Senate Bill 435 would reinstate education-based salary supplements for North Carolina teachers and instructional support personnel. It repeals G.S. 115C-302.10 and, for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, directs that State Board of Education policy TCP-A-006 as it existed on June 30, 2013 be used to determine whether teachers and instructional support personnel are paid on the “M” salary schedule and whether they receive a supplement for academic preparation at the six-year or doctoral degree level.
The bill also appropriates $8 million in recurring General Fund money to the Department of Public Instruction for the 2025-2026 fiscal year to fund the restored supplements. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and would affect state compensation policy for public school employees with advanced degrees, particularly those in teaching and instructional support roles.
Impact
The bill would change North Carolina law by repealing the current statute governing education-based salary supplements and replacing it, for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, with an older State Board of Education policy standard. This would restore eligibility for master’s-level and higher-degree pay supplements for teachers and instructional support personnel, and it would require state funding through a recurring appropriation to DPI. The practical effect would be to increase compensation for affected public school employees and to impose an ongoing budget obligation on the General Fund.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears supportive of educators and likely intended to address compensation concerns for teachers and instructional support personnel with advanced degrees. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available materials. The overall framing suggests a positive reception among proponents of teacher pay restoration, but the legislative record here is too limited to identify broader sentiment with certainty.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is fiscal: the bill requires $8 million in recurring state funds, which may draw scrutiny from budget writers or lawmakers concerned about ongoing expenditures. Another possible issue is policy design, since the bill restores an older salary supplement framework tied to degree attainment, which could prompt debate over whether pay should be based on academic credentials, classroom effectiveness, or other compensation priorities. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided materials.