet School is composed
    primarily of former professional ballet dancers. These teachers
    are not trained as academic personnel in the traditional sense, but
    rather are performing artists who have studied at some of the most
    prestigious ballet institutions around the world. They do not hold
    academic degrees in education and they do not necessarily possess
    teaching certificates or credentials from the State. (Cf., Ed.
    Code, §§ 44001-44005, 44250.)
    The School accepts students beginning at eight years of
    age, and provides instruction and performance opportunities
    (including performances with the Ballet Company) that prepare them
    for careers as professional ballet performers. [The School also
    provides adult classes for persons who are not artists or
    performers.] The School does not provide "academic" instruction
    (except as it may bear on dance history and performance technique),
    and attendance at it is not mandatory as it is in public or private
    educational schools. (Ed. Code, §§ 48200, 48220, 48222.)3
    2
    Section 94311 of the Education Code provides that no
    postsecondary educational institution may offer courses of
    education leading to educational, professional, technological, or
    vocational objectives unless it has been approved or authorized by
    the Superintendent of Public Instruction.     One of the bases on
    which that approval/authorization is given is where "an institution
    ... has accreditation of the institution, program or specific
    course of study ... by a national or applicable regional
    accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of
    Education...." (Ed. Code, § 94311, subd. (c).)
    3
    Under California's Compulsory Education Law (Ed. Code,
    § 48000 et seq.), every person between the ages of 6 and 16, not
    otherwise exempt, is required to attend public full-time day
    school. (Ed. Code, § 48200.)     However, that obligation may be
    satisfied, inter alia, by attending a private full-time day school
    that meets certain statutory standards. ( 
    Id., § 48220.)
    Among
    them is that the private schools "offer instruction in the several
    branches of study required to be taught in the public schools of
    the state." (Id., § 48222; cf., 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 282, 284-285
    (1987.)
    3.                            89-601
    In addition to regular classes held at the School, the
    Ballet School conducts a local outreach program in the public
    schools in San Francisco.     This consists of introductory dance
    sessions or classes in those schools at which the regular public
    school teachers are always present. The Ballet School teachers who
    attend this activity are considered to be guest artists or
    performers.   Student attendance at the sessions and classes is
    required as part of the regular public school arts educational
    program. A public school student may go on to take dance lessons
    at the Ballet School itself, but that would not be a mandatory part
    of his or her regular public education.
    It is patent from the foregoing that in the course of his
    or her profession, a ballet teacher at the San Francisco Ballet
    School is in daily contact with persons under the age of eighteen.
    It would also seem fair to say that because of the nature of ballet
    classes, the ballet teacher would be in a special position to
    observe instances of child abuse. To return to our question then,
    when he or she comes to know or reasonably suspect that a student
    at the School has been a victim of child abuse, must he or she
    report it under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act?
    Our task in answering the question is to ascertain the
    intent of the Legislature: Did the Legislature intend for such
    private school ballet teachers to be included in the class of
    persons for whom reporting child abuse is compulsory under the
    Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act? (Cf., Planned Parenthood
    Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 267; Select
    Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 
    51 Cal. 2d 640
    , 645.)
    To ascertain that intention we turn first to the words of the
    statute itself. (People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical
    Clinic, Inc. (1988) 
    203 Cal. App. 3d 225
    , 235; Moyer v. Workmen's
    Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 
    10 Cal. 3d 222
    , 230; Rich v. State
    Board of Optometry (1965) 
    235 Cal. App. 2d 591
    , 604.)
    Section 11166, subdivision (a) of the Child Abuse and
    Neglect Reporting Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
    "[A]ny child care custodian, health practitioner, or
    employee of a child protective agency who has knowledge
    of or observes a child in his or her professional
    capacity or within the scope of his or her employment
    whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects has been the
    victim of child abuse shall report the known or suspected
    instance of child abuse to a child protective agency
    immediately or as soon as practically possible by
    telephone and shall prepare and send a written report
    thereof within 36 hours of receiving the information
    concerning the incident....    For the purposes of this
    article, 'reasonable suspicion' means that it is
    objectively reasonable for a person to entertain such a
    suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable
    4.                            89-601
    person in a like position, drawing when appropriate on
    his or her training and experience, to suspect child
    abuse...." (Emphasis added.)
