Posted on 3/8/2016, 2:10:42 PM by MichCapCon
While Detroit Public Schools and 15 of its schools now under a form of state receivership accounted for 3.5 percent of the state’s student population in 2014-15, they claimed 26 percent of the federal money sent to Michigan schools in the largest grant program for children in poverty.
Most federal money to schools is targeted at helping meet the needs of children from low-income backgrounds. And sometimes lost in the ongoing debate over school funding is how much poor communities benefit from federal money compared with wealthier ones.
Rick Joseph, the Michigan Teacher of the Year, wrote a column this month in Bridge Magazine in which he alleged a funding gap between “debt-ridden urban and rural areas and affluent suburbs.” Joseph teaches at Birmingham, an affluent suburb.
Under Michigan’s complicated school funding distribution formula, all districts get a minimum per-pupil foundation allowance, with state tax dollars filling in for lower local property taxes in poorer school districts. The foundation allowance makes up as much as 85 percent of the money a school district receives from the state. Districts in a small number of wealthy communities that had high local school taxes and spending before the current system went into effect in 1994 continue to receive higher allowances.
Birmingham had an $11,854 per pupil foundation allowance in the 2014-15 school year. Detroit’s was $7,296 per pupil. But there was another large source of school funding that was tilted the other direction.
Detroit received $3,589 per student from the federal government last year for general operations while Birmingham got just $292 per student. This is what one should expect given that federal money is distributed largely on the basis of how many students come from low-income backgrounds, as demonstrated by eligibility for free lunches. Just 7.6 percent of Birmingham students met that test, but 75 percent of Detroit students qualified.
Total federal funding for DPS in 2014-2015 was $169.3 million, which accounted for 25 percent of the Detroit district’s operations budget. Birmingham received a total of $2.4 million in federal money that year.
Detroit Public Schools teachers who supported recent sickout strikes clamored for a level playing field for Detroit students. In terms of federal dollars, the playing field does favor districts with more students in poorer families. This money comes from several pots.
For example, in 2014-15, the federal government awarded $486.9 million to Michigan in the form of Title I-Part A funding. Detroit Public Schools, which had 47,595 students that year, received $109.6 million of that money. Schools under the state’s Educational Achievement Authority receivership (6,556 enrollment) were awarded $14.7 million. The next largest federal share went to Grand Rapids, with an enrollment of 16,546 students. It received $12.0 million.
Detroit also does well in overall funding. In the 2014-15 school year, the district collected $13,743 per pupil from all sources. The statewide average was $9,457.
“Too often people focus on the state foundation allowance as if it is the only source of education funding,” said Gary Naeyaert, the executive director of the Great Lakes Education Project. “The reality is that federal funds targeted for at-risk students level the playing field considerably. It makes more sense to look at total funding than any one funding stream.”
The federal funding formula is bizarre. It’s not more money that will save the schools that are doing poorly. It’s more discipline, a lot more.
School funding at the levels in American states has no correlation with school performance.
Parent envolvement has a very high correlation.
Some of the lowest funded schools have the greatest success.
Money won’t solve the problem. The problem is the kids being brought into the world by baby mommas and baby daddies who are no more fit for parenting than a cage full of monkeys.
Translation:
Tons of home-based pre schooling before the age of 5.
Tons of home-based after schooling once the child enters government school.
Tons of summertime homeschooling.
Private tutoring at the first indication of falling behind
So?....If parents are doing nearly all the work, where is the evidence that “good” schools are actually “good”. They could be just as ineffective as the bad schools.
If institutional schools actually worked they would be effective regardless of whether the parents were involved or not.
Fundamentally, it is unknown if institutional schools actually teach anything at all . Studies have never been done showing how much is learned in the classroom as compared to that learned at home. It is possible that the only thing institutional school do is send home a very expensive curriculum that students and parents following IN THE HOME.
I disagree. Lots of Children do well in school merely with parental support and supervision.
The big difference is that parents who value education, transmit that value to their children, and then support the school structure of education. Schools have been around for a long time and do a pretty good job at basics, if the parents support them. There is an economy of scale in education.
If the parents do not support and value education, it is very hard for a school to overcome that.
A study of D.C. schools found that the primary reason black students did not do well was that their parents did not value education, and their peers considered studying and doing homework “acting white” and actively discouraged it.
Where are the studies that actually prove that anything is learned in school? Why is it simply assumed?
Before spending over $25,000/year/ child ( as is the case in Washington, D.C., maybe the wise thing to do is to see if the system actually is effective for any child.
I contend that the massive bulk of what a child actually learns is **in the HOME***. The school is merely sending home a curriculum. If I am wrong show me the studies. By the way, there aren’t any.
My observation is that successful institutionally schooled children and successful homeschoolers are doing very much the same things IN THE HOME. And...Both groups are spending about the same amount of time at their desk or kitchen table IN THE HOME.
There is one difference. Homeschoolers are less tired and have far more time to develop their talents.
I still contend that if the typical government school were effective children would learn in them regardless of parental involvement.
So.. since there no studies.. your opinion must therefor be fact?
Get over yourself.
Yet most parents in Detroit send their kids to charter schools.
Why not?
Of course, you are completely free to continuing posting to me.
Thank you.
If you do, some may conclude that you are a stalker.
I'll risk it.
For the record, I find you neither a bully or stalker.
You are like the reporter seeking an answer from someone who avoids the real fact.
I support you.
Well, that makes one! ;-)
The urban schools in the NYC metro area regard the home as the most detrimental place for black students, and go to great lengths (including free breakfasts, offering lunch during the summer, etc.) to basically try to remove them from the home as much as possible.
Without involved parents, there is no reason for teachers or students to even pretend to try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.