House Bill 445 would reinstate education-based salary supplements for certain public school employees in North Carolina, including teachers, instructional support personnel, and school social workers. It repeals G.S. 115C-302.10 and directs that, for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the State Board of Education’s former TCP-A-006 policy as it existed on June 30, 2013, be used to determine eligibility for the “M” salary schedule and for supplements tied to six-year or doctoral-level academic preparation.
The bill also requires local boards of education to adopt minimum salary schedules for occupational therapists and physical therapists employed in full-time, permanent positions, with salaries differentiated by experience in intervals of no more than five years. In addition, each local board must publish the adopted salary schedule on its website by October 15 each year. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and includes a recurring $8 million General Fund appropriation to the Department of Public Instruction for the reinstated supplements.
HB445 would change state law by repealing the current statutory provision governing education-based salary supplements and replacing it with a temporary return to an older State Board policy for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It would also create a recurring state appropriation to fund those supplements and impose new transparency requirements on local school boards regarding salary schedules for occupational therapists and physical therapists. The bill affects teachers, instructional support personnel, school social workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, local boards of education, and the Department of Public Instruction.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed positively around fairness, transparency, and compensation for school employees. Its sponsors present it as a restoration of salary supplements and a transparency measure for related school-based professions. No contrary testimony or recorded opposition is included in the available context, so the overall sentiment in the provided record is neutral-to-supportive, with the bill advancing to appropriations review.
The main points of potential contention are fiscal cost and policy direction. The $8 million recurring appropriation could draw scrutiny from budget-minded lawmakers, while the repeal of G.S. 115C-302.10 and the use of a 2013-era State Board policy may be debated by those who prefer the current salary framework or who question whether the prior supplement structure should be restored. The transparency requirement for occupational therapist and physical therapist salary schedules is less controversial on its face, but local boards may be sensitive to the added administrative obligation and the limits on experience-based salary intervals.