Modify School Performance Grades
House Bill 488 would change North Carolina’s school accountability system so that every school receives two separate letter grades: one for school achievement and one for school growth. Under current law, schools receive an overall performance grade that combines achievement and growth; this bill keeps the underlying numerical scoring framework but separates the public-facing grades into distinct achievement and growth grades. It also sets specific score-to-letter-grade thresholds for each category and retains the existing overall performance score calculation as an 80/20 blend of achievement and growth.
The bill expands reporting requirements for the State Board of Education and local education agencies. School report cards would have to show achievement and growth grades more prominently, include subgroup achievement and growth results for economically disadvantaged students, major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and English learners, and identify whether schools are meeting, exceeding, or missing expected growth. Local boards, charter schools, regional schools, and laboratory schools would need to display these grades on their websites and notify parents in writing when a school receives a D or F in either achievement or growth. The bill also updates definitions and conforming provisions across multiple statutes governing report cards, low-performing schools, and low-performing school districts.
In practical terms, the bill would affect how schools are labeled, how parents and the public see school performance, and how low-performing schools are identified. It would preserve the use of EVAAS for growth calculations and continue to use the overall performance score for federal accountability purposes, but it would make the achievement and growth components more visible and separately graded. The bill applies beginning January 1, 2026, and to report cards based on 2025-2026 school year data.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is that of a transparency and accountability measure. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the bill’s structure suggests support for clearer public reporting and a more nuanced explanation of school performance than a single composite grade. The sponsors appear to be advancing a policy change aimed at making growth more visible alongside achievement, which is often framed as a way to better recognize school progress.
The main point of potential contention is the shift from one overall performance grade to separate achievement and growth grades, which could change how schools are perceived by parents, educators, and policymakers. Schools that perform well in growth but not achievement, or vice versa, may see their public profile change, and the bill’s expanded subgroup reporting could draw attention to achievement gaps. Another possible issue is the continued use of the overall performance score for low-performing school identification while also adding separate grades, which may create complexity in how accountability is communicated.
The bill amends multiple provisions in Chapter 115C and related statutes to require separate school achievement and school growth scores and letter grades, while retaining the overall performance score for accountability and federal ESSA compliance. It changes report card, website posting, and parent-notification requirements for traditional public schools, charter schools, regional schools, and laboratory schools, and updates the statutory definitions of achievement score, growth score, overall performance grade, and subgroup performance measures. It also revises the low-performing school and low-performing local school administrative unit statutes so they reference the new achievement and growth grading structure rather than a single combined performance grade.
No committee discussion or votes were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be presented as a transparency and accountability reform, with an emphasis on clearer public reporting of both academic achievement and student growth. The sponsors’ approach suggests a generally favorable policy intent toward making school performance information more detailed and accessible.
The likely areas of contention are whether separating achievement and growth grades will improve accountability or instead confuse the public, and whether the new grading structure could advantage or disadvantage schools depending on their student populations. Educators and advocates may disagree over the weight given to achievement versus growth, especially because the overall performance score remains an 80/20 blend while the public-facing grades are split. Another possible dispute is the expanded subgroup reporting, which increases visibility into achievement gaps but may also intensify scrutiny of schools serving high-need student populations.