Judges: DUSTIN McDANIEL, Attorney General
Filed Date: 4/18/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Johnny Hoyt State Representative 15 Country Lane Morrilton, AR 72110
Dear Representative Hoyt:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on behalf of several constituents who are seeking clarification of the legal status of public high school counselors. According to correspondence attached to your request, these individuals have been told that there are conflicting references to counselors under the law, with some laws considering them "teachers," and other laws not considering them such. Their particular concerns are set out as follows:
One of our concerns is about the salary schedule. Although we are paid directly from the teachers' salary schedule, we have been told by our superintendent that according to his interpretation of the law, we are not teachers and, therefore, we are not entitled to receive a designated planning time each day or compensation for not having that time. Teachers in our district are compensated with one-seventh of their yearly salary for voluntarily relinquishing their planning time.
If we are not teachers, we feel we should not be paid from the teachers' salary schedule but rather have a counselor index similar to that of administrators. Administrators' salaries include compensation for additional educational preparation and extra duties that we perform on a daily basis, including continuous student contact time.
RESPONSE
I find no conflict in the law respecting the status of school counselors vis-à-vis "teachers." According to my review of the Arkansas Code, school counselors are considered "teachers" and "classroom teachers" for some purposes, and not for others. This makes it necessary to consider the particular context when addressing the status of school counselors in relation to "teachers." It does not, however, mean that there are conflicting references in the law with regard to counselors. The status of counselors is clear, in my opinion, when the necessary contextual review is undertaken. With regard, specifically, to the "planning time" that must be provided "for all classroom teachers" pursuant to A.C.A. §
The necessary contextual inquiry into the status of school counselors vis-à-vis teachers is best illustrated by a sampling of Code sections. For instance, A.C.A. §
Teachers, school counselors, school health care providers, and other school personnel shall be immune from any civil liability for providing counseling, referral, emergency medical care, or other assistance offered in good faith to suicidal students or other suicidal youth. . . .
A.C.A. §
The distinction between "teachers" and "school counselors" under this Code section is apparent. The following Arkansas Code sections similarly distinguish between the two:
I note on the other hand, however, that the term "teacher" or "classroom teacher" specifically includes counselors under some other statutes, perhaps explaining your constituents' concern regarding conflicting references. The Teacher Compensation Program of 2003, as amended, A.C.A. §§
``Teacher' means:
(A) An individual who is required to hold a teaching license from the Department of Education and who is engaged directly in instruction with students in a classroom setting for more than seventy percent (70%) of the individual's contracted time;
(B) A guidance counselor; or
(C) A librarian.
The following statutes are similar to the above in defining "teacher" or "classroom teacher" to include "a guidance counselor":2
A.C.A. §
A.C.A. §
A.C.A. §
A.C.A. §
A.C.A. §
Perhaps consistent with these statutes concerning compensation, a guidance counselor must have a teaching license. This is reflected in A.C.A. §
It is thus clear that school counselors are "teachers" or "classroom teachers" for purposes of licensure and for compensation purposes under certain statutes. It is equally clear from the other Code sections listed above, however, that the position of "school counselor" or "counselor" is distinct from "teacher" or "classroom teacher" under other statutes. While the meaning of these terms therefore varies, depending upon the context, this contextual variability does not equate to a conflict in the law respecting the status of school counselors vis-à-vis "teachers." The status of counselors is clear, in my opinion, when the necessary contextual review is undertaken.
Turning, then, to the specific issue of the "planning time" that must be afforded to "classroom teachers," the basic requirement is set forth under A.C.A. §
Effective beginning the 2003-2004 school year, each school district in this state shall provide a minimum of two hundred (200) minutes each week for each teacher to schedule time for conferences, instructional planning, and preparation for all classroom teachers employed by the district.
A.C.A. §
Subsection (a)(2) refines the requirement by providing:
The planning time shall be in increments of no less than forty (40) minutes during the student instructional day unless a teacher submits a written request to be allowed to have his or her planning time scheduled at some time other than during the student instructional day.
A.C.A. §
I believe it is clear that in the context of this particular statute, the term "classroom teachers" does not encompass school counselors. This follows primarily, in my opinion, from the specific statutory language, which clearly reflects an intent to provide the "planning time" for, inter alia, "instructional planning" during the "student instructional day." The "student instructional day" is identified as "the time that students are required to be present at school[,]" id. at (d); and this must be taken to mean instructional time, since a "school day" is defined in relation to such time. See A.C.A. §
The conclusion that school counselors are not included among those who must be afforded this instructional "planning time" is further suggested, in my view, by the distinction that numerous other statutes draw between counselors and those who are "engaged directly in instruction with students in a classroom setting. . . ." See, e.g., A.C.A. §
Finally, it bears noting that the legislature has made it clear when it intends to include counselors as "classroom teachers" under particular statutes. The fact that it did not do so under A.C.A. §
The question of whether school counselors should have such a designated planning time is one that must be addressed by the General Assembly. Similarly, the question of whether counselors should be paid from the teacher salary schedule or be compensated under some other formula involves policy issues that must be addressed to the legislature.
Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General