Can a JROTC instructor or guidance counselor at an Arizona public school be paid from the Classroom Site Fund's performance-pay set-aside?

Plain-English summary

Arizona's Classroom Site Fund (CSF), created during the 5th Special Session of 2000, distributes school funding based on student counts, with a requirement that at least 40% of the money go to teacher compensation increases based on performance. The statute, A.R.S. § 15-977, does not define "teacher." For a decade after enactment, AG Opinion I01-014 governed: schools could include any employee who provided instruction relating to the school's educational mission, regardless of whether the employee held a formal teaching certificate.

In 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided Reeves v. Barlow. Reeves involved Window Rock School District employees (a physical therapist, a psychologist, a speech therapist, a speech language pathologist, and a registered nurse) who sued for inclusion in the CSF performance-pay plan. The court held that "teacher" under § 15-977 must be read together with A.R.S. § 15-502(B), which requires school districts to employ certificated teachers. Combining the two, the court concluded that "the class of persons eligible to participate in the compensation system as 'teachers' is limited to persons who have the requisite teaching certificate." The court expressly disagreed with I01-014 to the extent the prior opinion suggested otherwise.

Tolleson Union High School District's outside counsel, Candyce Pardee, asked whether possessing a teaching certificate was now sufficient for CSF participation, since Reeves had moved certificate-holding from sufficient to necessary. Specifically: do Marine JROTC instructors and guidance counselors qualify? AG Horne agreed with Pardee's analysis on certificate eligibility (JROTC certificates are "Other Teaching Certificates" under A.A.C. R7-2-614(G); a Guidance Counselor certificate alone is an "Other Professional Certificate" and does not qualify), but split on the bottom line. Reeves did not eliminate the I01-014 requirement that the employee actually provide instruction. So the test is two-part: (1) hold a qualifying teaching certificate, AND (2) actually provide instruction relating to the school's educational mission. JROTC instructors typically meet both. A guidance counselor who also holds a separate teaching certificate but functions exclusively as a counselor probably does not.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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.

Background and statutory framework

Proposition 301 (2000) created the CSF and dedicated a 0.6% statewide sales tax to fund it. A.R.S. § 15-977 specifies allocation: at least 40% for teacher base salary increases or performance pay, with the rest going to teacher compensation increases based on a menu of categorical purposes. Districts have substantial discretion in plan design, but the statute caps the "teachers" eligible to participate, which is what made the certificate question matter.

The opinion is a useful illustration of how Arizona AG opinions interact with appellate decisions. Reeves modified I01-014 by adding the certificate requirement; I13-005 modified Pardee's reading of Reeves by reaffirming the "actually providing instruction" requirement. The two requirements stack: certificate plus instruction.

The practical effect for districts was a screening exercise. Personnel officers had to identify employees who held qualifying certificates, then check whether their job duties involved direct instruction. For atypical positions (athletic trainers with PE teaching certificates, librarians with classroom certificates, lab assistants with science certificates), the analysis required case-by-case assessment.

Common questions

Q: Does a part-time teacher qualify if they hold a certificate and teach a few classes?
A: Probably yes, under both prongs. The certificate prong is met. The instruction prong asks whether the employee provides instruction relating to the school's educational mission, not whether instruction is the employee's full-time activity.

Q: What about a JROTC instructor whose role is primarily mentorship rather than classroom teaching?
A: The opinion specifically said JROTC instructors with the JROTC teaching certificate qualify. The instruction prong is satisfied because mentorship and military-readiness training are within the JROTC program's educational scope.

Q: Why don't guidance counselors qualify under their guidance certificate alone?
A: The Guidance Counselor certificate is classified by the State Board of Education as an "Other Professional Certificate" (A.A.C. R7-2-617(B)), not as a teaching certificate. Reeves limits CSF "teachers" to holders of teaching certificates. A counselor who happens to also hold a separate qualifying teaching certificate and provides classroom instruction could qualify, but the certificate must be a teaching certificate.

Q: Has Reeves been modified or overruled since 2013?
A: This research did not turn up later authority displacing Reeves. Verify current case law before relying on this analysis. Districts considering inclusion of borderline employees should consult their own counsel.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 15-977 (Classroom Site Fund)
• A.R.S. § 15-502(B) (certificated teacher requirement)
• A.A.C. R7-2-614 (teaching certificates)
• A.A.C. R7-2-617 (other professional certificates)

Cases and prior opinions:

• Reeves v. Barlow, 227 Ariz. 38, 251 P.3d 417 (App. 2011), certificate is necessary
• Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I01-014, instruction-tied-to-mission requirement

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i13-005-r13-009
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I13-005.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Candyce B. Pardee, Esq.

Udall Shumway

You have submitted to the Attorney General’s Office for review an opinion that you prepared for the Tolleson Union High School District (“District”) regarding the eligibility of Marine Junior Reserve Officer Training Instructors and Guidance Advisors to participate in the District’s classroom site fund (“CSF”) performance pay under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 15-977 following the decision in Reeves v. Barlow, 227 Ariz. 38, 251 P.3d 417 (App. 2011). The Reeves decision modified an earlier Attorney General Opinion (Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I01-014) by establishing that, as a threshold matter, a school employee must have a teaching certificate to participate in the CSF performance pay plan.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-253(B), this Opinion revises your opinion as follows. We accept your conclusions and analysis regarding questions A and B presented in your opinion to the District. We further agree with your conclusions regarding whether the Marine Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps teaching certificate and the Arizona Guidance Counselor certificate would meet the threshold established by Reeves for participation in a CSF performance pay plan. However, we revise your Opinion to clarify only that although an employee may possess a qualifying certificate, that employee must be engaged in instructional activities relating to the school’s educational mission to participate in the CSF plan.

