Has the idea of K-12 boarding schools for DPS ever been floated? Would it work?

believe14 · May-18-14, 10:10 AM

Reading about Newark's dysfunctional schools in New Yorker reminded me a lot of our problems here in Detroit: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

I'm not convinced there's any dollar amount you can throw at inner-city public, charters or privates. In fact, I believe leaders know this, and are motivated merely by funding the crony, political and union coffers. Over 50 years there's been no measurable increase in our nation's worst inner city schools. You can't blame white flight when districts like Newark, Detroit, Chicago and D.C. have some of the highest per pupil funding in the nation.

I believe the only way to disrupt the cycle would be widespread boarding schools. Would this ever be feasible? Newark is flushing $24,500 per student down the drain, tony Cranbrook is $39,000.

**mwilbert** · May-18-14, 10:44 AM

I think boarding schools could work, but I don't think you could convince people to pay for them.

I believe you are overstating the case when you suggest white flight isn't responsible for dysfunctional schools. Of course, it doesn't bear all the responsibility, but the removal of lots of the better students from a school district, the removal of lots of positive role models from the community, and the removal of lots of resources from an area are all going to have a negative effect on student performance. But it is certainly true that there are a lot of things going on to create poor performance, and some of the largest factors are at the family and not the community level. Of course one thing we could do is provide more non-educational support to families, but since we very likely aren't going to do that, one reason boarding schools might work is that they would get kids away from the unpromising environments they would otherwise spend most of their time in.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-18-14, 02:43 PM

Kwame announced one of these on Belle Isle. http://www.atdetroit.net/forum/messa...tml?1215112329

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-19-14, 01:05 AM

I think this should be an option. I am all for there being a wide variety of schools with different methods of helping kids get to adulthood, ready and rarin' to go. Kids from the worst broken homes could really benefit from the stability a boarding school might offer. Foster kids might be better off in a school with a caring professional staff to both look after them and teach them, rather than bouncing from home to home, with stops at shelters and assorted less-than-ideal relatives. The specifics would be tricky, as the schools would take on yet more social responsibility. But it's worth trying, since we are currently failing so many kids.

believe14 · May-19-14, 07:04 AM

Potential push back:

- NAACP, ACLU, etc. would claim it's racist, i.e., the equivalent of putting children into prison.
- Welfare parents would riot if they no longer got EBT, housing, etc. assistance after all the kid's needs are taken care of at school?
- Conservatives would claim single minority mothers casually have babies and get to send them to 13 years of prep school for free, i.e., incentivising out of wedlock pregnancy.
- How many institutions depend on the crime to make money and keep people employed? Fewer jails, fewer police, fewer probation officers, fewer everything.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-19-14, 09:41 AM

Believe14, you are 100% right about the pushback. But it's worth the grief if we can getat least some of the majority of DPS off the life-failure track. Lawsuits by those claiming to "protect" kids and the teacher's unions will be the worst problems. ACLU and NAACP will of course sue, to prevent black kids from being taken out of regular, non-educating schools. To many of the professional victims, institutional control is far more important than results for kids.

**JenniferL** · May-19-14, 06:15 PM

I can see boarding schools as the answer for SOME kids, but only for those of middle of high school age. Little kids belong at home with their families, except in cases of abuse, neglect, or extreme dysfunction. Even then, putting them in an institutional setting is usually not a good idea.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-20-14, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by JenniferL

I can see boarding schools as the answer for SOME kids, but only for those of middle of high school age. Little kids belong at home with their families, except in cases of abuse, neglect, or extreme dysfunction. Even then, putting them in an institutional setting is usually not a good idea.

Jennifer, I agree it should only be an option. It wouldn't be affordable [[or even beneficial) to do it for most kids. But those kids with truly shattered and horrific home lives [[and there a lot of them in Detroit) should have it as an option. Homes without a responsible adult in charge, taking care of the kids. It would have to be carefully planned and monitored. School officials and various social services would need to rigorously plan, and yet be nimble enough to meet the differing challenges kids have from different problematic backgrounds.

believe14 · May-20-14, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by JenniferL

I can see boarding schools as the answer for SOME kids, but only for those of middle of high school age.

Most DPS kids are beyond the point of return by 9th grade. At that point the boarding school would resemble a prison. For this to work it would need to be on young kids, before they're corrupted by their environment.

**mwilbert** · May-20-14, 08:22 AM

I'm don't know that most DPS kids "are beyond the point of [no] return by 9th grade", but for certain a big chunk of them are many grades behind at that point, so to be really effective this would have to start much younger. Maybe 3rd or 4th would be early enough, in combination with intensified early and primary education while they are still at home. All the evidence from standardized testing I have seen indicates that the big drops in relative academic performance start sometime around 4th grade.

I think this is all pointless speculation because, effective or not, I don't think anyone is going to be willing to pay for large-scale boarding schools for poor children. It is being done with some success in charters but it costs the Seed Foundation around $30K/student. http://www.seedfoundation.com/

**Neilr** · May-20-14, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

... to be really effective this would have to start much younger. Maybe 3rd or 4th would be early enough, in combination with intensified early and primary education while they are still at home. All the evidence from standardized testing I have seen indicates that the big drops in relative academic performance start sometime around 4th grade.

