School board elections in Haywood, Jackson, Macon, and Swain counties — The Smoky Mountain News coverage area — have brought forth 14 General Election candidates to see who spends the next four years in office. Winners will serve their districts during a time when state public school allocations, already declining, could be even further in jeopardy.
North Carolina generally allocates around 60% of total district operational costs through its general fund, a percentage far higher than most other states, which do not share its top-down, centralized funding system. To that end, the state Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that every child in North Carolina has the constitutional right to a “sound, basic” education and that the state must provide it. That case, Leandro v. State of North Carolina, remains one of the largest policy issues facing the public education system. The fifth and most recent Leandro state Supreme Court ruling in April 2026 essentially ended the court’s enforcement of this duty by nullifying a previous order mandating the General Assembly send $1.75 billion to fulfill it. An Albert Shanker Institute study using 2022-2023 data ranked the state dead last nationwide in school funding equity and adequacy, for which many cite a convoluted, unequal funding formula.
Gov. Josh Stein recently estimated total public-school infrastructure needs amount to a $10 billion backlog.
When the state education lottery was established in 2005, 35% of all proceeds were required to be distributed to education. That mandate was eliminated in 2007. In Fiscal Year 2023-24, schools received just 20.3% of revenue. Lottery winners made up 70.6%. That year, counties supplied 98.7% of capital appropriations.
Additionally, the state general fund is set to weather a $900 million decline in FY 2026-27 due to a 0.26% income tax reduction. The 2026 state budget’s 2% corporate tax rate, alongside incremental income tax cuts, is projected to cost the state $3.1 billion by 2029 and $6 billion by 2032.
A statewide General Election ballot amendment would cap the income tax at 3.49%, and another would limit property tax increases, reducing the key mechanism counties use to fill gaps left by inadequate state funding. Income and corporate tax restrictions cater disproportionately to the top 1%; while the bottom and second 20% would save $1 and $65, respectively, the top 1% would save $8,095 on average.
Meanwhile, North Carolina allocated $589 million of taxpayer dollars from its general fund to the controversial Opportunity Scholarship private school voucher program this year. Only 11.5% of opportunity scholars this year had previously enrolled in public schools, and the state spent $ 25.7 million less on vouchers than it would have if those children had stayed in public schools, bringing net voucher spending to $563.3 million. But that money was earmarked for the public school system; kids leaving public schools reduces district Average Daily Membership (ADM), the basis of the state’s funding formula. Last year’s voucher reduction total was $10 million; NC Department of Instruction officials said they never saw it.
Because rural counties have relatively few voucher-eligible schools, residents’ tax dollars are funneled mainly to private institutions in Raleigh and Charlotte.
But in both the SMN coverage area and more affluent regions like the Research Triangle, counties increasingly haven’t been able to fulfill district budget requests, creating millions of dollars in shortfalls. School boards and superintendents are stuck doing more with less, losing teachers, faculty, students, the arts, classes, and morale.
SMN asked candidates their thoughts on the most recent Leandro ruling, the Opportunity Scholarship program, and the parents’ bill of rights, a 2023 NC state law proponents said advanced parents’ fundamental right to be involved in their children’s education.
Critics of the law in 2023 worried it would put students in danger and create hostile educational environments. The law requires teachers to tell parents if a student changes their pronouns, but less than 40% of LGBTQ+ children have affirming families. It also prohibits gender identity, sexual activity, and sexuality in grades K-4 curriculum — a provision some said also directly targeted LGBTQ+ students — while allowing parents to opt their children out of vaccines and classes on reproductive health and safety.
While debate has dampened three years later, the law may have paved the way for future legislation, as it involved the same measures — curriculum reviews, educator restrictions, and increased classroom monitoring — invoked by a recent law banning “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) in K-12 education.