Can the North Carolina State Board of Education set the number of hours per week that a teacher or school support employee must work to earn the state-funded salary, or does that decision belong to the local board of education?
Plain-English summary
The State Board of Education's controller asked a structural question: when the state pays for a school district employee's salary off the state salary schedule, who gets to define how much work that salary buys, the State Board (which set the salary) or the local board (which employs the person)?
Senior Deputy Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. and Special Deputy Edwin M. Speas, Jr. answered: the State Board, for both certified and noncertified state-funded staff.
For noncertified support staff (custodians, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, secretaries), the path was direct. G.S. § 115C-12(16)(a) tells the State Board to adopt salary schedules and "authorize[s] and empower[s]" it to adopt "all necessary rules for full implementation." Section (16)(b) and (c) require the State Board to classify support positions using "uniform pay grades included in the salary schedule of the State Personnel Commission." The State Personnel Commission schedule was built around a 40-hour workweek (25 N.C.A.C. 1C.0501(a)). So when the General Assembly said classify support positions on the Personnel Commission schedule, it implicitly imported the 40-hour workweek too.
For certified employees (teachers, principals, superintendents), the authority came from the Constitution. Article IX, § 5 gives the State Board the power to make rules for the public school system, and the Supreme Court's decision in Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703 (1971), confirmed that this constitutional power included regulating "the grade, salary and qualifications of teachers." G.S. § 115C-12(9) and §§ 115C-272(a), 284(c), 296, and 315(d) made this concrete by giving the State Board the authority to fix superintendents', principals', supervisors', teachers', and other certified employees' salaries.
The AG's reasoning then folded in a basic logical step: the authority to fix a salary necessarily includes the authority to fix the amount of work the salary buys. "The authority to fix salaries without the authority to also fix the amount of work required to earn those salaries would be hollow indeed."
The complication came from G.S. § 115C-84(a) and § 115C-47(11). § 115C-84(a) said "[t]he length of the school day shall be determined by the several local boards of education." § 115C-47(11) repeated essentially the same language. Read literally, those statutes seemed to give local boards control over the length of the workday for the staff in their schools. But the AG concluded those statutes were about the length of the school day for students, not about staff working hours, citing four reasons:
- The thrust of § 115C-84(a) was student instructional time; the "minimum time for which teachers shall be employed" was a minimum tied to that student-day length, not a maximum.
- Separating salary-setting from work-amount-setting was illogical.
- Letting one district stretch the school day while another shortened it would create teacher-pay inequities under the uniform state salary schedule.
- Reading § 115C-84(a) and § 115C-47(11) as student-only avoided a clash with the State Board salary statutes.
So the result: the State Board sets the workweek for state-funded educators and support staff. Local boards set the length of the student day. Local boards can structure work differently above and beyond what the state requires (using their own local funds), but the state-funded base hours are a State Board call.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Chapter 115C has been heavily restructured in the decades since 1985. The Salary Schedule for teachers and support staff is still set by the State Board, but the precise statutory architecture (including the references to the State Personnel Commission, now the Office of State Human Resources, and the certified employee statutes) has been amended numerous times. The constitutional authority of the State Board under Article IX, § 5 endures, but the statutory provisions cited here should be checked against current versions.
Background and statutory framework
North Carolina's school finance system is heavily state-funded. The State pays for teacher salaries on a single statewide schedule. Local boards run the day-to-day operations but operate inside a state-imposed budget and salary structure. That arrangement creates recurring boundary disputes: when both the State Board of Education and a local board have something to say about an employee's role, who wins?
The 1985 opinion answered one such dispute. The State Board had set salaries but had never spelled out the number of hours those salaries bought. Some local districts, presumably, were stretching the workweek to extract more value from the state salary, and others were shortening it. The State Board wanted to step in and standardize.
The AG's resolution relied on two layered authorities. The constitutional grant in Article IX, § 5 was the foundation. The statutory grants in § 115C-12(9) and the specific employee-category statutes (§§ 115C-272, 284, 296, 315) reinforced it. The State Personnel Commission's 40-hour reference for support staff filled in the noncertified side.
The AG had to read § 115C-84(a) and § 115C-47(11) narrowly to avoid contradiction. Those statutes plainly use "length of the school day" language that could be read to cover staff hours. The AG's narrowing rule (it covers student instructional time, not staff working hours) was based on context and on a presumption against statutory conflict. It was a reasonable construction but a contestable one; a court asked to interpret these statutes today might reach a different result.
Common questions
Could a local board pay extra for additional hours beyond the State Board's workweek?
Yes, using local funds. The State Board's workweek defined what the state-funded salary bought. A local board with local funds could supplement, asking teachers to work extra hours with a local supplement, but the supplemental hours could not be required as part of the state-funded base.
What was the rule for school employees not paid from state funds?
The opinion addressed state-funded employees. Local-funded employees (positions the state did not fund) would be governed by the local board's compensation policies, subject to whatever federal and state labor-standards rules applied.
Did this opinion address overtime?
No. The state employees discussed here were largely FLSA-exempt (teachers, principals, superintendents) and would not have been entitled to overtime in the first place. FLSA-covered support staff (custodians, cafeteria workers) were subject to overtime under federal law regardless of the State Board's workweek setting.
How did this interact with collective bargaining for teachers?
North Carolina has never authorized collective bargaining for public employees (G.S. § 95-98), so collective-bargaining-driven workweek agreements were not in play. The State Board's authority was unilateral.
