NC Rosenwald Schools

Introduction

Research Question: Can implementing Rosenwald Schools' holistic practices in North Carolina schools address structual inequities and improve student learning outcomes?

Problem Statement: Current school rankings in North Carolina do not provide a comprehensive analysis of how structural inequities impact student learning.

Hypothesis: If school districts in North Carolina could draw on the holistic practices of Rosenwald Schools, structural inequities would be addressed, and student learning would improve.

County Ranking Analysis

Traditionally, school rankings are evaluated based on the outcomes of student achievement on yearly standardized tests. The Public School Forum of North Carolina regularly publishes an annual ranking of all 100 NC counties ordered from most successful to least successful.

However, these school rankings do not consider the presence or absence of structural inequities impacting student performance, and thus do not accurately reflect student achievement.

Students across the state of North Carolina face many challenges inside and outside of schools. Our team determined a list of factors impacting student achievement through producing a model which predicts the outcome based on additional structural factors. See this explained more in Methodology

2023 Roadmap Rankings Variables

  • Math 1 proficiency rates
  • 3rd grade reading proficiency rates
  • Percent meeting ACT benchmark
  • Graduation rate

These rankings are taken my the educational input section of the 2023 roadmap of needs.

Adjusted Variables

  • % Poverty
  • % White
  • % Food insecurity
  • % Access to exercise
  • % Adult with a degree
  • Median household income
  • Student-teacher ratio
  • Total per pupil expenditure
  • English Learner (EL) ratio
  • Lead Education Agency (LEA) attrition
  • Attendance ratio

2023 Roadmap Rankings

  1. 1. Union
  2. 2. Watauga
  3. 3. Camden
  4. 4. Orange
  5. 5. Haywood
  6. 6. Dare
  7. 7. Carteret
  8. 8. Polk
  9. 9. Transylvania
  10. 10. Wake
  11. 11. Moore
  12. 12. Henderson
  13. 13. Surry
  14. 14. Perquimans
  15. 15. Lincoln
  16. 16. Buncombe
  17. 17. Pender
  18. 18. Jackson
  19. 19. New Hanover
  20. 20. Currituck
  21. 21. Iredell
  22. 22. Yancy
  23. 23. Wilkes
  24. 24. Cabarrus
  25. 25. Madison
  26. 26. Macon
  27. 27. Alexander
  28. 28. Davie
  29. 29. Onslow
  30. 30. Yadkin
  31. 31. Rutherford
  32. 32. Ashe
  33. 33. Pamlico
  34. 34. Chatham
  35. 35. Clay
  36. 36. Burke
  37. 37. Avery
  38. 38. Catawba
  39. 39. Cleveland
  40. 40. Brunswick
  41. 41. Stokes
  42. 42. Guilford
  43. 43. Hyde
  44. 44. Johnston
  45. 45. Craven
  46. 46. Mitchell
  47. 47. Swain
  48. 48. Stanly
  49. 49. Cherokee
  50. 50. Graham
  51. 51. Mecklenburg
  52. 52. Caldwell
  53. 53. Pitt
  54. 54. Davidson
  55. 55. Beaufort
  56. 56. Gaston
  57. 57. Montgomery
  58. 58. Alleghany
  59. 59. McDowell
  60. 60. Lee
  61. 61. Bladen
  62. 62. Gates
  63. 63. Forsyth
  64. 64. Tyrrell
  65. 65. Alamance
  66. 66. Cumberland
  67. 67. Chowan
  68. 68. Bertie
  69. 69. Wilson
  70. 70. Durham
  71. 71. Franklin
  72. 72. Jones
  73. 73. Harnett
  74. 74. Randolph
  75. 75. Columbus
  76. 76. Greene
  77. 77. Richmond
  78. 78. Sampson
  79. 79. Scotland
  80. 80 Rockingham
  81. 81. Person
  82. 82. Anson
  83. 83. Hoke
  84. 84. Rowan
  85. 85. Duplin
  86. 86. Wayne
  87. 87. Lenoir
  88. 88. Robeson
  89. 89. Granville
  90. 90. Pasquotank
  91. 91. Caswell
  92. 92. Halifax
  93. 93. Edgecombe
  94. 94. Washington
  95. 95. Nash
  96. 96. Hertford
  97. 97. Vance
  98. 98. Northampton
  99. 99. Warren
  100. 100. Martin

