Let’s say there is an American billionaire who wants to improve the chances for success for at risk American underclass kids. He sets up a grade 4 -12 academy where the kids live on site and are taught a variety of subjects. All of this is funded by the billionaire not a dollar is from state or federal sources. The population is 100% black, males from underclass single mother families. During the school year they live on site. The school location is far from any student’s family so no one is going home for the weekend. All transportation costs to and from the school are paid by the billionaire.
To stay in the academy the kids must adhere to a strict behavior code. Failure to behave will get you expelled. It’s not zero tolerance but after a few too many fights or other trouble making instances you are out. Cameras are everywhere so in most instances aggressive troublemakers will be readily identified. While best efforts are encouraged C students will be tolerated, but pure willful non-performance academically will also get you booted. Off hours will have tons of art and athletic activities available or you can do as you wish on the school grounds.
The program of instruction is math, science, history, literature, arts etc but with a huge additional emphasis on practical life skills. Each student is expected to graduate with a solid, hand on grounding in some trade regardless of whatever else they study. Let’s assume teachers are highly competent and all academic standards and resources are at least the equal if not better than what you get in public schools.
In this self funded context how much power does the state have in determining how the school can be run, what can be taught and if he can select a very precise demographic for his student body and exclude others? Who, if anybody outside the billionaire has a say over how he can conduct this academy?
When that is acquired the new institution then can have their students with the capacity to take their credits to the university system or other institutions.
The point here is that while a billionaire can have the freedom to teach what he/she wants is that without a basic quality control that accreditation gives an institution, it means that a billionaire can teach what he wants; but even if the courses would be compatible with traditional courses the courses offered in the new institution would be basically worthless.
IIRC, race discrimination in school admissions, even in the absence of public funding, is illegal under 42 USC 1981 as a violation of freedom of contract. I think the case is Runyon v. McCrary. This is true even when done for remedial motives, as decided in a case involving native Hawaiian students.
On the other hand, you could just leave race out of it and open up the school to boys from single-mother families with incomes below some level and living in the inner city, or the like. Your student body would likely end up mostly or all black this way, but so long as whites are allowed to attend, there probably wouldn’t be a problem.
Probably not very successful. From what I’ve seen, effective programs start well before the 4th-grade (age 10-11) level. He could have some successful students in such a program, but many are too far gone by then.
There are plenty of people who do this already. Andre Agassi started a school in Las Vegas, Sean Combs has a school, Pitbull, and Jalen Rose both have charter schools. Bilionaires such as Carl Icahn and Betsey Devos have been involved in charter schools as well.
The system you have designed sounds somewhat like success academy in Harlem, NYC.
Speaking of those four, they all have public charter schools. They do have some autonomy but besides having to deal with accreditation they also have to follow most of the rules of their respective state departments of education.
And this is a good time to mention that while many are opposed to Private schools getting government help (like, for example, from getting public funds via vouchers), a public charter school is not like a private charter school and most Democrats are not opposed them, while also not leaving out support to public schools. The problem with the private ones is that a lot of the rules public institutions have to follow, like the ones regarding discrimination, are many times ignored in the private settings.
If the question is "how much oversight is there for private schools? ", the answer is that it varies by state but in many states there is basically none–you can’t do anything otherwise illegal, but you can teach whatever you want and it fulfills the “compulsory education” part.
There might be health code and zoning requirements for the dorms.