The Huge New Resources to support Detroit's public and charter schools

Back in 2018, Mark Zuckerberg granted the Newark school diction $100 million to improve the education of students in that city. That worked out to be about $2200 per student. Mayor Booker and Governor Christi announced that the money would be spent to create a urban school system that
would be a model for education children, many of them from low-income families and from minority groups.

While there have been at least a few positive outcomes, school administrators from around the nation are not rushing to Newark to learn about improving urban schools. Does the generous Zuckerberg grant suggest that funding is not the elixir that will solve this nation’s very substantial urban education challenges?

The American Recovery Act provided substantial funds for the 500 public school districts in Michigan and the 300 or so charter school district. The Detroit school district original tranche was about $446 million or about $8800 per students. Later that was increased to total new funding for Detroit public schools of about $1.2 billion or $24,000 per students.The schools have great flexibility in spending these funds. Today’s paper describes Dominic Vitti’s plans for spending a considerable a large share of that $1.2 billion. Much of the new funding will be spent to refurbish old schools and build new ones. This is a very costly endeavor.

Two questions arise. First, Michigan is a very low fertility state and the birth rate continues to fall. Michigan attracts relatively few migrants from abroad and loses population each year in the exchange of the native-born population with the other states. Is there any reason to think that the school age population of Michigan will grow in the foreseeable? I foresee controversy in the near future about how to sensibly close schools and merge some of the state’s 13 universities.

Second, given the modest accomplishments of the $100 million Zuckerberg investment in Newark schools, is there good reason to think that the very much greater federal funds in Detroit's public and charter schools will produce very much more favorable results than those reported for Newark’s students?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

Does the generous Zuckerberg grant suggest that funding is not the elixir that will solve this nation’s very substantial urban education challenges?

---

Unfortunately no, it won't.

It's been known for many decades that more funding does not improve education.

The Detroit school system is one of the highest funded school systems in the entire country, [15th highest out of 13,580 school districts], while simultaneously having the SINGLE worst education outcomes.

Meanwhile, the best performing school district in the country receives just 46% as much money per pupil as the Detroit school system does.



It would be nice if it were as simple as shoveling more money at the problem, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

...It would be nice if it were as simple as shoveling more money at the problem, but unfortunately that's not the case.

---

Agreed. Bad education is a social problem -- in other words, a brute fact that society can't affect. Family and role models are the most important variables in education, and mostly these are determined at birth.

Funding can't hurt, but it won't work miracles.

1964 the war on poverty began,2014 marked the 50 year anniversary,in that time frame 22 trillion was spent to reduce poverty,3 times the cost of all wars sense the revolutionary war.

There has been no decrease in poverty in that time frame,there is a difference between reducing the causes verses trying to reduce the consequences by throwing money at it.

As we see here there is a percentage of the vocal population that will never try and understand that concept,because it would require reading more then a paragraph and to compensate their shortcomings the only alternative they can come up with is throwing free money at something.

It makes you look like you are doing something without actually having to do anything,they are not bothered about all of those left in the wake of bad policy making.

The more problems you have in schools,the more money the city and state gets in federal grants to fix them.

The more the claim that is made where Detroit has the highest poverty rate in the country that directly reflects in the school system,the more money the city and state gets to address that,even though that claim is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

. Does the generous Zuckerberg grant suggest that funding is not the elixir that will solve this nation’s very substantial urban education challenges?

---

I think that's a complex question; though the short answer is no, not on its own.

The question is one of assessing why schools under perform, and then assessing what could be done to address that.

In most cases funding could be a critical component of any solution, but if simply handed out to do needed school repairs or hire a few staff, one might expect to be underwhelmed by the result.

I think the first thing to point out is what funding can or cannot achieve.

Lets imagine that an average class size were 26 which I understand to be case in Detroit [[please correct me if I'm wrong).

If you increase funding by $1,000 per student, that nominally generates $26,000 spendable dollars for that class.

In reality that isn't quite true [[overhead costs etc.) but lets take it on its face for now.

On the one hand $26,000 might seem like lots of money, it could certainly by a lot of new text books, or perhaps a multi-media projector for the classroom etc etc.

