As you may notice, the "E-Mailer" has taken on a slightly different appearance. The changes were occasioned by Constant Contact's retirement of the editing platform I've been using for more than a decade. The new platform affords enhanced functionality in some ways, while removing some features I'd long relied upon. Such is life. And while yours truly is significantly challenged when it comes to design, I've done my best to replicate the look and feel of the newsletter. That said, if there are issues with the appearance of the "E-Mailer" on your desktop or mobile device, please let me know! Thanks for being a reader!

Ron Reynolds

Last month, the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics released its most recent compilation of national private school data in a volume titled, "Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results From the 2019–20 Private School Universe Survey: First Look." The survey's findings revealed declines in the number of private schools, total enrollment, and the number of full-time teachers employed in private schools amounting to percentage losses of 6.0%, 5.0%, and 0.2%, respectively. (See table below.)

Schools with religious orientations accounted for 66 percent of the nation's private schools in both 2017-18 and 2019-20, though enrollment in such schools slipped from 78 percent of total enrollment in the former period to 76 percent in the latter. Similarly, the percentage of full-time teachers employed by faith-based schools dipped from 70 percent of the total to 68 percent over the same time frame.

Catholic schools continued to comprise the largest segment of the nation's private school universe, with 21.2 percent of schools, 37.5 percent of students, and 29.1 percent of full-time teachers, down from 21.7%, 40%, and 31.7%, respectively, in the previous period.

Below are percentages of total national private school enrollment contributed by other subgroups:

Nonsectarian 33.6%

Christian (unspecified) 14.6%

Baptist 5.8%

Amish 4.6%

Jewish 3.5%

LCMS 3.1%

Seventh-day Adventist 2.4%

Other Lutheran 1.5%

Episcopal 1.3%

Islamic 0.9%

Some readers may be surprised to learn that a very substantial number of private schools have enrollments of fewer-than-fifty students. In 2019-20, such schools accounted for 41.4 percent of all U.S. private schools - down from 43 percent in 2017-18. At the other end of the enrollment spectrum, schools with enrollments of at least 300 students accounted for 14.3 percent of all U.S. private schools in 2019-20, up from 14.2 percent in the prior period.

The pupil/teacher ratio across all private school types and enrollments was 9.7 in 2019-20, compared to 10.2 in 2017-18. The ratio for Catholic schools, nationally, was 12.5, broken down into 12.8 in parochial and diocesan schools, and 11.5 in private (independent) Catholic schools. As was true across private school groupings, these ratios were slightly smaller than in the previous reporting period. The pupil/teacher ratio for "Other Religious" schools was 9.7, which includes a ratio of 10.2 for Conservative Christian schools. The national ratio for nonsectarian private schools was 7.1, also down from 7.4 in 2017-18.

The Private School Universe Survey (PSS) is a biennial census conducted, beginning in 1989, by the U.S. Bureau of the Census "...to generate biennial data on the total number of private schools, students, and teachers, and to build a universe of private schools to serve as a sampling frame of private schools for NCES sample surveys." Technical information about the PSS can be found in Section B of the "First Look" report.

SCOTUS to Hear Carson v. Makin

If you're interested in the future of private K-12 education in the United States of America, you might consider marking December 8, 2021 on your calendar. That's the date on which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Carson v. Makin, a case with potentially profound implications for the public funding of private religious schools.

The E-Mailer laid out the background to the case, here. In agreeing to hear the case, SCOTUS has, in effect, agreed to revisit its decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In that case, the 5-4 majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts held that: "A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."

Court watchers were quick to observe that the Espinoza decision was crafted in a manner that invited a distinction to be drawn between impermissible state discrimination on the basis of the religious status of a recipient of assistance, and discrimination on the basis of religious use of such assistance.

Carson v. Makin is expected to stake out the question of whether, and to what extent states may permit, or bar certain religious uses of publicly funded scholarship funds. Should the Court deliver a broadly permissive opinion - meaning that states would be largely prohibited from withholding funding on the basis of religious use - any number of consequential responses would, or could be expected to ensue.

Opponents of school choice programs would almost certainly launch newly invigorated campaigns to roll back, or overturn existing school voucher, tax-credit, and/or education savings account programs in states where such opportunities currently exist. School choice programs in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Georgia may be vulnerable to such efforts.

At the same time, proponents of school choice will almost certainly attempt to probe how much farther a favorable Supreme Court decision will allow the envelope to be pushed. One potential development that no longer seems far-fetched involves the creation of religiously oriented charter schools. Here, as in the case of existing voucher programs, public dollars would flow to schools with religious orientations as a result of an independent action - enrollment - exercised by parents. In this instance, however, the dollars would flow directly from an agency of the state to public religious schools.

Public religious schools? Incongruous as the expression may sound, that's exactly what religiously oriented charters schools would be. And a broadly permissive decision in Carson v. Makin - one that generally prohibits states from withholding funding on the basis of religious use - would open the door to the next generation of test cases.

Writing for The 74, Linda Jacobson links the dots in an article titled, "How Far Will Supreme Court’s Super-Conservative Majority Go to Push Religious Freedom in Public Schools? Maine Choice Case Provides Fresh Test."

On October 1, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced forthcoming regulations to be promulgated by the California Department of Public Health that will add COVID-19 to the list of immunizations required for unconditional admission to a public or private school. The requirement is to take effect as of the first school term following full approval of the vaccine for the relevant age cohort by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. School terms begin on January 1, and July 1.

Importantly, unless the California Legislature codifies the mandate, parents will be at liberty to exercise a personal beliefs exemption. Codification entails passing legislation that would add COVID-19 to the list of diseases for which vaccinations are required, as enumerated in Section 120325 of the California Health and Safety Code. Outside of an emergency session being convened, the California Legislature will remain in recess until early January, 2022.

Readers should bear in mind that local public health authorities are at liberty to establish mandates that go beyond those imposed by the state (though they may not issue directives that are less stringent, or which contradict state requirements).

The Liebert Cassidy Whitmore law firm issued a Special Bulletin on the Governor's announcement, which can be viewed, here.

On September 21, 2021, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona named 325 schools National Blue Ribbon Schools for 2021. Twenty-three private schools were among those receiving such recognition. The National Blue Ribbon Schools program, now in its 39th year, recognizes public and private schools in two categories: 1) Exemplary High Performing Schools, and 2) Exemplary Improving Schools. Only public schools can be recognized under the second criteria. Eligibility details are located on the National Blue Ribbon Schools webpage. 

The Council for American Private Education (CAPE) administers the National Blue Ribbon Schools program for private schools on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. Each year, CAPE submits nominations to the Department from a large pool of applications received from across the country. The Department will recognize this year’s cohort of public and private school awardees during a recognition ceremony on November 4th and 5th in Washington, D.C.

The Office of Non-Public Education congratulates all the schools who achieved National Blue Ribbon recognition!

California's 2020-21 Blue Ribbon Schools are:

Challenger School – Berryessa - San Jose

Saint Simon Parish School - Los Altos

Saint Simon Parish School is affiliated with CAPSO-member the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose.

A complete listing of private school recipients of the 2020-21 Blue Ribbon Schools designation can be found here. CAPSO congratulates all of the schools that achieved this year's National BRS distinction!

A recent study conducted by scholars at the University of Michigan's Education Policy Initiative explores the question of how the availability of remote or in-person learning in public schools was associated with parents choosing private school, or homeschooling alternatives. Top-line findings are reported in a policy brief titled, "The Pandemic’s Effect on Demand for Public Schools, Homeschooling, and Private Schools."

Here's the key takeaway:

The findings, which were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, may bode well for private school enrollment in a state like California, which was among the most restrictive in the nation with respect to the availability of in-person instruction over the course of the prior school year. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, K-12 public school enrollment in the Golden State declined by 3 percent in 2020-21. To help answer the question of where those students went it's crucial for every private school in California to file its annual affidavit in a timely manner. The legal window for filing the private school affidavit extends from October 1 - 15.

The California Department Public Health (CDPH) this week issued a few updates to their school guidance. These updates include the timing of testing to exit quarantine and the use of pooled PCR as a testing option during quarantine. View guidance updates at CDPH K-12 Guidance 2021-22 School Year and revised FAQs at CDPH K-12 Schools Guidance 2021-2022 Questions & Answers. LEAs with questions should contact CDE Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Planning, and Special Projects Jennie Carreon at jcarreon@cde.ca.gov.

Are you looking to support struggling students or students with disabilities in nonpublic schools? The PROGRESS Center, a federally funded technical assistance center charged with supporting local educators and leaders in developing and implementing high-quality educational programming for students with disabilities, is excited to host our second annual private school forum, Promoting Progress for Struggling Students and Students with Disabilities in Private Schools. This event will occur October 19th from 12:30-3:00 pm ET and is open to all educators and leaders interested in supporting students with disabilities or students who are struggling within nonpublic schools. This forum will include a keynote from Dr. Erik Carter, Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Special Education at Vanderbilt University, focused on developing a sense of belonging for all students within private schools, a panel of private school educators and parents sharing their experiences, and breakout sessions featuring freely available resources to support struggling students in private schools.

You can register for the keynote and panel presentation, here.

To register for a specific breakout session, please click here and register for the breakout session you are most interested in attending.

After a contentious battle that raged on for years (and according to some, decades) the California Legislature has passed, and Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill making completion of a semester-long course in ethnic studies a requirement for graduation from a public high school. The graduation requirement will take effect in the 2029-30 school year, and public high schools must begin offering ethic studies courses in 2025-26. John Fensterwald reports the story for EdSource, here, and Politico covers the development, here.

 

Last year the Legislature passed similar legislation, only to see it nixed by Mr. Newsom, who expressed concern in his veto message that signature of the bill “…would require ethnic studies to be taught in high school at a time when there is much uncertainty about the appropriate K-12 model curriculum for ethnic studies.” The Governor's allusion to ‘uncertainty’ was a euphemism for the firestorm of protest that arose when the initial draft of a model ethnic studies curriculum was brought before the state’s Instructional Quality Commission (IQC). At issue was the very meaning and scope of 'ethnic studies'. Proponents of the initial draft, a group led by professors of ethnic studies drawn from various state institutions of higher education, see the discipline as one that should be largely limited to four groups: Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans. Opponents, including Armenian, Jewish, and Sikh groups, protested that the draft model curriculum marginalized or ignored the experiences of their respective ethnic groups.

Against this quarrelsome background, the eventual enactment of AB 101 represented something of a triumph for political negotiation and compromise. The achievement was expressed in a statement from the bill's author, Assemblymember Jose Medina (D. - Riverside):

To make it across the legislative finish line the initial draft model curriculum had been rewritten in a manner that made it considerably more inclusive. Its most contentious content was either deleted or softened, and a highly politicized glossary was jettisoned. A second public comment period led to further modifications.

As AB 101 made its way through the Legislature, additional compromise was achieved, and certain concessions secured. Late in the going, as the bill reposed in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the following rather remarkable provision was added:

In announcing his signature of the bill, Governor Newsom made an oblique reference to the aforementioned element in declaring that the law "provides a number of safeguards to ensure that courses will be free from bias or bigotry and appropriate for all students." Another safeguard baked into the law makes it mandatory that any ethnic studies course proposed for adoption by a public school district will:

Such "safeguards" have not sat well with the authors of the original draft model ethnic studies curriculum. In fact, a group of academics and teachers who participated in the fashioning of the original draft are now organizing training sessions in the implementation of what they are calling the "Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum" (i.e., the original draft). In light of such lingering disgruntlement with the concessions required to write AB 101 into law, readers can expect to see a reprise of the controversy accompanying the Instructional Quality Commission hearings as local school districts deliberate the content of the ethnic studies courses to be introduced in their schools.

AB 101's provisions are applicable to public schools and public charter schools, only. But if you think private high schools won't be impacted by the new ethnic studies course requirement, think again!

To gain admission to a University of California campus, students attending private schools must complete a series of UC-approved high school courses collectively known as the "A-G Subject Requirements." A course in Ethnic Studies will almost certainly be added to the list of currently required history courses. Private high schools wishing to fulfill the "A-G" requirements will not only need to offer instruction in ethnic studies, but will need to submit course outlines to the University of California for approval.

What will UC require of such courses? Keep in mind that: a) the "safeguards" written into AB 101 apply to public school districts, but not to the University of California; and, b) the academy is home to the most strident defenders of the more limited and highly politicized conception of ethnic studies reflected in the original draft model curriculum.

Such observations invite concern and evoke memories of a lawsuit brought against the University of California in 2006 by the Association of Christian Schools International. At issue was UC's rejection of various college preparatory courses offered in ACSI-affiliated high schools owing to the utilization of textbooks containing religious content. (Among the disputed courses was a history course.) ACSI argued that UC's refusal to approve the courses under its "A-G" framework constituted "viewpoint discrimination," and thus ran afoul of First Amendment protections.

In supporting ACSI's objection, the California Association of Private School Organizations took a somewhat different tack. In rejecting the ACSI schools' courses, CAPSO argued, the University of California failed to adduce a shred of empirical evidence in support of its contention that the utilization of the textbooks in question would place students at an academic disadvantage if admitted to a UC campus. Ironically, it was the University of California whose argument appeared to be grounded in faith, and ACSI that demanded empirical justification in support of UC's decision.

ACSI ultimately lost when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of the U.S. District Court's summary judgment in favor of UC.

This issues attendant to the teaching of ethnic studies may be different, but the conditions for a renewal of the controversy over the reach of UC's authority to dictate a private school's curriculum are now in plain view. Stay tuned!

Ron Reynolds

Note: The commentary and views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the California Association of Private School Organizations, or its members.

The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published on November 10, 2021.