Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (2026)

Incorporation into teachers' contracts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The personnel policies of all school districts shall be considered to be incorporated as terms of the licensed personnel contracts and shall be binding on the licensed personnel and the school district.
1. Any changes or additions to the personnel policies shall not be considered a part of licensed personnel contracts until the next fiscal year.
2. 1. Any changes or additions to the personnel policies may take effect before the next fiscal year only if the changes or additions are approved by a majority of the licensed personnel employed by the school district voting by secret ballot.
  2. The voting and counting shall be conducted by the personnel policy committee.
3. All changes or additions to the personnel policies or new personnel policies shall be made in accordance with this subchapter.
1. Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a change or addition to the personnel policies that is necessary to ensure compliance with a state rule or federal regulation, a state law enacted during a legislative session, or a federal law that is adopted by the school district board of directors each year by the later of June 30 or ninety (90) days after the effective date of a change to a state rule or federal regulation, a state law enacted during a legislative session, or a federal law giving rise to the specific policy change or addition shall be considered a part of licensed personnel contracts on July 1 of the same calendar year or upon the date of adoption if adopted after June 30.
2. Any changes or additions to the personnel policies adopted by the school district board of directors between May 1 and June 30 each year that are not required to ensure compliance with state law or rule or federal law or regulation shall be considered a part of licensed personnel contracts on July 1 of the same calendar year if:
  1. A notice of the change is sent no later than five (5) working days after final board action by first class letter to the address on record in the personnel file of each affected employee; and
  2. The notice of change includes:
    1. 1. The new or modified policy.
      2. A modified policy shall be provided in a form that clearly shows additions underlined and deletions stricken; and
    2. 1. A provision that states that due to the policy change, each continuing employee under contract shall have the power to unilaterally exercise the power of rescission within a period of thirty (30) days after the school district board of directors takes final action by providing to the school district board of directors a notice of rescission in the form of a letter of resignation during the period of thirty (30) days.
      2. For continuing contract employees covered under The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, § 6-17-1501 et seq., the power of rescission in this section shall be in addition to the power of rescission provided under § 6-17-1506.
1. A school district shall adopt, in accordance with this subchapter, a supplement to the salary schedule for those licensed staff employed longer than the period covered by the salary schedule and for duties in addition to licensed employees' regular teaching assignments.
2. Compensation policies approved by the personnel policy committee shall not apply to the chief administrator who is charged with administration of salary policy for all employees.
3. A licensed employee may not waive payment according to the salary schedule.
Under §§ 6-5-307(a) and 6-20-412 a school district is not prohibited from paying a licensed employee additional salary increases as a supplement to the salary schedule even though the licensed employee is not employed an additional time period longer than the period covered by the salary schedule or required to perform duties in addition to the licensed employee's regular teaching assignments.

History. Acts 1983, No. 224, §§ 1, 2; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 80-1258.1, 80-1258.2; Acts 1995, No. 1260, § 1; 1997, No. 931, § 1; 2001, No. 1485, § 1; 2009, No. 1180, § 3; 2011, No. 186, § 1; 2011, No. 981, § 4; 2011, No. 989, § 27; 2015, No. 835, § 1; 2019, No. 315, § 224.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 1997, No. 931, § 2, provided: “It is the intent of the General Assembly by this act to clarify that the personnel policies of a local school district shall be considered part of the district's contract with certified personnel upon which certified personnel can rely.”

Amendments. The 2009 amendment rewrote (c)(1); redesignated (c)(2) as (d), and redesignated the remaining subsection accordingly; substituted “licensed” for “certified” in two places in (d)(1); substituted “licensed employee” for “certified person” in (d)(2); in (e), deleted “the provisions of The Educator's Compensation Act of 2001, § 6-17-2101 et seq. [Repealed]” following “Under,” substituted “licensed employee” for “certified staff” in two places, and substituted “licensed employee's” for “certified employees’”; and made related and minor stylistic changes.

The 2011 amendment by identical acts Nos. 186 and 981 inserted “not” following “district is” in (e).

The 2011 amendment by No. 989 substituted “licensed personnel” for “certified personnel” throughout (a) through (c).

The 2015 amendment rewrote (c)(1).

The 2019 amendment inserted “rule” twice in (c)(1); and inserted “law or rule” in the introductory language of (c)(2).

Case Notes

Compliance with Policies.

While personnel policies do not have the force of law, as a matter of contract law and fair dealing a teacher may reasonably expect the district to comply substantially with its own declared policies. Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. #2 v. Randall, 32 Ark. App. 50, 796 S.W.2d 586 (1990).

Contract Principles.

Traditional contract principles apply to teacher employment contracts, and any ambiguity in a contract must be construed against the party who drafted it. Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. #2 v. Randall, 32 Ark. App. 50, 796 S.W.2d 586 (1990).

Supplemental Salary Schedule.

School district was permitted to adopt a supplemental salary schedule for teachers who performed duties in addition to their regular assignments as teachers and it did not violate state statutes when it compensated the teacher at a daily rate of pay for her work as a certified teacher and at a lesser rate according to the supplemental salary schedule for her work as an uncertified program coordinator. Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 347 Ark. 300, 64 S.W.3d 249 (2001).

Cited: Junction City Sch. Dist. v. Alphin, 56 Ark. App. 61, 938 S.W.2d 239 (1997).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 64 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 64 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 16× “005 times her base salary per day for each day beyond 185 days, as specified in her contract pursuant to the supplemental salary schedule prescribed by Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-204. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that appellant's…”

Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Schs., 743 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 6-17-204(a) provides that the personnel policies shall be incorporated as terms of teacher contracts and shall be binding upon the district and its teachers unless changed by mutual consent.”

Stone v. Mayflower Sch. Dist., 894 S.W.2d 881 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 8× “Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (a) (Repl. 1993).”

Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 38 S.W.3d 923 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (c)(2). Appellant argues that appellee violated this statute because its supplemental salary schedule does not provide special remuneration for all of the additional duties performed by certified personnel, and specifically does not include special…”

Olsen v. East End Sch. Dist., 143 S.W.3d 576 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (a) (1999), the provisions of the District’s personnel policies were incorporated into appellant’s contract and appellant was entitled to rely on those provisions.”

Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. 2 v. Randall, 796 S.W.2d 586 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (a) (1987). While personnel policies do not have the force of law, Maxwell v.”

Junction City Sch. Dist. v. Alphin, 938 S.W.2d 239 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (a) (Repl. 1993); Lauren Maxwell v.”

Timpani v. Lakeside Sch. Dist., 386 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Appellant argues that the school district failed to substantially comply with the notice provision set forth in section 6-17-1507 and, therefore, did not allow her, “a reasonable teacher, the opportunity to prepare a defense,” because Superintendent Cook did not specifically…”

Langford v. Wilkins, 101 F. Supp. 3d 809 (E.D. Ark. 2015). · cites it 2× “The superintendent may at his/her discretion extend this time period by a specified number of days through written agreement with the employee. (Dkt. No. 97-2, at 2). By Arkansas statute, “[t]he personnel policies of all school districts shall be considered to be incorporated as…”

Whitfield v. Little Rock Pub. Schs., 756 S.W.2d 125 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). “However, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 6-17-204(a) (1987) the personnel policies of each district are incorporated as terms of the employment contract and are binding upon both parties unless changed by mutual consent.”

Hall v. Prescott Sch. Dist., 2017 Ark. App. 184 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Section 6-17-204; Helena-West Helena Sch.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204(a) — 4 cases

Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Schs., 743 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1988). “Section 6-17-204(a) provides that the personnel policies shall be incorporated as terms of teacher contracts and shall be binding upon the district and its teachers unless changed by mutual consent.”

Timpani v. Lakeside Sch. Dist., 386 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Appellant argues that the school district failed to substantially comply with the notice provision set forth in section 6-17-1507 and, therefore, did not allow her, “a reasonable teacher, the opportunity to prepare a defense,” because Superintendent Cook did not specifically…”

Langford v. Wilkins, 101 F. Supp. 3d 809 (E.D. Ark. 2015). “The superintendent may at his/her discretion extend this time period by a specified number of days through written agreement with the employee. (Dkt. No. 97-2, at 2). By Arkansas statute, “[t]he personnel policies of all school districts shall be considered to be incorporated as…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204(b) — 2 cases

Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 38 S.W.3d 923 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204 (c)(2). Appellant argues that appellee violated this statute because its supplemental salary schedule does not provide special remuneration for all of the additional duties performed by certified personnel, and specifically does not include special…”

Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 64 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2001). “005 times her base salary per day for each day beyond 185 days, as specified in her contract pursuant to the supplemental salary schedule prescribed by Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-204. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that appellant's…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204(b)(2) — 1 case

— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-204(c)(2) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.