On the other hand, it wouldn't cover the cost of hiring an additional teacher [[if you wanted to lower class size), nor hiring an education assistant to help students struggling with math/literacy etc. It wouldn't buy each student a fully loaded tablet, or put a computer at every desk etc etc.

* [[taken over a 400 student school, the money would likely fund 4 new teaching positions, which could result in lower overall class sizes, it really depends on how money is allocated. In the example I cite above, 4 additional teachers results in average class size of just over 26 dropping to just over 21. )

That's not to suggest its not material money, or that you would wish to spend it that way, only that its important to realize how much money it takes to make tangible change in some respects.

Broadly, there are two sets of criteria that determine school outcomes.

The capabilities of the students coming in age 4/5; along w/whatever challenges they may face outside of school

Then its about the school, which is a function of curriculum [[what's being taught), length of school day, length of school year, class size, school resources [[computers, labs, ability to fund field trips, library/librarian, music program etc.).

So before one considers whether money is a partial or complete solution one has to look at those baseline conditions.

The second set are easier to measure and address than the first.

Comparisons inside the U.S. would be more valuable probably, but I'll compare to Ontario here, since its easy for me to grab the data.

Number of instructional school days:

Ontario: 194 per year
Detroit: 170 per year

School Day length:

Ontario: 6.5 hours
Detroit: 6.5 hours

Average class size:

Detroit: 26
Ontario: 23 * [[does not apply to grades 4-8, only to kindergarten to 3, and High School)

****

So right off the top we see than school day length is competitive as is; but the Detroit school year seems light, additional instructional days, however, may not require additional teachers, but it might impact teacher pay.

Additional teachers would likely be required, however, to reduce average class size.

*****

There's a lot else one can measure, I can't really speak to a curriculum comparison as that's a huge thing to go through.

One thing one might look at [[I'm not going to research it right now) is required teacher qualifications. ie. What level of post-secondary education is required of a new teacher.

****

The out-of-school situation, of course, is quite impactful on student performance.

Money in a school budget, by itself, doesn't change the level of education of a parent. It doesn't provide a student with high speed internet at home [[or a computer); nor does it make sure they're well fed [[outside of school hours), or address what learning opportunities they may have outside of school.

One of the biggest achievement differences that's been seen between students from low-income and median-income households is the difference that occurs due to summer break.

Students from more affluent homes tend to go to day camps, or overnight camps; or have the opportunity to travel with family, or have resources at home such as a stay-at-home parent and computer/internet, lots of books, games, etc.

Students from lower income homes often lack these things, and tend to be less stimulated over the summer months, resulting in a greater deficit with peers when they return to school in the fall.

***

Can those latter sets of challenges be mitigated by more money? Probably, but it likely wouldn't be through spending in-school.

What if low-income students all had vouchers for camp programs?

What about after-school programs?

What quality of summer school/remedial education is on offer?

Put simply its a complicated issue. One that money can help, but not one money alone can solve.

Quote:

---

Two questions arise. First, Michigan is a very low fertility state and the birth rate continues to fall. Michigan attracts relatively few migrants from abroad and loses population each year in the exchange of the native-born population with the other states. Is there any reason to think that the school age population of Michigan will grow in the foreseeable? I foresee controversy in the near future about how to sensibly close schools and merge some of the state’s 13 universities.

---

Even Toronto has been closing elementary and high schools despite high population growth. Its a reality of smaller family sizes.

****

For second question, see first part of post.

Good post.
I think it's been proven that socio-economic factors are huge. Take any 4 yr. old kid out of a crime ridden impoverished neighborhood who is likely also in a single parent household and plunk him in a school and area where achievement is expected, demanded and supported and see what happens.

An exception here would be Dearborn, MI which has the largest middle-eastern population outside of the middle-east. They tend towards larger and extended nuclear families. Therefor Dearborn K12 public and private schools are not experiencing the high fall-off in student enrollment other cities in Michigan have. Dearborn, Michigan's school age population is growing. Henry Ford College, located in the heart of the city benefits from this growth withstanding the losses of enrollment due to COVID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

...First, Michigan is a very low fertility state and the birth rate continues to fall. Michigan attracts relatively few migrants from abroad and loses population each year in the exchange of the native-born population with the other states. Is there any reason to think that the school age population of Michigan will grow in the foreseeable? I foresee controversy in the near future about how to sensibly close schools and merge some of the state’s 13 universities.

---

Funding is not the problem for Detroit's schools.

Poverty, more generally, is far more consequential.

Detroit's schools would improve if its population was more affluent.

Unfortunately, it's a chicken and egg problem. The middle classes seek high quality schools, but without a modestly affluent population, the schools will have poor educational outcomes.

And round and round we go.

Education costs... Parents need to be the next teachers to their kids before kids can learn better in school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Funding is not the problem for Detroit's schools.

Poverty, more generally, is far more consequential.

Detroit's schools would improve if its population was more affluent.

Unfortunately, it's a chicken and egg problem. The middle classes seek high quality schools, but without a modestly affluent population, the schools will have poor educational outcomes.

And round and round we go.

---

And that is the true measure of long term stable growth in Detroit,it’s not rehabbing buildings or a new Target.

Poverty is measured by the census,it does not calculate direct cash benefits,so a lot of those who are counted as in poverty are actually in a better financial situation then a recent collage graduate who is drawing no benefits and would not be counted.

The problem with “inner city schools “ has been around for decades but yet there has been a lot of successful students that have overcome the odds against them and became what is considered productive members of society.

They say poverty,broken homes,bad parenting etc all play a role but yet many do overcome that.

I think it would he interesting to put those people in a room and ask them what it was that pushed and inspired them to move ahead despite having all the odds on the surface stacked against them.

Not everybody that attends a high income school turns out any different then a low income school.

You make money off of the poor and not the rich,I kinda think a lot of systematic issues are a direct result of that.

If a school district has the same curriculum across the board outside of the actual physical structure costs,it should not cost more to educate a “poor” student then it would cost to educate a “rich” student,2+2 = 4 it’s the same for a billionaire as it is to the person slinging crack on the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

...Take any 4 yr. old kid out of a crime ridden impoverished neighborhood who is likely also in a single parent household and plunk him in a school and area where achievement is expected, demanded and supported and see what happens.

---

That might happen in Plato's Republic. But in our system, we don't take a child away from its parent.

Also, in Plato's Republic there are no single-parent households. The philosopher king arranges people into mating pairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

That might happen in Plato's Republic. But in our system, we don't take a child away from its parent.

Also, in Plato's Republic there are no single-parent households. The philosopher king arranges people into mating pairs.

---

Nobody said you had to take a child away from its parent [[although you don't have to go back to Plato. It happened to indigenous children on both sides of the border). There are plenty of examples of children who, given the opportunity, have succeeded in a better environment provided they are given the support, including catching up when needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

...There are plenty of examples of children who, given the opportunity, have succeeded in a better environment provided they are given the support, including catching up when needed.

---

Agreed, there are plenty of examples. I feel sorry for kids who don't have the opportunities that I had. I wasted at least half of my opportunities and still did okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

Take any 4 yr. old kid out of a crime ridden impoverished neighborhood who is likely also in a single parent household and plunk him in a school and area where achievement is expected, demanded and supported and see what happens.

---

I agree, but I'd want to reduce that age down to 2.

By the time a child is 6 or so, they've either been taught to respect authority, and the right way to treat others, and gotten sense of right and wrong, or they haven't.

That 2 to 6 age span is by far the most critical for forming a person's sense of right and wrong. And if they have no respect for authority, they aren't going to learn in a classroom, even if there's only 10 students to a teacher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

...By the time a child is 6 or so, they've either been taught to respect authority, and the right way to treat others, and gotten sense of right and wrong, or they haven't.

---

In which case, schools just warehouse them until it's time for the penitentiary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

In which case, schools just warehouse them until it's time for the penitentiary.

---

Considering they have had over 50 years to figure it out across the country and they have not,there is a reason they keep it that way,you make money off of the poor and not the rich.

If an institution for learning cannot figure out how to fix itself who can.

The San Francisco school budget is 1.6 billion per year,they throw plenty of money at it,of course they got busted for taking millions in kickbacks from the company that created the online learning program for use during the pandemic,while advocating to keep the schools closed.Why kill the golden goose.

Then there are millions in supply contracts etc. somebody has to make money somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

I agree, but I'd want to reduce that age down to 2.

By the time a child is 6 or so, they've either been taught to respect authority, and the right way to treat others, and gotten sense of right and wrong, or they haven't.

