House Bill 1026 would expand the circumstances under which North Carolina public schools may use remote instruction days or hours to count toward required instructional time. Under current law, schools operating without a good-cause waiver may use up to five remote instruction days or 30 hours for closures caused by severe weather, energy shortages, power failures, or other emergencies. This bill would allow those schools to use up to three additional remote instruction days or 15 additional hours if they have already exhausted the existing allowance and then face another emergency or remain in an ongoing emergency.
The bill also requires any school unit using the extra emergency remote instruction time to report that use as part of its annual remote instruction plan submitted to the State Board of Education. Those reports would need to identify the number of extra days or hours used and describe the emergency that triggered them, along with whether the school deviated from its approved remote instruction plan. The bill applies beginning with the 2026-2027 school year and includes a $5,000 recurring appropriation to the Department of Public Instruction for administrative costs and technical assistance.
HB1026 would amend G.S. 115C-84.3, the state statute governing remote instruction, by creating a limited additional emergency remote instruction option for public school units that are not operating under a good-cause waiver. It would not change the higher remote instruction cap available to counties with a good-cause waiver, but it would give other districts more flexibility to maintain instructional continuity during extended emergencies. The bill also adds reporting obligations to the annual remote instruction plan and provides a small recurring appropriation to DPI to support enforcement and technical assistance.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears generally pragmatic and administrative in nature, aimed at giving schools modest additional flexibility during emergencies while preserving state oversight through reporting requirements. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context suggests the bill may have been treated as a technical adjustment rather than a highly controversial policy change.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between flexibility and accountability. Supporters would likely favor the extra three days as a practical safeguard for schools facing repeated weather or emergency disruptions, while critics could question whether expanding remote instruction time weakens in-person instructional requirements or creates uneven implementation across districts. Another possible issue is the added reporting burden on school units and the State Board, though the bill attempts to address that by pairing the new authority with a modest DPI appropriation and detailed disclosure requirements.