AGLO 1973 No. 111 - Dec 10 1973
BEAUTY CULTURE ‑- INSTRUCTORS ‑- HAIRDRESSING AND COSMETOLOGY.
Subjects not enumerated in RCW 18.18.290 may not be included within the thirty clock hours of post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study required of all licensed cosmetology instructors by the provisions of that statute.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
December 10, 1973
Honorable Martin J. Durkan
State Senator, 47th District
404 Olympic National Building
Seattle, Washington 98104 Cite as: AGLO 1973 No. 111
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office with respect to the scope of RCW 18.18.290, in terms of the subjects which may be included in a post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study program for instructors in hairdressing and cosmetology. We paraphrase your question as follows:
Can subjects not enumerated in RCW 18.18.290 be included within the thirty clock hours of post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study required of all licensed cosmetology instructors?
We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.
In 1965 the legislature adopted a requirement of continuing education for all persons licensed as instrucor-operators in the field of cosmetology. Section 16, chapter 3, Laws of 1965, 1st Ex. Sess., now codified as RCW 18.18.290, provides as follows:
"A training program is hereby adopted for all licensed instructors, or instructors subsequently licensed, consisting of not less than thirty clock-hours of post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study to be taken within a three year period of the subjects hereinafter enumerated. No instructor license shall be renewed as provided in RCW 18.18.140 without a certificate of attendance from a state accredited institution recognized by the state board of education. The study shall include the following subjects:
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
"(2) Basic lesson planning
"(3) Advance lesson planning
"(5) Instructional aids
"(6) Test planning.
"Completion of this additional training within the current year or preceding two years is a prerequisite to the issuance of a renewal license by the director. Evidence of completion of this training program shall first be required of instructors seeking renewal of their licenses in 1968." (Emphasis supplied)
A basic rule of statutory construction is that:
". . . The intention of the legislature is to be deduced from what it said. . . ." In re Sanborn, 159 Wash. 112, 118, 292 Pac. 259 (1930).
Words used in a statute are to be interpreted in accordance with their common meaning. State v. Houck, 32 Wn.2d 681, 203 P.2d 693 (1949). If the language of a statute contains no ambiguity, there is no room for "interpretation." State v. Roth, 78 Wn.2d 711, 479 P.2d 55 (1971). And finally, each provision enacted as a part of a comprehensive act should be interpreted within the context of the entire act and not in isolation. Behrens v. Commercial Waterway District No. 1, 107 Wash. 155, 181 Pac. 892 (1919).
RCW 18.18.290 is a part of a comprehensive act covering many aspects of the practice of cosmetology. The requirement of continuing education in order to qualify for the renewal of one's license applies only to instructors of cosmetology. The six enumerated subjects in RCW 18.18.290 are all requirements in the methodology of teaching. In other words, the subjects required to be taken are courses teaching on how to teach, as contrasted with courses in the subject matter of cosmetology.
The resolution of your question turns on the meaning of the word "hereinafter" as it is used in RCW 18.18.290. Words used by the legislature will be given their common, ordinary meaning. Webster's New World Dictionary defines "hereinafter" as follows:
"in the part after this part . . ."
It is clear from RCW 18.18.290, previously quoted, that "hereinafter" has reference to the six subjects which are [[Orig. Op. Page 3]] enumerated. In this context, we believe that the statute limits the subjects which can be included in the post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study required under the statute to the six enumerated subjects. We would note that the statute refers to a study including the named subjects, but does not refer to a study including all of the named subjects. We would therefore conclude that the post-graduate [[postgraduate]]study referred to in RCW 18.18.290 can consist of any combinattion of the subjects enumerated in the statute but cannot include any additional subjects.
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
David R. Minikel
Assistant Attorney General