The California Association of Private School Associations is pleased to announce an "Emerging Legal Issues for Private Schools"  workshop for private school administrators, business managers, board members, and school attorneys.  Registrants from schools affiliated with a 

Presented by:

Michael Blacher

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

• What is the "Ministerial Exception?"
• What was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor Case, and what does it mean for faith-based private schools?
• For purposes of the ministerial exception:
• what is a "church?"
• who is a "minister?"
• what claims are covered?
• Is it advantageous for a faith-based private school to designate faculty members and other employees as "ministers?"
• What are some possible drawbacks?
• What issues remain unresolved? 

•  In the fall of 2011, there were 30,861 private elementary and secondary schools with 4,494,845 students and 420,880 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers in the United States.  These figures represent a 7.5 percent decline in the number of private schools, a 4.4 percent decrease in total private school enrollment in grades K-12, inclusive, and a 3.8 percent drop-off in the number of teachers employed on a full-time equivalent basis, since the PSS was last conducted in 2009-2010.

• In 2011-12 there were more private schools in suburban locations (10,911), compared to those in cities (10,005), followed by those in rural areas (7,045), and then by those in towns (2,900).  The greatest decline over the course of the intervening two years was experienced in towns (-13.2%), followed by cities (-7.4%), rural areas (-7.3%), and suburban locations (-6.0%). 

• Sixty-eight percent of private schools, enrolling 80 percent of private school students and employing 72 percent of private school FTE teachers in 2011-12, had a religious orientation or purpose.

• The average school size in 2011-12 was 146 students across all private schools. Private school size differed by instructional level. On average, elementary schools enrolled 108 students, secondary schools enrolled 283 students, and combined schools enrolled 190 students.  (It is likely that a significant difference in average school size exists between for-profit and nonprofit private schools.  In California, for example, the average enrollment of nonprofit private schools (218) was three-and-a-half times greater than that of for-profit schools (61) in 2011-12.)

• More private school students in 2011-12 were enrolled in kindergarten (449,819) than in any other grade level.  (This finding is also true in California.)  

• Forty-four percent of all private schools in 2011-12 enrolled fewer than 50 students. (In California, the figure is 40.5 percent.)

• The average pupil/teacher ratio in 2011-12 was 10.7 across all private schools. The average pupil/teacher ratio was lower in combined schools (9.4) than in elementary schools (11.5) or secondary schools (11.6).  (In California, the average pupil/teacher ratio in  2011-12 was 12.5.)

• Ninety-eight percent of 12th-graders enrolled in private schools around October 1, 2010 graduated by the fall of 2011.

• Of the 305,842 private high school graduates in 2010-11, some 64 percent attended 4-year colleges by the fall of 2011.

• In 2011-12, there were 10,212 private schools (representing one-third of the total number) that did not report membership in any private school association.   

• In 2011-12, there were 200,000 or more students enrolled in private schools in each of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

California Shows Gains  

In California, the most recent state data point to growth, both in the number of private schools and total private school enrollment in grades K-12, inclusive.  According to figures compiled by the California Department of Education for 2012-13, the total number of private schools enrolling six or more students increased from 3,156 to 3,229, a gain of 2.3 percent.  Total private school enrollment (in schools with six or more students) rose from 497,282 in 2011-12, to 516,197 in 2012-13, representing a 3.8 percent increase, statewide.  

The California figures are derived from private school affidavits which, as a matter of law, must be filed annually.  Affidavit data are compiled by the California Department of Education in the form of a Private School Directory, which can be accessed, here.  Once on the CDE web page, click on the "2012-2013" link appearing under "Private School Directory" to download a 3MB Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.  The data can then be filtered, or sorted by various fields including county, zip code, highest and/or lowest grade level offered, for-profit or nonprofit status, religious or non-religious orientation, religious affiliation, number of full-time teachers, and more.

