Can a member of the public find out whether a specific NC public school teacher has a valid teaching license, and from which agency?
Plain-English summary
Lowell Harris had asked the AG whether teacher licensure information was a public record. The question was important to journalists who wanted to verify credentials and to parents who wanted to know if a child's teacher held the required license. Special Deputy AG Thomas Ziko and Associate AG Joyce Rutledge split the analysis based on who held the record.
At the local school district (LEA). Chapter 132 (the Public Records Act) starts with a broad definition: all documentary material made or received by a public agency in connection with public business is a public record. Teacher licensure information falls within that definition when an LEA holds it. But Chapter 132 is qualified by Chapter 115C, Article 21A ("Privacy of Employee Personnel Records"). Section 115C-319 defines a "personnel file" as "any information gathered by" the LEA that "relates to the individual's application, selection or nonselection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary action, or termination of employment."
The AG read that definition broadly enough to cover licensure status. LEAs gather licensure information when reviewing job applications. They use it to decide who to hire. They use it to determine salary placement on state and local salary schedules (which are tied to credentials). Licensure information thus "relates to" application, selection, and salary, three categories in § 115C-319.
Section 115C-320 lists the specific items in a teacher's personnel file that the LEA must make available for public inspection (such as name, age, original employment date, current position, salary, and major personnel changes). Licensure status is not on the list. Section 115C-321 lists exceptions allowing disclosure to specific recipients (such as supervisors, government officials, and named individuals). None applied to a general member-of-the-public request. The AG concluded that LEAs cannot routinely release licensure information from their personnel files.
At the state level (DPI and State Board of Education). A different analysis applies. Teachers are employees of LEAs, not of the State Board or DPI. So Chapter 115C, Article 21A does not apply to records the state holds. G.S. § 115C-13 makes it unlawful for DPI or the State Board to disclose confidential personnel information that LEAs "provide" to them. But that section does not cover licensure status, because LEAs do not provide licensure information to DPI; rather, the State Board and DPI create the licensure records themselves through their constitutional and statutory authority to license public school employees. Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920 (1972), confirms the State Board's licensure authority, which is implemented through G.S. §§ 115C-271, 115C-284, and 115C-296.
No other statute exempts state-level licensure records from public inspection. So at DPI and the State Board, teacher licensure status is a public record that must be made available under G.S. §§ 132-1(b) and 132-6.
The practical takeaway: a parent or journalist who wants to verify a teacher's licensure status should send the request to DPI or the State Board, not to the local school district.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998. 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. DPI now maintains an online license verification system that provides licensure status to the public directly. The personnel-file framework in Chapter 115C, Article 21A has been amended multiple times, particularly with respect to disclosure to law enforcement and disciplinary records.
Background and statutory framework
The two-record problem. When a document is created by one agency and used by another, public-records analysis often requires asking whether the record's status changes when it moves. Here, the same fact (teacher X holds license Y) appears in two places: in the LEA's personnel file (gathered at hire) and in the state's licensure system (created by the licensing body). The AG concluded the legal status of access depends on which copy is requested.
Why personnel files are exempt. NC's Article 21A was enacted to protect public employees from blanket disclosure of personal employment information. The legislature struck a balance: certain core public-interest facts (name, position, salary, etc.) are open; everything else is closed. Adding teacher-licensure-status to the closed category at the LEA level reflects the privacy interest in not making personnel files into open records.
Why state licensure records are not exempt. The state's licensure function is a regulatory activity. Like other professional licensure (medicine, law, real estate, contractors), the state issues credentials and maintains records of who holds them. Those records are public for the same reason all professional licensure records are public: the public is entitled to know who is authorized to do regulated work.
The Guthrie holding. Guthrie v. Taylor (1971) confirmed the State Board of Education's authority to certify teachers (the state's term at that time; "license" replaced "certify" by 1998). The Court treated the certification process as a regulatory function vested in the state. That regulatory framing supports the public-records treatment of state-level licensure records.
The G.S. § 115C-13 carve-out. Section 115C-13 protects LEA-provided personnel information at the state level. The provision was important to keep the personnel-file exemption from being defeated by a state-level request. But the AG was careful: only information that LEAs "provide" to DPI is protected by § 115C-13. Licensure status is generated at DPI, not provided by LEAs, so the protection does not apply.
The integrity-of-the-board exception. Section 115C-321 includes a provision allowing an LEA to disclose personnel information to maintain the integrity of the board of education or the quality of its services. The AG noted that this discretion existed but declined to opine on when it would be appropriate; that was a case-by-case judgment.
Why the public might want licensure information. Beyond curiosity, the public has legitimate interest in knowing whether teachers hold the required licenses. Misuse of unlicensed teachers, lapses in licensure, or licensure under a disputed standard can affect student outcomes and the credibility of the school system. The AG's bifurcated answer ensures the information is available at the state level.
Common questions
Q: How can a parent find out if their child's teacher is licensed?
A: Request the information from DPI (now the NC Department of Public Instruction's online verification tool). The LEA cannot routinely release it.
Q: Can an LEA voluntarily release licensure information?
A: Only under the narrow circumstances of § 115C-321, and only on a case-by-case judgment about board integrity or service quality.
Q: What about disciplinary actions against a teacher's license?
