Rethink, Reset, Rebuild A shared vision of performing schools in quality buildings for every child in Detroit Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve. ABOUT IFF IFF, the largest nonprofit community development financial institution (CDFI) in the Midwest, provides comprehensive community development across the region through capital solutions, real estate consulting and development, and action-oriented research for nonprofits and institutions serving low-income communities. Metro Detroit is a major focus area for IFF. Since opening its Detroit offices in the Fisher Building in 2014, IFF has lent over forty million dollars throughout southeast Michigan, seventy percent of it in Detroit; supported more than forty-five organizations in the city with long-term facilities planning; and conducted two major research studies on early care and education in the metropolitan area. As part of IFF’s mission to strengthen nonprofits and the communities they serve, IFF Research conducts analyses to facilitate strategic planning and resource allocation for states, municipalities, districts, schools, foundations, and nonprofits throughout the country. Over the course of nearly fifteen years of involvement in K-12 school improvement, IFF Research has developed a signature approach to assessing need in public education. IFF’s needs assessment methodology is distinctive for its spatial analysis of performing capacity at the neighborhood level. Its school studies are also driven by careful examination of the contextual factors that influence the public school landscape. Decision-makers have utilized insights from IFF’s education research to inform strategic initiatives such as investments in districts and schools, reallocation or sale of vacant school buildings, facilities planning and site selection, identification of schools for potential turnarounds or as sources of best practices, 2 solicitations and selection criteria for charter schools, and targeted communication regarding public school options. IFF’s education needs assessments evolved out of a partnership with the leadership of Chicago Public Schools. In 2003, the district sought to identify neighborhoods to prioritize for the location of new performing schools. IFF’s research enhanced the district’s ability to target its school improvement efforts and led to a better distribution of K-12 options for families. IFF’s needs assessments have evolved and been adapted to guide policy and practice in many other cities, including Cleveland, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Washington, DC. IFF has also completed statewide analyses of public school access in Illinois and Indiana and needs assessments for early care and education throughout the Midwest. IFF Research completed Rethink, Reset, Rebuild with financial support from the Skillman Foundation. The project’s advisory committee included representatives from Detroit Public Schools Community District, the Detroit Board of Education, the office of the Mayor of Detroit, the American Federation of Teachers, the Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, EdFuel, Enroll Detroit, the Grand Valley State University Charter Schools Office, the National Charter Schools Institute, and Rock Ventures. Rethink, Reset, Rebuild A shared vision of performing schools in quality buildings for every child in Detroit ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study would not have been possible without the detailed facilities data that Recon Management Group collected at dozens of public schools across Detroit. IFF is grateful to Mark Paliszewski and Jim Jung at Recon for their professionalism and collaboration throughout the project. Superintendent Nikolai P. Vitti, Ed.D., the leadership of Detroit Public Schools Community District, and Detroit Education Coalition 2.0 have partnered throughout this project to provide feedback on the data and analysis and to prepare to translate its findings into action. Rob Kimball, Ed.D. at the Grand Valley State University Charter Schools Office and Cindy Schumacher and Janelle Brzezinski at the Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University were instrumental in procuring data on charter schools. Benjamin Calnin of Dynamo Metrics partnered with IFF to include valuable data on neighborhood conditions around public schools in Detroit. The partnership of Tonya Allen, Punita Dani Thurman, and the rest of the team at the Skillman Foundation was invaluable for spreading word about the study and engaging core constituencies. Several IFF staff who contributed hours of time and deep expertise to this project moved to new phases of their career over the course of the study. R. Jovita Baber, Ph.D., was Vice President of Research and Evaluation; Jonathan Thomas was Research Associate; Megan McGowan was Data Analyst; Jess Joseph Behrens was Senior GIS Analyst; and Rick Norton was Managing Director of Regional Real Estate Services. Their many contributions are woven throughout the report. 1 IFF PROJECT STAFF Kirby Burkholder, President, Social Impact Accelerator Nicholas V. DiRago, Research Associate Jesse Bakker, GIS Analyst Jordan Brown, Research Analyst, Education Katie Coleman, Corporate Communications Manager IFF PROJECT ADVISORY STAFF Joe Neri, Chief Executive Officer Jose Cerda III, Vice President of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Andrew Alt, Director of School Services Jenny Boyts, School Services Manager Kiae Considine, Director of Resource Development Ja’Net DeFell, Lead Developer, Michigan Alexis Dishman, Director of Lending, Education Gina Martinez, Ph.D., Research Associate Rachel Sikora, Senior Project Manager James Singleton, Senior Owner’s Representative ADVISORY COMMITTEE Roderick L. Brown Executive Director for Planning, Academic Division, Detroit Public Schools Community District Kristina Campa-Gruca Director of Partnerships, Detroit, EdFuel Don Cooper Vice President for Policy and Communication, National Charter Schools Institute Rob Kimball, Ed.D. Associate Vice President for Charter Schools, Grand Valley State University Sonya S. Mays Treasurer, Detroit Board of Education Maria Montoya Director of Communications and Partnerships, Enroll Detroit Walter G. Cook Educational Data and Research Manager, New Detroit, Inc. Jack Elsey, Jr. Executive Director, Detroit Children’s Fund Eli Savit Senior Advisor and Counsel to the Mayor, City of Detroit Jason Mancini Director of Public Policy, Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University Cynthia M. Schumacher Executive Director, Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University Dan Quisenberry President, Michigan Association of Public School Academies Chris Uhl Vice President of Community Investments, Rock Ventures Angela G. Reyes Founder and Executive Director, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation Felicia M. Venable-Akinbode Executive Director of Operations and Auxiliary Services, Detroit Public Schools Community District Jason Rose, Ph.D. Senior Executive Director of Research, Evaluation, and Analytics, Detroit Public Schools Community District Kisha Verdusco Director of Enrollment, Detroit Public Schools Community District Craig Thiel Research Director, Citizens Research Council of Michigan Nate Walker K-12 Organizer & Policy Analyst, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO PEER REVIEWERS Benjamin Calnin Managing Director and Data Scientist, Dynamo Metrics Punita Dani Thurman Program Director, The Skillman Foundation Jeremy Vidito Senior Executive Director of Finance, Detroit Public Schools Community District Nikolai P. Vitti, Ed.D. Superintendent, Detroit Public Schools Community District 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Citywide Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Grade Span Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix A: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood................................................................................................... 53 Appendix B: Profiles of Highest-Need Neighborhoods ............................................................................................... 57 Appendix C: Commute Patterns in Detroit Public Schools Community District.................................................... 77 Appendix D: Aligning Educational Options from Birth through Twelfth Grade .................................................... 85 Appendix E: Data and Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 87 MAPS Map 1: Service Gap, Overall (Grades K-12) ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Map 2: Service Level, Overall (Grades K-12) .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Map 3: Density of School-Age Children .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Map 4: Poverty Level ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Map 5: Service Gap, Elementary School (Grades K-5) .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Map 6: Service Level, Elementary School (Grades K-5) ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Map 7: Service Gap, Middle School (Grades 6-8) ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Map 8: Service Level, Middle School (Grades 6-8) ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Map 9: Service Gap, High School (Grades 9-12)..................................................................................................................................................... 46 Map 10: Service Level, High School (Grades 9-12) ................................................................................................................................................ 48 Map 11: Accountability Rating of DPSCD Schools Attended (Grades K-12) ..................................................................................................... 77 Map 12: Accountability Rating of DPSCD Elementary Schools Attended (Grades K-5) .................................................................................. 78 Map 13: Accountability Rating of DPSCD Middle Schools Attended (Grades 6-8) .......................................................................................... 79 Map 14: Accountability Rating of DPSCD High Schools Attended (Grades 9-12) ............................................................................................ 80 Map 15: DPSCD Student Travel Distance to School (Grades K-12) .................................................................................................................... 81 Map 16: DPSCD Student Travel Distance to Elementary Schools (Grades K-5)................................................................................................ 82 Map 17: DPSCD Student Travel Distance to Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) ........................................................................................................ 83 Map 18: DPSCD Student Travel Distance to High Schools (Grades 9-12) .......................................................................................................... 84 Map 18: Service Gap, Early Care and Education (Ages 0-5) ................................................................................................................................. 85 Map 19: Service Gap, K-12 Education ...................................................................................................................................................................... 