    For purposes of the Act, the term "child care custodian" is defined
    in section 11165.7, subdivision (a), to mean:
    "a teacher; an instructional aide, a teacher's aide,
    or a teacher's assistant employed by any public or
    private school, who has been trained in the duties
    imposed by this article, if the school district has so
    warranted to the State Department of Education; a
    classified employee of any public school who has been
    trained in the duties imposed by this article, if the
    school has so warranted to the State Department of
    Education; an administrative officer, supervisor of child
    welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel
    employee   of   any   public   or   private   school;  an
    administrator of a public or private day camp; a
    licensee, an administrator, or an employee of a licensed
    community care or child day care facility; [a] headstart
    teacher; a licensing worker or licensing evaluator; [a]
    public assistance worker; an employee of a child care
    institution including, but not limited to, foster
    parents,   group   home   personnel   and   personnel  of
    residential care facilities; a social worker or a
    probation officer or any person who is an administrator
    or presenter of, or a counselor in, a child abuse
    prevention program in any public or private school." (§
    11165.7, subd. (a), as amended by Stats. 1987, ch. 1459,
    § 14; emphases added.)
    Looking at the words and phrases, and the punctuation (cf.,
    Wholesale T. Dealers v. National Etc. Co. (1938) 
    11 Cal. 2d 634
    ,
    659; Paris v. County of Santa Clara (1969) 
    270 Cal. App. 2d 691
    , 699)
    of subdivision (a) of section 11165.7, we see that the Legislature
    has now used semicolons to designate distinct subcategories of
    persons within the overall category of "child care custodians" who
    must report instances of child abuse. With respect to those who
    are involved with students in school they include
    -- teachers;
    -- instructional aides, teacher's aides, or teacher's
    assistants employed by any public or private school, who have been
    trained in the duties imposed by the Child Abuse and Neglect
    Reporting Act, if their school district has so warranted to the
    State Department of Education;4
    4
    Subdivision (b) of section 11165.7 details they type of
    training contemplated.    The Legislature has provided that
    5.                            89-601
    -- classified employees of any public school who have
    been trained in the duties imposed by the Act, if the school has so
    warranted to the State Department of Education;
    -- administrative officers, supervisors of child welfare
    and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel employees of any
    public or private school;
    -- headstart teachers; and
    -- persons who are administrators or presenters of, or
    counselors in, a child abuse prevention program in any public or
    private school.
    A ballet teacher at the San Francisco Ballet School would
    not fall in any of the last four of these subcategories. Neither
    would he or she fall into the second category --that of aides and
    assistants, because he or she would have primary responsibility for
    instruction in his or her ballet class and so would not be an aide
    or assistant to someone else. And even when he or she appears at
    a public school, he or she does so as a guest performer and not as
    a teacher's aide or assistant regularly employed at that school.
    Thus if the ballet teacher is to fall in any of the subcategories
    of "child care custodians" who must report child abuse under the
    Act, it would have to be in the first, as a "teacher".          The
    question thus becomes whether he or she is a "teacher" within the
    meaning of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
    The term "teacher" is not defined in the Child Abuse and
    Neglect Reporting Act or elsewhere in the Penal Code. Absent that,
    the word as used in the Act should be interpreted according to its
    usual, ordinary and generally accepted meaning. (Cf., People v.
    Craft (1986) 
    41 Cal. 3d 554
    , 560; People v. Castro (1985) 
    38 Cal. 3d 301
    , 310; People v. Belleci (1979) 
    24 Cal. 3d 879
    , 884; Palos Verdes
    Faculty Assn v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 
    21 Cal. 3d 650
    , 658; Great Lakes Properties Inc. v. City of El Segundo
    (1977) 
    19 Cal. 3d 152
    , 155-156.) There, reference to the dictionary
    is helpful to understand the common generally accepted meaning of
    the term. (Cf., People v. Spencer (1975) 
    52 Cal. App. 3d 563
    , 565;
    People v. Medina (1972) 
    27 Cal. App. 3d 473
    , 479; People v. Johnson
    "[t]raining in the duties imposed by [the Act] shall include
    training in child abuse identification and training in child abuse
    reporting" (§ 11165.7, subd. (b)) and that "[a]s part of that
    training, school districts shall provide to all employees being
    trained a written copy of the reporting requirements...." (Ibid.)
    It has also provided that "[s]chool districts which do not train
    the employees specified in subdivision (a) [of section 11165.7] in
    the duties of child care custodians under the child abuse reporting
    laws shall report to the State Department of Education the reasons
    why this training is not provided." (Id., subd. (c).)
    6.                            89-601
    (1957) 
    147 Cal. App. 2d 417
    , 419.) Indeed, in a recent Opinion, 70
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 139 (1987), we looked to the dictionary to
    discern the meaning of the phrase "teaching staff". (Id. at 144.)
    Doing so here, we see that the term "teacher" is defined,
    inter alia, as "one whose occupation is to instruct", as for
    example "a driving teacher." (Webster's Third New Intn'l. Dict.
    (1971 ed.) at p. 2346.) And the term "teach", we are told, "is a
    general term for causing one to acquire knowledge or skill,
    usu[ally] with the imparting of necessary incidental information
    and the giving of incidental help and encouragement", as in
    teaching "boys how to swim." (Ibid.)
    There is nothing in the definition of "teacher" or
    "teach" to suggest that either is in any way limited to particular
    subjects, knowledge, or skills.     It seems clear that one whose
    occupation is to instruct others in the skill of dance is a
    "teacher" in the ordinary use of the word, and we thus consider the
    ballet teacher here to be a teacher within the common meaning of
    the term.
    We are to construe the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
    Act "according to the fair import of [its] terms, with a view to
    effect its objects and to promote justice." (Pen. Code, § 4.) In
    looking at "the ordinary import of the language used in framing
    [it]" (Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals 
    Bd., supra
    , 
    10 Cal. 3d 222
    ,
    230; In re Alpine (1928) 
    203 Cal. 731
    , 737) "[a] narrow or
    restricted meaning should not be given to a word, if it would
    result in an evasion of the evident purpose of the act, when a
    permissible, but broader, meaning would prevent the evasion and
    carry out that purpose." (In re Reineger (1920) 
    184 Cal. 97
    , 103.)
    The purpose of the Reporting Act is to detect and prevent
    child abuse, an objective in which the State of California has a
    significant state interest. ( People v. Stritzinger (1983) 
    34 Cal. 3d 505
    , 511-512; People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical
    Clinic, 
    Inc., supra
    , 
    203 Cal. App. 3d 225
    , 241; Planned Parenthood
    Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 258, 279; 65
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 
    347, supra
    .) As noted at the outset, the
    primary means in which the Act's purpose of protecting victims from
    child abuse is attained, is to have child abuse agencies promptly
    notified of its occurrence. (Cf., People v. 
    Stritzinger, supra, at 511-512
    ; People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical Clinic, 
    Inc., supra
    , at 241; Krikorian v. 
    Barry, supra
    , 
    196 Cal. App. 3d 1211
    ,
    1216-1217; Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , at
    258-259, 267, 272, 279; 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 
    347, supra
    .) To
    ensure that that occurs, the Legislature has decided that when
    persons engage in certain callings which bring them into contact
    with persons under eighteen years of age, they must assume a
    responsibility to report instances of child abuse that they come to
    know about or suspect through that contact. (§ 11166,, subd. (a);
    7.                            89-601
    cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 272.)
    Originally, reporting was required only of physicians
    (former § 11161.5 added by Stats. 1963, ch. 576, § 1, p. 1454),
    reflecting a belief that they "were in a unique position to
    discover child abuse and particularly the battered child syndrome."
    (Comment, Reporting Child Abuse:      When Moral Obligations Fail
    (1983) Pacific L.J. 189, 213; fn. omitted.). But over the years
    the Legislature has expanded the categories of persons who have a
    duty to report. 5 (Cf., Kimberly M. v. Los Angeles Unified School
    Dist. (1987) 
    209 Cal. App. 3d 1326
    , 1333; see also, 
    Comment, supra
    ,
    15 Pacific L.J. at 213-214 & 213 fn. 223.) School superintendents
    and principals became mandatory reporters in 1966 (Stats. 1966,
    First Ex. Sess., ch. 31, § 2, p. 325), and the law was amended in
    1971 to include school teachers. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1729, § 7, p.
    3680). "Thus school teachers and administrative officers [became]
    designated 'child care custodians' charged with mandatory reporting
    duties, the violation of which is a misdemeanor." (Kimberly M. v.
    Los Angeles Unified School 
    Dist., supra
    , 209 Cal.App.3d at 1333.)
    If we look at the 1971 amendments to the statute which
    originally imposed the duty on teachers to report child abuse under
    the precursor of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, former
    section 11161.5 of the Penal Code, we see that it imposed that duty
    on "any teacher or [sic, of] any public or private school."
    (Stats. 1971, ch. 1729, § 7, p. 3680.)6       The Legislature thus
    5
    Over the years the Legislature also lessened the degree of
    certainty in the basis upon which a report would have to be made
    and increased the degree of civil and criminal immunity afforded
    mandatory reporters. (See       Krikorian v. 
    Barry, supra
    , 
    196 Cal. App. 3d 1216-1217
    .) This was done to rectify the problem of
    inadequate child abuse reporting by removing two of the impediments
    which deterred professionals from reporting suspected cases of
    child abuse. (Ibid.)
    6
    As amended in 1971, section 11161.5 provided in pertinent
    part that:
    "...in any case in which a minor is observed by ...
    any teacher or [sic, of] any public or private school ...
    and it appears to the ... teacher ... from observation of
    the minor that the minor has physical injury or injuries
    which appear to have been inflicted upon him by other
    than accidental means by any person, he shall report such
    fact by telephone and in writing to the local police
    authority having jurisdiction and to the juvenile
    probation department. The report shall state, if known,
    the name of the minor, his whereabouts and the character
    and extent of the injuries. [¶][¶] No person shall incur
    8.                            89-601
    clearly included persons who taught in private schools among those
    who would have a duty to report. But in so doing the Legislature
    did not impose any restriction or limitation on the types of
    private school teachers who would have that duty, based either on
    what they taught, or on the types of private schools at which they
    might teach. (Cf.,    Emmolo v. Southern Pacific Co. (1949) 
    91 Cal. App. 2d 87
    , 92; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 192, 202 (1981); 62
    Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 394, 395-396 (1979); 20 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 31, 33
    (1952): [effect of the use of the indefinite adjective "any"].)
    The plain wording of the statute which imposed the reporting duty
    on "any teacher of any public or private school" thus included
    among those upon whom it imposed the reporting duty, persons who
    might teach ballet at a private non-academic ballet school.
    In   1980,   the  child   abuse   reporting  laws   were
    substantially recast and collected into article 2.5. (Stats. 1980,
    ch. 1071, §§ 1-4, p. 3420; 4 Stats. 1980 [Sum.Dig. SB 781] at p.
    333; cf., Krikorian v. 
    Barry, supra
    , 
    196 Cal. App. 3d 1211
    , 1216­
    1217.) The language of former section 11161.5, which imposed the
    duty to report child abuse on "any teacher ... of any public or
    private school", was carried through to the definition of "child
    care custodian", which was now set forth as section 11165,
    subdivision (h). (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 4, p. 3421.) 7 "Child
    care custodian was defined to mean-­
    "a teacher, administrative officer, supervisor of
    child welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil
    personnel employee of any public or private school; an
    administrator of a public or private day camp; a licensed
    day care worker; an administrator of a community care
    any civil or criminal liability as a result of making any
    report authorized by this section." (Stats. 1971, ch.
