CO Code § 22-63-201 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 22 - Education|Article 63 - Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal|Part 2 - Employment|§ 22-63-201. Employment - License Required - Exception

  Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the board of a school district shall not enter into an employment contract with any person as a teacher, except in a local college district or in an adult education program, unless such person holds an initial or a professional teacher's license or authorization issued pursuant to the provisions of article 60.5 of this title.      The general assembly hereby recognizes that many persons with valuable professional expertise in areas other than teaching provide a great benefit to students through their experience and functional knowledge when hired by a school district. To facilitate the employment of these persons and comply with the requirements of federal law, the general assembly has statutory provisions to create an alternative teacher license and alternative teacher programs to enable school districts to employ persons with expertise in professions other than teaching. These provisions enable a school district to employ a person with professional expertise in a particular subject area, while ensuring that the person receives the necessary training and develops the necessary skills to be a highly qualified teacher. The general assembly strongly encourages each school district to hire persons who hold alternative teacher licenses to provide a wide range of experience in teaching and functional subject matter knowledge for the benefit of the students enrolled in the school district.    A school district may hire a person who holds an alternative teacher license to teach as an alternative teacher pursuant to an alternative teacher contract as described in section 22-60.5-207.       The board of a school district may enter into an employment contract with any person to serve as an administrator based upon qualifications set by the board of the school district. Nothing in this article shall be construed to require that an administrator, as a condition of employment, possess any type of license or authorization issued pursuant to article 60.5 of this title.      History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 1120, § 1, effective July 1. L. 99: Entire section amended, p. 1196, § 12, effective June 1. L. 2000: (3) added, p.1062, § 2, effective May 26. L. 2005: (1) and (2) amended, pp. 189, 190, §§ 32, 36, effective April 7. L. 2009: (2) amended,(SB 09-160), ch. 292, p. 1456, § 10, effective May 21.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 22-63-103 as it existed prior to 1990.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 22-63-201 is similar to § 22-63-103 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of this article and to repealed laws antecedent to CSA, C. 146, § 219, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   The law contemplates that the schools shall be taught only by persons of proper and sufficient moral and educational qualifications. For this purpose laws provide for the examination of those desiring to teach, and for the issuance to those qualified of certificates to that effect, which shall be licenses to teach. Catlin v. Christie, 15 Colo. App. 291, 63 P. 328 (1900).   The statute undoubtedly provides that a teacher must hold a certificate, and it is a condition precedent to the right to recover wages, though the teacher may have rendered services. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Ross, 4 Colo. App. 493, 36 P. 560 (1894); Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Stone, 14 Colo. App. 211, 59 P. 885 (1900).   A certificate regular and valid upon its face is all that is required under the law to authorize the board of a school district to enter into a contract with a teacher. Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Stone, 14 Colo. App. 211, 59 P. 885 (1900).   A certificate to teach is not subject to collateral attack. The want of an examination cannot be pleaded as a defense in this action, because, in the absence of fraud, a certificate to teach is not subject to collateral attack; it is in the nature of a commission, and is subject to the same rules of law in that respect. Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Stone, 14 Colo. App. 211, 59 P. 885 (1900).   Board cannot employ a teacher who does not have a certificate. The board of education of a school district should not be permitted to violate this section, either directly or by evasion, because it has no discretion to employ a teacher disqualified by law. Catlin v. Christie, 15 Colo. App. 291, 63 P. 328 (1900).   A contract employing a teacher without a certificate is void ab initio. A contract entered into between a school board and a teacher not holding a certificate to teach is void ab initio, and a cause of action supported only by proof of such contract cannot be sustained, where the same is not in any manner lawfully ratified by the school board after the teacher became qualified by receiving a certificate. Catlin v. Christie, 15 Colo. App. 291, 63 P. 328 (1900); Sch. Dist. No. 46 v. Johnson, 26 Colo. App. 433, 143 P. 264 (1914); Sch. Dist. No. 76 v. Kirby, 27 Colo. App. 300, 149 P. 260 (1915).   In an action to restrain a board of education from employing a teacher not qualified under the law, an allegation that the teacher did not have any certificate “in force during any of the times mentioned in the complaint” is not an allegation of a legal conclusion, and is a necessary allegation in a complaint in order to bring the alleged violation within the terms of the statute. Catlin v. Christie, 15 Colo. App. 291, 63 P. 328 (1900).   “Teacher” in junior college setting. This section, when read together with § 22-60-103 (9) , does not change the meaning of “teacher” in the junior college setting to the extent that such teacher need not hold a certificate to acquire tenure. Milan v. Aims Junior Coll. Dist., 623 P.2d 65 (Colo. App. 1980).   Expiration of person's teacher's certificate does not mean that the person is no longer a “teacher” who is entitled to review of their dismissal under this act. Frey v. Adams County Sch. Dist. No. 14, 804 P.2d 851 (Colo. 1991).