North Carolina Releases 2025-26 End-of-Grade and End-of-Course Test Results
The state Department of Public Instruction published proficiency, growth and School Performance Grade data for the 2025-26 school year on Sept. 2, 2026, a year after scores rose on 12 of 15 reading and math assessments.
Two Ways to Read the Same Spreadsheet
On Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, at 10 a.m., the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction released its statewide test results for the 2025-26 school year[1]. The package is the state's report card. It covers end-of-grade tests for grades 3 through 8, end-of-course tests in high school, academic growth, School Performance Grades, graduation rates, and the list of schools flagged for state help[14].
The State Board of Education gets the numbers first. District-level results follow soon after. It's the same rhythm as last year, when the 2024-25 package came out on Sept. 3, 2025[2].
That prior release is worth remembering, because it's already a preview of the argument this year's data will restart. Scores rose on 12 of 15 reading and math tests in 2024-25[2]. Third-grade reading, English II, and NC Math I all fell[2]. Both of those things are true at once, and which one a reader hears first depends entirely on who's talking.
The Same 12-of-15 Number, Read Two Ways
DPI called the 2024-25 results a rise, in a press release headlined "Test scores, graduation rates on the rise for North Carolina students"[2]. The graduation rate hit 87.7%, a 10-year high, up from 87.0% the year before[2]. The ACT composite ticked up to 18.2[2].
Superintendent Mo Green also pointed to an investment that hasn't shown up in the numbers yet. North Carolina teachers logged 6.5 million hours of training in the "science of reading," a phonics-first teaching method the state adopted[2]. Green expects the payoff to appear in later results, since it starts with the youngest students. He's also argued that a single proficiency number is a thin way to judge a school: "our students are more than test scores[2]."
Carolina Journal, published by the free-market John Locke Foundation, took the identical dataset and led with "NC math rebounds, but reading scores keep falling[4]." It pointed to a harder number: roughly 45% of North Carolina students are not proficient in reading or math[5]. It also noted that the federal NAEP test, which lets states be compared against each other, has shown North Carolina reading scores moving the wrong way[10].
Neither outlet invented a number. They picked which one to put in the headline. DPI is the agency being graded, writing its own report card summary — that's not a scandal, it's just the structure of who gets to choose the word "rise[1][2]." Carolina Journal has its own institutional lean, toward school-choice policy, which shapes which half of the same file it leads with[4].
The Grade That Tracks Income
The louder fight isn't really about this year's percentages. It's about the letter grade itself — the A-through-F "School Performance Grade" every public school gets. That grade is built from two ingredients, combined at a fixed ratio: 80% is a school's raw proficiency rate, meaning the plain share of students who scored at grade level on this year's tests. Only 20% is growth, meaning how much students improved compared to where they started[7].
That ratio is the whole argument. A school that takes students who are far behind and pushes them a full year of progress forward can still land an F, because growth only counts for a fifth of the grade[7]. Public Schools First NC, an advocacy group that opposes shifting public money to private-school vouchers, points to the pattern this produces: schools where fewer than 40% of students are economically disadvantaged mostly earn As, and schools above that line mostly earn Fs[7]. NC Newsline frames the response to this pattern as state leaders actively seeking reform, not as an agency admitting its own numbers are broken[11].
The reverse argument is that a plain proficiency number is the only thing a parent can actually check. Soften it with growth math, and you make it harder to see which schools have real gaps. Both readings use the same 80/20 formula. They just disagree about what a fair report card should measure in the first place.
There's a second layer under that: the cutoff score itself is a policy choice, not a fixed fact. North Carolina's chief accountability officer told a state commission that North Carolina flags roughly 400 more F-rated schools than Florida, and part of the reason is arithmetic — North Carolina sets the bar for an A at 85 points, while Florida sets it at 62[5]. Move the line, and the same students produce a different letter, with nothing in any classroom having changed.
