Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
372A14
**************************************
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EDUCATION SCHOLARS
**************************************
INDEX
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:......
ARGUMENT
I.
Milwaukee.
Cleveland..
District of Columbia.
Conclusion
7
8
10
11
12
II.
III.
CONCLUSION... 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............. 28
APPENDIX:
I. ACCOUNTABILITY CHART FOR VOUCHER
JURISDICTIONS...
II.
III.
22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
20 U.S.C. 7801(11) 20
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-802(G)(3) App. 1
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-2401 19
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-2401(5) 20
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-2402 20
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-2402(B)(1).. App. 1
D.C. Code 38-202(a), (b), (d) App. 1
D.C. Code 38-1853.07(a)(4)(C). 21
D.C. Code 38-1853.07(a)(4)(F) 21, App. 1
D.C. Code 38-1853.08(a) 21
D.C. Code 38-1853.08(h) App. 1
D.C. Code 38-1853.09
21
- ii -
16, App. 1
16
App. 1
- iii -
- iv -
App. 1
-v-
20, App. 1
20, App. 1
- vi -
(Apr. 8, 2014),
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/voucher-studentspost-gain-in-math-reading-still-lag-public-schoolsb99243092z1-254382141.html
- vii -
(2009)............................................................................ 21
NO. 372A14
HART, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
**********************************
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EDUCATION SCHOLARS
********************************
Amici are university scholars and academics who have significant expertise
in the area of education policy, economics, and law. All are knowledgeable about
and committed to the education of the children of North Carolina, and all have
grave concerns about the voucher program at issue. Amici offer this brief to
present an evidence-based perspective that will assist the Court as it analyzes
whether the use of tax dollars to fund private school vouchers meets the relevant
constitutional standards.
The following are before the Court as amici in this matter:
Helen F. Ladd, Ph.D., Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke
University who studies educational policy and has researched school
voucher programs;
William A. Darity, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Public Policy, African and
African American Studies, and Economics at Duke University whose
research interests include education and the achievement gap;
Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who researches and studies
educational policy and inequality in education;
Charles T. Clotfelter, Ph.D, Professor of Public Policy, Economics, and Law
at Duke University whose research includes the economics of education and
-3education policy;
Sherick Hughes, Ph.D., Professor of Education at The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies education policy, especially as it affects
marginalized youth;
Jenni Owen, M.P.A., Director of Policy Initiatives at the Duke University
Center for Child and Family Policy and Instructor at Duke University who
focuses on enhancing the use of research to inform policy and practice for
positive impact on disadvantaged and vulnerable children and families; and
Summary of Argument
In this Brief, Amici provide the Court with relevant research and data to
assist the Court in understanding the educational, economic, and legal background
of the voucher program at issue. Three main points are made:
First, contrary to representations made by voucher advocates, students
attending private schools with taxpayer funded vouchers do not have better
academic outcomes than students in public schools. Research studies from across
the country and over many years have consistently failed to find any academic or
-5voluntarily employ certified teachers, enroll a diverse student body, or follow the
states curricular standards. The data presented also show an appreciable number
of extremely small schools enrolling voucher recipients. When viewed in light of
the sparse oversight of private schools, the enrollment of students in extremely
small schools creates even more significant concerns about the use of taxpayer
dollars.
Argument
I.
-6a. When student demographics are taken into account, public school
students achieve at higher levels than private school students.
On the whole, students in public schools outscore students of similar
demographics who attend private schools. In their 2014 book, The Public School
Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools (Univ. of Chicago
Press), University of Illinois professors Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Lubienski
present their analysis of data from the well-respected National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). Acknowledging in the introduction that both came
to the study accepting the common wisdom and research consensus that private
schools produce superior academic achievement, the authors concluded, after
meticulous research, that public schools across the country attained higher levels of
mathematics performance1 than demographically comparable private and charter
schools. Id. at xvii. Because of the depth of the NAEP data, the researchers were
able to account for student influences at both the home and school level and
thereby compare apples to apples when examining student achievement in
various types of schools. Id. at 63. Therefore, they were able to carefully isolate
school effects from family background factors, allowing them to identify the
contribution of the school to the achievement results. When doing so, for both 4 th
and 8th grades in schools throughout the United States, the researchers found that
1
The authors studied the math results because, they say, math is thought to be a better indicator of what is taught
by schools than, say, reading, which is often more influenced directly and indirectly by experiences in the home.