85 3 CHARTS Chart 1: Population and Enrollment in Traditional District Schools in Detroit, 1920-2015 ............................................................................ 13 Chart 2: Student Enrollment by School Governance and Location ..................................................................................................................... 14 Chart 3: Performance of General Education Schools (Grades K-12) ................................................................................................................... 17 Chart 4: Student Enrollment by MDE Accountability Rating ............................................................................................................................... 23 Chart 5: MDE Accountability Rating by School Type ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Chart 6: Poverty and Performance ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Chart 7: Poverty Concentration and Performance ................................................................................................................................................. 28 Chart 8: Building Condition and School Performance (Grades K-12) ................................................................................................................ 30 Chart 9: Performance of Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) ................................................................................................................................. 33 Chart 10: Building Condition and School Performance, Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) ........................................................................... 38 Chart 11: Performance of Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Chart 12: Building Condition and School Performance, Middle Schools (Grades 6-8).................................................................................... 44 Chart 13: Performance of High Schools (Grades 9-12) ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Chart 14: Building Condition and School Performance, High Schools (Grades 9-12) ..................................................................................... 50 Chart 15: Building Cost Components ...................................................................................................................................................................... 90 TABLES Table 1: Breakdown of Public School Enrollment Within Detroit ....................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Supply and Demand, Citywide.................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Supply and Demand, Highest-Need Neighborhoods .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 4: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Overall (Grades K-12) ............................................................................................................ 20 Table 5: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Elementary Schools (Grades K-5)......................................................................................... 37 Table 6: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) ................................................................................................. 43 Table 7: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, High Schools (Grades 9-12)................................................................................................... 49 Table 8: Service Gap Comparison, Early Care and Education and K-12 Education .......................................................................................... 86 Table 9: Building Component Rating System .......................................................................................................................................................... 90 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reset, Rethink, Rebuild: A Shared Vision of Performing Schools in Quality Buildings for Every Child in Detroit is a study about neighborhoods, educational opportunity, and the conditions of public school buildings. Through a place-based supply-and-demand needs assessment, the report gauges access to performing schools across Detroit and identifies the neighborhoods in which the K-12 education system fails to reach the greatest numbers of children. To inform comprehensive school improvement and community development, the study also evaluates facilities conditions in and around the highest-need neighborhoods. The report and accompanying online tool lay the groundwork for cross-sector, citywide collaboration to boost access to performing public schools in the Motor City; to strategically allocate resources, including facilities; and to seize opportunities to adaptively reuse the sites of former schools to strengthen neighborhoods. BRIEF METHODOLOGY At its core, this study is a supply-and-demand needs assessment. It assumes that all children can excel academically and should have access to a performing public school. For the purposes of this analysis, a performing school is one that earned a rating of Green or Lime from the Michigan Department of Education. The study uses enrollment and performance data from academic year 2015-16. In the needs assessment, demand is the number of students attending public (district and charter) schools. Supply is the capacity of performing public schools. The study calculates the service gap – the difference between demand and supply – for the city as a whole and individually for fifty-four neighborhoods. The service gap is presented at the overall (K-12) level and at the elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12) levels. The service level – the proportion of students who have access to a performing school – is calculated for the same geographies and levels. The study identifies the ten neighborhoods in which the service gap is greatest as the highest-need neighborhoods. 5 A facilities assessment then contextualizes the needs assessment. Most active public school buildings in and around the highest-need neighborhoods were surveyed physically in 2017. Ratings of individual building components or systems were weighted and aggregated into a summative designation for each school building: Best, Better, Worse, or Worst. They allow for one-toone comparison of school buildings of varying sizes and grade spans. Designations are relative to the other schools surveyed and not to an external or absolute standard. KEY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS • Four out of five children attending public (district Root school improvement in place-based strategy. and charter) schools in Detroit in 2015-16 could not access a performing school. To guarantee performing environments for every student, the K-12 system needs to make available approximately seventy thousand additional seats in performing schools. • Thirty-eight percent of the need for performing public schools in Detroit was concentrated in the ten highestneed neighborhoods, which appeared in three clusters away from the urban core. These neighborhoods, ranked by their service gap, are listed below: East Side West Side Southwest Side Chadsey (#2) Finney (#3) Cerveny/ Grandmont (#1) Vernor/ Mt. Olivet (#10) Junction (#4) Evergreen (#5) Harmony Village (#6) Mackenzie (#7) Greenfield (#8) Brooks (#9) • Calibrate school improvement efforts and rightsizing strategies to demand for and supply of performing schools and the conditions of academic facilities at the local level. • Develop strategies for the highest-need neighborhoods, where the most children lack access to performing public schools, to have the greatest impact on the service gap. • Through ongoing community engagement and transparent decision-making, lay the groundwork for an adaptive reuse strategy for former public school buildings that is driven by communities’ needs at the local level: – Coordinate rightsizing and adaptive reuse with community and neighborhood planning; – Assess need for services and amenities that former school buildings could house; – Identify partners and strategies to repurpose buildings that will increase quality of life for existing residents as part of the process of rightsizing. • Although most district and charter schools were underperforming in 2015-16, evidence of positive outcomes is emerging. Twenty-five mid-high- or highpoverty schools provided over thirteen thousand seats in performing environments to Detroit students. • In and around the highest-need neighborhoods, there is misalignment between building conditions and school performance. Many higher-performing schools are not located in the highest-quality buildings. SECTION CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE 6 Coordinate strategic planning for K-12 public education in Detroit within and across school governing bodies. • Identify areas of policy and practice that can save costs or otherwise provide mutual benefits as initial points of collaboration across school governing bodies. Where possible, codify and institutionalize collaboration. • Continue integrating national best practices and performance-based standards for quality charter school authorizing. Efficiently allocate facilities resources so that real estate portfolios are commensurate with student enrollment. • Secure public and/or philanthropic funding to conduct • Avoid redundancies and cross purposes by coordinating school location decisions across governing bodies. • Collaborate within and across governing bodies to replicate, expand, and diffuse best practices that have emerged in performing schools and to intervene in underperforming schools. • Integrate data across governing bodies. Ensure that all public data is available in the same databases for district and charter schools to allow for side-by-side comparisons and comprehensive citywide research on K-12 education. Base school improvement on transparent, meaningful, and consistent performance indicators. • Strengthen the school accountability system in Michigan. Implement academically rigorous summative ratings that allow for differentiated strategy and needs assessments. Keep this system in place year over year to allow for meaningful comparisons over time. • Intervene in all underperforming schools. Prioritize consistently underperforming schools for potential turnaround, reconstitution, or closure. Do not renew the charters of underperforming charter schools. 7 a detailed review of all open and closed school buildings currently in the portfolios of Detroit Public Schools Community District or any charter operator. Develop precise estimates for the future costs associated with restoring or maintaining safe learning and working environments in each school building. • Create manageable enrollment and expansion strategies for performing schools in underutilized buildings to maximize the use of space and to increase access to highquality academic programs. • Identify potential colocation partners in underutilized, quality school buildings that house performing schools. CITYWIDE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION: RETHINK, RESET, REBUILD Seizing Opportunities. Despite brisk downtown redevelopment, Detroit’s residential neighborhoods continue to grapple with the consequences of decades of disinvestment and depopulation. The obstacles to quality education in the city are among the most pressing. Practitioners and decisionmakers in K-12 education are accustomed to troubling headlines about the state of public schools in Detroit. Sensational soundbites, however, obscure meaningful progress that stakeholders in K-12 education have made in recent years. Many conditions for effective coordination around school improvement in the Motor City are taking root: • Stakeholders from across sectors – district, charter, political, union, nonprofit, neighborhood, parent, business, and philanthropic – have resumed processes of citywide coordination for school improvement.1 • The traditional district’s finances stabilized after the approval of a state plan to retire its debt.2 • For the first time in years, the district is under the management of an appointed superintendent and the governance of an elected school board.3 • Student enrollment in Detroit Public Schools Community District began to stabilize in 2016;4 in 2017, enrollment substantially exceeded projections.5 • Charter school regulation in Michigan improved in 2016, including requirements that some consistently underperforming charter schools close and stricter standards to ensure high-quality charter school authorizing.6 9 • K-12 school funding in Michigan is higher than ever and poised to continue increasing,7 and charter schools’ funding streams are approaching parity with those of traditional district schools.8 After decades of tumult, the present moment could mark a transition towards stability and quality – a time to rethink the city’s challenges in K-12 education, to reset policy and practice in a coordinated way, and to rebuild public education in Detroit. Rethink, Reset, Rebuild is designed to help stakeholders seize this momentum. Fundamentally, the study is a tool to facilitate a collaborative process of agenda-setting and strategic planning. The data and analysis presented throughout can support stakeholders in understanding and transforming the public school landscape in Detroit. It provides a common framework about access to performing schools and a shared vocabulary around the factors that shape and intersect it. Leaders at all levels can use this data to differentiate responsibilities without losing sight of their shared goal: to guarantee access to performing public schools in quality buildings for every child in Detroit. Recognizing Challenges. Signs of progress in Detroit schools are encouraging and long overdue. The city exhibits some of the broadest and deepest challenges in American K-12 education – and many of them are not new. Educators and other leaders in the Motor City have contended with swings in demographics, finances, and facilities and struggled with academic performance in the city’s public schools for decades.9 The city’s obstacles in the K-12 sphere are well-known, and this study is about solving them rather than merely exposing them. In order to acknowledge the stakes of school improvement efforts, however, the acuteness of challenges in Detroit should be understood: • Detroit’s students demonstrated the lowest levels of math and reading proficiency of any major American city in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015.10 Traditional district schools’ rates of chronic absenteeism are the highest in the country,11 and many schools struggle to fill teaching vacancies.12 • In early 2017, Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) settled a lawsuit over hazardous facilities conditions across its portfolio.13 Even after the oft-contested closure of nearly two hundred school buildings between 2000 and 2015,14 most of the district’s active academic facilities remain underutilized.15 • The district recently emerged from a protracted period of emergency management and a high-profile settlement to avoid bankruptcy16 – the latest chapter in a history of discontinuous governance that dates to the 1970s.17 The superintendent of DPSCD has decried the district’s history of financial mismanagement, including under emergency managers.18 • Michigan’s K-12 funding system tends not to close the resource gap for districts with low property values and high proportions of economically disadvantaged students and children with disabilities, such as Detroit.19 Ensuing funding shortfalls are particularly difficult for the city’s traditional district schools, which educate a disproportionate number of children with disabilities and require additional financial resources to meet students’ needs in the classroom.20 Additionally, many charter schools have struggled with gaps in revenue relative to their district peers.21 • Although some charter schools in Detroit outperform traditional district schools,22 the city’s sizable charter sector has contributed to school choice more effectively than to school quality. The accountability system for charter schools was weak for well over a decade,23 and effective coordination across school governing bodies within Detroit has been rare.24 In the face of these challenges, parents of nearly a quarter of Detroit’s public school students send their children to schools outside of the city.25 This outflow of students – and thereby of funding – exacerbates financial and facilities challenges. More fundamentally, however, it demonstrates families’ lack of confidence in the public school options in their neighborhoods, district and charter alike. The intractability of many obstacles to equitable, highquality K-12 education at scale in Detroit should temper desire for quick fixes and panacea. Better schools will not emerge overnight or through siloed interventions. A long-term, coordinated, cross-sector, multi-level response is the most promising approach to a crisis borne of years of disinvestment, institutional fragmentation, and mismanagement. Fortunately, such a response is not out of reach. Over the course of the analysis and stakeholder consultation for this study, IFF brought together a coalition of leaders in the K-12 community. These encounters made one thing clear: across sectors and organizations, there is talent, passion, and deep expertise at work in Detroit’s schools. The diversity of stakeholders that worked together to shape and review this study is but one example of the ways that leaders in the Motor City are ready to work together to improve opportunities for children. 10 PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Enrollment Breakdown by School Governance and Type. The unit of analysis for the needs assessment at the core of this study is the school – not the individual student. The methodology (see Appendix E) uses school-level data to make determinations about educational access at the neighborhood and city levels. In 2015-16, two hundred free public schools served over eighty-eight thousand students in Detroit. This study categorizes schools along three dimensions: governance, service area or authorizer, and programming. This study is about the demand for and supply of performing public schools that provide a general education curriculum in Detroit. The demand side of the equation is based on the number of students placing a demand on a traditional district or charter school located in the city. In other words, the analysis calculates the capacity of schools needed to provide a seat in a performing environment to everyone who currently opts into the city’s public school system. Suburban schools of choice and schools that exclusively offered alternative, vocational, or special education curricula were excluded from this analysis and are rendered in gray in Table 1. Population Change and Enrollment Shifts. In addition to the eighty-eight thousand students enrolled in Detroit schools, a substantial share of Detroit families’ demand for public education extends beyond the borders of the Motor City. Understanding the distribution of demand is crucial to serving students who are currently enrolled in Detroit’s public schools. It also helps account for future opportunities and needs if increased school quality draws more Detroiters back to the city’s schools. 11 From its peak of nearly three hundred thousand enrolled students in 1966,26 the public education system in Detroit now serves fewer than ninety thousand children across traditional district and charter schools. Enrollment in traditional district schools in particular plummeted by eighty-four percent over the past five decades. In the last fifteen years, enrollment in traditional district schools declined at over twice the rate of the city’s already substantial loss of population.27 City-level population loss does not fully explain the disproportionate downtick in demand for traditional district schools. While the trend is not completely attributable to school choice, the combined effects of charter schools and suburban schools of choice28 have required traditional district schools to confront unprecedented demographic change and fiscal uncertainty.29 The rapidity and depth of these shifts – and the complexity of managing them – should not be overlooked. In 2015-16, parents and guardians of nearly twenty-six thousand children living in Detroit opted out of the city’s public school system altogether and sent their children to schools of choice in the suburbs.30 Of these, nearly two thirds attended a charter school. Among children whose parents chose Detroit schools for K-12 public education, just under forty-two percent attended a charter. The remaining fifty-nine percent attended a school under the governance of Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) or the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) of Michigan. Imprecision around public school enrollment trends can confuse strategies designed to improve access to performing public schools within the city. The charter Table 1: Breakdown of Public School Enrollment Within Detroit Governance and School Types* Campuses # Enrollment Proportion # Proportion Within Governance Type Overall Elementary (K-5) Middle (6-8) High School (9-12) Total (K-12) Within Governance Type Overall Traditional District Schools 93 100% 47% 22,585 9,226 13,746 45,557 100% 52% Neighborhood 61 66% 31% 18,097 6,184 7,236 31,517 69% 36% Magnet/Selective 22 24% 11% 4,337 2,812 5,548 12,697 28% 14% Special Program 10 11% 5% 151 230 962 1,343 3% 2% Alternative/Vocational 5 5% 3% 0 111 644 755 2% 1% Special Education 5 5% 3% 151 119 318 588 1% 1% Education Achievement Authority (EAA) Schools 12 100% 6% 2,046 930 2,772 5,748 100% 7% General Education 12 100% 6% 2,046 930 2,772 5,748 100% 7% Charter Schools 95 100% 48% 19,736 9,442 7,903 37,081 100% 42% College/UniversityAuthorized 73 77% 37% 16,496 8,259 7,554 32,309 87% 37% General Education 66 69% 33% 16,353 8,231 6,508 31,092 84% 35% Alternative/Vocational 6 6% 3% 0 28 1,046 1,074 3% 1% Special Education 1 1% 1% 143 0 0 143 0% 0% District-Authorized 14 15% 7% 2,569 851 169 3,589 10% 4% General Education 14 15% 7% 2,569 851 169 3,589 10% 4% RESA-Authorized 5 5% 3% 6 49 180 235 1% 0% General Education 2 2% 1% 2 27 7 36 0% 0% Alternative/Vocational 3 3% 2% 4 22 173 199 1% 0% EAA-Authorized 3 3% 2% 665 283 0 948 3% 1% 3 3% 3% General Education Grand Total 200 2% 665 283 0 948 100% 44,367 19,598 24,421 88,386 1% 100% *See Appendix E for definitions of the school categorizations used in this section. school sector in Detroit is frequently cited as serving over half of the city’s students, a greater market share than in any American city other than New Orleans.32 To be sure, parents and guardians of children in Detroit choose the charter sector at a high rate: forty-six percent of the city’s students were enrolled in a charter school in the city or in a suburb in 2015-16, and more Detroit students attended charter schools than attended DPSCD. The majority of 12 Chart 1: Population and Enrollment in Traditional District Schools in Detroit, 1920-2015 100% In the last 15 years, enrollment in traditional district schools declined at over twice the rate of the city’s already substantial loss of population. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 1920 1930 1940 1950 Population of Detroit Chart 2: Student Enrollment by School Governance and Location 31 Charter Schools (46%) Traditional District Schools (49%) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Enrollment in District Schools children who lived in Detroit and attended public schools, however, enrolled in a district-operated school – mostly in DPSCD (including former EAA schools), with a substantial contingent opting for suburban district schools of choice. Among children who attended public schools within Detroit, traditional district schools enrolled nearly a third more students than charter schools. Responding to Enrollment Trends through Collaboration. 5% 13 Education Achievement Authority District and charter schools in Detroit share responsibility over K-12 education in the city. Students are enrolled in neighborhood schools, magnet and selective schools, alternative and vocational schools, and charter schools under the jurisdiction of a plethora of authorizers and operators. Charter schools’ market share in Detroit has reached the magnitude at which demand for charters typically plateaus.33 Shared responsibility seems likely to be the status quo for the foreseeable future. With limited resources for public education, cross-sector enrollment requires cross-sector collaboration. District and charter schools are working towards a common goal: increased access to performing schools for Detroit children. Effective networks of coordination between district and charter schools are increasingly a “necessity, not a nicety”34 in cities such as Detroit with broad school choice and declining enrollment. Throughout the country, cooperation between district and charter schools has had tangible benefits for both sectors.35 Coordination in the areas of accountability, school improvement, enrollment systems, and facilities, among others, have improved the public school landscape in cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. Efforts have been particularly effective when executed around an explicit, binding compact. No formal district-charter compact exists in Detroit, and cross-sector coordination has been inconsistent at best in the Motor City.36 Better coordination among governing bodies could have considerable impact on the accessibility of performing schools in Detroit – without compromising any individual body’s capacity to innovate and improve internally. ACCESS TO PERFORMING SCHOOLS School Performance vs. School Quality. This study assesses access to performing schools. A school is considered performing if it achieved a rating of Green or Lime from the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) for its performance in academic year 2015-16. At the time, MDE used a tiered, color-coded system to rate schools: Green (highest), Lime, Yellow, Orange, or Red (lowest).37 As of the publication of this report, schools in Michigan will no longer receive a summative performance rating, beginning with data from academic year 2016-17.38 In 2015-16, ratings were derived from scores on up to six components: Assessment Participation, Assessment Proficiency, Graduation, Attendance, Educator Evaluations, and Compliance. Schools were assigned a rating based on the proportion of possible points that they earned across these categories. Ratings could then be lowered based on the outcome of a series of audits. For example, schools could be docked for severely low outcomes in the Attendance, Educator Evaluation, or Compliance categories or for achievement gaps among student subgroups. The results of the Spring 2016 Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) were a primary driver of the color-coded ratings for academic year 2015-16. That year was the second in which the M-STEP was administered. As a result of the lack of historical test data, MDE was unable to include multi-year proficiency averages in its color-coded designations.39 The advisory committee and peer reviewers for this study expressed reservations about using the color-coded system for this reason, but IFF and partners could not reach consensus about a viable alternative. Given available data at the time 14 Table 2: Supply and Demand, Citywide Grade Span Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Percent of Citywide Gap Elementary (K–5) 17 43,523 4,960 38,563 11% 56% Middle (6–8) 18 19,099 4,430 14,669 23% 21% High School (9–12) 9 22,211 6,319 15,892 28% 23% Overall (K–12) 28* 84,833 15,709 69,124 19% 100% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. of the analysis, the 2015-16 MDE ratings were deemed the best option for defining school performance. Stakeholders that IFF consulted were in near-unanimous agreement about the need for a better, more rigorous accountability system in Michigan. of high-quality schools; by the same token, high-quality schools accomplish more than state assessments can capture. A high level of academic performance is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of a high-quality school. Ultimately, IFF chose to align with the state’s standards in order to maximize the report’s applicability. Stakeholders in K-12 education are held accountable to MDE’s metrics. The color-coded system’s six components, if imperfect, are important measures of school effectiveness. Using these ratings to help define levels of need creates resonance between existing standards and the efforts that school leaders and other decision-makers can develop based on the needs that this study uncovers. Limitations of external data notwithstanding, by analyzing access to performing schools as defined by the State of Michigan, this report helps lay groundwork for efforts to improve academic outcomes. Detroit’s public education system, across district and charter schools, struggles to guarantee access to schools that clear a foundational bar of academic performance. Strengthening this core element of high-quality education is the beginning, not the end, of school improvement. Yet it is a crucial step towards educating the whole child. Utilizing the color-coded system does not, however, mean that the determinations about access to performing schools throughout this study capture every important function of K-12 education. Beyond merely transmitting basic skills, schools anchor communities. They foster critical thinking, self-understanding, social and emotional learning, cultural competency, citizenship, and wellness. Standardized tests do not measure these vital components 15 Supply and Demand Citywide. In 2015-16, there were 178 general education public (district or charter) schools in Detroit. Of these, twentyeight were performing (Green- or Lime-rated). The performing schools offered over fifteen thousand seats to students. With about eighty-five thousand students enrolled, however, just under seventy thousand children lacked access to a performing school. Table 3: Supply and Demand, Highest-Need Neighborhoods Grade Span Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Percent of Citywide Gap Elementary (K–5) 5 16,616 1,266 15,351 8% 22% Middle (6–8) 5 7,059 1,062 5,997 15% 9% High School (9–12) 2 7,021 2,083 4,938 30% 7% Overall (K–12) 8* 30,697 4,411 26,285 14% 38% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. Overall, four out of every five children enrolled in public schools in Detroit could not access a seat in a performing K-12 school. Based on the difference between supply (15,709), which gauges the capacity of performing schools, and the number of students who were actually enrolled in performing schools (14,855), there were an estimated 854 unfilled seats in Green- or Lime-rated schools in 2015-16. This marginal allotment of seats represents less than two percent of the citywide service gap. away from the urban core. These neighborhoods, ranked by their service gap, are listed below: Access to performing schools in Detroit was greatest for high schoolers and lowest for elementary schoolers. More than one out of four students in grades nine through twelve in the city could access a performing school in 2015-16, as compared to roughly one out of ten students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Across Detroit, over half of the service gap was concentrated in elementary school; middle and high school each accounted for just under a quarter. Mackenzie (#7) The Service Gap and Highest-Need Neighborhoods (Grades K-12). Thirty-eight percent of the need for performing public schools in Detroit was concentrated in the ten highestneed neighborhoods, which appeared in three clusters East Side Finney (#3) Mt. Olivet (#10) West Side Cerveny/ Grandmont (#1) Evergreen (#5) Southwest Side Chadsey (#2) Vernor/ Junction (#4) Harmony Village (#6) Greenfield (#8) Brooks (#9) Across the highest-need neighborhoods, fourteen percent of students had access to a performing school in 2015-16 – five percentage points lower than the citywide service level. While over thirty thousand students were enrolled across these ten neighborhoods, performing schools provided fewer than five thousand seats therein, leaving a gap of over twenty-six thousand. This gap represents roughly two fifths of Detroit’s citywide service gap. 16 Chart 3: Performance of General Education Schools (Grades K-12) 17 9 35 7 7 2 6 District 2 6 1 3 1 7 9 2 1 2 1 2 5 3 4 9 2 1 2 1 EAA 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 Charter (by Authorizer) MDE Accountability Rating Green 17 Lime Yellow Orange Red 3 4 1 1 3 4 1 Across grade spans there is substantial need for performing schools in every neighborhood in Detroit. This diffuse lack of access makes the Motor City somewhat unusual relative to other markets in which IFF has conducted needs assessments for K-12 schools. In many cases, the service gap has been more heavily concentrated in a handful of high-areas. As a result, IFF has often recommended a specific focus on the highest-need neighborhoods to increase the service level and close the service gap.40 Addressing the highest-need areas of Detroit will have a disproportionate impact on the service gap. It will not, however, match the scale of the problem. The depth of need for better schools across Detroit means that neighborhood-by-neighborhood strategies must be carried out as part of a broader, systematic effort to increase school performance across the city. Some solutions will take root at the city level, affecting neighborhoods across Detroit. Others may require collaboration with higher levels of government. looking to maximize the impact of investments could choose to focus on the highest-need neighborhoods. The highest-need areas can also guide citywide conversations – including collaboration among school governing bodies – by allowing for comparisons across Detroit. In the highest-need neighborhoods, economies of scale are potentially more advantageous, and the impact of performing public schools will be poised to have the most impact. Bearing in mind the citywide context – that four out of five students in Detroit lack access to a performing public school – the highest-need neighborhoods are an actionable guide to identifying areas in which to improve school performance and transform the K-12 landscape. Within broader school