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/power-of-state-board-of-education-to-establish-length-of-workweek/
Citations
- N.C. Const. art. IX, § 5
- G.S. § 115C-12(9), § 115C-12(16)(a)-(c)
- G.S. § 115C-47(11)
- G.S. § 115C-84(a)
- G.S. § 115C-272(a), § 115C-284(c), § 115C-296, § 115C-315(d)
- 25 N.C.A.C. 1C.0501(a)
- Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 185 S.E.2d 193 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920 (1972)
Original opinion text
Requested By: James O. Barber, Controller State Board of Education
Questions:
(1) Does the State Board of Education have the power to prescribe the number of hours which a noncertified employee of a local board of education must work in order to receive the salary provided by the State and set forth in the State Board's Salary Schedule?
(2) Does the State Board of Education have the power to prescribe the number of hours which a certified employee of a local board of education must work in order to receive the salary provided by the State and set forth in the State Board's Salary Schedule.
Conclusion:
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
The State Board of Education has adopted salary schedules for all employees of local boards of education paid from funds made available by the General Assembly. Two basic types of salary schedules have been adopted: one set for professional employees who must hold certificates from the State Board as a prerequisite to their employment and another set for employees not required to hold certificates. Neither the salary schedules for certified employees nor the salary schedules for noncertified employees prescribe the number of hours which an employee must work during a week in order to be entitled to the salary established by the applicable salary schedule.
As Controller of the State Board you have asked whether the State Board has authority to prescribe the required hours of work under the salary schedules for certified and noncertified employees. The authority of the State Board to prescribe the required hours of work under the salary schedules for noncertified employees will be addressed first.
The General Assembly has directed the State Board of Education to adopt salary schedules for support personnel (defined as all public school employees not required to be certified) and has "authorized and empowered" the State Board "to adopt all necessary rules for full implementation of all schedules to the extent that State funds are made available for support personnel." G.S. § 115C-12(16)(a) If a rule prescribing the number of hours of work for which the salary schedules are intended to provide compensation is "necessary" for implementation of the salary schedule for noncertified employees then we think G.S. § 115C-12(16)(a) plainly authorizes the State Board to prescribe such a rule. While that determination is for the State Board, it would seem that the State Board could legitimately determine that such a rule is necessary in order to assure that the amount of work for which those salaries is intended to provide compensation is performed and to assure that all similarly situated noncertified employees of local boards receive the same salary for the same number of hours of work. Moreover, we think it likely that the General Assembly intended the State Board to adopt such a requirement. G.S. § 115C-12(16)(b) and (c) provide: "The Board shall classify these support positions in terms of uniform pay grades included in the salary schedule of the State Personnel Commission." The State Personnel Commission salary schedule is based on a 40-hour workweek. See 25 NCAC 1C.0501(a) which provides: "The standard workweek for employees subject to the Personnel Act is forty hours per week."
The authority of the State Board to establish salary schedules for certified employees of local boards of education paid from State funds is derived both from the Constitution and the General Statutes. Article IX, § 5 of the Constitution provides that the State Board "shall make all needed rules and regulations" for the supervision and administration of the free public school system, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly. This broad power includes the power "to regulate the grade, salary and qualifications of teachers" as provided in former Article IX, § 9 of the Constitution. Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 710, 185 S.E.2d 193 (1971), cert. den. 406 U.S. 920 (1972). This authority has been confirmed by the General Assembly. See G.S. § 115C-12(9) which confers on the State Board the authority to "certify and regulate the grade and salary of teachers and other school employees" and G.S. § 115C-272(a), 284(c), 296 and 315(d) which provide that the salaries of superintendents, principals, supervisors, teachers and all other certified employees shall be "fixed and determined" by the State Board. These statutes, especially in view of the Constitution, would seem to confer authority upon the State Board to determine the number of hours of work required to earn the salaries prescribed by the State Board for certified employees. The authority to fix salaries without the authority to also fix the amount of work required to earn those salaries would be hollow indeed.
Other statutes, however, appear in conflict with the principle that the authority to fix a salary carries with it the authority to fix the amount of work required to earn that salary. G.S. § 115C-84(a) provides, in pertinent part: "The length of the school day shall be determined by the several local boards of education for all public schools in their respective school administrative units, and the minimum time for which teachers shall be employed in the school room or on the school grounds supervising the activities of children shall not be less than six hours: Provided, the several local boards of education may adopt rules and regulations allowing handicapped pupils, kindergarten pupils, and pupils attending the first, second and third grades to attend school for less than six hours." See also G.S. § 115C-47(11) which provides: "Local boards of education shall determine the length of the school day . . . ." These statutes are subject to two interpretations: one that local boards of education only have authority to establish the length of the school day for students; the other that local boards have authority to determine the length of the school day for students and to determine the length of the work day for teachers. For several reasons we are of the opinion that these statutes only give local boards the authority to establish the length of the school day for students. First, the principal thrust of G.S. § 115C-84(a) is to the length of the school day for students and the reference to "the minimum time for which teachers shall be employed" is made in that context. Second, it seems illogical to separate the authority to establish the level of salaries from the authority to establish the amount of work required to earn those salaries. Third, it seems inequitable for a teacher in one school system to work a shorter length of time than a similarly situated teacher in another system for the same amount of State money. Fourth, this interpretation avoids any conflict between G.S. § 115C-84(a) and G.S. § 115C-12(9), 272(a), 284(c), 296 and 315(d) and, thus, is consistent with the rule of statutory construction that statutes dealing with the same subject shall be harmonized if possible in order to give effect to each. Accordingly, it is our opinion that Article IX, § 5 of the Constitution and G.S. § 115C-12(9), 272(a), 284(c), 296 and 315(d) give the State Board of Education the authority to establish salary schedules for all certified employees and to establish the amount of work required to earn those salaries. G.S. § 115C-47(11) and 84(a) give local boards of education authority over the length of the school day for students, but do not give local boards authority to establish the length of the work day for State funded employees.
LACY H. THORNBURG
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Special Deputy Attorney General