Lubienski & Lubienski at xvii.
-7public school results were superior to private school results. Id. at 78. They
conclude, After adjusting for demographic differences no charter or private school
means are higher than public school means to any statistically significant degree.
Id. at 80.
Essentially the same results were obtained in a similar, older research study.
See Ctr. on Educ. Policy, Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than
Public High Schools? (Oct. 2007). The study found that low-income students from
urban public high schools generally did as well academically and on long-term
indicators as their peers from private high schools, when key family background
characteristics were considered. There was no advantage of private school in the
areas of achievement tests, college attendance, job satisfaction at age 26, or civic
engagement at age 26. Id. at 2. As with the Lubienski study, the researchers could
attribute essentially all of the private school advantage to family background
characteristics rather than any advantage offered by a private school.
b. Research studies of existing voucher programs show that students using
vouchers do not achieve comparatively better academic outcomes than
students who remain in public school.
Apart from looking at private school results in general, researchers have
evaluated a number of the voucher programs around the country. Among the most
important questions asked by researchers is whether the expenditure of public
money to pay tuition to private schools improves the educational outcomes for the
- 12 were not found across the board. There was no positive impact on students
transferring from a school classified as needing improvement, no positive impact
on students who started with scores in the lower one-third of the group, and no
positive impact on boys. See Patrick J. Wolf, et al., School Vouchers in the
Nations Capital, School Choice and School Improvement, Harvard Educ. Press
(2011).
iv. Conclusion
It is perhaps not surprising that the outcomes of public school students and
private school students using vouchers would be quite similar. In the jurisdictions
studied, the difference between private and public schools is not profound, given
that the private schools are regulated to make them essentially equivalent to public
schools in terms of quality. See Section II, infra. In North Carolina, however,
because of the limited regulation of private schools, there is a distinct possibility
that the private schools chosen by voucher recipients may be of lesser, even
dramatically lesser, quality than the public schools and will deliver inferior results.
Making meaningful comparisons of student achievement will be virtually
impossible in North Carolina, however, because the state does not require private
schools to use the same testing instruments that are used in public schools. Thus,
no valid comparative data will be available for researchers.
- 13 II.
oversight when compared to other states with voucher programs. The following
table summarizes the oversight mechanisms used by jurisdictions with state-wide
or city-wide voucher programs similar to North Carolinas2:
The programs chosen for comparison are programs available to the general student population, rather than to
students with special needs, and do not include tax-credit programs.
- 14 -
Jurisdiction
Arizona
Requires
same
number of
days/hours
as public
schools
Cleveland
D.C.
Indiana
Louisiana
Maine
Milwaukee
North
Carolina
Ohio
Vermont
Wisconsin
The statutory and regulatory citations for each of the requirements represented here are provided in the Appendix.
See App. 1(created by counsel for Amici).
4
Any student with a voucher must be educated in reading, grammar, math, social studies and science.
5
Instructional days and hours must be approved by D.C. Board but the regulations do not specify the numbers.
6
If 60% of students are publicly funded, school must participate in the state testing program.
7
For all high schools and for any school in which 65% of students are getting vouchers.
- 15 North Carolina has the fewest mechanisms of any jurisdiction to assure that
the private schools authorized to accept vouchers are providing quality education.
With the exception of Arizona, all the other states and cities with voucher
programs require that private schools be accredited by either an outside agency or
meet certain standards set by the state and administered through the department of
education.8 Similarly, all the other states and cities with voucher programs,
including Arizona, require that the voucher-eligible schools offer a curriculum that
meets specified state or local standards and require a minimum number of hours
and days of instruction.9 All other states and cities require that students be tested
using the same tests that are used for public school students thus allowing for
apples-to-apples comparison of achievement -- and most require that aggregated
test data be made public.10 Several have systems that withdraw voucher eligibility
from schools that cannot demonstrate acceptable educational results.11 North
Carolina, however, requires none of these oversight mechanisms. See N.C.G.S.
