If a Teaching Fellows scholarship recipient becomes an assistant principal instead of staying in the classroom, does that administrative role count toward the four years of teaching needed to forgive the loan?
Plain-English summary
The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Commission ran a scholarship-loan program for promising teaching candidates. The legislature designed it so that the loan would be forgiven if the recipient went on to teach in a North Carolina public school: under G.S. § 115C-363.23A(e), the Commission was required to forgive the loan if, within seven years after graduation, the recipient taught for four years at a North Carolina public school.
The opinion addressed a fact pattern that was awkward but probably typical of long-running programs. A 1987 fellowship recipient graduated in December 1991 (four and a half years later than usual). The recipient then:
- Taught full-time at Pitt County for 4 months and 28 days, January 1992 through the end of the 1991-92 school year.
- Taught full-time at Moore County for three full school years (1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95).
- Took an assistant-principal job (no teaching responsibilities) at Granville County for 1995-96.
The recipient asked the Commission to count the assistant-principal year as a year of teaching, or alternatively to count his 4-month, 28-day partial year in 1991-92 as a full year, or to let him "tack" future teaching on to that partial year to reach a full year.
The Commission asked the AG, and the AG sustained the Commission's existing interpretations on both points.
On "teaches": The statute did not define the word. The Commission had consistently defined it to include only classroom teaching and certain direct-support student roles (like counselor), not administrative positions. That definition was within the Commission's discretion. The Commission could expand it to include assistant-principal service if it wanted, but the statute did not compel that expansion.
On "years": The statute did not define "years" either. The Commission had defined a "year of service" as a minimum of six months teaching in a school year. That definition was also within the Commission's discretion. The Commission could adopt a lesser threshold or allow tacking across years, but again the statute did not require those concessions.
The AG emphasized that the absence of statutory definitions for "teaches" and "years" was itself meaningful: the legislature was understood to have left those definitions to the Commission's administrative judgment, rather than locking in a single interpretation.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996. 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. The Teaching Fellows program itself went through significant changes in subsequent decades, including periods of suspension and revival under different statutory frameworks. The Commission's definitions of "teaches" and "year of service" may also have been revised. Current loan-forgiveness questions should be addressed through the current program rules.
Background and statutory framework
The Teaching Fellows program was North Carolina's effort to recruit talented students into teaching careers by offering substantial scholarships in exchange for a service commitment after graduation. The four-year teaching requirement matched the four years of the scholarship, and the seven-year window after graduation gave recipients flexibility to complete the requirement around life events (graduate school, military service, family).
The forgiveness-through-service mechanism is common in professional-recruitment loan programs (e.g., medical National Health Service Corps, JAG corps, rural physician programs). The standard structure is: take the loan, commit to public service, and have the loan forgiven by completing the service. Programs vary on definitions of qualifying service, partial-year credit, location restrictions, and consequences of non-completion.
The 1996 opinion is essentially an administrative-law decision: when a statute uses an undefined term, how much discretion does the implementing agency have to define it? The AG applied a Chevron-like presumption: silence equals delegation. If the legislature wanted "teaches" to include administrative roles, it would have said so. If it wanted a specific minimum service period to count as a "year," it would have specified. Without those specifics, the Commission could choose any reasonable definition.
The Commission's "classroom and direct-support" definition of teaching was reasonable on its face. The program's purpose was to recruit teachers; administrative service did not advance that purpose in the same way. A recipient who took the scholarship and then immediately moved into administration would arguably be using the program for personal career advancement rather than for the public's interest in classroom teachers.
The six-months-per-year rule for "year of service" was also reasonable. It set a substantive minimum to prevent recipients from claiming credit for a few weeks of teaching, while still being flexible enough to handle recipients who started teaching mid-year (like the recipient in this case, who graduated in December 1991 and started teaching in January 1992).
The denial of tacking was the most contestable choice. Tacking would have let the recipient combine the 4-month, 28-day stint in 1991-92 with future months to reach a full year. The Commission's no-tacking rule was administratively cleaner but harsher on the recipient. The AG defended it as within the Commission's discretion, not as the only possible answer.
Common questions
What happened to the recipient under the Commission's interpretation?