improvement frameworks, however, there is work to do at the local and neighborhood levels. Furthermore, stakeholders can strengthen broader, ecosystem-oriented planning by grounding it in data and understanding the distribution of need across space. The ranking of neighborhoods by their need for performing seats can facilitate diverse efforts to target school improvement initiatives and develop place-based strategies. Many neighborhood stakeholders want to understand how access to education in their communities compares to that of peers in order to advocate for greater resources. Nonprofit, philanthropic, and private sector entities SECTION CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE 18 Map 1: Service Gap, Overall (Grades K-12) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 19 Table 4: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Overall (Grades K-12) Rank High Need Mid-High Need Moderate Need Mid-Low Need Low Need Need Neighborhood Demand Supply Service Gap 1 2 Service Level Cerveny / Grandmont 3,888 466 3,422 12% Chadsey 3,709 697 3,012 19% 3 Finney 3,375 321 3,055 10% 4 Vernor / Junction 3,406 496 2,910 15% 5 Evergreen 2,956 342 2,614 12% 6 Harmony Village 2,833 371 2,462 13% 7 Mackenzie 2,901 467 2,435 16% 8 Greenfield 2,487 247 2,240 10% 9 Brooks 2,511 452 2,059 18% 10 Mt. Olivet 2,631 552 2,078 21% 11 Denby 2,131 243 1,888 11% 12 Conner 2,167 413 1,754 19% 13 Rouge 2,138 382 1,755 18% 14 Bagley 1,953 218 1,734 11% 15 Burbank 2,124 254 1,870 12% 16 Kettering 1,986 325 1,660 16% 17 Lower Woodward 1,928 493 1,436 26% 18 Rosa Parks 2,175 526 1,649 24% 19 Rosedale 1,727 197 1,530 11% 20 Pembroke 1,668 195 1,473 12% 21 Durfee 1,888 416 1,471 22% 22 Springwells 2,525 700 1,825 28% 23 Redford 1,781 204 1,577 11% 24 Lower East Central 1,875 451 1,424 24% 25 Davison 1,889 536 1,353 28% 26 Cody 1,513 226 1,287 15% 10% 27 Brightmoor 1,467 151 1,316 28 Middle East Central 1,269 339 930 27% 29 Condon 1,255 245 1,010 20% 30 Nolan 1,270 324 947 25% 31 Winterhalter 1,266 234 1,032 18% 32 Butzel 1,125 198 927 18% 33 Tireman 1,395 323 1,072 23% 34 Middle Woodward 1,654 706 948 43% 35 Jeffries 1,285 313 972 24% 36 Grant 1,223 310 913 25% 41% 37 Pershing 1,192 489 703 38 Airport 1,108 348 760 31% 39 McNichols 763 155 608 20% 40 Palmer Park 719 101 618 14% 41 Foch 691 149 542 22% 42 Chandler Park 711 142 569 20% 43 St. Jean 763 195 568 26% 44 East Riverside 599 119 480 20% 45 Boynton 587 198 389 34% 46 Jefferson / Mack 382 79 302 21% 47 West Riverfront 479 82 397 17% 48 Hubbard Richard 413 61 352 15% 49 Indian Village 304 53 251 17% 50 State Fair 293 87 206 30% 51 Central Business District 196 54 142 28% 52 Corktown 154 31 123 20% 53 Near East Riverfront 82 25 57 30% 54 Upper East Central 23 11 12 47% 20 The Service Level (Grades K-12). The highest-need neighborhoods are the sections of the city in which the most students cannot access a performing school, but they are not the only places in which a substantial share of students need better public schools. For this reason, the service level – the proportion of children in a neighborhood who could access a Greenor Lime-rated school – is helpful context alongside the service gap. 21 At the K-12 level, access to performing schools was most diminished the northwest and northeast corners of Detroit. There was relatively better access in a handful of neighborhoods around Highland Park and Hamtramck, downtown, and in the southwest corner of the city. Two thirds of Detroit’s neighborhoods were clustered between service levels of fifteen and thirty percent. Map 2: Service Level, Overall (Grades K-12) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 22 THE SCHOOL PERFORMANCE LANDSCAPE The core of this study is a supply-and-demand needs assessment. It compares the demand for public education within Detroit to the supply of seats in performing K-12 district and charter schools in the city. At the heart of the analysis are two questions: where do students live, and what are the barriers to performing schools in those places? The maps and data in this section are included in the report to facilitate analysis and dialogue around these questions among stakeholders. The maps in this section are most powerful in conjunction with other maps that are distributed throughout the rest of the report. IFF invites readers to reference the maps in this section throughout their engagement with the data in this study. In this way, stakeholders can visualize, and make more strategic decisions based on, the relationships among population, poverty, and outcomes in the places that are of interest to them. Density of School-Age Children. Although Detroit was the twenty-third most populous city in the United States in 2016, three quarters of the country’s largest cities were more densely populated than the Motor City in the same year. Detroit’s loss of nearly two thirds of its overall population since the mid-twentieth century has left the school-age population of many neighborhoods sparse. The densest pockets of children in Detroit were in the northeast and southwest. The most densely populated areas are not the only parts of the city in which better public schools would make a significant impact. Density is an important factor, however, in shaping the way that decision-makers might approach 23 Chart 4: Student Enrollment by MDE Accountability Rating 17.3% Lime 0.2% Green 36.2% Red 37.4% Yellow one place versus another. Population density helps explain how easily school improvement efforts can achieve economies of scale in a particular neighborhood or cluster of neighborhoods. Data on density also contextualizes the service gap in each neighborhood, which is based on the raw number of students who need access to a performing school. Performance by School Type. In Detroit in 2015-16, across district and charter schools that offered general education programming, eighteen percent of students were enrolled in a school that was rated Green or Lime – the bar to qualify as performing for the purposes of this analysis. There were only two Greenrated schools in the entire city in 2015-16, New Paradigm College Prep and Detroit Achievement Academy; combined, they enrolled 169 students. Nearly half of pupils attended schools in the bottom two categories. Map 3: Density of School-Age Children ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 24 Chart 5: MDE Accountability Rating by School Type 100% 17 7 1 2 18 3 80% 40 9 7 60% 1 MDE Accountability Rating Green Lime 7 35 Yellow 40% 2 15 District: Neighborhood District: Magnet/Selective Most schools of all types were underperforming. Neither district nor charter schools were creating access to performing public schools at scale in Detroit. Across the four main categories of public schools in the city – neighborhood, magnet and selective, EAA, and charter – there was a dearth of performing (Green- or Lime-rated) options in 2015-16. Even within an overall underperforming environment, however, there was variation in academic outcomes by school type. Statistically significant differences emerged across the four school types in the proportion of accountability points earned41 and in schools’ overall color-coded rating.42 The most salient differences were between neighborhood schools and magnet and selective schools and between neighborhood schools and charter schools. 25 8 6 20% 0 Orange EAA Red Charter • District neighborhood schools received ratings of Red over three times as often as charter schools. • A quarter of charter schools were rated Green or Lime. When schools’ proportions of accountability points were ranked against one another, charters’ average rank was fifty-six percent higher than that of neighborhood district schools. • Magnet and selective schools and charter schools were approximately on par with one another with regard to the proportion of accountability points earned and their rate of achieving performing status. Poverty and Performance. Even within the Metro Detroit region, which has the highest rates of concentrated poverty in the country,43 levels of poverty and of poverty concentration stand out Map 4: Poverty Level ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 26 among children entering Detroit’s public school system. In academic year 2015-16, four out of five students enrolled in schools that IFF analyzed for this study were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, meaning that they lived in households with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. The majority of children living in most Detroit neighborhoods qualified for subsidized meals; in well over half of the city, more than seventy-five percent of students were eligible. Detroit’s schools are embedded in national and state environments that provide unequal opportunities to poor students and to children of color. Decades of research have uncovered diminished academic opportunity in schools with higher proportions of low-income students.44 Across Michigan, students who have been eligible for subsidized school meals score significantly lower on state assessments than students who are not low-income.45 27 Race is a factor, too: black students are overrepresented in the state’s lowest-performing schools,46 and the state’s racial achievement gap on standardized tests is wider than poverty levels alone can explain.47 Eighty percent of students in the schools analyzed for this study live in low-income households, and ninety-seven percent are children of color. Given national and state trends, a lack of educational opportunity in Detroit as a whole is, unfortunately, unsurprising. It likely cannot be addressed fully in the absence of broader political and economic shifts. That the deck is stacked against Detroit’s schools, however, does not mean that local and school-level implementation cannot help turn the tide. Comparing performance outcomes among Detroit’s public schools reveals that some schools are more successfully mitigating the effects of poverty on academic outcomes than others. Across the Chart 7: Poverty Concentration and Performance 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 District: Magnet/ Selective District: Neighborhood Mid-Low Poverty (26-50%) Charter District: Magnet/ Selective District: Neighborhood Mid-High Poverty (51-75%) District: Magnet/ Selective EAA Charter High Poverty (76-100%) Poverty Level (Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Meals) MDE Accountability Rating Green Lime Yellow city, there was no significant correlation between a school’s poverty levels and the proportion of accountability points that it earned.48 Overall, the poverty level in Detroit’s public schools explains less than one tenth of one percent of the variation in the percentage of accountability points that schools earned in 2015-16. The highest-need neighborhoods in Detroit were not necessarily the poorest. This absence of a tidy relationship between poverty and need is attributable in part to Orange Red schools that have had success in providing a performing educational environment to a low-income student body. Twenty-five public schools in Detroit with mid-high or high levels of poverty provided over thirteen thousand seats in performing environments in 2015-16. These schools are potential important sources of best practices and nodes of intra-city collaboration. They reinforce that poverty is an important but not deciding factor in understanding the distribution of access to performing schools in Detroit at the system level. 