House Bill 840 would change North Carolina’s school accountability reporting system so that every school receives two separate letter grades: one for school achievement and one for school growth. Under current law, school report cards emphasize a combined performance grade; this bill would split that into distinct achievement and growth grades, each based on a 100-point scale and letter-grade thresholds set in statute. The bill also keeps an overall performance score, but it would be calculated from achievement at 80% and growth at 20%, and it would explicitly prohibit plus/minus modifiers on the grades.
The bill also expands reporting requirements. State report cards would have to show subgroup achievement and growth grades for economically disadvantaged students, major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and English learners, and would identify whether schools are closing or widening achievement gaps. Schools, charter schools, regional schools, and laboratory schools would have to prominently display achievement and growth grades on their websites and notify parents in writing when a school earns a D or F in either category. The bill applies these changes to report cards based on 2025-2026 school year data, beginning January 1, 2026.
HB840 would amend multiple provisions in Chapter 115C and related statutes governing school report cards, low-performing school identification, charter schools, regional schools, and laboratory schools. It would replace references to a single overall school performance grade with separate achievement and growth grades, revise the definition of low-performing schools to use the new terminology, and require conforming changes in parent notices, public website postings, and State Board reporting. The bill would also preserve a separate federal-compliance framework under ESSA, where the State Board may still use different labels for indicators so long as the calculations follow the new statutory method.
The available record shows no committee debate, testimony, or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to reward schools for student growth more explicitly and to make school performance information more transparent to the public. The title and structure suggest a policy goal of recognizing improvement, not just absolute achievement.
The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the shift from a combined performance grade to separate achievement and growth grades, along with an 80/20 weighting for the overall score. Supporters are likely to favor the clearer distinction between proficiency and growth, while critics may question whether the new weighting or separate grading system changes how schools are labeled as low-performing. Another possible point of contention is the expanded public reporting and parent-notification requirements, especially for schools receiving D or F grades, and the bill’s effect on accountability for schools serving high-need student populations and subgroups.