North Carolina teacher salaries could increase by $9,000 to $12,000 if new bill passes
RALEIGH, N.C. (WGHP) — North Carolina lawmakers have filed a bill proposing thousands of dollars in teacher pay increases across the state.
House Bill 192 was filed on Tuesday, and the primary sponsors of the bill are Rep. Donny Lambeth (R-Forsyth), Rep. Erin Pare (R-Wake), Rep. Mike Schietzelt (R-Wake) and Rep. Tricia Cotham (R-Mecklenburg).
It aims to increase teacher salaries, reinstate education-based salary supplements and direct the North Carolina Collaboratory to assess the proposal's feasibility and impact on school districts.
The bill would increase starting salaries for teachers based on their experience and education level, but a new teacher could expect to bring in around $50,000, up from the current starting pay of $41,000. Teachers with over 25 years of experience would see an increase from $55,950 to $68,230.
Here is the proposed monthly pay included in the bill:
The bill would also provide salary supplements for board-certified teachers and teachers with advanced degrees. A National Board Certification would net a teacher a 12% supplement, and a master's degree would provide 10%, so those amounts would be in addition to the monthly salaries proposed in the above table.
Other school staff, such as nurses, counselors and audiologists, could also receive salary supplements.
The salary supplements proposed are a return to pre-2013 policies that had been in place in North Carolina.
If passed, the bill would take effect on July 1, 2025.
State employee pay tends to be included with the broader budget, so a separate bill addressing it might not gain much traction. However, Lambeth, notably, is part of the House Budget Committee, so his support of the bill could signal an interest in making North Carolina's educator pay more competitive in the coming years.
North Carolina ranks near the bottom, 38th, in teacher pay, according to the National Education Association. The average teacher's salary in North Carolina is $13,000 below the national average.
Read the full text of the bill here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP Sorts Out Which Poison Pills It Can Swallow To Pass House's ‘Big Beautiful' Bill
Senate Republicans began the work this week of deciphering what exactly House Republicans' have stuffed into President Trump's massive spending package — and what elements of it they can live with. One thing is clear: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Republican leadership have their work cut out for them. And in a few key cases, senators might soon find themselves caught between what Trump demands of them, and what's good for their reelection prospects. Similar to the competing pain points that surfaced among members of the House Republican conference, several Senate Republicans have gone on the record to object in various ways to either the bill's extensive gutting of social safety net programs or — on the other end of the spectrum — the extent to which it will add to the deficit, a Republican sin many in the party have built their brands opposing. At this point, it looks almost inevitable that senators will make changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which House Republicans drafted after weeks of intraparty quarrels. That means the House will have to vote on the bill again. Any major shifts could backfire, breaking the delicate balance on which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) built the bill. Thune can only lose three votes from his caucus and still pass the legislation. Here are four places in which Republicans are likely to have to cut a deal, potentially tweaking just how destructive the final bill is. Several Senate Republicans have been publicly declaring that they are opposed to the ways in which the bill currently cuts social safety net programs, while, in most cases, still suggesting there are some cuts they'd support. Several Republican senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have already indicated they won't get behind certain kinds of cuts to Medicaid and other programs, which are widely utilized by their constituents. 'I am not going to vote for Medicaid benefit cuts,' Hawley told reporters in the Senate basement in March. 'Work requirements, I'm totally fine with. But 21% of Missourians either get Medicaid or CHIP so I am not going to vote for benefit cuts for people who I think are qualified.' Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) has made similar statements, telling reporters on Wednesday that he is ok with freezing the provider taxes House Republicans took up in their bill but not cutting them back. Meanwhile Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who recently announced a gubernatorial bid in his state, has said he is opposed to the way in which the legislation cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House bill includes deep cuts to that program, including a cost-sharing plan that would require states to cover a portion of SNAP benefit costs; the benefits are currently completely covered by the federal government. 'Everybody that's going to be in state government is going to be concerned about it,' Tuberville said, according to Politico. 'I don't know whether we can afford it or not.' In recent days, some Senate Republicans have also indicated that they are exploring ideas to slash what they claim is 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare —- despite President Donald Trump's previous vows to 'love and cherish' the program and promises not to touch it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Thursday said that Republicans are looking at changes to Medicare, telling The Hill there are 'a number' of reforms he'd like to see to programs maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions,' Thune also told reporters of Medicare. Meanwhile Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) took a stronger stance, saying Republicans shouldn't be afraid of cutting waste from the program. 'Why don't we go after that? I think we should,' Cramer told NBC. 'Some people are afraid of the topics; I'm not,' he added, noting that they would focus on waste, fraud and abuse. That phrase — 'waste, fraud and abuse' — has, of course, become the go-to terminology for Republicans who want to justify their cuts to largely popular programs, despite the fact that rooting out supposed 'waste, fraud and abuse' roughly translates to hidden, hard-for-the-public-to-understand cuts. This new proposal, too, is already stirring some pushback. 'What a terrible idea. We should not be touching Medicare,' Hawley told NBC. Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Tillis and Murkowski have warned leadership about provisions of the bill that would gut Biden-era clean energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. The House bill's cuts were largely added to the House bill at the last minute in order to appease House Freedom Caucus members who were threatening to sink the bill on the House floor unless leadership made more cuts. They include plans to repeal residential energy-focused credits and several electric vehicle-related credits — both used by individual taxpayers — as well as almost immediately phasing out the clean electricity production and investment tax credit that aims to boost zero-emission electricity production from industry, utilities and manufacturing. 'I want to make sure that we are making good on the investments that we have made with those tax credits,' Murkowski told reporters in the Senate basement on Wednesday when asked about the tax credits. Meanwhile, Tillis — one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2026 — on Wednesday indicated he wanted to see negotiations around the requirements and duration for the programs in question. He also specifically called out the foreign entity restrictions House Republicans put in the bill, which experts described to TPM as a 'bad faith' and 'unworkable' provision that Republicans say will prevent nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from having access to the tax subsidies. Tillis described them as 'a big problem.' 'As I understand it, the level of granularity proposed by the House renders the programs inoperative,' Tillis told reporters on his way up to a floor vote. While several Senate Republicans are opposing cuts to programs that are crucial for their states, others, on the other end of the spectrum, are calling for more spending cuts than what are included in the House Republican package. (These Republicans have, lately, found a surprising ally in the president's erstwhile advisor, Elon Musk.) Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are loudly asking for deeper cuts, saying they are worried about the impact of the megabill on the deficit. 'I refuse to accept $2 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see as the new normal. We have to address that problem, and unfortunately this bill doesn't do so,' Johnson, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday during an ABC News interview. Paul has made a career of libertarian budget hawkery, and is objecting, in particular, to a provision of the bill that raises the debt ceiling, something that must happen this summer in order for the U.S. to avoid default. He has previously indicated he does not believe 'expanding the debt ceiling more than we've ever done it before' is fiscally conservative. 'This will be the greatest increase in the debt ceiling ever, and the GOP owns this now,' Paul told reporters after the House passed their version of the bill.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Budget committee approves over $700 million in bonding for clean water programs
Committee Co-Chairs Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that they were looking forward to getting to work on the budget despite negotiations stalling and were optimistic that they could still get the budget done on time. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) The Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Finance Committee on Thursday took its first actions on the budget since the breakdown in negotiations between Republican lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers by approving over $700 million in bonding authority for clean water and safe drinking water projects and taking action on several other agencies. Committee Co-Chairs Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that they were looking forward to getting to work on the budget despite negotiations stalling and were optimistic that they could still get the budget done on time. 'We've had some good conversations in the last few weeks between the governor and the legislative leaders, and unfortunately, those, you know, conversations have stopped,' Born said. Lawmakers and Evers announced Wednesday evening that their months-long negotiations had reached an impasse for the time being. Republicans said they would move forward writing the budget on their own, saying the state couldn't afford what Evers wanted, and Evers said Republicans were walking away because they refused to compromise. Evers had said he was willing to support Republican tax cut proposals that even as they were similar to proposals he previously vetoed. 'The spending really that the governor needs is just more than they can afford,' Born said Thursday, 'and it's getting to the point where it's about 3 to 1 compared to the tax cuts that we were looking at.' He declined to share specifics about the amounts that were being discussed. 'I don't think we're going to relive the conversations of the last few weeks in any details, but certainly, you know, we've been focused on tax cuts for retirees and the middle class,' Born said. Evers' spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in an email that Republicans' 'math is not remotely accurate.' Despite the breakdown in discussions, the GOP lawmakers said they were optimistic about the potential for Evers to sign the budget they write, noting that he has signed budget bills passed by Republicans three times in his tenure as governor. 'I'm very hopeful that we will do a responsible budget that we can afford that addresses the major priorities and a lot of the priorities that I think the governor's office has,' Marklein said. 'I'm very hopeful that the governor will sign the budget.' Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee were less optimistic about the prospect for the budget to receive support from across the aisle, saying that it likely wouldn't adequately address the issues at the top of mind for Wisconsinites, including public K-12 education, public universities and child care. 'We're going to see a budget that prioritizes more tax breaks for the wealthiest among us at the expense of all of the rest of us and a budget from finance that will get no Democratic votes and that will likely be vetoed by the governor,' Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said. Roys said they didn't know about the specifics of what Evers had agreed to. 'We can't really speculate on that, but I can say that we absolutely support the process and the idea of collaborative, shared government,' Roys said. 'We are committed to that. We have been ready from Day One to sit down with our Republic colleagues to negotiate.' She said for now JFC Democrats will focus on providing alternatives to Republicans' plans. 'We're going to do our best to advocate for what Wisconsinites have said they want to need,' Roys said. 'We want a lower cost for families. We want to make sure that our kids are the first priority in the budget, and we're going to be offering the Republicans the opportunity to vote in favor of those things.' There is less than a month until the June 30 deadline for the Legislature to pass and Evers to sign the state budget. If the budget isn't passed on time, then state agencies continue to operate under the current funding levels. While negotiations have hit a wall, some committee's actions on Thursday received bipartisan support. The committee unanimously approved an additional $732 million in bonding authority for the Environmental Improvement Fund (EIF). The program uses a combination of federal grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's clean water and drinking water state revolving funds and matching state funds to provide subsidized loans to municipalities for drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure projects. 'This is going to be very good for a lot of our local communities when it comes to clean water,' Marklein said ahead of the meeting. He noted that many communities were on a waiting list for their projects. The Department of Administration and the Department of Natural Resources told lawmakers in late 2024 that that year was the first time the fund had not had enough resources to meet demand. Demand for aid from the program increased dramatically starting in 2023, with a 154% increase in the clean water fund loan demand in 2023-24 and a 325% increase in demand for the safe drinking water loan program that year. Insufficient funding for the clean water program led to constraints in 2024-25 and left needs unmet for at least 24 projects costing around $73.9 million. Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said she was thrilled that lawmakers were approving money for infrastructure in the state. 'The state has over $4 billion here,' Andraca said. 'A lot of that is one-time money and one-time money should be used for infrastructure — making sure that our communities are in a great position moving forward should the economy turn down.' The action is meant to cover the next four years of state contributions to the fund. Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) said in a statement the loans will help Wisconsin communities address aging infrastructure and water contaminants. 'With these additional funds, municipalities will be able to access low-interest loans to modernize their water systems, saving local taxpayers millions of dollars and keeping their water clean for years to come at the same time,' Wimberger said. Peter Burress, government affairs manager for environmental nonprofit Wisconsin Conservation Voters, said including the additional revenue bonding authority in the budget is a 'smart, substantive way' to make progress towards ensuring Wisconsinites have 'equitable access to safe, affordable drinking water.' 'We urge every legislator to support this same investment and send it to Gov. Evers for his signature,' Burress said. Republicans on the committee approved an additional $500,000 for the Medical College of Wisconsin's North Side Milwaukee Health Centers Family Medicine Residency Program, which focuses on training family physicians with expertise and skills to provide individualized, evidence-based, culturally competent care to patients and families. The measure also included $250,000 annually starting in 2026-27 for the Northwest Wisconsin Residency Rotation for family medicine residents. According to budget papers, starting the funding in the second year of the budget would allow time to find a hospital partner to support residents. Democrats voted against the measure after their proposal for higher funding was shot down by Republicans. The Democrats proposal also called for funding a Comprehensive Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Fellowship Program focusing on treating substance use disorders and anAdvancing Innovation in Residency Education project to improve the behavioral health expertise of family medicine residents. 'I hope that my colleagues are reading national news because we're seeing lots and lots of research funding being cut,' Andraca said. 'The Medical College has lost about $5 million in research grants recently, and in addition to other research programs being canceled, I don't know who has tried to make an appointment with the primary care physician, but there's really long wait times right now, and this program is literally designed to bring doctors into the state.' Democrats proposed transitioning the Educational Communications Board's Emergency Weather Warning System from relying on fees for funding to being covered by state general purpose revenue. Andraca, in explaining the proposal, said state funding for a system like that is more important now than ever. 'We're talking weather alerts. We're talking about making sure that people know when there's something heading their way. We are in a time where we need these alerts more than ever. In fact, yesterday was an unhealthy air day, and… we're looking at drastic federal cuts,' Andraca said. Republicans rejected the measure and instead approved a 5% increase that will be used on general program operations, transmitter operations and emergency weather warning system operations. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) joined Republicans in favor of the motion. The committee also took action on several other agencies with support splitting along party lines Republicans approved a modification to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation's budget, lowering it by $3.8 million, due to projections that surcharge collections appropriated to WEDC will be lower than estimated. They also rejected Democrats' proposal to provide an additional $5 million in the opportunity attraction and promotion fund, which makes grants to attract events that will draw national exposure and drive economic development. The committee was scheduled to take action on the Wisconsin Elections Commission budget, but delayed that after the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the state agency accusing it of violating the Help America Vote Act. The letter threatened to withhold funding and criticized the absence of an administrative complaint process or hearings to address complaints against the Commission itself. Ann Jacobs, the commission chair, has disputed the accusations and said there is no funding for the federal government to cut. Marklein said the state lawmakers want more information before acting on the agency's budget. 'Out of caution, we think we're just going to wait and see,' Marklein said. 'We need to analyze this and see what implications there may be for the entire Elections Commission and what impact that may have on the budget.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's fight with Musk reveals MAGA's biggest delusion
He'd never admit it publicly, but I'm betting Donald Trump is regretting that he relaxed the White House rules about drug testing. As I predicted last week, Elon Musk's vow to leave politics behind did not last long. But I confess I had no idea that he would come back to the fold by taking swings at his beloved daddy replacement, Trump. It seems, however, that someone told Musk in recent days how much his businesses, which rely heavily on government subsidies, will be screwed by the president's already imperiled budget bill. So now the tech billionaire has become fixated on killing the bill. Musk kicked off his crusade Tuesday by tweeting that Trump's bill is a "disgusting abomination," and has been on a tear since, rallying his supporters to oppose the bill and making room for more Republicans on Capitol Hill to start pulling back support. As he and Trump snipe at each other publicly, the efforts to pretend this is a friendly disagreement are falling apart. Even if Musk fails in his efforts to kill Trump's bill, this battle is exposing a deeper truth that Miller can't hide with his lies about Trump winning in a "landslide": The MAGA coalition is fragile and some of the differences are starting to tear at the seams less than half a year into the second Trump term. Trump's slim win in 2024 was no doubt due in large part to Musk, and not just the eye-popping quarter-billion-plus Musk spent to push the old man's orange carcass over the finish line. It's because Musk and other influential figures, especially those associated with Silicon Valley or who pretend to be former liberals, were able to convince a chunk of more secular, largely male voters to throw their lot in with the Christian nationalist base that is the backbone of the MAGA movement. But while these two groups joined together based on a shared animosity towards racial minorities and women, it was always a far more uneasy alliance than Musk or Trump wanted to admit. And now it's getting shakier as two narcissistic billionaires are at of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., lies all day about everything, but he was probably telling the truth when he sneered that "the EV mandate is very important to" Musk. Tesla sales have been crashing since Musk joined the MAGA movement, meaning he needs government subsidies for electric vehicles more than ever. But while I have no doubt Musk is way more concerned about his bottom line than about government spending — his ostensible reason for hating the bill — his anger would be impotent if it didn't tap into existing tensions between the newfangled technofascist wing of the GOP and more traditional Republicans. "The Silicon Valley tech world does not like this bill," Tim Miller of The Bulwark explained on his podcast Wednesday. It's not just Musk, but many wealthy leaders who are deeply invested in the energy and tech areas that President Joe Biden's administration invested so heavily in. They stabbed Democrats in the back as a thank-you for that money, and now are shocked they are being similarly betrayed by the Republicans they joined up with. I don't think Musk and Trump were actually fighting when Musk ostensibly "left" last week — even as Trump was assuring reporters his billionaire buddy was going nowhere — but there's no doubt this conflict is disrupting their months of narcissistic codependency. On Thursday, Trump got angry and accused Musk of having "Trump derangement syndrome" on camera. It was during the same event that he lamented that the Allies prevailed on D-Day, suggesting the 78-year-old was in one of his increasingly common moments of uninhibited honesty. This conflict was brewing for reasons that run deeper than Musk and Trump's competing egos or Silicon Valley's dependency on government funding, which their leaders disparage. The atheistic world of pseudo-intellectualism that Musk and his minions come from was always going to have friction with the Christian nationalists who actually run the MAGA-ified Republican Party. The most recent sign I've seen that there's trouble in fascist paradise came late last month, from a YouTube video that, at first blush, seems like it's not related: Jordan Peterson's ill-fated effort to "debate" 20 atheists at once. Peterson is a former psychology professor remade into a MAGA culture warrior, and was a huge player in radicalizing a lot of young, secular men to the right for years before Musk got into the game. But he, like Musk, has been feeling pressure lately to fully MAGA-ify by openly embracing Christianity. Last July, Musk and Peterson even did an interview together where they talked up being a "cultural Christian," creating the space for people who don't believe in God or Jesus to support Christian nationalists in their theocratic goals. But Peterson's stint on the zoo-like faux-debate show "Jubilee" exposed how untenable the Christians-who-don't-believe stance may be. Initially, it was billed as "1 Christian versus 20 atheists," but then one of the atheists outed Peterson, by simply asking Peterson a simple question: "Am I not talking to a Christian?" Peterson started yelling diversions and using other tactics to avoid answering the question. He did it again with another atheist by trying to nitpick what the word "believe" means when asked if one "believes" in God. It's all very funny, because it's obvious Peterson doesn't believe in God or Jesus, but also wants the cultural cachet of being a Christian on the right. This matters because Peterson is up there with Musk for representing the more secular, nerdy wing of MAGA, which also happens to be comprised of some of the most fairweather Trump supporters. These are those young men who voted for Biden in 2020 and switched to Trump in 2024, helping Trump barely win the election. With the help of Musk and Peterson, they convinced themselves they can buddy up with people who believe in demon possession and think porn should be banned, all without risk to themselves. On Thursday, Musk complained that Trump was showing "ingratitude," claiming Trump would have lost the election without his support. (Which is probably true!) This budget fight exposes how delusional that attitude always was. It's not about religion, per se, but the culture clash between the Musk fanboys and the Christian nationalist debate is driving much of this. Musk and his acolytes envision a technofascism that sucks all the money out of social services and puts it into the tech industry, even as it pursues goals typically disliked by the Christian right, such as clean energy production. Meanwhile, the Christian right wing of the party, while happy to pass huge cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare, is largely leaving untouched Social Security or Medicare, which their working-class and aging base depends on. The techbro fascists may hate the liberals they live next door to, but at the end of the day, they're still part of the urban, atheistic, educated class that the MAGA movement demonizes. That difference was not going to be papered over forever.