Students are taught the skills necessary to become proficient readers [[such as phonics, using context clues and other decoding skills), in grades K-3. In 4th Grade and beyond, while those skills may become more refined, if a child has not learned to read with a degree of fluency he or she will fall further behind as instruction moves from the "learning to read" model into a "reading to learn" mode.

**Hypestyles** · May-20-14, 09:34 PM

If... when... this is explored- it needs absolute transparency, and not what usually passes for "transparancy" around here. The EAA has a mixed track record so far. There are so many abandoned DPS properties that have been scrapped and need to be demolished or sold and rehabbed ASAP.

**mwilbert** · May-21-14, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Neilr

Students are taught the skills necessary to become proficient readers [[such as phonics, using context clues and other decoding skills), in grades K-3. In 4th Grade and beyond, while those skills may become more refined, if a child has not learned to read with a degree of fluency he or she will fall further behind as instruction moves from the "learning to read" model into a "reading to learn" mode.

This could well be true, although surely they are testing reading when they do standardized 4th grade testing, but in any case I strongly suspect you can teach kids to read fluently by the time they are nine without boarding schools.

**Kevgoblue** · May-21-14, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I think this is all pointless speculation because, effective or not, I don't think anyone is going to be willing to pay for large-scale boarding schools for poor children. It is being done with some success in charters but it costs the Seed Foundation around $30K/student. http://www.seedfoundation.com/

I don't question that most would not be agreeable to paying $30K to house poor kids. Guess its a matter of when they'd rather pay it. Now or later.
Based upon the State of Michigan's accounting we pay $34K to house them in prison. http://www.michigan.gov/midashboard/...618---,00.html
I'd rather pay up front and have a more functional society.

believe14 · May-21-14, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

I don't question that most would not be agreeable to paying $30K to house poor kids. Guess its a matter of when they'd rather pay it. Now or later.
Based upon the State of Michigan's accounting we pay $34K to house them in prison. http://www.michigan.gov/midashboard/...618---,00.html
I'd rather pay up front and have a more functional society.

You get it.

**rex** · May-21-14, 12:54 PM

I think student incentives are a good idea. Partnerships with universities and colleges. Make sure the parents understand whats at stake. Your kid scores in a high percentile and gets a 3.5 or better they get a full ride scholarship paid in part by a the Detroit biz community and matched by the state if they agree to return to the city for X number of years upon graduation. I feel like conservatives and suburbanites would be good with helping underprivileged young people who are helping themselves. This is who i would want to help

**ndavies** · May-21-14, 01:35 PM

Didn't the USA try this with the Native Americans. It worked so well then, lets try it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...arding_schools

**mwilbert** · May-21-14, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

I don't question that most would not be agreeable to paying $30K to house poor kids. Guess its a matter of when they'd rather pay it. Now or later.
Based upon the State of Michigan's accounting we pay $34K to house them in prison. http://www.michigan.gov/midashboard/...618---,00.html
I'd rather pay up front and have a more functional society.

I get your point, but since only a small fraction of poor kids become criminals, the math doesn't work from a straight cost-avoidance standpoint. People would actually have to be willing to spend significantly more money than they do now.
I continue to think that this [[among other things) makes widespread adoption of boarding schools unlikely.

GUSHI · May-21-14, 08:28 PM

They need to reopen some of the catholic schools in the city, and give the parents the choice of sending them to catholic school paid by the state. Let nuns have a try to get these kids lives together. Palms up or down, ruler or paddle--that how i got my education.

**Kevgoblue** · May-22-14, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I get your point, but since only a small fraction of poor kids become criminals, the math doesn't work from a straight cost-avoidance standpoint. People would actually have to be willing to spend significantly more money than they do now.
I continue to think that this [[among other things) makes widespread adoption of boarding schools unlikely.

I'll give you that, it was a kneejerk reaction. The majority of the kids will not become wards of the state.
But when you look at the poorest of neighborhoods, how many of the kids "make it out"? We may not necessarily pay incarceration costs but there is definately a disproportionately high use of the social safety net.
So instead of just looking at prision costs, take the others into account as well. How many kids are born to single, undereducated, underemployed mothers? What is the associated cost for public housing, healthcare and / or food assistance until those kids reach the age of majority? And for how many of them will it continue into adulthood? The cycle of poverty tends to persist thru generations.

believe14 · May-22-14, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I get your point, but since only a small fraction of poor kids become criminals, the math doesn't work from a straight cost-avoidance standpoint. People would actually have to be willing to spend significantly more money than they do now.
I continue to think that this [[among other things) makes widespread adoption of boarding schools unlikely.

Small fraction? I suggest you check the arrest rate. Furthermore, kids that drop out, get a criminal record or even graduate with the equivalent of 7th grade skills are on government assistance to the grave.