    1729, § 7, supra.)
    In 1973 the technical correction was made to have the section read
    "any teacher of any public or private school." (Stats 1973, ch.
    1151, § 1, p. 2380; cf., 2 Stats. 1973 [Sum.Dig. SB 398] at p.
    182.)
    7
    Before 1980, the number of different callings on which
    section 11161.5 imposed a duty to report child abuse had grown to
    twenty. (Stats. 1978, ch. 136, § 1, p. 358.) The 1980 amendments
    repealed that section (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 
    1, supra
    ) and
    adopted a new section 11165 which defined the mandatory reporters
    in broad categories --i.e, "child care custodian[s]" (subd. (h)),
    "medical practitioner[s]" (subd. (i)), "nonmedical practitioner[s]"
    (subd. (j)) and employees of "child protective agenc[ies]" (subd.
    (k)). . (Id., § 4, pp. 3421-3422; see, 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345,
    
    346, supra
    ; cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 258.)
    9.                            89-601
    facility licensed to care for children; headstart
    teacher; public assistance worker; employee of a child
    care institution including but not limited to, foster
    parents,   group  home   personnel  and   personnel   of
    residential care facilities; a social worker or a
    probation officer." (Former § 11165, subd. (h), as added
    by Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 
    4, supra
    ; emphasis added.)
    Section 11165 was repealed in 1987 (Stats. 1987, ch. 1459, § 1)
    when the definition of "child care custodian" was transferred to
    newly adopted section 11165.7, where it appears today. (Stats.
    1987, ch. 1459, § 1
    4, supra
    .)
    However, as it appears today, the definition of "child
    care custodian" no longer speaks of "a teacher ... of any public or
    private school" as it did until 1987.      It speaks merely of "a
    teacher" without any qualification. Thus any reason to exclude
    persons who might teach in particular types of private schools is
    even less compelling than before. We thus are reinforced in our
    conclusion that the definition of child care custodian found in
    section 11165.7 includes persons who teach ballet at a private
    ballet school.
    It has been suggested that our reading of the meaning of
    "teacher" is too broad. It is pointed out that if the term were
    indeed so encompassing, there would have been no need to include
    "headstart teachers" among the occupations listed as "child care
    custodians" in 1980 (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 4, p. 3421) because
    the subcategory of "teacher[s] ... of any public or private school"
    would have already sufficed to include them. That would have made
    the addition of the subcategory of "headstart teachers"
    unnecessary, and statutes are supposed to be interpreted to avoid
    surplusage. (Cf., City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell
    (1982) 
    32 Cal. 3d 47
    , 55; California Mfgrs. Assn. v. Public
    Utilities Com. (1979) 
    24 Cal. 3d 836
    , 844; Fields v. Eu (1976) 
    18 Cal. 3d 322
    , 328.)
    The suggestion is that the term "teacher" should only
    apply to persons who teach in those K-12 public and private schools
    which a pupil must attend under the Compulsory Education Law.
    (Cf., fn. 3, ante.) After all, those schools and teachers already
    have broad authority over children and a concomitant duty and
    responsibility for their care and supervision. (Cf., Kimberly M.
    v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. , supra, 
    209 Cal. App. 3d 1326
    ,
    1331-1332, 1337-1338). And public school teachers, at least, are
    specifically given training in the detection of child abuse (Cf.,
    § 11165.7, subds. (b), (c); Ed. Code, § 44691.) As the argument
    goes, ballet teachers at private ballet schools would not be the
    type of trained "professionals" upon whose judgment and experience
    the Legislature relied "to distinguish between abusive and
    nonabusive situations" when it adopted the Child Abuse and Neglect
    10.                           89-601
    Reporting Act. (Cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 
    181 Cal. App. 3d 245
    , 258-259, 272.)8
    We reject the position and the associated suggestion that
    the term "teacher" as used in the Act only applies to persons who
    teach in public and private K-12 schools. First, we do not view
    the addition of "headstart teachers" as in any way derogating from
    the basic meaning of "teachers." That category is used without any
    qualification, which means any kind of teacher.         We believe
    "headstart teachers" were specifically mentioned as "child care
    custodians" to make sure that those pre-school teachers were
    included among those who would have a reporting duty under the Act.
