Can the Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction unilaterally require teachers from other states to pass an extra competency exam before being certified to teach in Oklahoma?

Plain-English summary

Representative Melissa Provenzano asked Attorney General Drummond whether the State Superintendent of Public Instruction could, on his own, require out-of-state teachers seeking Oklahoma certification to pass an additional competency examination beyond what Oklahoma law already requires. The answer is no.

The opinion walks through the structure of Oklahoma's education system. Four entities share authority: the Legislature sets state policy; the State Board of Education governs the public school system and sets rules; the State Superintendent (constitutionally the president of the State Board) has only the express powers the Constitution and statutes give him; and local school boards run the schools day-to-day. Within this structure:

• The State Board of Education, not the State Superintendent, has authority over "matters pertaining to the licensure and certification of persons for instructional, supervisory, and administrative positions" (70 O.S. § 3-104(A)(6)).
• The Legislature has identified seven pathways to certification (graduates of accredited teacher-prep programs, alternative certification, emergency certificates, National Board certified teachers, Teach for America participants, candidates passing a majority-state competency exam, and out-of-state certified teachers).
• The seventh pathway, for teachers certified by another state, exempts the individual from competency examinations under 70 O.S. § 6-190(G)(2). Footnote 8 says the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact Act also exempts a qualified person from a competency exam on initial certification and discusses possible state-specific requirements on renewal. The opinion separately notes existing Board rules requiring tests of "any person" seeking a certificate.

The State Superintendent's expressly granted powers include "interpret[ing]" State Board rules and policy (70 O.S. § 3-107.1), "advis[ing]" school districts on their powers, and "control[ling]" and "direct[ing]" the State Department. None of those grant authority to add a new competency-exam requirement.

Even reading the Superintendent's powers generously to include "implied powers" needed to fulfill express duties (under Western Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State, 2022 OK 79), the AG concluded that no express duty here implies the power to demand a new exam. And any such implied power "must yield to the State Board's express authority over certification matters."

Because the Superintendent lacks the authority to require the exam, the AG did not need to reach the second question (whether such a requirement would conflict with state or federal law including the dormant Commerce Clause). Footnote 10 flags that issue but does not decide it.

What this means for you

If you are a teacher already certified in another state and considering moving to Oklahoma

The opinion says 70 O.S. § 6-190(G)(2) exempts an applicant certified by another state from a competency examination tied to an Oklahoma certificate. It also describes Board rules requiring the Oklahoma Teacher Certification Tests and a naturalization-based written test of "any person" applying for a certificate. The opinion does not decide that reciprocal applicants are exempt from every existing Board test.

If anyone tells you the State Superintendent has imposed a new exam requirement on out-of-state teachers, this AG opinion is the answer: he cannot do that unilaterally. Direct any concerns to the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education, and consider this opinion as part of your response.

If you are the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Your express authority includes interpreting State Board rules, advising districts, and directing the State Department. It does not include adding new certification requirements unilaterally. Any change to certification testing requires the State Board (and in some cases the Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability or the Legislature). Coordinate with those bodies if you believe a change is needed.

The opinion concludes that you lack authority to impose that additional exam on your own.

If you are on the State Board of Education

The opinion identifies the Board as the body with authority over certification and CEQA as the body that adopts the competency examination under 70 O.S. § 6-187. The State Superintendent serves as Board president, but the Board acts as a body. Review the statutory exemptions and existing rules before considering any testing change.

If you want to require additional examination for out-of-state teachers across the board, you would also need to consider:

• The Legislature's express exemption of reciprocity-pathway teachers from competency exams.
• The Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact's narrow definition of permissible state-specific requirements.
• The second question in the request, concerning possible conflict with other law, which the opinion declines to answer. Footnote 10 mentions the dormant Commerce Clause.

The opinion concludes only that the Superintendent cannot impose an additional exam unilaterally; it does not decide the validity of a Board rule.

If you are a local school district hiring a teacher

Footnote 2 says local school district boards, subject to limitations not discussed in the opinion, have authority to contract with, set duties for, and compensate personnel who are certified and in good standing. The opinion concludes that the State Superintendent cannot unilaterally impose an additional exam as a condition of employment by a local public school district.

If you are an Oklahoma legislator

The opinion identifies the Legislature's statutory certification pathways and the specific exemption from competency examinations for teachers certified in another state. It also explains the respective roles of the State Board and CEQA. It does not decide whether a proposed change would comply with other state or federal law.

If members want to clarify the Superintendent's role, the opinion is a helpful map of what the Superintendent currently can and cannot do.

If you are an Oklahoma school district HR director

Consult the State Board's certification rules and the statutory competency-exam exemption for teachers certified by another state. The opinion rejects an additional exam imposed unilaterally by the State Superintendent; it does not remove the Board's generally applicable tests.

Common questions

Q: What pathways exist to Oklahoma teacher certification?
A: Per the opinion, seven: (1) accredited teacher education program graduate, (2) alternative certificate (degree but not from teacher prep), (3) emergency certificate (school district demonstrates need), (4) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification, (5) Teach for America participant, (6) majority-state competency exam, and (7) out-of-state reciprocal certification.

Q: What is the difference between the State Superintendent and the State Board of Education? A: The State Superintendent is an elected executive officer (Okla. Const. art. VI, § 1) and serves as president of the State Board (Okla. Const. art. XIII, § 5). The State Board is a separate governance body that acts as a whole; its powers and duties are prescribed by the Legislature in the School Code. The Superintendent has limited individual statutory authority; most education policy decisions belong to the Board.

Q: What is the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact?
A: Footnote 8 says 70 O.S. § 6-190.3 exempts a qualified individual from a competency exam on initial certification. At renewal, a member state may establish state-specific requirements involving content "of unique interest to the state." The opinion says Oklahoma had no such requirements under that section when issued.

Q: Could the Legislature impose additional testing on out-of-state teachers? A: The opinion does not decide a proposed new law. It says the existing statute exempts a teacher certified by another state from competency examinations and that the Superintendent lacks authority to add one unilaterally.

Q: Could the State Board impose additional testing through rulemaking? A: The opinion identifies the Board's authority over certification and notes its rules requiring tests of "any person" applying for a certificate. It does not decide whether the Board could adopt a particular new test. The statutory reciprocity exemption concerns competency examinations.

Q: What did the Board's 2025 rule amendment do?
A: According to the opinion, the Board added a "written test based solely upon the U.S. Naturalization Test" to certification requirements (42 Okla. Reg. 1189, July 1, 2025). The opinion notes this requirement applies to "any person" seeking certification but does not explicitly address how it interacts with the out-of-state reciprocity exemption.

Q: What about the Commerce Clause concerns?
A: Footnote 10 says the AG did not need to decide whether an exam imposed by the Superintendent would conflict with federal law, including the dormant Commerce Clause. It cites CDR Sys. Corp. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n and Granholm v. Heald without analyzing that question.

Q: What does the opinion conclude about the Superintendent's authority? A: The Superintendent lacks legal authority to unilaterally require an additional examination for out-of-state teachers as a condition of certification or employment by a local public school district.

Background and statutory framework

Oklahoma's education governance has four pillars (per the opinion): the Legislature establishes the system (Okla. Const. art. XIII, § 1); the Constitution vests instruction supervision with the State Board (art. XIII, § 5); the elected State Superintendent serves as Board president and performs duties prescribed by Constitution or law (art. VI, § 1); and local school boards run day-to-day school operations (Ritter v. State).

The State Board's powers are set out in 70 O.S. § 3-104. Subsection (A)(6) gives the Board "authority in matters pertaining to the licensure and certification of persons for instructional, supervisory, and administrative positions and services." The State Department of Education, headed by the State Superintendent, implements Board policy and runs day-to-day operations.

Teacher certification has two main statutory anchors. Section 6-187 sets up the competency examination, adopted by CEQA. Section 6-190 lists the certification pathways, including subsection (G)(2)'s exemption for out-of-state certified teachers and subsection (H)'s exemption for candidates passing the majority-state exam. Section 6-190.3 implements the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact.

The State Superintendent's express powers come from § 3-107 and § 3-107.1. The Superintendent can "interpret" State Board rules and policy (§ 3-107.1), "advise" districts as to their powers and duties, "control" and "direct" the State Department, "adopt policies" within the State Department, and "have authority to coordinate the divisions" of the Department. None of these provisions grant the power to set certification requirements or competency exams.