115C-562.1 et seq.; 115C-547 et seq.; 115C-555 et seq. Thus, as compared to
These states are Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont. The cities are Milwaukee, Racine
(Wis.), Cleveland, and the District of Columbia.
9
These states are Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont. The cities are Milwaukee,
Racine (Wis.), Cleveland, and the District of Columbia.
10
While North Carolina requires some testing of private school students, the test results need not be made public
unless the school enrolls more than 25 voucher students. N.C.G.S. 115C-562.5(c). Otherwise, the test data must
be submitted to the State Education Assistance Authority annually, but is not a public record. N.C.G.S. 115C562.5(a)(4). Test data must be retained for one year by the school itself and made available for inspection by an
authorized representative of North Carolina. N.C.G.S. 115C-549, 115C-557. Maine and Ohio require the same
testing only when a certain number of students enrolled receive vouchers or, for Ohio, when students are in high
school.
11
Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio.
- 17 Scholarship and Tutoring Program. In both programs, eligible students are those
currently attending a low-performing public school or incoming kindergarteners or
new students who would be assigned to a low-performing school. Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. 3310.33(a)(1). If the familys income is less than 200% of the federal
poverty guidelines, the school accepting the voucher may not charge tuition
beyond the scholarship amount. Id. 3313.02(A).
Private schools eligible to participate in the Educational Choice Scholarship
program or the Cleveland Scholarship program must be a chartered non-public
school.12 Id. 3310.02(A). Chartered non-public schools are extensively
regulated. They must be accredited through a regional agency or through an
equivalent path. Ohio Admin. Code 3301-35-12. Teachers must be credentialed
according to state standards. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3319; Ohio Admin. Code
3301-35-05. In the Cleveland program, all participating students must take the
same assessments as public school students take. Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
3313.976(A)(11). In the Ohio program, if 65 percent of the enrollment consists of
students participating in the state scholarship program, the school must participate
in the full statewide assessment program and report the data publicly. Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. 3301.0711. All non-public chartered high schools that accept
12
Chartered non-public schools in Ohio are not the same as charter schools. Ohio uses different terminology than
most states. The type of school that is known in most states as a charter school in most states is called a
community school in Ohio. Chartered non-public schools are private schools that have a special status gained by
conforming to a set of standards prescribed by the state.
- 18 vouchers must participate in the state assessments and are prohibited from
awarding diplomas to students who have not scored at a specified level. Id.
3313.612, 3313.624, 3301.0710. The state dictates the curriculum for chartered
non-public schools. Id. 3313.60.
Louisiana: Louisianas Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence is
open to low-income students in certain geographic areas who would otherwise be
assigned to a low-performing public school. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17:4013(2).
Participating private schools must be approved by the State Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education; approval is contingent upon a showing that the school
offers a curriculum that is of quality at least equal in quality to that prescribed for
similar public schools. Id. 17:11, 17:4021(B). Schools must submit a financial
audit to the state; schools are prohibited from racial discrimination. Id.
Participating private schools must administer the state tests, or approved alternate
tests, to all scholarship students, and the aggregate scores must be reported to the
department of education. Id. 17:4024.
Maine: Maine operates a program that is similar to a voucher program
through which certain students attend private schools with public funds. The
Town Tuitioning Program, which has been in effect since the 1800s, requires
municipalities to either offer public school to its school-aged children or pay their
- 19 tuition at private schools.13 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20-A, 5203 (1), 5204 (1).
The private schools that participate must be either accredited by the regional
accrediting agency or must meet an alternate set of requirements regarding
curriculum, teacher qualifications, and other standards. Id. tit. 20, 2901, 2902.
A private school eligible to accept public tuition payments must be non-sectarian
and must participate in the statewide assessment system if it enrolls more than 60%
or more publicly-funded students. Eligible schools must file reports as required by
the State Commissioner of Education, and are subject to an audit as required by the
State Commissioner of Education. Id. 295155.
Vermont: Like Maine, Vermont has a Town Tuitioning Program that
allows Vermont students to attend independent schools with tuition paid by their
school districts when the district does not offer public schooling. Independent
schools are extensively regulated by the state and must be approved to receive
publicly-funded tuition. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, 82136. They must offer a stateprescribed curriculum, meet certain financial standards, hire only qualified faculty,
and offer specified physical facilities. Id. In addition, they must follow antidiscrimination laws. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, 4502.