28 FACILITIES CONDITIONS AND ADAPTIVE REUSE are included side-by-side to support place-based decisionmaking that takes into account the ecosystem of public school options in a neighborhood. Looking to the Future. Great schools need safe, accessible buildings to provide students with an optimal learning environment and faculty and staff with a decent workplace. And in order to create the conditions for performing schools in quality facilities, school governing bodies need to ensure that the numbers of buildings in their portfolios are commensurate with demand for their services and their financial capacity to maintain them. Nearly half of the space in active district school buildings was unutilized or underutilized in 2015-16. The district-owned schools analyzed for this study had a combined physical capacity to serve over eighty thousand students. They enrolled fewer than forty-five thousand in 2015-16. To address underutilization, over two hundred traditional district school buildings in Detroit were closed between 2000 and 2015.49 Nonetheless, most of the district’s active academic facilities remained underutilized, often substantially. In the coming years, the question of K-12 educational facilities appears likely to be increasingly prominent in Detroit. In academic year 2018-19, the district will begin planning its approach to the facilities in its portfolio, preceded by a facility review at the district level.50 As of the publication of this report, DPSCD had released two significant requests for facilities-related proposals.51 Building conditions are included in this analysis as a starting point to stimulate conversations and guide strategic planning around school facilities. Schools from both traditional district and charter governance models 29 The conditions of most schools in or within one mile of the highest-need neighborhoods were surveyed and are presented in the pages that follow. (The scope of the study precluded analysis of all active K-12 public school buildings in Detroit). Moving forward, educational planning and resource allocation in these communities can take facilities into account alongside academic outcomes and other factors that shape access to performing schools in the areas of Detroit where need is greatest. Efforts outside of the highest-need neighborhoods can in turn use lessons learned from those areas as a model for citywide facilities planning. Facilities Conditions (Grades K-12). In and around the highest-need neighborhoods, relationships between facilities conditions and school performance were weak.52 Better buildings were not associated with better school performance across the board, meaning that some of the city’s best-performing schools did not have access to the best buildings. Importantly, however, there were no performing schools and only a few Yellow schools in the buildings with the worst conditions; by and large, the schools in the lowestquality buildings were also substantially underperforming. In the Best, Better, and Worse buildings, there is substantial variation in performance outcomes. Chart Reading Tips • Building conditions are divided into four ratings. These ratings are the result of weighting and aggregating the results of a detailed survey of conditions in each school building. They allow for one-to-one comparison of schools of varying sizes and grade spans. These ratings are relative to the other buildings surveyed. The thick horizontal reference line in the chart divides the schools in relatively better condition from the schools in relatively worse condition. • The percentage of accountability points earned is the primary determinant of the accountability rating that each school received in 2015-16. Schools that received at least seventy percent of their total possible points – represented by the thick vertical reference line in the chart – were eligible for a rating of Lime, but their rating could be lowered based on a series of further audits, e.g. for achievement gaps among student subgroups or compliance issues. Schools earning less than fifty percent of their overall points received ratings of Red. 30 From Rightsizing to Adaptive Reuse. Schools anchor communities. More than merely providing venues for the transmission of knowledge, school buildings become hubs of neighborhood life and facilitate the exchange of social and cultural capital. Rightsizing decisions, their fiscal or academic impact aside, can siphon these resources out of communities, exacerbating disinvestment that has crippled lowincome urban areas for decades. Fortunately, research on rightsizing yields insight into factors that can be integrated alongside facilities conditions to strategically mitigate potential negative outcomes. First and foremost, rightsizing can, but does not necessarily, improve academic outcomes for students. Several studies suggest that students who transfer to better-performing schools from closing underperforming schools tend to progress academically.53 Achievement levels of future students who otherwise would have attended the closed school might also improve.54 Insofar as there is a paucity of performing options to which to transfer, however, students’ academic performance can stagnate or even decline during and after the transition.55 Without an increase in the supply of performing schools in Detroit, a rightsizing strategy is unlikely to yield substantial gains in student learning. Similarly, the financial benefits of rightsizing for school districts are not automatic. One national study found that, on average, short-term savings for districts who closed buildings as part of rightsizing efforts were less than one million dollars per closed building.56 Detroit’s closure of fifty-nine school buildings several years ago, for example, saved the district an estimated thirty-five million dollars in operating costs, or about six hundred thousand dollars per school. Across the country, sales prices for 31 former public school buildings are “frequently well below initial projections.”57 Moreover, rightsizing entails added expenses for districts, such as the disposal of buildings’ contents and the carrying costs of unused property. Physical deterioration of unused and unsold buildings routinely hampers rightsizing agendas.58 Savings for the owning entity ultimately depend mostly on the extent to which teachers are reassigned from closed schools to other buildings and the ability of the owning entity to profitably repurpose the facility.59 In a city with a teacher shortage and relatively low demand for real estate in many neighborhoods, the fiscal outlook of rightsizing should be carefully considered. There are also important issues of racial and economic equity to acknowledge with regard to school district rightsizing. School closures overwhelmingly tend to impact low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.60 Even similarly performing schools are more likely to be closed if they have higher concentrations of poor and minority students, suggesting that implicit biases often play a role in identifying schools to close.61 Potential benefits notwithstanding, closures send shockwaves through communities and occasion major disruptions for parents and students alike.62 To avoid hoisting the effects of rightsizing disproportionately on marginalized communities, careful checks should be in place to account for perceptions of race and class in decision-making. Furthermore, community input into the decisions that emerge from rightsizing processes is often limited. The salient point in the context of Detroit is not that rightsizing tends to be controversial and contested – though it does. More specifically, rightsizing can erode trust between communities and their public schools. The processes often reveals gulfs between the ways students and families think about their schools and the criteria by which decisionmakers evaluate their viability.63 Dozens of school buildings across the city have closed in recent years, meaning that the process of rightsizing remains a relatively recent memory for many Detroiters. With thousands of parents already sending their children to schools outside Detroit, the implementation of rightsizing could be decisive for communities’ investment and trust in the city’s public schools. By engaging neighborhoods and partnering with communities in making decisions about school buildings, strategic planning around rightsizing could strengthen bonds between neighborhoods than schools rather than make them more tenuous – especially if the repurposing of school buildings can add value to communities and improve access to crucial goods and services. The difficulties associated with successfully implementing a rightsizing agenda underscore the importance of tying rightsizing to adaptive reuse. An inventory of successful adaptive reuse strategies is beyond the scope of this study. Across the country, however, some shrinking urban school systems have been more successful than others not only at disposing of buildings efficiently but at doing so in a way that is equitable and that creates new assets for communities. Some observers, for example, have contrasted Chicago’s recent wave of school closures with Kansas City’s repurposing initiative.64 Whereas the former was mostly adjudicated behind closed doors, the latter was rooted in a yearlong process of gathering community input and technical information. This orientation enabled stakeholders to identify opportunities to reinvest in low-income communities and create new hubs of neighborhood life. With the right stakeholders at the table, adaptive reuse can translate the burden of underutilized buildings into meaningful opportunities for community development. Charter and private schools, government and nonprofit facilities, and residential housing are the most common end uses of former school buildings.65 The possibilities, however, do not end at these forms of repurposing. The facilities data that is included throughout this study is designed to facilitate conversations well beyond buildings, dollars, and cents. A consistent review of facilities conditions and financial viability is a crucial component of adaptive reuse, but it is only part of a constellation that also includes academic performance and community needs. This study provides a baseline by evaluating facilities in Detroit’s highest-need neighborhoods and analyzing relationships with academic performance. Moving forward, community-oriented assessments of need for other types of services and opportunities at the local level are indispensable to driving a process of adaptive reuse. 