Can a NY teacher who supervises a college student teacher accept a tuition waiver or cash stipend from the college?

Subject

Cooperating teacher may accept tuition waiver or stipend from college

Plain-English summary

The Windsor Central School District asked the AG whether a teacher who serves as the cooperating teacher for a college student completing a practice-teaching requirement may accept a tuition waiver (good for college courses) or a cash stipend from the college. The college had decided to give teachers a choice between the two forms of compensation.

The AG concluded neither form of payment violated General Municipal Law § 805-a.

Section 805-a covers three categories of prohibited conduct for municipal officers and employees (which includes school district employees):

• Subsection (1)(a) prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts of $75 or more under circumstances suggesting intent or expectation of influence on official duties.
• Other subsections prohibit disclosure of confidential information.
• Still other subsections prohibit entering into certain compensation agreements for services in relation to matters before a municipal agency.

The AG ran through them and found none applied. The payment was from the college, not from anyone with business before the school district. It was compensation for professional services the cooperating teacher rendered to assist the college student. It was not an attempt to influence the teacher's governmental decision-making, nor a reward for an official action. The teacher had no decision-making authority that the college was trying to influence.

The same analysis applied whether the compensation was a cash stipend or a tuition credit. Form did not change substance: this was payment for services.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Common questions

How is this different from the 1995-10 chaperone-gift opinion?

The 1995-10 chaperone opinion involved a school employee selecting a tour vendor and accepting freebies from that vendor. The chaperone had decision-making authority over which vendor to use, and the freebies could reasonably be seen as influencing that selection. Here, the cooperating teacher has no decision-making authority that the college is trying to influence. The teacher is being paid for the work of supervising the student teacher, not steered toward any official choice.

Does the school district need to know about the payment?

The opinion does not require disclosure under § 805-a. Local school district policy may require disclosure of outside compensation, and some local ethics codes require it. Practical advice: report it to the district administration in writing, even if not legally required.

What if the cooperating teacher uses the tuition waiver to take graduate courses to advance up the salary schedule?

The waiver pays for the same courses the teacher would have paid for personally. It does not create any decision-making conflict with the school district's interests. The teacher's salary schedule advancement happens based on the courses taken; the source of the tuition does not matter for ethics analysis under § 805-a.

Could a school district adopt a local rule banning these payments?

General Municipal Law § 806 requires local ethics codes, and a district could include a broader rule in its code if there were a public-interest rationale. The AG's analysis is about the state-law floor; local codes can sweep more broadly.

What about other arrangements with the college (e.g., joint training programs)?

The opinion is narrow: it covers cash stipends and tuition waivers for cooperating teachers supervising student teachers. Broader joint arrangements may raise different conflict questions, especially if the college is a vendor of services to the school district or if the school district has any oversight or evaluative role over the college program.

Statutory framework

General Municipal Law § 805-a contains the conflict-of-interest rules for local government officers and employees, including school district employees. The relevant subsections:

• § 805-a(1)(a): No solicitation of gifts; no acceptance of gifts of $75 or more under circumstances suggesting intent or expectation of influence.
• § 805-a(1)(b): No disclosure of confidential information.
• § 805-a(1)(c): No agreement for compensation for services in relation to matters before the agency.

The opinion concludes that none applies to a cooperating teacher accepting payment from a college for student-teacher supervision: the college has no matter before the school district, the payment is for services rendered, and there is no intent or expectation of influencing the teacher's school district duties.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_95-32_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

1

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 805-a.
The receipt of a tuition waiver or stipend by a school
district employee in return for assisting a college student in
meeting his or her student teaching requirement does not violate
section 805-a of the General Municipal Law.

June 27, 1995

John B. Hogan, Esq.
Windsor Central School District
P. O. Box 660
Binghamton, NY 13902-0660

Informal Opinion
No. 95-32

Dear Mr. Hogan:
You have asked whether the acceptance by a teacher of a
tuition waiver or cash stipend in return for assisting a college
student in completing his or her required practice teaching is a
violation of section 805-a of the General Municipal Law.
You have explained that in order for an undergraduate
student to receive a teaching degree, it is necessary for the
student to practice teaching. Arrangements are made between a
college and a school district. You indicate that the teacher
assigned the student has in the past received a tuition waiver
which could be used to take courses at the college and now the
college has decided to give the teacher the option of receiving a
monetary stipend or a tuition waiver. Your question is whether
either form of compensation is a violation of section 805-a of
the General Municipal Law.
Under section 805-a, municipal (includes school district)
officers or employees are prohibited from directly or indirectly
soliciting gifts in any form having a value of $75 or more
under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the
gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be expected
to influence him, in the performance of his official duties or was
intended as a reward for any official action on his part.

General Municipal Law § 805-a(1). Other provisions of
section 805-a prohibit disclosure of confidential information by
municipal officers and employees and, generally, prohibit
municipal officers and employees from entering into certain
agreements for compensation for services in relation to matters
before a municipal agency.

2

It seems clear that the practice teaching arrangement you
have described does not fall within any of the section 805-a
proscriptions. It is a payment by the college for services
rendered by the teacher. There is no attempt to influence the
teacher in his or her governmental decision-making, nor is it a
reward for such a decision. This is true whether the
compensation is in the form of a stipend or tuition credits. The
provisions of section 805-a generally are intended to prohibit
the influencing of municipal officers and employees in the
performance of their governmental duties.
Here, the school
district employee performs professional services to assist a
college student in meeting his or her practice teaching
requirement.
We conclude that the receipt of a tuition waiver or stipend
by a school district employee in return for assisting a college
student in meeting his or her student teaching requirement does
not violate section 805-a of the General Municipal Law.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
in Charge of Opinions