Prohibit Corporal Punishment in Schools
House Bill 983 would prohibit corporal punishment in North Carolina public schools beginning with the 2025-2026 school year. The bill rewrites the existing corporal punishment statute so that school governing bodies may no longer permit the intentional infliction of physical pain as a disciplinary measure. It preserves the distinction between corporal punishment and other forms of discipline, including physical restraint allowed under federal law and state law, and reasonable use of force by school personnel.
The bill also updates related education statutes to align with the ban and to expand reporting on student discipline. It requires annual reporting to the State Board of Education on any corporal punishment incidents, including the number of students affected, disability status, grade level, race, gender, ethnicity, and the reason for punishment, while keeping the reports compliant with federal privacy law. It also revises state reporting duties for dropout, suspension, expulsion, reassignment, and alternative placements, and it repeals a separate civil-liability statute tied to corporal punishment, while preserving claims arising before the effective date.
The bill would change North Carolina law from a local-option framework to a statewide prohibition on corporal punishment in public schools. It amends multiple provisions in Chapter 115C to remove references to school-unit discretion over corporal punishment, to require discipline policies to reflect the ban, and to ensure that student discipline data is collected and reported in a more detailed, disaggregated form. It also repeals G.S. 6-21.4, which appears to relate to civil actions involving corporal punishment, but preserves preexisting claims for conduct occurring before the law takes effect.
The bill appears to have broadly favorable support in the text and framing, with the sponsors citing research, child development concerns, and alignment with the State Board of Education, the North Carolina PTA, and child-focused organizations. The bill’s findings emphasize that corporal punishment is already not used in any of the state’s local school administrative units, suggesting the proposal is largely a formal statewide policy change rather than a new practice shift. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or floor sentiment in the supplied materials.
The main policy tension is between a categorical ban and the prior statutory structure that allowed local school governing bodies to decide whether corporal punishment would be permitted. The bill also raises implementation and reporting issues, including how schools will document discipline data, protect student privacy, and handle discipline for students with disabilities. Another point of potential concern is the parent-election language in the prior statute, which the bill eliminates by banning corporal punishment outright; this may be viewed as reducing local control and parental choice, though the bill’s findings suggest that most stakeholders already oppose corporal punishment.