Senate Bill 167 revises North Carolina’s funding formula for students with limited English proficiency (LEP), directs the State Board of Education to study the allotment, and provides additional recurring funding to increase the LEP allotment. For the 2025-2027 biennium, the bill requires the State Board to develop guidelines for identifying and serving LEP students and to distribute funds to local school administrative units and charter schools using a formula based on the average percentage of LEP students over the prior three years. Funding would be available only to units or charter schools meeting a minimum LEP threshold, and the bill removes any maximum cap on the number or percentage of identified students for whom funds may be received.
The bill also specifies how local recipients may use the money, including for classroom teachers, teacher assistants, tutors, instructional materials, transportation, and teacher professional development. It requires counties to treat these funds as supplemental rather than replacing local current expense funding. In addition, the Department of Public Instruction must produce an annual head count of LEP students by December 1 and ensure students are reassessed at least every three years.
A major component of the bill is a required study by the State Board of Education, due by December 31, 2025, examining whether the current LEP allotment is adequate and recommending changes. The study must address bilingual education, funding factors tied to the number of languages spoken, models to close achievement gaps, and the effects of removing concentration and minimum eligibility components from the allotment formula. The bill also appropriates $16.2 million in recurring General Fund dollars for fiscal year 2025-2026 to increase the LEP allotment, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand and refine the state’s LEP funding framework, increase direct state support for English learner services, and impose new reporting and study obligations on the State Board of Education and DPI. It would affect local school administrative units, charter schools, and counties by changing eligibility and use rules for LEP funds and by potentially increasing resources available for English learner instruction and support services.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of expanded services for English learners and increased funding, while also signaling concern that the current formula may not adequately reflect student needs. Potential points of contention include the removal of minimum eligibility and concentration limits, the cost of the recurring appropriation, and whether the proposed formula changes should favor bilingual programming, broader eligibility, or alternative funding metrics.
The bill would amend North Carolina’s LEP allotment framework by changing how state education funds are distributed to school units and charter schools, adding a required annual head count and triennial reassessment requirement, and mandating a legislative study of the allotment’s adequacy and structure. It also appropriates $16.2 million in recurring General Fund support for DPI to increase LEP funding, affecting state budgeting, DPI administration, and local school funding practices.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded public debate to gauge sentiment. The bill’s text suggests a generally favorable posture toward English learner services, with an emphasis on expanding funding and examining whether the current allotment is sufficient. The inclusion of a study and additional recurring funds indicates support for strengthening LEP programs, though the absence of discussion means any opposition is not documented here.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s removal of any maximum cap on LEP funding eligibility, the elimination or modification of concentration and minimum-threshold components in the allotment formula, and the fiscal impact of the $16.2 million recurring appropriation. Stakeholders who may differ include state budget writers concerned about cost, school districts and charter schools that could gain or lose under a revised formula, and advocates for bilingual education or broader English learner services who may favor different funding models or accountability measures.