#NCGA Does DPI’s Job Again With Bill On Background Checks [UPDATED]

Earlier this year, North Carolina received an “F” on our teacher screening process in a USA Today report.

Several years ago, and by several I mean SIX YEARS ago, the subject of performing background checks on teachers in North Carolina was suggested, a committee did some work on it and their results were promptly stuck in a drawer by NC Superintendent Atkinson.

DPI, in response to the USA Today report, trotted out this story about being too wrapped up  at the time over the murder of  school board member Kathy Taft. DPI also blamed costs.

Shorter: Atkinson blew it off.

Also, the Board of Education never followed up. Shame on them too.

Since then, North Carolinians have been treated to a continuous flow of headlines about teachers in our state having sex with students or being arrested on one charge or another.

Don’t believe me? Visit Carolina Plotthound’s “Not A Homeschool” collection.

Now legislators are having to do the job DPI should have done — again.

Go read  SB 867, titled Protect Students In Schools, which requires criminal background checks to be performed when a teacher applies for a job and licensing in the state of North Carolina.

Dear Haymaker, I’m well aware of the section making these checks unavailable to the public. I have inquiries pending and requests for comment submitted to the relevant parties. When I get those responses, I’ll write about it.

In the meantime, acquaint yourself with  Article 7. – The Privacy of State Employee Personnel Records.

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a reporter currently writing at The North State Journal. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_ Tips: APDillon@Protonmail.com
This entry was posted in A.P. Dillon (LL1885), EDUCATION, June Atkinson, NC DPI, NCGA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to #NCGA Does DPI’s Job Again With Bill On Background Checks [UPDATED]

  1. Pingback: #ncga: Teacher screening bill leaves wiggle room for state BOE, DPI

  2. Geek49203 says:

    I lived in Michigan when they instituted this one. Nothing happened. I think that one person in the state was found to have a questionable background? So yeah, it sounds good, but in reality, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t do much.

    Kinda like Austin’s demand that UBER and Lyft drivers get extra security checks (more than cabbies) — most places haven’t had any problems with UBER drivers, at least not yet?


Comments are closed.