Arizona: Arizona offers the Empowerment Scholarship Program for
students assigned to underperforming schools. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 15-2401.
13
Due to the sparse population in some areas in Maine, some municipalities do not offer public schools for all grade
levels.
- 20 Schools that accept voucher students must educate them in reading, grammar,
math, social studies and science. Id. 15-2402. Otherwise, Arizona does not have
quality control measures for its private schools and does not require testing for
voucher recipients, although it does require that private schools be in session the
same number of days and hours as public schools. Id. 15-802B.1. Private schools
that accept vouchers may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national
origin. Id. 15-2401(5).
Wisconsin: Two municipalities in Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Racine, along
with the state as a whole, have voucher programs, known as Parental Choice
programs. Wis. Stat. Ann. 119.23. In all those jurisdictions, low-income students
may attend private schools with a publicly-funded voucher. Schools eligible to
receive vouchers must be accredited by an independent accrediting agency. Id.
119.23(2)(a)(7). Teachers must meet prescribed qualifications. Id.
119.23(2)(a)(6),118.60(2)(a)(6). Schools must administer state assessments to all
students receiving a voucher and can lose eligibility for program participation if
their students scores fall below a set minimum. Id. 119.23(10)(a)(5).14
14
As a result of the law allowing schools to lose eligibility, 50 schools have been terminated from the states
voucher program since 2004. The state paid about $139 million to private schools that were subsequently barred
from the program for failing to meet requirements related to student achievement, inadequate curriculum, student
safety, and finances. Molly Beck, State paid $139 million to schools terminated from voucher program since 2004,
Wisconsin State Journal (Oct. 12, 2014), http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/statepaid-million-to-schools-terminated-from-voucher-program-since/article_d4277f72-51ca-5da3-b63ddf2a7834569b.html.
III.
- 23 Law School undertook a study in late 2013 and early 2014 of North Carolina
private schools. See Characteristics of North Carolinas Private Schools, App. 220. Information was gathered from public sources, such as the N.C. Division of
Non-Public Education (DNPE) and from the websites of the private schools.
Additional data were generated through an extensive phone survey of the private
schools listed in the DNPE directory. Although not every school was reached by
phone, and not all provided answers to all the survey questions, seventy percent of
the schools in the directory provided at least some information. Following is a
summary of some of the most pertinent information about private schools that are
eligible to receive vouchers:
Overall characteristics: The 71515 non-public schools listed in the
DNPE directory are located throughout the state, although 11 counties
have no private schools.16 Seventeen counties have just one religious
private school and no independent schools.17 Twenty-three of the schools
are boarding schools, and 34 are special schools, such as treatment
facilities, wilderness programs, and schools focused on children with
particular special needs. The remaining schools include various grade
15
At the time of the initial study, the directory listed 685 nonpublic schools. The directory now lists 715 nonpublic
schools.
16
These counties are: Ashe, Camden, Caswell, Edgecombe, Gates, Jones, Martin, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and
Washington.
17
These counties are: Alexander, Alleghany, Anson, Cherokee, Chowan, Clay, Currituck, Davie, Franklin, Graham,
Granville, Greene, Hyde, Lincoln, McDowell, Pamlico, Polk, Surry, and Warren. In each of these counties, the one
private school that exists is a Christian school.
- 24 levels, with some offering education at just a few grade levels and others
offering the full range from kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Enrollment: A quarter of the private schools in North Carolina have
enrollments of fewer than 20 students. Another 20 percent have
enrollments of fewer than 50 students. The remainder, just over half,
range from 51 to 1,500 students.
Religious affiliation: Approximately 70 percent of North Carolinas
private schools are religiously affiliated. The remaining 30 percent are
independent.
Tuition: The average tuition of private elementary schools is $6,500; for
middle schools it is $7,035; and for high school it is $7,736. Only 35
percent of schools offer tuition that could be fully paid by a voucher at
the maximum level of $4,200 per year. Nearly all (92%) of the schools
with tuition at or under the amount of the voucher ($4,200 per year) are
religious schools.