A Task Force Already Building the Next Formula
Here's the detail that undercuts everyone's confidence in this year's letter grades: the State Board's own accountability task force has been meeting since February 2026 to replace the formula that will still be used to grade schools this fall[13]. In June 2026, it backed swapping the flat "percent proficient" measure for a "weighted proficiency index[6]." Under the current system, a student either clears the bar or doesn't — there's no partial credit for closing most of the gap. A weighted index would count that partial progress instead of throwing it away.
The task force also wants to add a five-year graduation rate alongside the four-year one, so students who need an extra year still show up as a success rather than vanishing from the count[6]. The plan is to bring a finished model to the State Board in May 2027, vote on it in June 2027, and start using it statewide in October 2027 — assuming state lawmakers, who control the underlying statute, sign off[6].
Some conservative critics read that redesign effort itself with suspicion. They argue a push to replace "percent proficient" with a more forgiving index looks like an attempt to make weak results look better, not a genuine fix[15]. Whichever read is right, the practical fact is the same: this year's A-F grades are being issued under a system the state's own reform process has already concluded needs replacing.
What the Numbers Add Up To
Strip away the framing fights, and the underlying numbers are these. About 1.5 million students attend North Carolina public schools. Roughly 55% scored at or above grade level on the 2025 tests[1]. That leaves close to half of the state's students below grade level in reading or math, with reading the weaker of the two[4][5].
Graduation rates and proficiency rates are also drifting apart, and nobody disputes this trend even if they read it differently. Graduation climbed to that 10-year high of 87.7%, while proficiency held near half[2][4]. A rising share of students are finishing high school while a similar share aren't testing at grade level along the way.
Money follows both sets of numbers. The low-performing school list, generated by the test results, triggers state intervention[14]. It also feeds the case for North Carolina's Opportunity Scholarship voucher program, which lawmakers grew by an added $463.5 million and which now carries no household income cap[12]. Private schools that take that voucher money aren't required to report comparable test data back to the state, which means the public data gap that's fueling this whole argument doesn't exist on the other side of the ledger[12].
What Comes Next
No outlet in the reporting record found any non-U.S. coverage of this release, which makes sense — it's a state-level dataset, not a national or global story. That also means there's no outside vantage point checking the state's own framing against how another country handles the same tradeoff.
What's left is three domestic camps looking at one spreadsheet. DPI wants readers to see a recovery, still building toward the payoff from its literacy investment[2]. Critics on the right want readers to see roughly 45% of students below grade level, with reading still sliding[4][5]. Advocates on the left want readers to look past this year's scores at the formula, where the poverty correlation is the real story[7][11]. The task force building the replacement system won't have a finished model to show the State Board until May 2027, and legislative approval isn't guaranteed even then[6]. Until that vote happens, the letter grades North Carolina schools receive each September will keep tracking their students' family incomes about as closely as their teaching.
Summary
On Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction released test results for the 2025-26 school year[1]. The package is the state's annual report card. It covers end-of-grade tests in grades 3 through 8, end-of-course tests in high school, academic growth, School Performance Grades, and graduation rates[14]. It also names the schools flagged for state support[14]. The State Board of Education receives the data first, and district-level numbers follow.
The release lands on top of an argument that is already running. It is not mainly about this year's numbers. It is about whether the numbers mean what the state says they mean. Last year's data, released Sept. 3, 2025, showed scores up in 12 of 15 reading and math assessments[2]. DPI called that progress. Carolina Journal, published by the free-market John Locke Foundation, pointed out that reading kept sliding in several grades while math recovered[4]. Both were describing the same file.
The deeper dispute is over the School Performance Grade — the A-through-F letter every public school gets. Eighty percent of that letter is a school's raw proficiency: the share of students who scored at grade level on a single set of tests. Only 20 percent is growth, meaning how much students improved from one year to the next[7]. Critics say that formula mostly measures how poor a school's students are. Their evidence: schools where fewer than 40% of students are economically disadvantaged are much likelier to get an A than an F, and the pattern flips above that line[7]. Defenders say a plain proficiency number is the only figure a parent can check, and that softening it hides real gaps.
A State Board task force has been meeting since February 2026 to redesign the system[13]. In June it backed replacing the flat 'percent proficient' measure with a weighted proficiency index, and adding a five-year graduation rate next to the four-year one[6]. It plans to bring a model to the State Board in May 2027[6]. So this year's grades are being published by an agency that has already said the grades are broken.
The Event
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction released 2025-26 statewide assessment results on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, at 10 a.m.[1]. The release covers end-of-grade and end-of-course test performance, academic growth, School Performance Grades, long-term goals, cohort graduation rates, and the identification of schools required to receive support and improvement[14]. The data is presented to the State Board of Education and posted to DPI's accountability data sets and testing dashboard[14]. The comparable 2024-25 package was released Sept. 3, 2025[2].
Undisputed Facts
- NC DPI released the 2025-26 statewide test results on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, at 10 a.m.[1]
- The release includes end-of-grade and end-of-course performance, academic growth, School Performance Grades, long-term goals, graduation rates, and the list of schools identified for support and improvement[14].
- A North Carolina School Performance Grade is 80% student proficiency on state tests and 20% year-over-year academic growth[7].
- In 2024-25, students scored higher on 12 of 15 math and reading assessments; third-grade reading, English II and NC Math I trailed the prior year[2].
- In 2024-25, the reading proficiency rate for grades 3 through 8 was 52.5% and the math rate was 56.7%[1].
- The four-year cohort graduation rate rose to 87.7% in 2024-25 from 87.0% in 2023-24, the highest in 10 years[2].
- In 2024-25, 29% of North Carolina schools received an A or B, 5% received an F, and 71% met or exceeded growth[1].
- A State Board of Education task force on school accountability began meeting in February 2026 and plans to present a redesigned model to the board in May 2027[6][13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The agency grades itself
- DPI both administers the tests and writes the press release announcing what they mean. That is not a scandal; it is the structure. It means the summary verb — 'on the rise' versus 'still below pre-pandemic' — is chosen by the party being evaluated[1][2].
- The 80/20 split decides who looks good
- Because 80% of a school's letter grade is raw proficiency and only 20% is growth, the grade tracks student poverty closely[7]. Any reweighting toward growth would move letter grades in high-poverty schools up and in affluent schools relatively down, without a single classroom changing. That is why the formula fight is more consequential than this year's percentages.
- A cut score is a policy choice, not a fact of nature
- The state's chief accountability officer told commissioners North Carolina flags roughly 400 more F-rated schools than Florida, partly because an A requires 85 points here and 62 there[5]. The same students would produce different letter grades under a different scale.
- The lists have money attached
- Test results generate the low-performing school list, which triggers state intervention[14]. They also fuel the voucher argument. The Opportunity Scholarship program got an added $463.5 million and now has no household income cap, and private schools receiving it are not required to report comparable test data to the state[12].
Material realityAbout 1.5 million students sit in North Carolina public schools, and roughly 55% scored at or above grade level on state tests in the 2025 results[1]. Whichever framing wins, that leaves close to half of students below grade level in reading or math, and reading has been the weaker of the two[4][5]. Graduation rates have kept climbing to a 10-year high of 87.7% even while proficiency stayed near half, which means the two measures are drifting apart — a gap no one disputes and both sides read differently[2]. The A-F grades will be published this year under a formula the State Board's own task force is working to replace, with any change needing legislative approval and no statewide use before October 2027[6]. Until then, schools will keep receiving letter grades that correlate strongly with their students' family incomes[7].
Narrative as a weaponThree parties are actively shaping how this data reads. DPI wants you to see a multi-year recovery that its literacy investment will extend, and it leads with the assessments that rose[2]. Free-market critics, chiefly Carolina Journal and its parent the John Locke Foundation, want you to see roughly 45% of students below grade level and reading still sliding, and they want the accountability redesign read as the system moving the goalposts[4][5][15]. Public school advocates and NC Newsline want you to look past the scores entirely at the formula, because the poverty correlation in the letter grades is their strongest evidence and it is genuinely in the data[7][11]. All three are describing the same spreadsheet. The most useful thing a reader can do is ask which specific tests moved, in which direction, and by how much — the aggregate word for the year is the part that is chosen rather than measured.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asDPI's case is that the trend line is real and that the state is finally recovering from pandemic learning loss. Its strongest specific evidence is breadth: gains showed up on 12 of 15 reading and math assessments in 2024-25, not on one lucky test[2]. Graduation reached a 10-year high at 87.7%[2]. Green also argues the biggest literacy investment has not shown up in the data yet, because it starts in the youngest grades: North Carolina teachers logged 6.5 million hours of training in the science of reading, the phonics-first approach the state adopted, and he expects it to appear in later results[2]. His second argument is about the limits of the measure itself: 'our students are more than test scores,' and a single proficiency percentage is a thin description of a school[2].
