House Bill 742, titled the Healthy and High-Performing Schools Act of 2025, would create a new Article 17A in Chapter 115C of the North Carolina General Statutes focused on “healthy schools” cleaning practices. The bill directs public school units to adopt green cleaning policies and use environmentally sensitive cleaning and maintenance products when it is economically feasible to do so. If a school cannot do so without increasing cleaning costs, it must provide annual written notice to the Department of Public Instruction explaining that the policy is not economically feasible.
The bill also requires the Department of Public Instruction, working with the Department of Health and Human Services and stakeholders, to develop and annually update guidelines and specifications for approved cleaning products and practices. Those guidelines must be posted publicly and distributed to public school units and nonpublic schools with 50 or more students. The bill allows schools to use existing supplies before switching to the new requirements and gives DPI 180 days after enactment to complete the initial research-based guidelines. It states that no State funds are appropriated or required to implement the act, and it takes effect when it becomes law for the 2025-2026 school year.
HB742 would amend multiple provisions of Chapter 115C and related statutes to make public school units, including local school boards, charter schools, regional schools, and public secondary schools operated by the UNC Board of Governors, subject to the new green cleaning requirements. It would also add a new encouragement for nonpublic schools with 50 or more students to adopt similar policies. The practical effect is to set statewide standards for school cleaning products and maintenance practices, while preserving flexibility through the bill’s “economically feasible” exception and its no-new-state-funds provision.
The bill’s framing suggests generally favorable support for healthier school environments, with emphasis on reducing children’s and staff members’ exposure to indoor pollutants and hazardous chemicals. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes limits direct evidence of debate, but the bill’s structure indicates an effort to balance environmental-health goals with cost concerns. Overall, the measure appears to be presented as a public health and school safety initiative rather than a controversial mandate.
The main point of contention is likely cost and implementation burden. The bill only requires green cleaning policies when “economically feasible,” and it defines that standard by whether the policy would increase cleaning costs, signaling concern from school administrators or budget-minded stakeholders about added expenses. Another possible issue is administrative complexity, since DPI must create and update product guidelines with stakeholder input and schools must adjust procurement practices. The bill’s no-state-funds clause and delayed implementation through the next school year appear designed to address these concerns.