Accreditation: A large majority of private schools (69%) are not
accredited by any type of accrediting agency.
Certification: Twenty percent of private schools have no state certified
teachers on their staffs. In another 25 percent of private schools, fewer
than half of all the schools teachers are certified. Approximately a third
- 25 of private schools employ all certified teachers. Of the schools that will
be available to voucher students (those with tuition at or under $4,200),
45 percent have either no or less than 25 percent certified teachers.
Curriculum: Only a quarter of the private schools follow the North
Carolina standards with regard to curriculum.
Integration: The typical private school in North Carolina is not
significantly integrated. Seventy percent of private schools are
predominately of one race (i.e., at least 80 percent of the students are of
the same race); 30 percent enroll more than 90 percent of the same race.
Much is unknown about the private schools that are available to students
with vouchers. Because private schools have no obligation to report publicly on
the academic outcomes of the children who attend, such data are unavailable.
Because curricular standards, teacher qualifications, and outside accreditation are
not required by state law, the public has few tools to judge whether the money
spent on vouchers is accomplishing the purpose for which it was appropriated.
Given that the voucher program was started during the course of this
litigation, additional information is now available about the actual distribution of
vouchers. 18 See Total Voucher Funds Disbursed to NPS Schools, App. 21. An
analysis of the information provided by the State reveals the following about the
18
- 26 students and schools that actually received vouchers during the first distribution of
state funds:
A total of 568 students received a voucher, with the average amount
of $2,016 for the first semester. The total expenditure was
$1,145,091.
Of the total, 552 students (97%) are enrolled at religious schools; 16
(3%) are enrolled at independent schools.
A total of 112 nonpublic schools now enroll students with vouchers.
Of the 112 nonpublic schools currently enrolling voucher students,
five schools have enrollments of 10 or fewer students; another twelve
have enrollments between 11 and 25 students. The median enrollment
is 100, with 56 schools having enrollments of more than 100 and 56
schools with enrollments of less than 100.
These data confirm what was largely predicted when the voucher program
was proposed: the vast majority of students using the vouchers would enroll in
religious schools, many of them small. Some very small schools are apparently
using the voucher program to increase their enrollment. For example, the Created
for You Learning Academy in Red Springs, N.C., had an enrollment of one student
in 2010-11; two students in 2011-12; no students in 2012-13, and two students in
2013-14. See DNPE Directory, 2011-2014. Nevertheless, five students were
awarded vouchers to attend the school in 2014-15. See App 21.
- 27 CONCLUSION
Amici hope their Brief will assist the court in evaluating the issue of whether
the use of public money to pay tuition to private schools serves a constitutionally
valid public purpose and meets other constitutional standards. The independent
research on school vouchers fails to support the claims of those who seek to justify
the use of public money for private school education. Neither the students using
the vouchers nor the students left behind in the now-diminished public schools
gain any demonstrable educational advantage. The absence of a regulatory scheme
in North Carolina to assure the quality of private schools accepting publicly-funded
vouchers puts voucher recipients here at an even greater risk than students in other
states of falling behind academically. Based on their extensive expertise and
research of North Carolinas voucher program, Amici urge the Court to affirm the
decision of the Superior Court.
Respectfully submitted, this 2nd day of February, 2015.
Electronically submitted
Jane R. Wettach, NC Bar No. 10101
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Tel: 919-613-7169
Fax: 919-612-7262
wettach@law.duke.edu
Counsel for Amici Helen F. Ladd, William A. Darity, Jr., Roslyn Arlin Mickelson,
Charles T. Clotfelter, Sherick Hughes, Jenni Owen, and the Duke Childrens Law
Clinic
- 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Brief of Amicus Curiae upon the
following counsel by United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as
follows:
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellees
Burton Craige
PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
1312 Annapolis Dr., Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27608
Narendra K. Ghosh
PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
100 Europa Dr., Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Christine Bischoff
Carlene McNulty
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Counsel for State of North Carolina
Lauren Clemmons
Melissa L. Trippe
N.C. Attorney General's Office
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Counsel for State Board of Education
Laura E. Crumpler
Tiffany Y. Lucas
N.C. Attorney General's Office
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Duke Law students Jenna
Goldberg and Peter Wyman in the preparation of this Brief.