A: That was not directly addressed in this opinion. State-level licensure records, including disciplinary actions taken by the State Board, would generally be public under the same reasoning.
Q: Does this analysis cover paraprofessionals, principals, and other school personnel?
A: The opinion specifically addressed teachers. Principals are also licensed through DPI and would generally fall under the same framework. Paraprofessionals' credential information may not be at DPI in the same way.
Q: What if a journalist requests a list of all teachers in a particular district who lack a valid license?
A: The journalist should request that list from DPI, which can match its licensure database against the LEA's employee roster if DPI has that information. The LEA itself could not produce the list as a public record.
Q: Can an LEA confirm or deny a specific teacher's licensure status to a parent?
A: Under the AG's reading, the LEA cannot routinely do so. The parent should be directed to DPI.
Citations from the opinion
- N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 132-1, 132-1(b), 132-6
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-13
- N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 115C-271, 115C-284, 115C-296
- N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 115C-319, 115C-320, 115C-321
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325
- Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 185 S.E.2d 193 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920, 92 S. Ct. 1774, 32 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1972)
Source
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from the NCDOJ landing page; the opening paragraphs were not in the scraped capture, so the text below begins where the capture starts. The linked landing page is authoritative.
-
G.S. § 132-1. G.S. § 132-6 provides that every custodian of public records must permit them to be inspected and examined at reasonable times and under reasonable supervision. The definition of "public records" in Chapter 132 is broad enough to include teacher licensing information in the custody of LEAs. However, the mere fact that teacher licensing information comes within the definition of "public records" does not, in this case, answer the question of whether LEAs must permit public inspection of such records. Article 21A of Chapter 115C, "Privacy of Employee Personnel Records" provides that "personnel files" of LEA employees, former employees, and applicants for employment "shall not be subject to inspection and examination as authorized by G.S. 132-6." G.S. § 115C-319. Thus, if an employee's licensure status is part of his or her personnel file it is exempt from the public inspection provisions of Chapter 132.
-
G.S. § 115C-319 defines "personnel file" to be "any information gathered by" the LEA in connection with an individual's employment or application for employment when that information "relates to the individual's application, selection or nonselection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary action, or termination of employment wherever located or in whatever form." An employee's licensure status obviously "relates" to one or more of the events specified in G.S. § 115C-319. For example, LEAs routinely gather such information in conjunction with review of an individual's application for employment and the information usually plays a role in the applicant's selection or nonselection. Moreover, once a teacher has been hired, the LEA must know the teacher's licensure status in order to determine his or her salary in accordance with the state and local salary schedules. Therefore, it is our opinion that a teacher's licensure status is part of his or her LEA "personnel file" under G.S. § 115C-319.
Having determined that a teacher's licensure status is part of his or her local personnel file, the next question is whether the LEA can release the information. G.S. § 115C-320 lists the information in a teacher's personnel file which the LEA must maintain for public inspection. Teacher licensure status is not included in that list of public information. Consequently, an employee's licensure status should not be included in the personnel information that is open to public inspection under G.S. § 115C-320.
G.S. § 115C-321 identifies certain individuals to whom confidential information in teacher personnel files may be disclosed. None of the enumerated exceptions to confidentiality of LEA personnel files set out in § 115C-321 are applicable to the request described in your letter. G.S. § 115C-321 also contains a provision which allows an LEA to disclose personnel information to maintain the integrity of the local board of education or to maintain the level of quality of services provided by the board. The decision to release personnel information under that provision, however, must be made on a case-by-case basis. The circumstances that might justify exercise of that discretion is, therefore, beyond the scope of this opinion.
In summary, the licensure status of an LEA employee is part of that employee's confidential personnel file. Thus, it is our opinion that Article 21A of Chapter 115C prohibits an LEA from routinely releasing licensure information contained in the personnel files of its employees, former employees, or applicants for employment.
(2) Public Inspection of Licensure Information in Custody of DPI or the State Board of Education.
Pursuant to G.S. § 115C-325, teachers are employees of LEAs, not the State Board of Education or DPI. Therefore, Article 21A of Chapter 115C is inapplicable to teacher records in custody of the State Board of Education or DPI. Under G.S. § 115C-13, it is unlawful for the State Board of Education or DPI to disclose any confidential personnel information that LEAs may "provide" to the State Board of Education or DPI. However, that provision does not extend to the licensure status of teachers because LEAs do not "provide" licensure information to the State Board of Education or DPI. The licensure status of teachers is public information that the State Board of Education and DPI create pursuant to the State Board of Education's constitutional and statutory authority to license or certify public school employees. Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 185 S.E.2d 193 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920, 92 S. Ct. 1774, 32 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1972); G.S. §§ 115C-271, 115C-284 and 115C-296. Therefore, it is not subject to the protections of G.S. § 115C-13. We are not aware of any other statute that would exempt this information in the files of the State Board of Education or DPI from public inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act.
Therefore, in our opinion documents reflecting a teacher's licensure status are public records in the hands of the State Board of Education and DPI and they must permit those documents to be inspected and examined by third parties pursuant to G.S. §§ 132-1(b) and 132-6.
signed by:
Thomas Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General
Joyce Rutledge, Associate Attorney General