2025 Charter Schools Review Board Omnibus
Senate Bill 689 is an omnibus charter school bill that would expand and clarify the authority of the North Carolina Charter Schools Review Board over charter school rules, approvals, oversight, and related disputes. It would require State Board of Education rules and policies affecting charter schools to be approved and recommended by the Review Board first, authorize the Review Board to hire its own legal counsel, and shift several administrative functions so that the Review Board rather than the State Board or Superintendent is the primary decision-maker for charter-school matters.
The bill also makes a series of operational changes for charter schools. It would exempt charter schools from having to list class rank on student transcripts, allow them to use teacher evaluation systems other than the standard state/local process so long as they are substantially similar, and require low-performing charter schools to submit improvement plans directly to the Review Board rather than under the general school-improvement statute that applies to traditional public schools. It further standardizes how charter schools request local per-pupil funds, limits the information required in those requests, and directs local school systems to use a standardized transfer process, preferably electronic.
A separate set of provisions addresses remote charter academies. The bill would create an expedited process for a remote academy serving at least 250 students to obtain a separate charter, prohibit a planning year for those approvals, and require remote academies to be graded separately from any in-person portion of the same charter school. The State Board would also be required to evaluate remote charter academies annually and report results to legislative oversight committees.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for charter governance and accountability. It would reallocate authority away from the State Board of Education and toward the Charter Schools Review Board, alter charter-school funding and reporting procedures, and create new statutory treatment for remote academies. It would also affect charter schools, local school administrative units, the State Board, and the Office of Charter Schools by changing who approves rules, who handles legal representation, how funds are transferred, and how performance is measured.
No committee debate or votes were provided, so there is no recorded sentiment from hearings or floor action in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of charter-school autonomy and administrative flexibility, while also preserving oversight through the Review Board. Likely points of contention include the shift in power from the State Board to the Review Board, the reduced reporting and procedural requirements for charter schools, and the separate treatment of remote academies and funding disputes.
The bill would amend multiple provisions in Chapter 115C governing charter schools, making the Charter Schools Review Board the central body for approving charter-related rules and policies, approving charter terms, overseeing low-performing charter improvement plans, and reviewing federal-funding decisions. It would also authorize the Review Board to retain legal counsel, change the role of the Office of Charter Schools executive director, and establish new procedures for local funding transfers and enrollment verification. In addition, it would exempt charter schools from class-rank transcript requirements, permit alternate teacher evaluations, and create a separate accountability framework for remote charter academies, including separate grading and expedited charter approval for larger remote programs.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests a favorable posture toward charter schools and especially toward reducing administrative burdens and increasing charter-school autonomy. At the same time, the bill’s expansion of Review Board authority and its changes to funding and accountability processes could draw scrutiny from those concerned about oversight, transparency, and the balance of power between the Review Board, State Board, and local school systems.
The main points of contention are likely to be the transfer of rulemaking and approval authority from the State Board of Education to the Charter Schools Review Board, and the bill’s reduction of requirements that apply to charter schools compared with traditional public schools. Local school systems may object to the standardized funding-transfer process and the limited information required for per-pupil funding requests, while education oversight advocates may question the exemption from class-rank reporting and the ability to use alternate teacher evaluations. The remote academy provisions may also be debated, particularly the expedited separate-charter process, the no-planning-year rule, and the requirement that remote academies be graded separately.