32 GRADE SPAN ANALYSIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES K-5) At the elementary school (K-5) level, the highest-need neighborhoods – the parts of Detroit in which the most students lacked access to a performing public school – appeared in the same three clusters at the overall (K-12) service gap: one on the East Side, one on the West Side, and one on the Southwest Side. The same ten communities comprise the highest-need neighborhoods, with a slight shuffling in the order. Focusing on these three clusters will yield a sizable impact on the lack of access to performing elementary schools. Given the disproportionate need for performing K-5 schools across the city, an elementary school strategy rooted in these neighborhoods would in turn have substantial impact on citywide needs. The Service Gap (Grades K-5). In 2015-16, there were 133 general education public (district or charter) elementary schools in Detroit. Of these, seventeen were performing (Green- or Lime-rated). The performing schools offered just under five thousand general education slots to students. With nearly forty-four thousand students enrolled, however, over thirty-eight thousand elementary schoolers lacked access to a performing school. Overall, nine out of every ten children enrolled in public elementary schools in Detroit could not access a seat in a performing school. Over half of the citywide need for performing schools was concentrated in elementary school. Chart 9: Performance of Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) 16 MDE Accountability Rating Green 9 Lime Yellow 26 Orange 4 6 1 4 District 33 1 2 3 EAA 6 2 2 1 3 2 Red 2 3 2 5 7 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Charter (by Authorizer) 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 Map 5: Service Gap, Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 34 The Service Level (Grades K-5). The highest-need neighborhoods are the sections of the city in which the most students cannot access a performing school, but they are not the only places in which a substantial share of students need better public schools. For this reason, the service level – the proportion of children in a neighborhood who could access a Greenor Lime-rated school – is helpful context alongside the service gap. With the exception of Boynton on the far southwest, the West Side of Detroit was virtually devoid of neighborhoods in which more than fifteen percent of elementary school students had access to a performing public school. Access was best in the center of the city. The service level on the East Side largely resembled that of the West Side. SECTION CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE 35 Map 6: Service Level, Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 36 Table 5: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) Need High Need Mid-High Need Moderate Need Mid-Low Need Low Need 37 Rank Neighborhood Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Percent K–12 Gap 59% 1 Cerveny / Grandmont 2,145 143 2,002 7% 2 Finney 1,945 87 1,858 4% 61% 3 Vernor / Junction 1,867 115 1,752 6% 60% 4 Chadsey 1,798 154 1,644 9% 55% 5 Evergreen 1,574 44 1,530 3% 59% 6 Harmony Village 1,547 125 1,422 8% 58% 7 Mackenzie 1,549 158 1,391 10% 57% 8 Greenfield 1,343 64 1,279 5% 57% 9 Mt. Olivet 1,484 210 1,274 14% 61% 10 Brooks 1,365 165 1,200 12% 58% 11 Springwells 1,381 230 1,151 17% 63% 12 Burbank 1,127 57 1,070 5% 57% 13 Redford 1,021 17 1,005 2% 64% 14 Conner 1,141 144 997 13% 57% 15 Rosa Parks 1,099 109 990 10% 60% 16 Denby 1,038 54 984 5% 52% 17 Bagley 1,036 67 968 7% 56% 18 Rouge 1,087 131 956 12% 54% 19 Kettering 1,055 127 928 12% 56% 20 Rosedale 930 43 887 5% 58% 21 Brightmoor 854 36 818 4% 62% 22 Durfee 901 100 801 11% 54% 23 Cody 821 68 753 8% 58% 24 Pembroke 779 53 726 7% 49% 25 Davison 860 154 706 18% 52% 26 Lower East Central 965 267 698 28% 49% 27 Lower Woodward 818 172 645 21% 45% 28 Jeffries 723 81 642 11% 66% 29 Tireman 689 70 619 10% 58% 30 Grant 681 117 564 17% 62% 31 Winterhalter 626 71 555 11% 54% 32 Middle Woodward 807 274 533 34% 56% 33 Nolan 591 107 484 18% 51% 34 Condon 523 44 478 8% 47% 35 Airport 582 125 457 21% 60% 36 Middle East Central 547 141 406 26% 44% 42% 37 Butzel 471 78 393 17% 38 Palmer Park 376 34 341 9% 55% 39 St. Jean 406 84 322 21% 57% 40 Chandler Park 361 54 307 15% 54% 41 Pershing 461 165 296 36% 42% 42 McNichols 325 43 283 13% 46% 43 West Riverfront 278 25 253 9% 64% 44 Foch 326 73 252 22% 47% 45 Hubbard Richard 243 21 222 9% 63% 46 East Riverside 258 51 207 20% 43% 29% 47 Boynton 190 77 113 40% 48 Jefferson / Mack 143 32 111 22% 37% 49 State Fair 120 32 87 27% 42% 50 Indian Village 100 19 80 19% 32% 46% 51 Corktown 63 7 56 11% 52 Central Business District 56 22 34 39% 24% 53 Near East Riverfront 42 17 25 40% 44% 54 Upper East Central 11 4 7 37% 56% Chart Reading Tips • Building conditions are divided into four ratings. These ratings are the result of weighting and aggregating the results of a detailed survey of conditions in each school building. They allow for one-to-one comparison of schools of varying sizes and grade spans. These ratings are relative to the other buildings surveyed. The thick horizontal reference line in the chart divides the schools in relatively better condition from the schools in relatively worse condition. • The percentage of accountability points earned is the primary determinant of the accountability rating that each school received in 2015-16. Schools that received at least seventy percent of their total possible points – represented by the thick vertical reference line in the chart – were eligible for a rating of Lime, but their rating could be lowered based on a series of further audits, e.g. for achievement gaps among student subgroups or compliance issues. Schools earning less than fifty percent of their overall points received ratings of Red. 38 MIDDLE SCHOOL (GRADES 6-8) The Service Gap (Grades 6-8). At the middle school (6-8) level, the highest-need neighborhoods – the parts of Detroit in which the most students lacked access to a performing public school – appeared in two main clusters: one on the East Side and one on the West Side. Nine of the ten communities with the highest overall need are among the highestneed neighborhoods for this grade span, with a slight shuffling in the order. Focusing on these clusters will yield a disproportionate impact on the lack of access to performing middle schools. In 2015-16, there were 118 general education public (district or charter) middle schools in Detroit. Of these, eighteen were performing (Green- or Lime-rated). The performing schools offered over four thousand general education slots to students. With nearly twenty thousand students enrolled, however, just under fifteen thousand middle schoolers lacked access to a performing school. Overall, four out of every five children enrolled in public middle schools in Detroit could not access a seat in a performing school. Chart 11: Performance of Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) 10 MDE Accountability Rating 8 Green Lime 23 Yellow Orange 3 2 4 6 1 4 District 39 1 2 3 EAA 6 2 1 7 3 3 Red 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 Charter (by Authorizer) 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 Map 7: Service Gap, Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 40 The Service Level (Grades 6-8). The highest-need neighborhoods are the sections of the city in which the most students cannot access a performing school, but they are not the only places in which a substantial share of students need better public schools. For this reason, the service level – the proportion of children in a neighborhood who could access a Greenor Lime-rated school – is helpful context alongside the service gap. Geographically, the service level in middle schools exhibits similar patterns as in elementary school. There were, however, slightly higher service levels on the East Side for middle school than for elementary school. The center of the city was better-served by the middle school system than the East and West Sides. The West Side was a neardesert of performing middle schools. SECTION CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE 41 Map 8: Service Level, Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 42 Table 6: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) Need High Need Mid-High Need Moderate Need Mid-Low Need Low Need 43 Rank Neighborhood Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Percent of K–12 Gap 1 Cerveny / Grandmont 909 77 832 8% 24% 2 Finney 786 65 721 8% 24% 3 Chadsey 943 257 685 27% 23% 4 Mackenzie 714 91 623 13% 26% 5 Evergreen 616 26 590 4% 23% 6 Harmony Village 618 58 560 9% 23% 7 Mt. Olivet 720 182 538 25% 26% 8 Greenfield 561 29 531 5% 24% 9 Brooks 578 93 485 16% 24% 10 Rouge 542 83 460 15% 26% 11 Rosa Parks 600 160 440 27% 27% 12 Vernor / Junction 616 185 431 30% 15% 13 Rosedale 401 26 376 6% 25% 14 Davison 610 253 357 41% 26% 15 Conner 476 128 348 27% 20% 16 Durfee 460 114 346 25% 23% 17 Lower Woodward 491 147 344 30% 24% 18 Redford 346 15 331 4% 21% 19 Lower East Central 417 89 328 21% 23% 20 Brightmoor 341 22 319 6% 24% 21 Kettering 421 103 318 24% 19% 22 Cody 356 45 311 13% 24% 23 Bagley 344 35 309 10% 18% 24 Pembroke 319 28 291 9% 20% 25 Tireman 398 116 282 29% 26% 26 Denby 302 46 256 15% 14% 27 Middle East Central 351 96 254 27% 27% 28 Middle Woodward 486 241 244 50% 26% 29 Grant 353 116 237 33% 26% 30 Winterhalter 285 55 229 19% 22% 31 Jeffries 306 103 203 34% 21% 32 Nolan 298 105 193 35% 20% 33 Airport 322 144 178 45% 23% 34 Butzel 221 49 172 22% 19% 35 Burbank 229 58 171 25% 9% 36 Condon 246 86 160 35% 16% 37 McNichols 179 36 144 20% 24% 38 Pershing 323 182 141 56% 20% 39 St. Jean 198 64 134 32% 24% 40 Chandler Park 144 33 111 23% 20% 41 Palmer Park 127 20 107 16% 17% 42 Foch 138 37 100 27% 18% 43 East Riverside 124 31 93 25% 19% 44 Indian Village 81 15 66 18% 26% 45 Jefferson / Mack 73 21 52 28% 17% 46 Hubbard Richard 70 21 49 29% 14% 47 Springwells 341 296 45 87% 2% 48 West Riverfront 69 32 37 46% 9% 49 State Fair 56 22 34 39% 17% 50 Central Business District 45 12 33 28% 23% 51 Boynton 96 66 30 69% 8% 52 Corktown 31 11 20 34% 17% 53 Near East Riverfront 20 4 16 20% 29% 54 Upper East Central 6 3 2 59% 19% Chart Reading Tips • Building conditions are divided into four ratings. These ratings are the result of weighting and aggregating the results of a detailed survey of conditions in each school building. They allow for one-to-one comparison of schools of varying sizes and grade spans. These ratings are relative to the other buildings surveyed. The thick horizontal reference line in the chart divides the schools in relatively better condition from the schools in relatively worse condition. • The percentage of accountability points earned is the primary determinant of the accountability rating that each school received in 2015-16. Schools that received at least seventy percent of their total possible points – represented by the thick vertical reference line in the chart – were eligible for a rating of Lime, but their rating could be lowered based on a series of further audits, e.g. for achievement gaps among student subgroups or compliance issues. Schools earning less than fifty percent of their overall points received ratings of Red. 44 HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12) At the high school (9-12) level, the highest-need neighborhoods – the parts of Detroit in which the most students lacked access to a performing public school – appeared in the same three main clusters as the overall highest-need areas: one on the East Side, one on the West Side, and one on the Southwest Side. The number of neighborhoods in the West Side cluster, however, was lower, and additional neighborhoods in the other two cluster appeared that were not high-need at the elementary or middle school levels. Focusing on these three clusters will yield a disproportionate impact on the lack of access to performing high schools. The Service Gap (Grades 9-12). In 2015-16, there were forty-six general education public (district or charter) high schools in Detroit. Of these, nine were performing (Green- or Lime-rated). The performing schools offered over six thousand general education slots to students. With more than twenty-two thousand students enrolled, however, nearly sixteen thousand high schoolers lacked access to a performing school. Overall, seven out of every ten children enrolled in public high schools in Detroit could not access a seat in a performing school. Chart 13: Performance of High Schools (Grades 9-12) 1 9 MDE Accountability Rating 3 Green 1 2 Lime 1 Yellow 1 1 4 1 1 45 1 3 3 District EAA Orange 3 Red 1 2 1 1 1 1 Charter (by Authorizer) 1 1 1 1 Map 9: Service Gap, High Schools (Grades 9-12) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 46 The Service Level (Grades 9-12). The highest-need neighborhoods are the sections of the city in which the most students cannot access a performing school, but they are not the only places in which a substantial share of students need better public schools. For this reason, the service level – the proportion of children in a neighborhood who could access a Greenor Lime-rated school – is helpful context alongside the service gap. Compared to elementary and middle school, patterns in access to performing schools shifted at the high school level. The areas with the most diminished access were clustered in the southern portion of the city. The service level across the board, but on the West Side in particular, was higher at the high school level than at the elementary or middle school levels. SECTION CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE 47 Map 10: Service Level, High Schools (Grades 9-12) ACCESS INTERACTIVE DATA AT: www.iff.org/RethinkResetRebuild This study’s accompanying online tool allows users to visualize demographic, academic, and facilities data alongside the results of the needs assessment at the city and neighborhood levels. 