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX
REQUIREMENTS FOR NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING
IN SCHOOL VOUCHER/SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM.. 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF NORTH CAROLINA PRIVATE
SCHOOLS 2
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS DISBURSED
BY SCHOOLS. 22
Appendix
Requirements for nonpublic schools participating
in school voucher/scholarship program
Jurisdiction
State
Approval or
Accreditation
required
State
Required
Curriculum
Required
Teacher
Qualifications
Required
Participation
in State
Testing
Program
Arizona
Requires
same number
of days/hours
as public
schools
Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Ann. 15802(G)(3)
Indiana
Louisiana
Maine
Milwaukee
119.23(2)(a)(7)
Cleveland
D.C.
119.23(2)(a)(6)
119.23(2)(a)(8)
North
Carolina
Ohio
Vermont
Wisconsin
118.60(2)(a)(7)
118.60(2)(a)(6)
118.60(2)(a)(8)
-2-
Characteristics of
North Carolina
Private Schools
February 2014
-3-
Introduction
In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly created a school voucher program. Through this
program, known as the Opportunity Scholarship program, low-income school children can apply
for a voucher of up to $4,200 per year to apply toward tuition at a private school. The
application period opened February 1, 2014; the first vouchers are scheduled to be available for
the 2014-15 academic year. The program is administered by the State Education Assistance
Authority.
The law allows a voucher to be used at any nonpublic school. In North Carolina, nonpublic
schools are subject to just a few regulations by the state, most related to health and safety.
Nonpublic schools may be religious or independent. They are free to determine the type of
curriculum that will be offered and the credentials of the teachers that will be hired. They are
required to administer nationally-standardized tests annually at certain grade levels and report
the performance data to the State Education Assistance Authority.
Because nonpublic schools will be supported with public money through the voucher program,
the public will benefit from knowing more about them. Thus, this study was undertaken to
make available to the public information about the nonpublic schools that will be eligible for
voucher payments.
Methodology
The study began by accessing the Directory of Non-Public Schools maintained by the N.C.
Division of Non-Public Education (NCDNPE) and available on its website at
(http://www.ncdnpe.org/hhh118.aspx). The most recent Directory was published in June 2013,
containing information from the 2012-13 school term. For each school, this directory provides
the name, address, county, name of chief administrator, grade levels offered, status as either
religious or independent, accreditation status, enrollment (by sex), and the number of staff.
The study proceeded by using volunteer law students1 to conduct an internet search and phone
survey of all the schools listed in the Directory, during December 2013 and January 2014. The
students were instructed to gather whatever data was available on the school website, and
then follow up with a phone call and/or an e-mail to an administrator at the school. Website
information was confirmed by phone or e-mail.
1
The law students were enrolled at either Duke Law School or the University of North Carolina Law School. They
were instructed and supervised in the data collection by either Jane Wettach, director, Duke Childrens Law Clinic
or Christine Bischoff and Matt Ellinwood, staff attorneys at the North Carolina Justice Center. All data was
analyzed by the Childrens Law Clinic.
Page 2
-4-
In the phone survey, the callers sought information about the schools tuition, its plan to accept
voucher payments, enrollment criteria, teacher certification, curriculum, and racial
composition.
More than 70 percent of the private schools in the NCDNPE Directory responded to the survey,
providing answers to at least some of the questions posed. Eleven of the schools had closed.
The surveyors recorded the answers and correlated it with the data in the Directory of NonPublic Schools.
An initial analysis of a portion of the collected data is contained in this report of Preliminary
Findings. Further analysis will be presented in a later report.
Key Findings
A total of 696 private schools are registered with the State Division of Non-Public
Education. Of those, 70 percent are religious and 30 percent are independent.
Of the 696 schools, 38 are boarding schools and 35 are special schools such as
treatment facilities, wilderness programs, and schools focused on students with
particular special needs. The remainder are day schools. Some serve just a few grade
levels and others serve up to 13 grade levels (kindergarten through grade 12).
North Carolinas private schools operate throughout the state, though there are 13
counties with no private schools and another 18 counties with just one private school.