While the California figures provide cause for optimism, a word of qualification is warranted.  In any given year, fewer than 100 percent of all private schools actually submit affidavits.  The total number of affidavits submitted is, to some extent, a function of the diligence with which private school organizations and CDE staff work to promote compliance.  In 2012-13, both the private school community and the CDE - thanks to the diligent efforts of Laura Nelson - worked particularly hard, and collaboratively, to facilitate the sort of outcome reflected by the above numbers.  

• Curriculum that advance sustainability skills and knowledge for the 21st century;
• Stewardship and service learning;
• Sustainable facilities design, management, and purchasing;
• Health and well being, and,
• Strong partnerships and networks.

Conference planners invite those in the private school community to submit session proposals "...that address the breadth of practices and structures that get to the 'what' and 'how' of transforming schools and school districts by and for students, teachers and leaders."  This year's program will feature three different types of sessions:

--  Breakout Sessions will be of 75 minutes duration and will take place in rooms holding up to 100 participants.

--  Speed Greening Sessions will be of 10 minutes duration, and will address the following issues:  green purchasing; healthy foods; design and management for energy efficiency; sustainability education;  networks and partnerships;  healthy school environments.

--  Poster Sessions.  Up to 30 posters "..that reflect student work, research, and other special projects will be accepted," and displayed.  Those submitting entries selected for display will be asked to be present at their posters at designated times so as to answer questions from observers.

A call for conference presenters can be viewed, here, and proposal forms can be downloaded, here.  Registration information for the conference can be found, here.

LCW Webinar to Address Wage and Hours Issues

The Liebert Cassidy Whitmore law firm will present a "Key Wage and Hour Issues Affecting Independent Schools" webinar to take place September 4, 2013, from 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.  The online session will be presented by Elizabeth Tom Arce.  LCW offers the following description of the webinar:

Wage and hour laws are one of the most important - and misunderstood - areas affecting California private schools. The laws in California can be confusing and difficult to apply to a private school setting. In this presentation, we will explore practical solutions for wage and hour issues that independent schools frequently encounter. Topics that will be discussed include:

• Key legal requirements for payment of wages;
• Whether teachers qualify for exempt status;
• Compensation for employees who work a 9 or 10 month schedule;
• Compensation for field trips and longer overnight school trips;
• Compensation for coaches;
• Key requirements for record keeping.

The cost of registration is $55 for participants whose schools are members of a LCW Employment Relations Consortium, and $75 for non-ERC members.  Registration may be conducted online, here. 

USDE Grants ESEA Waivers to Eight California Districts

Taking unprecedented action, the U.S. Department of Education earlier this month granted waivers from key portions of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act to eight California public school districts.  This marks the first time the federal government has excused districts, rather than states from controversial elements of the nation's most prominent education law.   The eights districts include: Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco and Santa Ana.  Among them, the districts enroll roughly 20 percent of the state's total public school students in grades K-12, inclusive.  The waivers will be valid for one year only, with renewal subject to full implementation of a school-rating system and teacher-evaluation plans.

The waivers will permit districts to free up funds that must currently be spent to provide supplemental educational services (SES) and (public) school choice options to students enrolled in persistently under-performing schools.  These funds could be allocated in a manner that would increase the per-pupil allocation designated for students eligible for receipt of Title I services - regardless of whether they are enrolled in public or private schools located in Title I participation areas.  Districts also enjoy the discretion to assign such funds in ways that exclude the participation of students enrolled in private schools.   

The granting of waivers to districts rather than states raises a number of questions, six of which are addressed in a Politics K-12 blog post authored by Education Week's Michele McNeil.  Among the questions she poses is whether the eight districts will secure the approval of the teachers unions to implement a new teacher evaluation system that is linked, in part, to student growth.  It will be recalled that the refusal of the unions to sign off on such a provision proved a major stumbling block to California's pursuit of statewide ESEA waivers.

A second question is whether the USDE's precedent-setting action in California will induce other districts located in non-waivers states to pursue an arrangement similar to California's.  A third question relates to the impact of the district waivers upon the motivation of Congress to reauthorize ESEA in light of the Obama Administration's use of Congressional gridlock to cultivate increased federal leverage over education policy.

Stay tuned! 

Orange County Private High School Fair

On October 20, 2013, between the hours of 1:00 - 4:00 p.m., more than 30 leading private high schools located in Orange County will make information about their programs and facilities available to parents and the public-at-large.  The event, sponsored by the Orange County Private Schools Association, will be held at the University of California's Irvine campus.  In addition to the high school displays, the fair will feature guest speakers who will address topics of interest to high school parents.  UC Irvine will also conduct campus tours on the day of the event.  This is a great opportunity for prospective high school parents to acquire a wealth of information at one convenient venue.   

For additional information, including online registration, please visit the sponsoring organization's website, here. 

Ralph Tyler's Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, first published in 1949, remains a classic for its clarity, brevity, and enduring truth. (How many textbooks written during the first half of the preceding century are currently available for next-day delivery via amazon.com?)  In his enduring tome, Professor Tyler proposed that curriculum and instruction could best be considered by answering the following four questions, in sequence:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives?
3. How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?
4. How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?

What came to be known as the Tyler Rationale was a simple - though by no means simplistic - ends-means process that revolutionized curricular thinking by shifting attention from teacher behavior to what students should be enabled to know and do, following instruction. If educational goals could be articulated in terms of desired, post-instructional student behaviors, it followed that appropriate learning experiences could be identified and organized so as to facilitate the achievement of the intended outcomes.  Evaluation would consist of post-instructional observations of student behavior designed to gauge the correspondence between intended and actual outcomes.

There's a certain inexorable logic to Tyler's Rationale.  If instruction is to be conducted in a purposeful manner, teachers, and those to whom they are accountable, must possess advance knowledge of the purposes whose achievement their teaching is designed to facilitate.  As the saying goes: if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.  If, however, your destination is known, not only do you stand a better chance of  getting there; you will also be able to determine how close, or how far away you are, and when you have arrived.

One can draw something of a conceptual straight line from Tyler's Rationale to the genesis and proliferation of behavioral objectives, to the advent of the standards-based reform movement, to President Clinton's Goals 2000, to No Child Left Behind.  It is to this lineage that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is heir.  For what do such standards represent, if not an answer to Professor Tyler's first question: "What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?"  According to the developers of, and subscribers to the CCSS, the answer writ large is to make students college and career ready.   Indeed, the CCSS spell out that which students should be enabled to know and do, on a grade-by-grade basis, in order to achieve college and career readiness.  

A joint project of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the CCSS initiative was launched in 2009.  The development was wholeheartedly embraced by the Obama Administration, which saw the emergence of national standards as a long-overdue corrective to the disparate criteria employed by states to gauge "proficiency," and determine adequate yearly progress, as required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.  The U.S. Department of Education quickly began leveraging commitment on the part of states to adopt the CCSS by making buy-in virtually requisite for receipt of Race to the Top Fund grants and, later, as an eligibility condition for receipt of NCLB waivers.  These efforts bore fruit.  At present, only a handful of states remain uncommitted to the adoption of the CCSS. 

At the same time the federal government was pushing for commitments to the CCSS, it was also engaged in funding consortia tasked with developing accompanying assessment methodologies. The two primary developers of such instrumentation are the 20-state Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, whose member states (including California) can be viewed here.  Serving as "bookends" to the specification of standards work conducted under the auspices of the NGA and CCSSO, the two major assessment consortia have been tasked with addressing Tyler's fourth question: "How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?"

But what about Tyler's intervening questions?  Who has been tasked with the job of figuring out how to get to the intended destination?  As it happens, each state must figure out how to best enable students to demonstrate proficiency...and the clock is ticking.  While there may be some variability from district to district, California has targeted 2014-15 for the full implementation of the tests developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.  Which likely means that one (or more) of the following three possibilities can be anticipated:

1. Support for the roll-out of the CCSS will occur at a feverish pace;
2. The implementation of the CCSS-linked assessments will be deferred, or,
3. The implementation of the CCSS-linked assessments will yield disastrous results. 