---

This is basically the final word in education. If the parents haven't set their own child up for success then they're doomed to fail in 95% of circumstances.

Time for culture to change in communities like Detroit if they want to see success.

^ yes but it is more productive to change what created the culture in the first place,but then that would require changing another culture of thought.

Which likes things as they are and it is not their kids attending anyways.

Viable policies implemented with the best intentions,that would have been productive,that were later intentionally manipulated in order to provide control based on dependence that insures continued support at the cost of humanity.

We cannot expect to make the tree blossom and bear fruit without addressing the roots,as we see,it will never happen.

They are not kids,they are little tiny pawns in the bigger game and by design they are already set up for failure before they step one foot into a school,by pure moxy some are able to escape it,while the majority fulfill the need.

The situations in the school is not the issue,it is the damage that you see after the wreck.

It is political suicide to fix it and do what needs to be done,so it does not get done.

The shining light in all of that is there are those within the African American community that are waking up and recognizing the game and want no part of it,unfortunately once they do they they become ostracized because the game does not like it when they gain independence and it makes it a slow process that will get there eventually,but others will continue to pay the price in the meantime, possibly for generations more.

The physical aspect of slavery may have ended,the chains part,but the servitude part never did,they just figured out how to keep people in servitude and like it or deal with it because they have no other choice by design,so it became a comfortable way of life,it helps create a captive party while looking good in the process.

Thats that whole part of convincing people that you are looking out for their best interests,when you are not really.Masters at the slight of hand.

Its akin to having people to the point where you can stab somebody in the back and they will turn around and give you a big hug and say thank you.

^ No one is allowed to point out the problem, or to try to solve it.

That's because the problem is intentional. The politicians on the Left WANT more people to be poor and ignorant, and therefore dependent on the govt for handouts. This was LBJ's big achievement. It means votes for the Dems for 200 years.

To even mention the problem is to touch the third rail. The Left will come after you with everything they have. Calling you a racist is just the beginning of the attacks that will end whomever attempts it. [as if only blacks can be poor]

So those that mean well have to avoid mentioning the actual cause, and instead focus on minor secondary causes like school lunch or the like.

It's really sad.

Yea they can say what they want,what they cannot deny is the consequences.

I kinda think Mrs Roosevelt,LBJ who was considered a liberal democrat,would be considered republicans in todays realm.

Because they came out with programs as implemented that addressed the causes and not the consequences we see today.

LBJs goal was addressing the poverty aspect,and actually implemented programs that would have worked,but they were twisted,in over 60 years and trillions of dollars later the level of poverty has not changed,the only thing that has changed is those in poverty have items that were considered only available to the middle class at the time.

Eisenhower enacts the highway system that tore through decades established African American communities,then the answer to that was to give the mothers with children free housing,but they can not have a man reside with them ,which even further destroyed the family nucleus.

Even recently after demolishing Cabrini Green HUD said,if we take the residents of the projects and change their environment placing them in the suburbs they would see how others acted and change their ways.

That was their words not mine.

The problem was they just dumped millions without giving them the needed support and following through.

Like taking a fish out of water,throw it on the bank and telling it to survive and thrive.

It does not work.

Calling people racist that bring it to light is just a tool of oppression,because an individual could very well be racist but it has zero meaning because when you put that racist next to an minority the only difference is skin color because the constitution sets out that both parties have equal rights and protections.

That is the reality of it,what the war on poverty is actually doing is denying a large group their constitutional rights of equal treatment because the consequences strips them of the same opportunity available to others by design and with intent.

Yes the minority community can implement change based on the constitutional aspect, but in order to do that they would have to give up the cradle to grave support in exchange for providing opportunity,I am sure there is a large percentage that would love to do that,but there is a just as large percentage that prefers not to bite the hand that feeds them,which is what is being relied on to maintain support at the cost of others.

They can stay democrats all they want,they just need to understand the difference of cause and consequences and they are the ones paying the consequences for those who could really care less.

Must be a great time to be a supplier or corrupt employee of DPSCD! I bet the brown paper bags are just loaded! ;).

Anyone know if that POS Norman Shy guy is out of prison in yet? If he's still alive he's probably drooling in anticipation of all the money to be made selling $5 pencils, or just drooling from being so damn old.