The N.C. Court of Appeals recently ruled that a career development education teaching coordinator at Onslow County Schools was eligible for pay raises that are awarded to teachers after being certified by the National Board for Professional Standards.
Under former Gov. Jim Hunt, the state adopted a policy of encouraging teachers to obtain NBPTS certification. Left unanswered was a question of who was eligible for the higher salaries that come with the certification.
Was it classroom teachers only? Or were licensed teachers in career development positions also eligible? The answer, according to the state Court of Appeals, is that career development coordinators were eligible, and that the Department of Public Instruction has been wrong in not granting the higher pay since 2000.
Madeline Tucker, the coordinator, filed a lawsuit saying she was denied the pay raise although DPI officials had assured her that she would receive a 12 percent pay increase if she were certified. Tucker attended a seminar sponsored by DPI in October 1999 on NBPTS certification. Tucker received the certification in November 2000.
Tucker is also licensed by the Department of Public Instruction as a mentor, career development coordinator, business education teacher in grades nine through 12, and career exploration teacher grades six through nine.
DPI officials refused to award Tucker a raise, claiming that the stipend was available only to classroom teachers, media specialists, and school counselors. Tucker and two others contested the DPI decision. Though an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the school employees, the department refused to adopt her ruling.
Tucker challenged DPI’s actions in the courts, including appealing to the Court of Appeals, after Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, Jr. ruled in favor of the department.
The Court of Appeals ruled against the DPI.
“Respondent’s interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-296.2 conflicts with the language of the statute, as enacted by the General Assembly,” Judge Rick Elmore wrote for the court. “Accordingly, we hold that respondent improperly withheld the salary increase from petitioner and we reverse the judgment of the trial court.”
The NBPTS statute contains an explicit statement of the state’s policy: “It is the goal of the State to provide opportunities and incentives for good teachers to become excellent teachers and to retain them in the teaching profession; to attain this goal, the State shall support the efforts of teachers to achieve national certification by providing approved paid leave time for teachers participating in the process, paying the participation fee, and paying a significant salary differential to teachers who attain national certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards[.]”
The key element to the three-judge panel of the appeals court was that the Assembly used the phrase “teaching profession,” not “classroom teachers.”
“Although respondent maintained throughout its brief that the purpose of the statute was to retain teachers in the classroom, such a goal is not reflected in the statutory language enacted by the General Assembly. Rather, the goal is to encourage excellence and retain excellent teachers in the ‘teaching profession.’ This language makes no mention of ‘classroom teachers,’” Elmore wrote.
The appeals court also noted that the legislature created two distinct ways of become eligible for the extra pay associated with NBPTS certification, a “classroom instruction” criterion and an “other than direct classroom instruction” criterion. DPI argued that the other-than-direct classroom instruction criterion applied only to media specialists and school counselors.
“The National Board does not classify its certification areas as ‘classroom’ areas of certification and ‘other than classroom instruction’ areas of certification. Thus, placing areas of NBPTS certification in these categories must come, if at all, from the language of our statute. We find no language which limits the ‘other than classroom instruction’ to media and school counseling,” the court wrote.
Court of Appeals rulings serve as precedent; its interpretations of N.C. law are binding upon lower courts and state agencies unless overturned by the N.C. Supreme Court. Because the appeals court ruling was unanimous, the Supreme Court is not required to take the case should DPI asks it to review the decision.
The case is Rainey v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Instruction, (05-1609).
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.