Parents and community sharply divided over proposed Lifewise Academy partnership at New Hanover County Schools meeting

The New Hanover County Board of Education heard a sustained, often emotional public‑comment period on March 10 over a proposed memorandum of understanding with Lifewise Academy, a privately funded program that would provide Bible‑based, release‑time instruction to consenting students during the school day.

The board did not vote on the memorandum that night, but the discussion drew multiple speakers who framed the choice as a question of parental choice, instruction time and the district’s duty to remain neutral on religion.

"The program is voluntary, parent permission‑based, privately funded and held during noncore instructional time," said Alyssa Civils, identifying herself as a parent and a local steering‑committee member working with Lifewise. "This is not about the school district promoting religion. It's about giving families the choice to participate if they wish."

Supporters and Lifewise advocates emphasized the program’s model and presented claimed benefits. Wayne Poston, who said he serves on the Lifewise steering committee for New Hanover County, described national growth in the program and cited a 2025 Lifewise survey that he said showed improved attendance and lower suspension rates after implementation in other places.

Opponents countered with constitutional, operational and equity concerns. "If basic values and religion is important to a parent, churches are free and open outside of school hours," argued Christina Mercier, who urged the board to keep religious instruction outside the school day. She and others said scheduling religious lessons during specials and electives would undermine specialists’ instruction and could impose administrative and transport burdens on the district.

Barbara Garl, a resident who spoke against the proposed agreement, raised logistics and cost concerns: "School buses, drivers, fuel, maintenance, administrative coordination or public resources [are] funded by the taxpayer to support public education, not private religious instruction," she told the board.

Several speakers cited legal context. Commenters referenced Supreme Court precedent on release‑time programs and the need to avoid use of school property and personnel in ways that would run afoul of constitutional limits. One speaker urged the board to review McCollum v. Board of Education and related case law; others cited the 2022 Coach Kennedy decision as relevant.

Board members and district staff have said they are researching Lifewise and that any implementation would require careful legal and logistical review. District leadership emphasized that participation would rely on parent permission and that Lifewise asserts its programming is privately funded and held during noncore time.

The public exchange added to a broader debate at the meeting about the role of private partners and whether school resources and schedules should be adjusted to accommodate external programs. The board did not take formal action on the Lifewise memorandum during the March 10 meeting; any next steps would be scheduled through the board’s policy and administrative review processes.

The public‑comment period included many other topics, from state‑level funding trends to student‑discipline procedures; several speakers urged the board to prioritize instructional time and protect the district’s constitutional obligations. For now, the Lifewise proposal remains under review and the board continues to solicit legal, logistical and community guidance.