WhyGreen needs the data to serve as a defensible baseline for his own strategic plan, Achieving Educational Excellence, against which he will be judged[2]. He also needs the accountability redesign to land, because a system his own chief accountability officer calls broken undercuts every number his agency publishes[5].
Impact on themThe scores set the low-performing school list, which triggers state intervention and turnaround requirements[14]. They are also the main public evidence in every budget fight over teacher pay and per-pupil funding, and DPI's credibility on them shapes its standing with the legislature.
Frames it asTheir case is that a rising line from a pandemic floor is not the same as an adequate outcome. The specific number they use: roughly 45% of North Carolina public school students are not proficient in reading or math, and NAEP — the federal test given in every state, which lets you compare North Carolina to the country — has been moving the wrong way in reading[5][10]. Second, they argue math and reading have diverged and the state's summary language hides it; math rebounded while reading kept falling in several grades[4]. Third, on the grading system, some argue the establishment's push to replace 'percent proficient' with a weighted index is a way to make weak results look better rather than a genuine measurement fix[15]. They also note the state's own officer said NC flags roughly 400 more F schools than Florida, partly because NC requires 85 points for an A and Florida requires 62 — which cuts both ways, and they read it as an argument about thresholds, not about school quality[5].
WhyWeak proficiency numbers support the case for expanding school choice, including the Opportunity Scholarship voucher program, which the legislature funded with an added $463.5 million and which now has no household income cap[12]. Low scores are also leverage in curriculum and governance fights with DPI.
Impact on themThe legislature controls both the funding and the statute that defines School Performance Grades, so any redesign the task force recommends needs its approval[6]. Members are also accountable to constituents who read their own school's letter grade.
Frames it asTheir argument is that the letter grade measures family income more than teaching. The evidence they rely on is the distribution: schools with 0-40% economically disadvantaged students are much more likely to receive an A than an F, and above 40% the pattern reverses[7]. Because 80% of the grade is raw proficiency and only 20% is growth, a school that moves students a full year forward from far behind can still be labeled an F[7]. That, they argue, is the mechanism — the formula is built so that a school's intake, not its work, dominates the output. Their second point is that the label has real costs: it drives away teachers and families from the schools that most need both. Their third is that the fix is already agreed on in principle; state education leaders themselves want the system overhauled[11].
WhyDistrict leaders in high-poverty counties want a measure that credits growth, because it changes staffing, enrollment and local politics. Advocacy groups such as Public Schools First NC are explicitly pro-traditional-public-school and oppose diverting money to vouchers; a formula that brands public schools as failing strengthens the case for the alternative they oppose[7].
Impact on themLow grades feed the low-performing designation, which brings state oversight and, in some cases, restructuring[14]. Enrollment losses to voucher-funded private schools follow the same lists, and per-pupil funding follows enrollment.
Frames it asThe task force's position is technical rather than political: the current measure throws away information. 'Percent proficient' counts a student as either over the line or under it. A student who moves from far below grade level to just below it counts for nothing. The task force has backed replacing it with a weighted proficiency index, which gives partial credit across performance levels instead of one pass-fail cut[6]. It also supports reporting a five-year graduation rate alongside the four-year rate, so students who need an extra year still count[6]. The argument is that both changes make the number describe more of what actually happened in a school.
WhyThe board needs a system that survives legislative review and does not read as grade inflation. Its own chief accountability officer has said the current model over-identifies failing schools relative to peer states[5], so the board has an institutional interest in a measure it can defend.
Impact on themThe task force plans a May 2027 presentation to the State Board, a June 2027 vote, and statewide use starting October 2027 — all contingent on legislative approval[6]. Until then, schools are graded under the formula the state has already said it wants to replace.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WRAL | U.S. center, North Carolina local broadcast | 2 | Straight advance: 'NC leaders to release latest standardized test results on Wednesday,' with the release time and prior-year proficiency rates[1]. | Minimal framing. It does carry the state's own caveat that scores are up from the pandemic but still below pre-pandemic levels, which is the fairest one-line summary available[1]. |
| EdNC | U.S. center, NC education-sector nonprofit funded largely by education foundations | 3 | Descriptive: 'North Carolina releases school performance grades, testing data for 2024-25,' and process coverage of the accountability task force[3][6]. | Close to the record, with heavy detail. Its sourcing skews toward education institutions, so official framing and reform-process language carry more weight than outside critics[6]. |
| NC Department of Public Instruction | U.S. state government agency (the body being measured) | 5 | Framed prior-year results as 'Test scores, graduation rates on the rise for North Carolina students,' leading with the 12-of-15 gain and the 10-year-high graduation rate[2]. | The three assessments that fell — third-grade reading, English II and NC Math I — appear well below the headline claim, not in it. An agency publishing a report card on itself picks the summary verb[2]. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right; published by the John Locke Foundation, a free-market NC think tank | 5 | 'Report: NC math rebounds, but reading scores keep falling' — same dataset DPI called a rise, led on the decline[4]. | Accurate on the subtests, but selects the falling half for the headline and pairs proficiency shortfalls with accountability-overhaul coverage so the redesign reads as evasion[4][15]. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left; part of the States Newsroom network, donor-funded progressive nonprofit journalism | 5 | 'NC education leaders seek overhaul of school grading system' — the grading formula, not the scores, is the story[11]. | Frames the overhaul as leaders seeking reform rather than as an agency conceding its own numbers are unreliable. The proficiency shortfall itself gets less space than the label's unfairness[11]. |
| Public Schools First NC | U.S. left-leaning advocacy; explicitly pro-traditional-public-school, anti-voucher NC nonprofit | 7 | Fact sheet arguing A-F grades are 'a better indicator of the economic advantages of students than the learning that takes place within the schools'[7]. | Advocacy, not reporting, and it says so. The poverty-correlation data it cites is real and checkable; the framing that a grade therefore carries no information about a school is its own conclusion[7]. |
References
- NC leaders to release latest standardized test results on Wednesday — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster owned by Capitol Broadcasting
- Test scores, graduation rates on the rise for North Carolina students — NC Department of Public Instruction · State agency; the body whose performance is being reported
- North Carolina releases school performance grades, testing data for 2024-25 — EdNC · NC education nonprofit newsroom; funded largely by education-sector foundations
- Report: NC math rebounds, but reading scores keep falling — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the free-market John Locke Foundation
- NC schools commission begins work amid lagging proficiency, planned accountability overhaul — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation
- State board's accountability task force discusses recommendations for potential performance indicators — EdNC · NC education nonprofit newsroom; foundation-funded
- A-F School Performance Grades (fact sheet) — Public Schools First NC · Left-leaning NC advocacy nonprofit; pro-traditional-public-school, anti-voucher
- 2024-25 Performance and Growth of North Carolina Public Schools (Annual Testing Report) — NC Department of Public Instruction · State agency primary data
- NC schools test scores rise again, make near post-pandemic recovery in math — WRAL · U.S. center; NC commercial broadcaster
- NC students score at or above average on national assessment, but pandemic gaps persist — NC Department of Public Instruction · State agency reporting federal NAEP results
- NC education leaders seek overhaul of school grading system — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom network, donor-funded progressive nonprofit
- North Carolina - Opportunity Scholarships — EdChoice · Pro-school-choice national advocacy organization
- School accountability task force begins latest effort to redesign system — EdNC · NC education nonprofit newsroom; foundation-funded
- Accountability Data Sets and Reports — NC Department of Public Instruction · State agency primary data portal
- Critics: Green's new education pillars lack academics focus — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation