“[WJhere the legislature includes specific language in one section of a statute and excludes it from another, it should not be implied where excluded.”
How later courts described this case
- “[WJhere the legislature includes specific language in one section of a statute and excludes it from another, it should not be implied where excluded.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that “by implication ... [it] cannot interject the various School Code definitions into the Loan Act.” The majority’s conclusion is based on the lack of any reference to the School Code by the *218 legislature when defining “qualified applicant” under the Loan Act.
The purpose of the Loan Act is to attract qualified teachers to “[ejconomically hard-pressed rural and urban school districts” by “[pjayment of a portion of student loans for certified teachers.” See Section 2 of the Loan Act, 24 P.S. § 5192. Section 3 of the Loan Act states that a “qualified applicant” must meet the following criteria:
(1) Is certified by the Department of Education to teach.
(2) Is in the first year of full-time teaching.
(3) Is teaching at a Commonwealth-designated urban or rural public school district or át a nonprofit nonpublic school in such district at which students may fulfill compulsory attendance requirements.
(4) Has borrowed through the agency-administered Guarantee Loan Programs.
24 P.S. § 5193. Although the term “teacher” is not defined in the Loan Act, the legislature has previously defined the term. Section 1141 of the School Code defines “teacher” as “class room teachers, ... counselors, .:. school nurses, and other similar professional employes certified in accordance with the qualifications established by the State Board of Education.” 24 P.S. § 11-1141. This Court has previously determined that to qualify as a teacher under Section 1141 of the School Code one “must also show that he devotes at least half his time to teaching or other direct educational activities.” Fiorenza v. Chichester School District, 28 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 134, 137, 367 A.2d 808, 810 (1977). (Emphasis added.)
In the present controversy, Petitioners are school guidance counselors, a school nurse and a school psychologist. Petitioners provide essential support to the students. Their activities address the educational, emotional, physical and environmental problems that confront students and which, if not adequately addressed, affect their, academic performance. Petitioners spend a majority of their time engaged in these educational activities which can result in the difference between a student’s educational success or failure. I believe Petitioners meet the definition of “teacher” as defined by the *219 legislature and were intended to participate by the legislature in the benefits of the Loan Act.
Each Petitioner also meet the requirements of a “qualified applicant” as defined in the Loan Act, and they are eligible to participate in the Urban and Rural Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program. Petitioners are certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and in their first year of full-time employment when they either applied or were told not to apply for the Loan Forgiveness Program and are employed in qualifying school districts.
I would reverse the decision of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.