House Bill 911 would require local boards of education in North Carolina to revise and publicize minimum salary schedules for occupational therapists and physical therapists employed in public schools. The bill directs those salary schedules to be based on years of licensed experience, to use the full range of State Board of Education noncertified salary grades and ranges, and to limit experience intervals to no more than five years and no more than 30 years total. It also requires annual reporting of the adopted salary schedules to the Department of Public Instruction, which must then report them to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee.
For the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the bill would guarantee these employees the greater of the new salary schedule amount or their 2024-2025 salary. It also creates salary supplements for full-time permanent occupational therapists and physical therapists in public schools, including a monthly supplement equal to 10% of the salary a teacher with five more years of experience would receive on the A teacher salary schedule, plus $350 per month, and additional eligibility for supplements tied to advanced academic degrees. Those supplements would only take effect if the General Assembly appropriates funds for them.
The bill also adds a new workforce reporting requirement. Each local board of education would have to report annually the number of occupational therapists and physical therapists employed directly, employed through third-party contractors, and the number of vacant positions, with the Department of Public Instruction compiling and forwarding that information to legislative oversight committees. The bill would amend North Carolina’s education statutes governing school personnel compensation and reporting, particularly G.S. 115C-316 and a new G.S. 115C-316.3.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of improving compensation transparency and pay for school-based occupational and physical therapists, likely to aid recruitment and retention. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate in the materials about the bill’s merits or opposition. The main practical constraint built into the bill is fiscal: the salary supplement provisions depend on a future appropriation, which suggests lawmakers were attempting to balance pay increases with budget availability.
The most notable point of contention is likely to be cost and funding responsibility, since the bill would impose new salary floor requirements, supplements, and reporting obligations on local school systems while tying some benefits to state appropriations. Another possible issue is administrative burden, because local boards would need to revise salary schedules, publicize them, and submit annual workforce data. The bill appears aimed at addressing staffing shortages and pay equity for related service providers in public schools, but no explicit opposition is shown in the available record.
HB911 would amend North Carolina education law to require local boards of education to adopt and publish minimum salary schedules for occupational therapists and physical therapists, base those schedules on licensed experience and State Board salary ranges, and report them annually to DPI. It would also create conditional salary supplements for these school employees and add a new annual workforce reporting statute covering employment counts, contractor use, and vacancies. The bill affects local school administrative units, the Department of Public Instruction, and the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee, and it would change compensation and reporting practices for school-based occupational and physical therapists.
The available materials suggest a generally favorable policy direction toward better compensation and workforce tracking for occupational therapists and physical therapists in public schools. The bill’s structure indicates support for retention and recruitment through salary standardization and supplements, while also emphasizing transparency through reporting. No committee discussion or votes are provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the supplied context, but the conditional funding language suggests lawmakers anticipated budget sensitivity.
The likely points of contention are fiscal impact, implementation burden, and whether the state should mandate salary supplements for a relatively specialized group of school employees. Local boards may be concerned about the cost of revising salary schedules and meeting new reporting requirements, while state budget writers may object to the need for appropriations before supplements can take effect. Supporters would likely emphasize recruitment, retention, and pay parity for occupational and physical therapists, especially given the bill’s attempt to standardize compensation and document vacancies.