    Their addition could not have been meant to limit the existing
    subcategory of "teachers" as "child care custodians" for to turn
    the argument about: what types of teachers would have then been
    excluded, because "headstart teachers" were now included in the
    definition of "child care custodian"?
    Without intending to suggest that the meaning of the word
    "teacher" as found in the Act is without bounds and mandates a
    reporting duty on any person who happens to impart some knowledge
    or skill to a child, we do not accept the proffered limitation that
    it applies only to teachers in K-12 schools. We find nothing in
    the statutory language of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act
    to support such a limitation on the plain meaning of the word
    "teacher". Second, it bears noting that the particular private
    Ballet School that has been described does not operate free from
    all governmental oversight. It is "licensed" by a state agency to
    operate as a Private Postsecondary Educational Institution in
    California (cf., Ed. Code, § 93411, subd. (c), supra, fn. 2), and
    its credentials permit it to participate in the Student Tuition
    Recovery Fund and to apply for other student financial assistance
    programs. In its operation, it deals with students as young as
    eight years of age, whom it owes as much a duty of care and
    supervision as does a public or private K-12 school. (Cf., Hoyem
    v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 
    22 Cal. 3d 508
    , 518-520;
    Kimberly M. v. Los Angeles Unified School 
    Dist., supra
    , 209
    8
    In support of this argument attention is also drawn to
    subdivision (a) of section 11166.5 of the Act which requires "any
    person who enters into employment on and after January 1, 1985, as
    a child care custodian, health practitioner, or with a child
    protective agency, prior to commencing his or her employment, and
    as a prerequisite to that employment, [to] sign a statement ... to
    the effect that he or she has knowledge of the [mandatory
    reporting] provisions of sections 11166. It is claimed that the
    Legislature would not have meant to impose such a precondition of
    employment on those in the private sector.      This much of the
    argument we reject on the basis that the definition of child care
    custodian itself includes persons in the private sector.
    11.                           89-601
    Cal.App.3d 1326, 1337 fn. 10; see generally, 
    Comment, supra
    , 15
    Pacific L.J. 189, 202-207.)
    But most important, we cannot accept the notion that a
    ballet teacher at the School would not be a type of trained
    "professional" upon whose judgment and experience the Legislature
    relied to report known or suspected instances of child abuse. Such
    a person is professionally in contact with children on a regular
    and continuous basis (cf., Ed. Code, § 44690), and deals with them
    in a setting where evidence of child abuse may be uniquely readily
    apparent. We do not believe that "drawing when appropriate on his
    or her training and experience" (§ 11166.5, subd. (a)) he or she
    would be unqualified to make informed judgments regarding child
    abuse from empirical observation. (Cf.,         Planned Parenthood
    Affiliates v. Van de 
    Kamp, supra
    , 181 Cal.App.3d at 259; 
    Comment, supra
    , 15 Pacific L.J. at p. 214.) In this vein we note that the
    Act has imposed the obligation to report known or suspected
    instances of child abuse on other persons in the private sector,
    such as administrators of private day camps, employees of child day
    care facilities, and foster parents. (§ 11165.7.) We do not think
    it incongruous for the Legislature to have intended that ballet
    teachers at private ballet schools have that duty as well.
    The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act imposes a duty
    on "teachers" to report instances of child abuse that they come to
    know about or suspect in the course of their professional contact
    in order that child protective agencies might take appropriate
    action to protect the children. We are constrained to interpret
    the language of the Act according to the ordinary meaning of its
    terms to effect that purpose. Doing so, we conclude that a person
    who teaches ballet at a private ballet school is a "teacher" and
    thus a "child care custodian" as defined by the Act, and therefore
    has a mandatory duty to report instances of child abuse under it.
    * * * * *
    12.                           89-601