If the Commission stuck with its existing definitions, the recipient had completed three years of teaching (the Moore County years), plus the partial 4-month, 28-day stint that did not count as a year. He needed one more full year of qualifying teaching to reach four, within the remaining seven-year window from his December 1991 graduation (so by December 1998). The assistant-principal year did not count.
Could the recipient have appealed the Commission's decision?
The opinion did not address appeal rights. As a general matter, Commission decisions about loan-forgiveness eligibility would be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's contested-case process if a property right was implicated, and to judicial review on a "substantial evidence" or "arbitrary and capricious" standard. But the AG's framing makes clear that within the discretionary zone, the Commission's choice would be hard to overturn.
Did the Commission ever expand the definition of "teaches"?
The opinion does not say. The Commission has gone through multiple iterations over the years, and definitions of qualifying service have evolved with the program. Any current question should be checked against the current program rules.
Was this recipient's career typical?
It was probably more common than the opinion suggests. Many strong teachers move into school administration after a few classroom years, and the assistant-principal role is often the first administrative step. Programs that fund teacher recruitment often face this tension: do you want the recipients to stay in the classroom indefinitely, or do you accept that a successful career arc includes administrative leadership? The Commission's answer in 1996 was the former.
Source
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-363.23A
Original opinion text
(1) In 1987 the Commission awarded a loan to an individual who graduated four and one-half (4 1/2) years later in December 1991.
(2) From late January 1992 until the end of the 1991-92 school year, this person was employed as a teacher by the Pitt County School Board. This was a full-time position and the actual period of employment was four (4) months and twenty-eight (28) days.
(3) For the 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years, this person was employed as a full-time teacher by the Moore County School Board.
(4) This person left the Moore County School Board at the end of the 1994-95 school year and was employed by the Granville County School Board as an assistant principal for the 1995-96 school year. This is a full-time administrative position and does not involve any teaching responsibilities.
G.S. 115C-363.23A(e) authorizes students awarded loans by the Commission to repay their loans through service. It states in pertinent part: "The Commission shall forgive the loan if, within seven years after graduation, the recipient teaches for four years at a North Carolina public school." (emphasis added) The word "teaches" is not defined further in the act creating the Commission. The Commission, however, has consistently applied and defined that term to permit repayment of loans through service only as a classroom teacher or in certain specific student support positions such as counselor, and has never applied or defined that term to permit repayment of loans through service in administrative positions such as assistant principal or principal. The individual in question has requested the Commission to count his service as an assistant principal for purposes of repayment of his loan through service, and you have asked for our advice in considering his request.
The absence of a specific definition of the term "teaches" in G.S. 115C-363.23A plainly indicates a decision by the legislature to leave to the Commission's discretion the types of service in public schools that qualify as teaching and, thus, that should be counted toward repayment through service. The Commission, in effect, has determined that repayment through service should be in the form of direct service to students, either in the classroom or in positions providing direct support to students, and not through service in administrative positions, such as assistant principals. In our opinion, the Commission's decision is sound, logical, and entirely within the scope of the discretion conferred on the Commission by the General Assembly. While we believe that the Commission has the authority to expand its definition of teaching to include service as an assistant principal, or other administrative positions, nothing in the statutes compels the Commission to take that step, and the decision to take or not take that step is within the Commission's discretion.
In the event that the Commission chooses not to recognize service as an assistant principal, the person in question has asked the Commission to count his four (4) months and twenty-eight (28) days teaching experience in 1991 as a full year of teaching experience, or to allow him to "tack on" future service as a teacher to his 1991 service in order to reach a full year of service. You have also asked for our advice in responding to this request.
As noted above, G.S.115C-363.23A(e) merely states that a loan shall be forgiven if "the recipient teaches for four (4) years at a North Carolina public school." Like the word "teaches" the word "years" is not further defined. Again, the absence of any specific legislative definition of this word plainly indicates a legislative intention to confer on the Commission the discretion to determine how to define a year of service. As we understand it, the Commission has defined and applied a year of service to mean a minimum of six months service in a teaching position in a school year. In our opinion, this definition is sound, logical and well within the scope of the discretion conferred upon the Commission by the General Assembly. While we believe that the Commission has the authority to adopt some lesser standard, or to allow "tacking", nothing in the statutes compels or requires the Commission to take that action, and the decision to take or not take such action is within the Commission's discretion.
If this office may be of further assistance with this matter or other matters, please feel free to contact us.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Senior Deputy Attorney General