Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1986 )

The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX A],ril22, 1986
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Honorable Carl A. P.arker Opinion No. JM-481
P. 0. Box 12548 Chairman
Austin, TX. 76711- 2548 Education Committee Ret Scope of section 13.909 of the
512i475~2501
Texas State Senate Education Code, which grants public
TAX 9lo/a74.l387
Telecopier 51214750266
P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station school teachers the right to a 30-
Austin, Texas 78711 tinute lunch period free of all
duties and responsibilities
714 Jackson. Suite 700
Dallas. TX. 75202-4506
Dear Senator Parker:
214/742-a944
You request our interpretation of section 13.909 of the Education
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 Code, which provides:
El Paso, TX. 75905.2793
915/5333464
(a) E:ncept as provided by Subsection cc) of
this section, each teacher actively engaged in the
r
,l Texas, Suite 700 instructi~m and supervision of students in public
Houston. TX. 770023111 schools is entitled to at least a 30-minute lunch
713/223-5888 period free from all duties and responsibilities
connected with the instruction and supervision of
606 Broadway, Suite 312
students. Each school district may set flexible
Lubbock, TX. 794013479
or rotat,ing schedules for each classroom teacher
8061747.5238 in the tiistrict for the implementation of the
duty-free lunch period.
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B
McAllen, TX. 78501-1585
(b) The implementation of this section may not
5~682.4547 result in a lengthened school day.
(c) If necessary because of a personnel short-
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400
age, ext,remeeconomic conditions, or an unavoid-
San Antonio, TX. 782052797
able or unforeseen circumstance, a school district
512n25-4191
may requlire a teacher entitled to a duty-free
lunch to superrrise students during lunch. A
An Equal OppOrtunityI teacher may not be required to supervise students
Affirmative Action Employer under this subsection more than one day in any
school we,ek. The State Board of Education by rule
shall prescribe guidelines for determining what
constituws a personnel shortage, extreme economic
conditions, or an unavoidable or unforeseen cir-
cumstance for purposes of this subsection.
p. 2201
Honorable Carl A. Parker - Page 2 (JM-481)
You ask the following questions:
1. May the school principal require teachers
to remain in the school cafeteria during this
statutory 30-minute period, or may teachers spend
this period in o.ther school building locations,
s, classrooms: workrooms, teachers’ lounges?
2. May teachers be required by school
authorities to rtmain on campus or school property
during the 30-minute statutory period?
We conclude that section 13.909 would not permit either of the
restrictions you inquire about.
In addition to House Bill No. 505, which became section 13.909,
the Sixty-ninth Legislature:considered several bills that provided for
a duty-free lunch break for teachers. H.B. No. 511; S.B. No. 220;
S.B. No. 520. The legislative history of all those bills shows that
the purpose of a mandatory lunch break for teachers was to give
teachers time away from students and a chance to relax over lunch.
See Tape of Senate Education CcltmitteeMeeting, February 20, 1985,
regarding S.B. No. 220 and S.B. No. 520; Tape of House Public
Education Committee Meeting, April 30, 1985, regarding H.B. No. 505
and H.B. No. 511.
Therefore, it would undermine the purpose of section 13.909 if
teachers were required to spend their lunch "break" in the cafeteria
with students except under extreme circumstances as authorized in
subsection (c). Thus, teachers may not be required to spend their
30-minute duty-free lunch break in the cafeteria.
In regard to your second question, we conclude that the language
of section 13.909 does not .permita rule requiring teachers to remain
on school property during their lunch break. If the legislature had
intended nothing more than 'togive teachers a break from the physical
presence of students, it could have simply provided that teachers had
to have an opportunity to eat lunch outside the physical presence of
students. However, the legislature mandated a "lunch period free from
all duties and responsibilities connected with the instruction a=d
supervision of students." Educ. Code 513.909(a). The legislature
also described the break 8,s "duty-free." Id. 113.909(a), (c). An
obligation to stay on school property would-self be a "duty," and
any reason a school could give for making such a requirement would
necessarily be "connected with" the instruction and supervision of
students. Therefore, teachers may not be required to spend their
30-minute duty-free lunch break on school property. Cf. Educ. Code
013.902 (teacher planning and preparation time). -
p. 2202
Honorable Carl A. Parker - Page 3 (JM-481)
SUMMARY
Section 13.909 of the Education Code, which
provides for a duty-free lunch break for teachers,
dces r.otpermit ZI~lb requiring teachers to spend
the break in the 4cafeteria. Nor does it permit a
rule requiring teachers to spend the break on
school property.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Comittec!
Prepared by Sarah Worlk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2203