Question Presented

Is possession of a qualifying teaching certificate sufficient pursuant to Reeves to participate in a district’s CSF performance pay plan?

Summary Answer

No. Although it is necessary for an individual to possess a qualifying teaching certificate to meet the threshold eligibility for the CSF performance pay plan, such individual should not be included in the plan unless they are also employed to provide instruction to students relating to the school’s educational mission.

Background

During the 5th Special Legislative Session of 2000, the Legislature passed S.B. 1007, which created the CSF to provide funding to districts and charter schools. A.R.S. § 15-977. A school district or charter school must spend monies distributed from the CSF “for use at the school site,” including spending at least 40% of the funds for “teacher compensation increases based on performance.” A.R.S. § 15-77(A). Although the statute allocates CSF monies for teacher compensation increases, it does not define the category of employees who qualify as “teachers.”

Your opinion analyzes whether Marine Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps instructors and Guidance Advisors may qualify to participate in the CSF plan as “teachers.” The District’s request states that following the Reeves decision, the District stopped paying CSF funds to these individuals who were classified as teachers under Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I01-014.

Analysis

In 2001, our office issued an opinion concluding that the definition of “teachers” for purposes of the CSF plan is not limited to traditional classroom teachers. Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I01-014. Rather, the opinion stated “others employed at public schools to provide instruction to students relating to the school’s educational mission are also ‘teachers’ for the purposes of A.R.S. § 15-977.” Id. Further, the opinion concluded that school districts and charter schools should apply these principles to determine in their specific circumstances which employees would qualify for the CSF plan. Id.

In Reeves, a group of school district employees from the Window Rock school district brought an action against the district seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the district to include them as teachers eligible to participate in the district’s CSF plan. Reeves, 227 Ariz. at 39 ¶ 1, 251 P.3d at 418.(1) The district argued that, pursuant to Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I01-014, it had exercised its discretion in determining that the employees did not qualify as teachers. The court reviewed the relevant statutes and determined that although “teacher” is not defined, the requirements of A.R.S. § 15-502(B) regarding the employment of certificated teachers made it “clear that a school district may not employ as a teacher anyone who has not received a teaching certificate.” Id. at 41 ¶ 13, 251 P.3d at 420. Therefore, the court determined that reading these statutes together, “the class of persons eligible to participate in the compensation system as ‘teachers’ is limited to persons who have the requisite teaching certificate.” Id. at 42 ¶ 13, 251 P.3d at 421. The court thus concluded that “[t]o the extent the Attorney General’s opinion on this issue is contrary . . . we disagree with it.” Id. at n.3.

Your opinion correctly observes that a Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Teaching Certificate is listed as an “Other Teaching Certificate” pursuant to Arizona State Board of Education Rules. Ariz. Admin. Code (“A.A.C.”) R7-2-614(G). We agree with your conclusion that this certificate would meet the Reeves qualification as a “teaching certificate” for participation in a CSF plan. Additionally, your opinion is correct in its determination that the Guidance Counselor Certificate issued pursuant to A.A.C. R7-2-617(B) is listed as an “Other Professional Certificate” and would not qualify the employee to participate in the CSF plan.

However, your opinion then concludes that any employee that has a Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps teaching certificate and Guidance Advisors in the District that possess an Arizona teaching certificate in addition to their guidance counselor certificate may be included in the District’s CSF performance plan. We disagree. Reeves does not eliminate the requirement from the earlier Attorney General Opinion that an employee must be employed to provide instruction to students to participate in the CSF plan. See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I01‑014 (concluding that schools may use CSF funds for employees that are “employed to provide instruction to students related to the school’s educational mission”). In fact, the Reeves opinion specifically notes that “a school district that permitted a non-teacher to participate in the compensation system would exceed its authority under A.R.S. § 15-977.” Reeves, 227 Ariz. at 41 ¶ 11, 251 P.3d at 420. The holding of an appropriate teaching certificate is a necessary condition, but it is not alone sufficient for participation in the District’s CSF plan. As the court discussed in Reeves, “a school district retains discretion to determine whether employees who possess a teaching certificate, but are not employed in positions requiring such, are eligible to participate in the compensation system.” Id. at 42 ¶ 14, 251 P.3d at 421. We believe that the earlier Attorney General Opinion provides the framework for schools to make this determination.

Conclusion

We conclude that under A.R.S. § 15-977, a school may include in its CSF plan those individuals who: (1) possess the requisite teaching certificate issued by the Arizona State Board of Education; and (2) are employed to provide instruction to students relating to the school’s educational mission. We therefore revise your opinion to the extent that it is contrary on this limited issue.

Thomas C. Horne

Attorney General

The five employees held positions at the school as a physical therapist, psychologist, speech therapist/pathologist, speech language pathologist, and registered nurse. None of these positions required a teaching certificate, and only one of the employees actually possessed a teaching certificate. Reeves, 227 Ariz. at 40 ¶ 4, 251 P.3d at 419.