Implied-power analysis (per Western Heights) lets an agency imply lesser powers necessary to fulfill an express duty. The AG concluded that no express duty here implies the power to add a competency-exam requirement, and that any such implied power would yield to the Board's express certification authority anyway.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:

• Okla. Const. art. VI, § 1 (Executive officers)
• Okla. Const. art. XIII, §§ 1, 5 (Public schools)

Statutes:

• 70 O.S. § 3-104 (State Board powers)
• 70 O.S. § 3-107.1 (State Superintendent's authority to interpret)
• 70 O.S. § 6-187 (Competency examination)
• 70 O.S. § 6-190 (Certificate eligibility pathways)
• 70 O.S. § 6-190.3 (Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact)

Cases:

• Ritter v. State, 2022 OK 73, 520 P.3d 370
• Western Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State, 2022 OK 79, 518 P.3d 531
• Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. State, 2024 OK 39, 565 P.3d 23

Source

• Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/17.html
• Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/AG%20Opinion%202025-17.pdf

Original opinion text

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-17

The Honorable Melissa Provenzano
December 11, 2025
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 543
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Dear Representative Provenzano:

This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:

1. Does the Superintendent of Public Instruction possess the statutory or constitutional authority to require only out-of-state teachers 1 to pass an additional competency examination—beyond what is required under Oklahoma law—as a condition for certification or employment2 within the State of Oklahoma?

2. Would the implementation of such a testing requirement for out-of-state teachers conflict with any existing provisions of state or federal law governing teacher certification, licensure, reciprocity, or employment practices?

I.
SUMMARY

The Superintendent of Public Instruction (“State Superintendent”) does not possess any authority under Oklahoma law to require out-of-state teachers to pass an additional examination as a condition for certification. The State Board of Education (“State Board”) has express authority over licensure and certification matters, including issuing certificates to individuals who otherwise meet certification requirements. To meet certification requirements in most instances, an applicant for a teaching license must pass a competency examination adopted by the Commission for

1
You ask about out-of-state teachers but do not specify whether the individual is currently certified by the resident state. Accordingly, to be fully responsive, this office answers your question under both scenarios—out-of- state certification and no out-of-state certification.

2
The answer to your question regarding employment is clear. Subject to limitations not relevant here, local school district boards of education—not the State Superintendent—have authority to contract with, fix the duties of, and compensate their personnel certified and in good standing under title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes. See 70 O.S.2021, § 5-117; see also Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. State, 2024 OK 39, ¶ 38, 565 P.3d 23, 37 (citing Ritter v. State, 2022 OK 73, ¶ 17, 520 P.3d 370, 380).

313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • FAX: (405) 521-6246

Representative Melissa Provenzano
A.G. Opinion
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79 Page 2

Educational Quality and Accountability (“CEQA”). 3 In some instances, the Legislature either (1) does not require passing a competency examination or (2) vests the State Board with the authority to establish certification requirements. However, while the State Superintendent is a member of the State Board, the Superintendent has no express or implied authority to unilaterally require a competency examination as a condition of certification. Because the answer to the first question is no, it is unnecessary to address the second question.

II.
BACKGROUND

Oklahoma’s educational system rests on four pillars. First, the Legislature must “establish and maintain a system of free public schools wherein all the children of the State may be educated.” OKLA. CONST. art. XIII, § 1. Second, the Constitution vests supervision of instruction in Oklahoma public schools with the State Board, “whose powers and duties shall be prescribed by law.” OKLA. CONST. art. XIII, § 5. Third, the State Superintendent is an elected executive officer who is the president of the State Board and who “shall perform such duties as may be designated in this Constitution or prescribed by law.” OKLA. CONST. art. VI, § 1; see also OKLA. CONST. art. XIII, §

5. Fourth, and finally, decisions on discretionary matters concerning the daily operations and
   affairs in the public schools belong to locally elected boards of education. Ritter v. State, 2022 OK 73, ¶ 17, 520 P.3d 370, 380 (“The school system is designed to strengthen and encourage local responsibility for control of public education, with the maximum public autonomy and responsibility remaining at the local level.”). These four principles mean that, in effect, the public school system is collaboratively administered by the State Board, State Department of Education (“State Department”), State Superintendent, boards of education of school districts, and superintendents of local school districts. 70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 3-104; 70 O.S.2021, § 1-115. Turning back to your question, you ask whether Oklahoma law grants the State Superintendent unilateral authority to require an out-of-state applicant for a teaching certificate to pass a competency examination. In accordance with the longstanding and well-established framework described above, and as explained in more detail below, the answer is no.