In those 18 counties, the single private school is religious. A large majority of the private
schools, particularly independent schools, are concentrated in the urban areas of the
state.
The average tuition of private schools in North Carolina, excluding boarding schools and
special schools, is $6,690. Approximately 38 percent of schools charge tuition at some
grade level that could be fully paid by a voucher (i.e., $4,200 per year or less). Of those
schools whose tuition could be met with a voucher payment, 92 percent are religious
Page 3
-5-
schools. At the middle school and high school levels, nearly 95 percent are religious
schools.
About 30 percent of the private schools in North Carolina have some type of
accreditation from an independent agency. Of the schools with tuition at or below the
$4,200 voucher level, less than five percent of high schools have any type of
accreditation and less than 10 percent of grade schools and middle schools have
accreditation.
About 30 percent of the private schools in North Carolina employ only certified
teachers. Twenty percent of schools have no certified teachers; another 25 percent
have fewer than half certified teachers.
About 25 percent of the private schools follow the North Carolina curriculum standards.
More than 30 percent of the private schools reported that more than 90 percent of the
students are of one race. Twenty-nine percent reported that more than 90 percent of
the students are white, and 4 percent reported that more than 90 percent of the
students are black.
About 40 percent of private schools have academic criteria for admission; about 20
percent have religious criteria for admission.
As noted, the information presented here is preliminary. We hope, however, that it will be
useful as the state embarks on its school voucher program.
Page 4
-6-
Tables
1. Overall Characteristics of Private Schools ........................................................................... 6
2. Enrollment at North Carolina Private Schools ..................................................................... 7
3. Grade Levels Offered by Private Schools ............................................................................ 8
4. Average Tuition of North Carolina Private Schools.............................................................. 9
5. Religious/Independent Schools by Tuition and Grade Level .............................................. 10
6. Number and Percentage of Private Schools that Plan to Accept Vouchers......................... 11
7. Percentage of Schools with Tuition $4200 that Plan to Accept Vouchers ......................... 12
8. Percentage of Schools with Tuition >$4200 that Plan to Accept Vouchers ........................ 12
9. Teacher Certification Distribution .................................................................................... 13
10. Percentage of Certified Teachers in Schools with Tuition $4200 ................................... 14
11. Accreditation Status....................................................................................................... 15
12. Accreditation Status by Tuition and Grade Level ............................................................. 16
13. Implementation of the North Carolina Curriculum .......................................................... 17
14. Racial Integration........................................................................................................... 18
15. Enrollment Criteria...19
Page 5
-7-
Day Schools
Boarding Schools
Special Schools
Religious
455
17
Non-Religious
171
19
26
Page 6
-8-
0:
1-20:
167
21-50: 51-100:
126
100
101250:
251500:
5011000:
>1000:
122
56
40
Page 7
-9-
Elementary Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
570
528
420
Page 8
- 10 -
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
$6,445
$6,687
$7,060
Page 9
- 11 -
Of Schools
$4200, Percent
Religious
Of Schools
$4200, Percent
Non-Religious
Of Schools
>$4200, Percent
Religious
Of Schools
>$4200, Percent
Non-Religious
Elementary School
90.9%
9.1%
58.5%
41.5%
Middle School
94.1%
5.9%
63.6%
36.4%
High School
94.8%
5.2%
65.1%
34.9%
Page 10
- 12 -
Yes
Maybe
No
Number of Schools
166
40
114
Percentage of Schools
51.9
12.5
35.6
Page 11
- 13 -
Maybe Accepting
Vouchers
Not Accepting
Vouchers
Elementary School
53.4%
9.3%
37.3%
Middle School
53.3%
8.4%
38.3%
High School
54.2%
6.3%
39.6%
Maybe Accepting
Vouchers
Not Accepting
Vouchers
Elementary School
52.6%
14.5%
32.9%
Middle School
52.9%
13.8%
33.3%
High School
54.9%
14.3%
30.8%
Page 12
- 14 -
0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-99%
100%
57
43
28
20
34
105
19.86
14.98
9.76
6.97
11.85
36.59
Page 13
- 15 -
1-25%
Certified
26-50%
Certified
51-75%
Certified
76-99%
Certified
100%
Certified
Elementary School
30.8%
13.5%
15.4%
6.7%
12.5%
21.2%
Middle School
30.3%
12.4%
16.9%
9.0%
13.5%
18.0%
High School
33.8%
13.0%
15.6%
3.9%
14.3%
19.5%
Page 14
- 16 -
Accreditation Status
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Yes
Special School
Accreditation
No
Number of Schools
213
34
438
Percentage of Schools
31.1
5.0
63.9
Page 15
- 17 -
Of Schools
$4200, Percent
Accredited
Of Schools
$4200, Percent
Not Accredited
Of Schools
>$4200, Percent
Accredited
Of Schools
>$4200, Percent
Not Accredited
Elementary School
8.4%
91.6%
59.3%
40.7%
Middle School
8.1%
91.9%
63.6%
36.4%
High School
4.3%
95.7%
68.4%
31.6%
Page 16
- 18 -
Yes
No
99
250
28.37
71.63
Page 17
- 19 -
Racial Composition
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50-90% White
50-90% Black
90% White
90% Black
Other
Number
154
16
81
11
22
Percent
54.2
5.6
28.5
3.9
7.7
Page 18
- 20 -
Enrollment Criteria
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Religious
Qualification
Academic
Requirements
Excludes
Disabled
Children
Requires
Disability
Discretionary
Behavioral
Miscellaneous
Number
80
157
21
94
22
13
Percent
19.9
39.0
2.0
5.2
23.3
5.5
3.2
Page 19
- 21 -
The Childrens Law Clinic gratefully acknowledges the contributions of all the law
students who assisted in gathering and analyzing the data contained in this report.
Special thanks go to Duke Law students Kristi Lundstrom, Nichole Davis, Shamus Hyland,
and Susan Walker.
Page 20
Students
6
2
16
5
3
4
16
3
6
2
7
11
3
4
5
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
5
17
1
6
1
5
5
4
1
5
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
14
16
1
1
43
1
1
10
1
1
2
3
11
1
3
10
1
1
1
Page 1 of 2
Funds
12,600
4,200
32,922
10,500
6,300
6,140
33,600
3,650
12,600
2,562
13,910
16,250
6,300
8,400
10,500
2,100
8,420
2,100
2,100
4,349
2,100
2,100
10,488
34,025
2,100
12,340
2,100
9,713
8,730
8,400
1,700
10,198
2,100
5,090
2,100
600
5,955
6,120
4,200
29,400
26,597
2,100
2,100
90,300
2,095
2,100
21,000
2,100
2,100
4,200
6,300
23,100
2,100
6,300
21,000
1,770
2,100
2,100
Average Sch
2,100
2,100
2,058
2,100
2,100
1,535
2,100
1,217
2,100
1,281
1,987
1,477
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,684
2,100
2,100
1,450
2,100
2,100
2,098
2,001
2,100
2,057
2,100
1,943
1,746
2,100
1,700
2,040
2,100
1,697
2,100
600
1,985
2,040
2,100
2,100
1,662
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,095
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,770
2,100
2,100
9/29/2014
1
11
6
1
2
3
2
2
3
5
4
4
1
1
8
4
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
4
8
6
6
2
5
4
5
7
3
1
17
3
4
2
16
18
2
2
13
1
13
13
6
1
2
13
26
2,100
23,100
12,600
2,100
3,740
6,300
4,200
4,200
4,950
10,500
8,400
8,400
2,100
2,100
16,800
7,800
6,300
5,313
2,100
4,200
2,100
4,530
4,188
8,400
16,800
10,500
12,537
4,200
10,500
8,400
10,500
14,250
6,207
2,100
35,189
6,300
6,480
3,890
32,483
37,800
3,174
4,200
27,300
2,100
27,171
27,246
12,600
2,100
4,119
27,300
54,600
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,870
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,650
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,950
2,100
1,771
2,100
2,100
2,100
1,510
2,094
2,100
2,100
1,750
2,090
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,036
2,069
2,100
2,070
2,100
1,620
1,945
2,030
2,100
1,587
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,090
2,096
2,100
2,100
2,060
2,100
2,100
568
1,145,091
2,016
Page 2 of 2