- Part 1 of this two-part series demonstrated how school data and complicated school funding formulas limit true financial accountability for public schools in North Carolina
- Part 2 reviews how public schools have little democratic accountability, as teacher unions and professional educator associations benefit from off-year elections
- This part also discusses several shortcomings of North Carolina’s accountability model and other problems showing that schools lack educational accountability
This series tests North Carolina public schools using education scholar Mike McShane’s three-pronged approach to accountability: financial, democratic, and educational. The first part found that North Carolina public schools lacked financial accountability. This part finds that public schools also lack democratic and educational accountability.
What keeps public schools from being democratically accountable
McShane explains that accountability in schools includes being democratically accountable to their communities. Schools and school boards must reflect local values and be responsive to local concerns.
Unfortunately, this standard is hard to achieve when so many school boards in North Carolina are selected in off-year elections, which are notorious for low voter turnout. These elections maximize the influence of teacher unions or professional associations because such groups are successful in turning out their members. Such elections have helped groups like the North Carolina Association of Educators and the North Carolina School Boards Association wield much greater influence over what is school board policy, who is appointed superintendent, and who makes decisions regarding teacher salaries and compensation. In so doing, they diminish local parents and taxpayers, who better reflect the values and preferences of local communities.
Off-year elections aren’t the only thing that jeopardizes democratic accountability in public schools. In a sample of 16 states, including North Carolina, researchers Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, and Zachary Peskowitz found that half of school board races go uncontested and that incumbents are reelected 80 percent of the time. In another article, Kogan discussed the problem of high turnover at school boards from incumbents choosing to retire. How high? Fifty-three percent of incumbents are replaced in a typical election year. Furthermore, education research finds school board turnover to be weakly correlated with educational outcomes regardless of student demographics, suggesting that local democracy as currently practiced is not producing good leadership or running schools well.
In recent years, the North Carolina General Assembly has sought to remedy some of these problems (see House Bill (HB) 832, HB 959, and also Senate Bill (SB) 227, which was vetoed by Gov. Stein, but an override vote passed in the Senate and is pending in the House). Unfortunately these laws also limit the discretion and the authority of the local school – and hence work to limit local accountability.
Finally, even though North Carolina school boards are democratically elected, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are democratically governed. About two-thirds of the money local districts receive is from the state. That money always comes with strings attached, causing the boards to focus more on the interests and concerns of state lawmakers and less on those of parents and local leaders. It doesn’t mean local control doesn’t exist, but it certainly limits local accountability.
What keeps public schools from being educationally accountability
Public schools must also be educationally accountable. That means students are learning what they should and are able to progress to the next level academically. Advocates would point to the state accountability model that provides report cards to all schools with letter grades based on their students’ test scores (80 percent) and academic growth (20 percent). Graduation rates and measures of college readiness are other means to measure students’ academic performance and inform parents about school quality.
But do academic models really ensure educational accountability?
Every state had to develop an accountability system for its K–12 schools as a condition for receiving federal funds. North Carolina’s state plan is over 200 pages filled with complicated rubrics and calculations. The variety of metrics and alternative options make it very easy for schools to find what they need to stay out of trouble.
The problem is, since state officials created the testing system to evaluate school districts, they can also change and manipulate these data.
The very tests designed to show academic progress and learning comprehension have been criticized for placing too great an emphasis on proficiency rather than taking a broader view of student achievement. Other ways to measure student achievement — including work portfolios, formative assessments, and the development of real-world skills — offer a different and more wholistic view of the learning process, but the current accountability system ignores them.
The larger problem is that North Carolina’s tests and evaluation systems are developed by the same state agency responsible for educating students. It is a major conflict of interest compromising the integrity of the system. Having an independent evaluator develop a testing system and academic model would do much to restore public confidence and accountability.
Furthermore, annual test scores do not reflect well on our schools or our ability to hold them accountable. For example, in 2024–25, only 54 percent of eighth graders achieved grade level proficiency in reading, and only 48.5 percent did so in math. According to NC DPI, out of North Carolina’s 2,598 public schools, 7.6 percent received A’s; 20.7 percent, B’s; 40.2 percent, C’s; 26.4 percent, Ds; and 5.1 percent, F’s.
Clearly, some schools have been failing for some time at educating students. So, what happens when schools fail?
When districts meet academic goals, superintendents and principals can receive extra financial bonuses. When those goals aren’t met, however, there are no serious consequences. The accountability model is toothless. Funds continue to flow into failing schools even if parents remove their children and send them to better schools.
A ‘low performing” school is any school receiving a D or F on school growth and either a designation of “Met Expected Growth” or “Not Met Expected Growth.” A low performing school must develop school improvement plans and potentially apply for reform models. Parents will also be notified about the school’s status, and the district will also face stricter oversight. The district is also likely to get additional funds to help improve the school’s status. Failing schools often receive additional resources and services to help them remediate the problems, though there is no guarantee that solutions will be found.
In contrast, a charter school that fails to meet the goals outlined in its charter document gets shut down.
Public school failures are frequently blamed on a lack of resources, but more money isn’t always the solution. From 2020 to 2025, North Carolina public schools received $6.2 billion in additional federal funding to help address the impact of the pandemic. Schools in low-income districts received more funding than the rest. About 52 percent of those funds went toward salaries and employee benefits, while only about 2 percent were used on proven methods of helping students, such as tutoring. So academic performance initially declined before showing only modest improvement.
Conclusion
If North Carolina public schools were a business, their bottom lines would be red and the state or local school board would be calling for new leadership. That North Carolina continues to tolerate the same disappointing results points to a very large problem.
Our schools are failing because our schools lack true accountability. Our schools lack financial accountability because the system lacks financial transparency and obscures the true costs of education. Our schools lack democratic accountability because off-year elections maximize the influence and power of teachers unions and educational special-interest groups. And finally, our schools lack accountability because the educational accountability model is flawed and has failed to deliver results.
It’s a system that double-talks parents and taxpayers, challenges teachers and staff, and shortchanges students. It’s time to bring true accountability to North Carolina public schools.