                                                 III.
                                             DISCUSSION
   

A. The State Superintendent does not have unilateral authority to require out-of-state teachers to pass an additional competency examination as a condition for teacher certification.

Consistent with its charge of establishing and maintaining a state system of public school education, the Legislature enacted the Oklahoma School Code (“School Code”) in 1949, as a mechanism of organizing, operating, and supporting that system. Oklahoma Farm Bureau v. State Bd. of Educ., 1968 OK 98, ¶ 3, 444 P.2d 182, 184; 70 O.S.2021, §1-102. Under the School Code,

The Legislature created the CEQA in 2012, establishing certain powers and duties, and effectively replacing 3

the Commission for Teacher Preparation. Senate Bill 1797, 2012 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 223, §§ 1-20.

Representative Melissa Provenzano
A.G. Opinion
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79 Page 3

the State Board serves as the supervisory body and “governing board of the public school system.” 4 70 O.S.2021, § 1-105; 70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 3-104. To fulfill this charge, the State Board has numerous powers and duties, both general and specific. These powers and duties broadly include, among others:

1. [a]dopt[ing] policies and mak[ing] rules for the operation of the public school[s] . . . ;
2. Perform[ing] all duties necessary to the administration of the public school system . . . as specified in the . . . School Code;
3. provid[ing] for the health and safety of school children and school personnel while under the jurisdiction of school authorities; and 4. perform[ing] . . . those duties not specifically mentioned . . . [in the School Code] if not delegated by law to any other agency or official.

70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 3-104(A)(1), (17), (20).

Additionally, and relevant here, the State Board has “authority in matters pertaining to the licensure and certification of persons for instructional, supervisory, and administrative positions and services . . . .” 70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 3-104(A)(6). With regard to certification, and assuming the individual meets all otherwise applicable requirements, the School Code mandates that the State Board “shall” 5 issue and grant a certificate to teach in at least the following seven instances: (1) a candidate graduates from an accredited institution of higher education and completes an accredited teacher education program; (2) a candidate has a college degree but not from an accredited teacher education program (“Alternative Certificate”) 6; (3) a school district demonstrates a need and applies to the State Board for an emergency certificate; (4) a candidate has certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; (5) a candidate has been accepted into the Teach for America Program; (6) a candidate successfully completes a competency examination used by a majority of other states; and, (7) an out-of-state candidate who is certified by another state. 7 70 O.S.Supp.2025, §§ 6- 190(B), 6-187(G), 6-190(G)–(H), 6-190(C)(1); 70 O.S.Supp.2024, § 6-122.3, 70 O.S.2021, § 6- 122.4.

4
Fundamentally, by statutory enactment, the Legislature establishes state policy relating to education, which is then implemented by the State Board and the State Department. Oklahoma Educ. Ass’n v. State ex rel. Okla. Legislature, 2007 OK 30, ¶ 20, 158 P.3d 1058, 1065; OKLA. CONST. art. V, §§ 1, 36. The Legislature may also delegate authority to the State Board to determine facts and promulgate rules within prescribed legislative standards. Western Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State, 2022 OK 79, ¶ 77, 518 P.3d 531, 554 (citing Oklahoma Farm Bureau, 1968 OK 98, ¶ 22, 444 P.2d at 187).

The Oklahoma Supreme Court construes statutes using the word “shall” by “giv[ing] [shall] its common 5

meaning of ‘must.’ It is interpreted as implying a command or mandate.” Sneed v. Sneed, 1978 OK 138, ¶ 3, 585 P.2d 1363, 1364.
6
The availability of an Alternative Certificate is “based upon the premise that the applicant completed a college degree in a particular . . . field and was able to complete the curriculum examination but had not taken teacher preparation courses which would qualify [the applicant] for a traditional certificate.” 1999 OK AG 63, ¶ 15.
7
See also 70 O.S.2021, § 6-122.3(D)–(E) (authorizing the State Board to grant exceptions to the requirements for certification and to the subject area examination requirement).

Representative Melissa Provenzano
A.G. Opinion
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79 Page 4

In the first three situations, the School Code conditions certification on the individual also successfully completing a competency examination required under title 70, section 6-187 of the Oklahoma Statutes. See 70 O.S.Supp.2024, § 6-122.3; 70 O.S. Supp.2025, §§ 6-190(B), 6-187(G). A cursory review of section 6-187 yields one reading: the CEQA adopts the competency examination. Regarding the Teach for America certification pathway, Teach for America establishes any prerequisite examination. 70 O.S.2021, § 6-122.4. Concerning an applicant who successfully completes a competency exam used in a majority of other states, the candidate is not required to take any Oklahoma exam. As long as the candidate passes the competency examination used by a majority of other states and has a criminal history record check on file with the State Board, the State Board issues a certificate. 70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 6-190(H). Because the School Code vests the State Board with authority over certification and, separately but relatedly, directs it to issue certificates to qualifying candidates, the State Board is the entity that determines whether a competency examination is used in a majority of other states. Id.; 70 O.S.Supp.2025, §§ 6- 187(G), 3-104. Finally, with regard to out-of-state candidates who seek reciprocal certification under the seventh scenario listed above, the Legislature expressly exempts the individual from any competency examination. 70 O.S.Supp.2025, §§ 6-190(G)(2), 6-190.3. 8

If the Legislature intended to grant to the State Superintendent the separate and independent authority to require a competency examination as a condition of certification, it would have said so. It did not. Nowhere in the Constitution or in statute is the State Superintendent given express authority to establish, adopt, or require a competency examination as a condition of state certification. With that being the case, this office is unable to read into the law what is not there. Cox v. State, 2004 OK 17, ¶ 26, 87 P.3d 607, 617 (“This Court does not read exceptions into a statute nor may we impose requirements not mandated by the Legislature.”). See also Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16, 1982 OK 74, ¶ 4, 648 P.2d 26, 29 (“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed in the statute.”); Liddell v. Heavner, 2008 OK 6, ¶ 16, 180 P.3d 1191, 1200 (When the [statutory] text is not ambiguous, the court may not look for a meaning outside its bounds.”); Signature Leasing v. Buyer’s Grp., 2020 OK 50, ¶ 18, 466 P.3d 544, 549 (“We presume the legislative intent is expressed in the text of the statute and that the legislature ‘intended that which it expressed.’” (citation omitted)).

This is not to say that the State Superintendent lacks any implied powers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that “[a] statute creating an express power in the nature of an express affirmative duty normally creates an implied power necessary to fulfill that express affirmative duty.” Western Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State, 2022 OK 79, ¶ 32, 518 P.3d 531, 543. In the context of certification, the Oklahoma Supreme Court previously acknowledged that the State Board’s express power to revoke a certificate permits the Board to impose a less severe form of discipline as a lesser implied power. Id. Also, the court approved the appointment of an interim superintendent as a lesser implied power to the express power of placing a school district on probation because it ensured the students’ opportunity to attend an accredited school. Id. at ¶ 87,

8
Section 6-190.3 is the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact Act and exempts a qualified individual from a competency exam on initial certification and recognizes that a member state may, but is not required to, establish state specific requirements at the time of renewing the certificate. “State specific requirements” is defined as “coursework or examination that includes the content of unique interest to the state.” Id. Oklahoma does not currently have any such requirements under section 6-190.3.

Representative Melissa Provenzano
A.G. Opinion
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79 Page 5

518 P.3d at 557. Accordingly, this office must examine the State Superintendent’s express powers and determine whether he or she has implied powers with regard to teaching examinations.

Constitutionally, the State Superintendent is the President of the State Board. OKLA. CONST. art. VI, § 1. However, without some delegation of authority, the Board acts as a body and not unilaterally through one person. OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 210:1-1-6 (providing that the State Board acts as a whole and business is only officially transacted at meetings of the State Board, and authorizing the President to appoint subcommittees on specific tasks). The only express statutory power relevant here is that the School Code authorizes the State Superintendent to “interpret” State Board rule and policy. 70 O.S.2021, § 3-107.1.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court “has relied on dictionary definitions to provide the plain, ordinary meaning of terms.” Brassfield v. State, 2024 OK 9, ¶ 8, 544 P.3d 938, 941. The term “interpret” generally means the process of determining what something means. Interpret, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). State Board rules require “any person” applying for a certificate to pass the “Oklahoma Teacher Certification Test(s)” in the field(s) which corresponds to the desired credential. OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 210:20-13-1. This year, the State Board amended this rule to require passing the “written test based solely upon the U.S. Naturalization Test” in addition to the “Teacher Certification Test(s). 42 Okla. Reg. 1189, 1237 (July 1, 2025). Pursuant to title 70, section 3-107.1 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the State Superintendent has the express authority to interpret these administrative regulations. However, using the scenario in your inquiry, the Superintendent may not “interpret” this rule by establishing a testing requirement that only applies to out-of-state candidates for a teaching certificate. This is especially true because (1) the rule, by its plain terms, expressly applies to all persons applying for a certificate, whether a resident of Oklahoma or not, and (2) the Legislature expressly exempts a person who is certified by another state from any competency examination tied to receiving an Oklahoma teaching certificate. 70 O.S.Supp.2025, § 6-190(G)(2).

Accordingly, and to bring this matter to a close, the Legislature does not authorize the State Superintendent to adopt a competency examination; nor does the State Superintendent have authority in matters pertaining to teacher certification. And the Legislature does not permit the State Superintendent to adopt or make rules for the operation of the public schools, or adopt a competency examination for teacher certification candidates. Those charges are expressly reserved for the CEQA, the State Board, and a local school district board of education. 70 O.S.Supp.2025,
§§ 3-104(A)(1), (6), (17), (20), 6-187, 6-190; 70 O.S.2021, § 5-117. Even if the power to interpret encompassed a more expansive implied power to establish an additional testing requirement for certification—which, to be sure, it does not—such implied power must yield to the State Board’s express authority over certification matters. 9 As a result, any attempt by the State Superintendent

9
For completeness, but immaterial to the analysis and conclusion here, the State Superintendent is also expressly authorized under the School Code to (1) “advise” school districts as to their powers, duties and functions, and (2) “control” and “direct” the State Department, and “adopt policies” and have “authority” to coordinate the divisions therein. 70 O.S.2021, §§ 1-105(C), 1-115, 3-107, 3-107.1(2), (4). The term “advise” means “to give (someone) a recommendation about what should be done: to give advice to.” Advise, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advise (last visited Dec. 11, 2025). Accordingly, these express powers carry an implied power to publish a compilation of the laws and regulations affecting the public schools, or to provide staff to train the public schools on the laws and regulations. But the express power to advise on laws and rules does

Representative Melissa Provenzano
A.G. Opinion
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 79 Page 6

to unilaterally require a competency examination as a condition of the State Board issuing a teaching certificate is a clear example of an agency or official expanding its powers beyond its own authority. And, that the Superintendent may not do. Marley v. Cannon, 1980 OK 147, ¶ 10, 618 P.2d 401, 405.

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:

The Superintendent of Public Instruction lacks any legal authority under Oklahoma law to unilaterally require out-of-state teachers to pass an additional examination as a condition for teacher certification or employment by a local public school district in Oklahoma.10

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

BRADLEY CLARK
GENERAL COUNSEL

not equate to “adopting,” “establishing,” or having control over certification matters. The term “authority” means “power to influence or command, thought, opinion, or behavior;” and “adopt” means “to accept and establish (something, such as a law or policy) in a formal or official way.” Authority, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority (last visited Dec. 11, 2025); see also Adopt, MERRIAM- WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adopt (last visited Dec. 11, 2025). Consequently, these express powers necessarily include the implied power to establish and adopt structures for bonus compensation, as well as the authority to appoint advisors within the structural units of the State Department, subject to otherwise applicable requirements or limitations. And this pairs well with the State Superintendent’s other enumerated power to “control of and direct” the State Department. 70 O.S.2021, § 3-107. However, none of the express powers identified in this footnote are close to impliedly authorizing the State Superintendent to establish an additional competency examination for individual candidates who are eligible and otherwise required to pass such an exam as a condition of certification.
10
Because the State Superintendent does not have authority to impose a requirement that out-of-state teachers pass an examination before receiving an Oklahoma certificate, this office finds it unnecessary to whether such an attempt may or may not conflict with federal law, including the dormant Commerce Clause. See CDR Sys. Corp. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 2014 OK 31, ¶ 11, 339 P.3d 848, 853; Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005).