Pay Teachers What They're Worth Act
Senate Bill 850, titled the “Pay Teachers What They’re Worth Act,” would substantially increase compensation for public school educators and certain instructional support personnel beginning in the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It establishes a new teacher salary schedule with monthly pay ranging from $5,000 for entry-level teachers to $6,823 for teachers with 25 or more years of experience, and it extends the term “teacher” to include instructional support personnel for purposes of the salary schedule. The bill also provides recurring salary supplements for National Board-certified teachers, teachers with master’s, six-year, or doctoral-level preparation, school nurses, school counselors, school psychologists, speech pathologists, and audiologists.
The bill further reinstates education-based salary supplements that were previously tied to State Board policy, repealing G.S. 115C-302.10 and directing use of the 2013 version of State Board policy TCP-A-006 to determine eligibility for “M” salary status and advanced-degree supplements. In addition, it creates the Paid Student Teaching Grant Program, which would provide eligible student teachers with grants of up to $5,000 per year during student teaching and a $2,500 recruitment bonus for those who later take jobs in public school units and remain employed for at least 30 days. The bill also requires the North Carolina Collaboratory to study long-term strategies for improving educator compensation and report recommendations by March 15, 2027.
The bill would amend state law by repealing existing statutory language on education-based salary supplements, adding a new statutory section for student teaching grants, and directing the Department of Public Instruction to administer both the salary increases and the grant program. It appropriates recurring General Fund money totaling $1.675 billion for teacher salary increases, $8 million for reinstated education-based supplements, and $10 million for student teaching grants and recruitment bonuses, all beginning in fiscal year 2026-2027. The measure would therefore have a significant fiscal impact and would directly affect teachers, instructional support personnel, student teachers, and public school units statewide.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of educator pay increases and recruitment efforts, with the findings section emphasizing teacher shortages, financial barriers to entering the profession, and the need to strengthen retention. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional public discussion to gauge support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated purpose. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a workforce investment and teacher recruitment measure rather than a controversial policy change.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s large recurring cost, the reinstatement of education-based pay supplements, and the use of state funds for student teaching grants and bonuses. The advanced-degree supplement provisions may also draw scrutiny because they revive a compensation structure that can be debated on equity and effectiveness grounds. Another possible issue is whether the proposed salary schedule and grant program are sustainable over time and whether they would produce measurable improvements in recruitment and retention, which the bill attempts to address through the required Collaboratory study.
The bill would significantly revise North Carolina’s public school compensation framework by setting a new statewide teacher salary schedule for 2026-2027, extending salary-schedule treatment to instructional support personnel, and restoring education-based salary supplements for qualifying educators. It repeals G.S. 115C-302.10, relies on prior State Board policy to determine advanced-degree pay eligibility, and creates a new statutory grant program for student teachers. It also appropriates recurring General Fund dollars totaling $1.693 billion for educator pay and supplements, plus $10 million for student teaching grants and recruitment bonuses, thereby increasing ongoing state obligations and directly affecting teachers, school nurses, counselors, psychologists, speech pathologists, audiologists, student teachers, and local public school units.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect a strongly pro-educator, pro-recruitment posture, emphasizing teacher shortages, compensation competitiveness, and barriers to entering the profession. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded debate to indicate formal support or opposition, but the bill is clearly presented as a response to workforce shortages and retention concerns. Overall, the tone is favorable toward increasing pay and support for educators.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s substantial recurring fiscal commitment, the reinstatement of education-based salary supplements, and the design of the student teaching grant and recruitment bonus program. Critics could question whether advanced-degree supplements are the best use of funds or whether the proposed salary increases are sustainable and sufficient to improve outcomes. Supporters would likely emphasize recruitment, retention, and the need to make educator compensation more competitive, while opponents may focus on budget impact and implementation complexity.