The first eventuality is scarcely a prediction; California has already committed $1.25 billion for what is decribed as "one-time costs of transitioning to the Common Core standards."  This is reminiscent of the former hippie who, when asked by his teenage child, "Did you ever use drugs?" responded by saying: "Well, I experimented with drugs just once.  The experiment began sometime in 1966..."  California's "one-time" transition to the CCSS will almost certainly eclipse one year, and will consume far more than the initial billion-and-a-quarter dollars allocated in the current year's budget.

As for implementation of the new assessments, if anyone is willing to wager that the Smarter Balanced tests will be fully operational in California by the spring of 2015, take the bet.  To better understand what can be expected if the new assessments are administered before states have had an opportunity to adjust their respective curricula, and prepare their teachers, consider recent events in New York.  There, State Commissioner of Education John B. King, Jr., decided to utilize one of the new, CCSS-linked assessments this year.  The New York Times reports the calamitous results, here.  In a nutshell, the percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 demonstrating proficiency in English dropped from 47 percent to 26 percent, while the percentage achieving proficiency in math nosedived from 60 percent to 30 percent. 

The New York debacle has flooded the Blogosphere and Twitterverse with a torrent of condemnatory articles placing the CCSS squarely in their crosshairs.  As many see it, the Empire State's plummeting test scores are not merely indicative of impatience in Albany.  Some see gross negligence, while others write of what can only be described as a far reaching plot to destroy the American public education system. Moreover, one would be mistaken to think that these screeds are confined to self-published blogs, or emanate from disgruntled wackos.  As a case in point, consider the following excerpt, written by the editors of Rethinking Schools, which appeared in Valerie Strauss' popular The Answer Sheet blog, published by the Washington Post: 

"The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color.

"Unfortunately there's been too little honest conversation and too little democracy in the development of the Common Core. We see consultants and corporate entrepreneurs where there should be parents and teachers, and more high-stakes testing where there should be none. Until that changes, it will be hard to distinguish the 'next big thing' from the last one."

While there's probably more than a little truth to the above observations, such comments are among the more subdued expressions of displeasure with the CCSS.  Diane Ravitch saw fit to showcase the following response, penned by one of her readers:

Why stop at "amoral privatization" when one can label the roll-out of the Common Core State Standards outright fascism, as this website does:  

"What do you get when corporate interests combine with governmental force to take over education? Nationalized educational and economic fascism."

Indeed, the venerable Professor Ravitch has, herself, offered the following analysis:

"As wealth has become ever more concentrated, and social mobility has declined, it is ever more important to create a social rationale for that inequality.  People who are disenfranchised and deprived of meaningful opportunities must somehow be convinced that their second-class status is THEIR FAULT."

So there you have it.  The Common Core State Standards initiative is a plot perpetrated by greedy Capitalists to privatize the American public education system so it can be used to manipulate disenfranchised young people into internalizing the failures of the amoral (fascist!) system that oppresses them.  Wow!  Who ever said education policy was boring?  All kidding aside, this sort of rhetoric is troubling.  And it has gone beyond mere rhetoric.  Groups opposed to the CCSS in New York state are now encouraging parents to boycott the next administration of the assessments by keeping their children home from school on test days.

There are a host of troubling questions surrounding the CCSS - questions that have elicited push-back from an assortment of strange political bedfellows.  Teachers unions are concerned over too-hasty implementation and insufficient teacher preparation.  Conservatives are worried about accompanying costs, which have been estimated to run as high as $12 billion, annually.  Tea Party members protest a continuing diminution of local control.  Progressives decry what they perceive to be a further abandonment of the poor.

Disparate as they are, these groups would do well to unite around a common interest.  They must not permit their legitimate expressions of concern to be hijacked by the likes of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd.  If that should happen, and I fear developments are moving in that direction, instead of politely debating our preferred answers to Professor Tyler's poignant questions, we will find ourselves wondering how our passionate, but civil discourse was set asunder by hooliganism - both verbal and physical.  Some standards must endure, and we can afford no less than civility in our political discourse.  

Ron Reynolds