North Carolina Senate Bill S543

North Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/25/25
• Refer: 3/26/25

Caption

State Auditor to Audit Private Schools

Summary

Senate Bill 543 would require the North Carolina State Auditor to periodically audit nonpublic schools that enroll students receiving scholarship grants under Part 2A of Article 39 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes. In practical terms, the bill adds a new duty to the Auditor’s responsibilities, specifically targeting private schools that participate in the state scholarship program and receive public funds through those grants. The bill is narrow in scope and does not change the scholarship program itself or create new eligibility rules for students. Instead, it focuses on oversight and accountability by directing the Auditor to review private schools that benefit from state money. The measure would take effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

S543 would amend G.S. 147-64.6(c), which governs the State Auditor’s responsibilities, by adding a new subsection requiring periodic audits of nonpublic schools that enroll scholarship grant recipients. This would expand state oversight of private schools receiving public funds and could affect schools participating in North Carolina’s scholarship grant program, as well as the Auditor’s office, which would need to carry out the audits.

Sentiment

There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history available with the bill materials, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is provided in the record here. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears framed as an accountability and oversight measure rather than a policy expansion, which may appeal to supporters of public transparency in school funding.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is whether private schools receiving scholarship funds should be subject to periodic state audits and how broad or burdensome those audits should be. Supporters are likely to emphasize fiscal oversight and accountability for the use of public dollars, while opponents may raise concerns about administrative burden, regulatory intrusion into private schools, or the scope of state oversight over nonpublic education providers.