Adjusted Rankings

  1. 1. Person
  2. 2. Franklin
  3. 3. Pasquotank
  4. 4. *Martin*
  5. 5. Nash
  6. 6. Clay
  7. 7. Rowan
  8. 8. *Caswell*
  9. 9. Cherokee
  10. 10. Rockingham
  11. 11. Watauga
  12. 12. Randolph
  13. 13. Mitchell
  14. 14. Alleghany
  15. 15. Granville
  16. 16. *Durham*
  17. 17. Caldwell
  18. 18. Harnett
  19. 19. Gaston
  20. 20. McDowell
  21. 21. Pitt
  22. 22. Johnston
  23. 23. Hoke
  24. 24. Stanly
  25. 25. Richmond
  26. 26. Graham
  27. 27. Ashe
  28. 28. Gates
  29. 29. Wayne
  30. 30. Stokes
  31. 31. Avery
  32. 32. Madison
  33. 33. Washington
  34. 34. Warren
  35. 35. Brunswick
  36. 36. Lenoir
  37. 37. Duplin
  38. 38. Chatham
  39. 39. Columbus
  40. 40. Chowan
  41. 41. Currituck
  42. 42. Sampson
  43. 43. Beaufort
  44. 44. Macon
  45. 45. Mecklenburg
  46. 46. Greene
  47. 47. Davie
  48. 48. Catawba
  49. 49. Jones
  50. 50. Wilson
  51. 51. Montgomery
  52. 52. Alamance
  53. 53. Lee
  54. 54. Hertford
  55. 55. Craven
  56. 56. Iredell
  57. 57. Lincoln
  58. 58. Moore
  59. 59. Wake
  60. 60. Forsyth
  61. 61. Davidson
  62. 62. Camden
  63. 63. Northampton
  64. 64. Cumberland
  65. 65. Halifax
  66. 66. Yancy
  67. 67. Carteret
  68. 68. Edgecombe
  69. 69. New Hanover
  70. 70. Bladen
  71. 71. Cleveland
  72. 72. Alexander
  73. 73. Vance
  74. 74. Burke
  75. 75. Wilkes
  76. 76. Buncombe
  77. 77. Orange
  78. 78. Polk
  79. 79. Swain
  80. 80 Haywood
  81. 81. Scotland
  82. 82. Hyde
  83. 83. Yadkin
  84. 84. Bertie
  85. 85. Guilford
  86. 86. Pamlico
  87. 87. Transylvania
  88. 88. Pender
  89. 89. Tyrrell
  90. 90. Onslow
  91. 91. Dare
  92. 92. Cabarrus
  93. 93. Union
  94. 94. Rutherford
  95. 95. Anson
  96. 96. Henderson
  97. 97. Perquimans
  98. 98. Surry
  99. 99. Jackson
  100. 100. Robeson
Show More

A note

*Please note that the Adjusted Rankings are not intended to be a complete analysis of school success. A more comprehensive measurement is necessary.

Methodology

This graph displays residuals against predicted values, one of the diagnostic plots we used to validate assumptions such as normality, homoscedasticity, linearity, and independence.

Qualitative

Our study incorportates a series of semi-structured interviews with former NC Rosenwald student attendees and their descendants around thematic experiences. Our work also reflects several texts from local authors, archival documents, and a literature review.

Quantitative

We used Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) to analyze how certain variables addressing structural inequities can predict NC school rankings.

Quantitative Data Collection: The rankings we used (y variable) are from the 2023 Roadmap of Needs Assessment. We collected data (x variable) from various reliable data sources, such as the US Census and the NC Office of State Budget and Management.

We identified 11 variables that had the greatest influence on the rankings and found that our testing data could predict the given outcomes with 67.7%% accuracy and the trained data with 78% accuracy.

Rosenwald Schools: A Brief Overview

'Rosenwald schools,' as colloquially known, were public schools established for Black students across the southern United States during the first half of the twentieth century. Julius Rosenwald, a white philanthropist who made his fortune through Sears, Roebuck, & Co., partnered with leading Black educator Booker T Washington and Tuskegee University to design, create, and fund the construction of these state-of-the-art community schools. The Rosenwald Foundation offered partial financial investments to local communities, and area residents were charged with raising the remainder of necessary funding.

In North Carolina, communities built more than 800 Rosenwald schools - more than any other state in the South [40]. These schools served as community hubs, fostering unity and empowerment during a period of stark racial segregation. These schools were staffed by highly trained Black and white educational professionals with specialized interests and expertise in various disciplines and served to beneficially impact and improve fraught race relations throughout the South.

Rosenwald schools not only provided academic instruction, but also taught students a variety of vocational and technical skills, proffered social and political awareness, and emphasized the importance of community engagement. Rosenwald Schools significantly improved attendance and literacy rates among Black students, laying a foundation for educational equity and social advancement in the region [1].

Blueprints for each educational facility and accompanying structures (such as teacher cottages and industrial buildings) were drawn from a central cadre of designs by leading architects. The school campus was to be centrally located within the community, constructed facing east to maximize the use of natural light, with enough meeting space to accommodate adults as well as children. The size of each school building was relative to the available financial resources of each community, with design plans available from one-room schoolhouses to seven-room schoolhouses.

“The chief activities of the Julius Rosenwald Fund were… (1) education of teachers, both Negro and white, for service in the rural schools of the South; (2) awarding of fellowships to Negroes and to white Southerners of special promise in their various fields of work and interest; (3) operation of a greatly expanded program aimed at the improvement of race relations throughout the county.”- From The Rosenwald Fund: Review for the two year period 1944-1946, courtesy of Duke Archives

Rosenwald Counties

Perspectives from Rosenwald Alumni

A series of semi-structured interviews was conducted to gather thematic data on Rosenwald Schools. Each interview was designed to ensure that a diverse range of perspectives were captured from both rural and urban North Carolina counties. The interviews not only enhanced our understanding of Rosenwald schools and their impact but also provided rich narratives that support themes listed below.

What follows are excerpts from our interview participants on four themes: the quality and qualifications of the education professionals who staffed Rosenwald schools, various opportunities afforded to students and community members through the school itself, expectations for student achievement, and what it meant to participants to belong to these communities.

Despite differences in location (eg., urban Durham county vs rural Caswell county) and setting (eg., one room vs seven room school buildings), alumni shared remarkable similarities in their school experiences.

Discussion

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

School measurements should reflect student growth that comes from academic interventions and overall school health.

Recommendation 2

If schools are failing because students, families, and teachers don't have their needs met, the state should be obliged to provide them with what they need to be successful.

Recommendation 3

Rosenwald schools should be used as shining examples of what schools can look like when they are connected to the students they are serving.

Limitations

Limitation 1

Our results presume amelioration of complex social, political, and cultural issues, such as poverty and wages.

Limitation 2

Our selection of variables was determined by a limited survey of the literature on factors of social impact.

Limitation 3

Our study did not include the limitations or allocations of NC’s educational budget.

Citations and Acknowledgements

Our Research Team

On far left Sophie Adgate, ECU graduate 2024 Special Education in the Adapted Curriculum and Hispanic Studies. The second person from left Jennifer Islas-Perez, ECU 2026 Foreign Languages and Literature (Hispanic Studies and Education). Second on the right is Caitlin Tuttle, Duke 2026, Statistics, Computer Science and Cultural Anthropology. On the far right is Ocir Black NCCU 2025 Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice.