Bill
HB 773
HB 773 overhauls NC school accountability, creating a 100-point score with A-F grades tied to proficiency and EVAAS growth, prioritizing bottom 25% gains and college credentials.
Status (as of 4/29/2025)
- Committee substitute reported favorable (4/29/2025). Referred to Rules/Calendars for further consideration.
- Introduced April 7, 2025; primary sponsors include Representatives Biggs, Cotham, Willis, and Rhyne.
Purpose
- To replace the existing statutory school accountability framework (parts of Article 8, Chapter 115C) with a revised system of school performance scores and letter grades designed to more precisely reflect achievement and growth at the elementary, middle, and high‑school levels.
Key provisions
- Repeals G.S. 115C‑83.15, 115C‑83.16, and 115C‑83.17 and adds new sections establishing:
- §115C‑83.17A — School performance scores
- §115C‑83.17B — School performance grades
- Defines a separate set of measurable elements (points) for each school level; each point = 1 point per percentage point of students meeting the measure. Major measures include:
- Elementary (K–5): proficiency in math (grades 3–5), reading (grades 3–5, with grade 3 reading singled out), grade 5 science, English‑learner (EL) progress (grades 3–5), and growth measures (math/reading).
- Middle (6–8): proficiency in math (6–8), reading (6–8), grade 8 science, EL progress (6–8), completion/credit or industry credential for high‑school level courses taken in middle school, and growth measures (math/reading).
- High school (9–12): proficiency on NC Math I, English II, Biology EOCs; postsecondary success/credential measures (examples include passing advanced course exams, passing dual‑enrollment courses, industry credentials, or specified ASVAB + JROTC credit combinations); four‑year graduation rate; EL progress; and growth on Math I and English II.
- Growth measurement: directs use of the Education Value‑Added Assessment System (EVAAS) to calculate growth and to determine meeting/exceeding expected growth. Special attention to growth for students in the bottom 25% on prior assessments.
- Scoring and translation:
- Uses a composite approach that weights elements by the number of students measured for each element.
- Requires proportional adjustment when a school lacks a particular element (e.g., a K–5 school without high‑school measures).
- Translates the composite performance score to a 100‑point scale for public reporting.
- Letter grades:
- The State Board of Education will award letter grades based on the performance score and is prohibited from adding other designations (e.g., “+” or “–” modifiers). (The bill text indicates an A–F schema but the committee substitute’s numeric cutoffs are not included in the excerpt.)
Who is affected
- State Board of Education: required to implement the new scoring and grading methodology.
- Local school districts and individual public schools (K–12): scores, grades, public reporting, and consequent accountability/recognition/intervention actions will be governed by the new measures.
- Students, teachers, and administrators: changes in emphasis (e.g., on growth, bottom‑25% gains, dual enrollment, credentials) may affect school priorities, programming, and resource allocation.
- Data vendors and assessment administrators: continued/expanded use of EVAAS and collection/reporting of credential and dual‑enrollment data.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Shifts emphasis toward both proficiency and measured growth, with explicit attention to low‑performing students (bottom 25%) and postsecondary/credential outcomes at the high‑school level.
- Could change school ratings relative to the prior system—schools with strong growth or credential/dual‑enrollment outcomes may see improved performance scores even if proficiency rates differ.
- Administrative and data requirements: schools and districts will need to ensure accurate reporting of test results, growth calculations, credential attainment, dual‑enrollment results, and EL progress.
- Fiscal impacts are not specified in the bill excerpt; implementation likely uses existing assessments and EVAAS but may require data‑reporting adjustments.
Next steps / procedural notes
- Committee substitute was favorably reported 4/29/2025; the bill remains subject to further action (Rules, floor votes, Senate concurrence, and enactment). Effective date is not specified in the provided excerpt.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