48 Table 7: Supply and Demand by Neighborhood, High Schools (Grades 9-12) Need High Need Mid-High Need Moderate Need Mid-Low Need Low Need 49 Rank Neighborhood Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level 1 Vernor / Junction 923 197 726 21% Percent of K–12 Gap 25% 2 Chadsey 969 286 683 29% 23% 3 Denby 791 144 648 18% 34% 4 Springwells 803 174 629 22% 34% 5 Burbank 768 139 629 18% 34% 6 Cerveny / Grandmont 835 246 588 30% 17% 19% 7 Evergreen 766 271 494 35% 8 Harmony Village 668 189 479 28% 19% 9 Finney 644 169 475 26% 16% 10 Bagley 573 116 458 20% 26% 11 Pembroke 570 114 457 20% 31% 12 Lower Woodward 620 173 447 28% 31% 19% 13 Greenfield 584 154 430 26% 14 Mackenzie 638 217 421 34% 17% 15 Kettering 510 96 414 19% 25% 16 Conner 550 142 409 26% 23% 17 Lower East Central 492 95 397 19% 28% 18 Brooks 568 194 374 34% 18% 19 Condon 487 114 372 24% 37% 39% 20 Butzel 433 70 362 16% 21 Rouge 508 168 340 33% 19% 22 Durfee 527 202 325 38% 22% 23 Davison 419 130 289 31% 21% 24 Nolan 382 112 270 29% 29% 25 Middle East Central 371 102 269 27% 29% 26 Rosedale 396 128 268 32% 18% 27 Pershing 408 141 267 35% 38% 28 Mt. Olivet 427 160 267 38% 13% 29 Winterhalter 356 108 248 30% 24% 30 Boynton 301 55 247 18% 63% 31 Redford 413 172 241 42% 15% 32 Cody 336 113 223 34% 17% 33 Rosa Parks 477 257 220 54% 13% 34 Foch 228 38 190 17% 35% 35 McNichols 258 76 182 30% 30% 36 East Riverside 217 37 180 17% 38% 37 Brightmoor 272 94 179 34% 14% 38 Tireman 308 137 171 45% 16% 39 Middle Woodward 361 191 171 53% 18% 40 Palmer Park 217 46 170 21% 28% 41 Chandler Park 206 56 151 27% 26% 42 Jefferson / Mack 166 27 139 16% 46% 43 Jeffries 256 129 127 50% 13% 44 Airport 204 79 125 39% 17% 45 Grant 190 77 113 41% 12% 46 St. Jean 160 48 112 30% 20% 47 West Riverfront 131 25 106 19% 27% 48 Indian Village 124 19 105 15% 42% 49 State Fair 118 33 85 28% 41% 50 Hubbard Richard 101 20 81 20% 23% 51 Central Business District 95 20 75 21% 53% 52 Corktown 60 13 47 22% 38% 53 Near East Riverfront 19 4 15 19% 27% 54 Upper East Central 7 4 3 53% 25% Chart Reading Tips • Building conditions are divided into four ratings. These ratings are the result of weighting and aggregating the results of a detailed survey of conditions in each school building. They allow for one-to-one comparison of schools of varying sizes and grade spans. These ratings are relative to the other buildings surveyed. The thick horizontal reference line in the chart divides the schools in relatively better condition from the schools in relatively worse condition. • The percentage of accountability points earned is the primary determinant of the accountability rating that each school received in 2015-16. Schools that received at least seventy percent of their total possible points – represented by the thick vertical reference line in the chart – were eligible for a rating of Lime, but their rating could be lowered based on a series of further audits, e.g. for achievement gaps among student subgroups or compliance issues. Schools earning less than fifty percent of their overall points received ratings of Red. 50 RECOMMENDATIONS Root school improvement in place-based strategy. • Calibrate school improvement efforts and rightsizing strategies to demand for and supply of performing schools and the conditions of academic facilities at the local level. • Develop strategies for the highest-need neighborhoods, where the most children lack access to performing public schools, to have the greatest impact on the service gap. East Side Finney (#3) Mt. Olivet (#10) West Side Cerveny/ Grandmont (#1) Evergreen (#5) Southwest Side Chadsey (#2) Vernor/ Junction (#4) Harmony Village (#6) Mackenzie (#7) Greenfield (#8) Brooks (#9) • Through ongoing community engagement and transparent decision-making, lay the groundwork for an adaptive reuse strategy for former public school buildings that is driven by communities’ needs at the local level: – Coordinate rightsizing and adaptive reuse with community and neighborhood planning; – Assess need for services and amenities that former school buildings could house; – Identify partners and strategies to repurpose buildings that will increase quality of life for existing residents as part of the process of rightsizing. 51 Coordinate strategic planning for K-12 public education in Detroit within and across school governing bodies. • Identify areas of policy and practice that can save costs or otherwise provide mutual benefits as initial points of collaboration across school governing bodies. Where possible, codify and institutionalize collaboration. • Avoid redundancies and cross purposes by coordinating school location decisions across governing bodies. • Collaborate within and across governing bodies to replicate, expand, and diffuse best practices that have emerged in performing schools and to intervene in underperforming schools. • Integrate data across governing bodies. Ensure that all public data is available in the same databases for district and charter schools to allow for side-by-side comparisons and comprehensive citywide research on K-12 education. Base school improvement on transparent, meaningful, and consistent performance indicators. Efficiently allocate facilities resources so that real estate portfolios are commensurate with student enrollment. • Strengthen the school accountability system in Michigan. Implement academically rigorous summative ratings that allow for differentiated strategy and needs assessments. Keep this system in place year over year to allow for meaningful comparisons over time. • Intervene in all underperforming schools. Prioritize consistently underperforming schools for potential turnaround, reconstitution, or closure. Do not renew the charters of underperforming charter schools. • Continue integrating national best practices and performance-based standards for quality charter school authorizing. • Secure public and/or philanthropic funding to conduct a detailed review of all open and closed school buildings currently in the portfolios of Detroit Public Schools Community District or any charter operator. Develop precise estimates for the future costs associated with restoring or maintaining safe learning and working environments in each school building. • Create manageable enrollment and expansion strategies for performing schools in underutilized buildings to maximize the use of space and to increase access to highquality academic programs. • Identify potential colocation partners in underutilized, quality school buildings that house performing schools. 52 APPENDIX A: SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Need Mid-High Need High Need 53 Service Gap Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Percent of K–12 Gap Cerveny / Grandmont 3,888 466 3,422 12% 1 2,145 143 2,002 7% 59% Chadsey 3,709 697 3,012 19% 4 1,798 154 1,644 9% 55% Rank Supply 1 2 Service Level Neighborhood Demand ELEMENTARY (GRADES K-5) Overall Rank Need ALL GRADES (K-12) 3 Finney 3,375 321 3,055 10% 2 1,945 87 1,858 4% 61% 4 Vernor / Junction 3,406 496 2,910 15% 3 1,867 115 1,752 6% 60% 5 Evergreen 2,956 342 2,614 12% 5 1,574 44 1,530 3% 59% 6 Harmony Village 2,833 371 2,462 13% 6 1,547 125 1,422 8% 58% 7 Mackenzie 2,901 467 2,435 16% 7 1,549 158 1,391 10% 57% 8 Greenfield 2,487 247 2,240 10% 8 1,343 64 1,279 5% 57% 9 Brooks 2,511 452 2,059 18% 10 1,365 165 1,200 12% 58% 10 Mt. Olivet 2,631 552 2,078 21% 9 1,484 210 1,274 14% 61% 11 Denby 2,131 243 1,888 11% 16 1,038 54 984 5% 52% 12 Conner 2,167 413 1,754 19% 14 1,141 144 997 13% 57% 13 Rouge 2,138 382 1,755 18% 18 1,087 131 956 12% 54% 14 Bagley 1,953 218 1,734 11% 17 1,036 67 968 7% 56% 15 Burbank 2,124 254 1,870 12% 12 1,127 57 1,070 5% 57% 16 Kettering 1,986 325 1,660 16% 19 1,055 127 928 12% 56% 17 Lower Woodward 1,928 493 1,436 26% 27 818 172 645 21% 45% 18 Rosa Parks 2,175 526 1,649 24% 15 1,099 109 990 10% 60% 19 Rosedale 1,727 197 1,530 11% 20 930 43 887 5% 58% 20 Pembroke 1,668 195 1,473 12% 24 779 53 726 7% 49% 21 Durfee 1,888 416 1,471 22% 22 901 100 801 11% 54% 22 Springwells 2,525 700 1,825 28% 11 1,381 230 1,151 17% 63% 23 Redford 1,781 204 1,577 11% 13 1,021 17 1,005 2% 64% 24 Lower East Central 1,875 451 1,424 24% 26 965 267 698 28% 49% 25 Davison 1,889 536 1,353 28% 25 860 154 706 18% 52% 26 Cody 1,513 226 1,287 15% 23 821 68 753 8% 58% 27 Brightmoor 1,467 151 1,316 10% 21 854 36 818 4% 62% 28 Middle East Central 1,269 339 930 27% 36 547 141 406 26% 44% 29 Condon 1,255 245 1,010 20% 34 523 44 478 8% 47% 30 Nolan 1,270 324 947 25% 33 591 107 484 18% 51% Rank Demand Supply 832 8% 24% 6 835 246 588 30% 17% 257 685 27% 23% 2 969 286 683 29% 23% Percent of K–12 Gap Percent of K–12 Gap 77 943 Service Gap Service Level 909 Service Gap 1 3 Supply Demand Service Level HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12) Rank MIDDLE (GRADES 6-8) 2 786 65 721 8% 24% 9 644 169 475 26% 16% 12 616 185 431 30% 15% 1 923 197 726 21% 25% 5 616 26 590 4% 23% 7 766 271 494 35% 19% 6 618 58 560 9% 23% 8 668 189 479 28% 19% 4 714 91 623 13% 26% 14 638 217 421 34% 17% 8 561 29 531 5% 24% 13 584 154 430 26% 19% 9 578 93 485 16% 24% 18 568 194 374 34% 18% 7 720 182 538 25% 26% 27 427 160 267 38% 13% 26 302 46 256 15% 14% 3 791 144 648 18% 34% 15 476 128 348 27% 20% 16 550 142 409 26% 23% 10 542 83 460 15% 26% 21 508 168 340 33% 19% 23 344 35 309 10% 18% 10 573 116 458 20% 26% 35 229 58 171 25% 9% 4 768 139 629 18% 34% 21 421 103 318 24% 19% 15 510 96 414 19% 25% 17 491 147 344 30% 24% 12 620 173 447 28% 31% 11 600 160 440 27% 27% 33 477 257 220 54% 13% 13 401 26 376 6% 25% 26 396 128 268 32% 18% 24 319 28 291 9% 20% 11 570 114 457 20% 31% 16 460 114 346 25% 23% 22 527 202 325 38% 22% 47 341 296 45 87% 2% 4 803 174 629 22% 34% 18 346 15 331 4% 21% 31 413 172 241 42% 15% 19 417 89 328 21% 23% 17 492 95 397 19% 28% 14 610 253 357 41% 26% 23 419 130 289 31% 21% 22 356 45 311 13% 24% 32 336 113 223 34% 17% 20 341 22 319 6% 24% 37 272 94 179 34% 14% 27 351 96 254 27% 27% 25 371 102 269 27% 29% 36 246 86 160 35% 16% 19 487 114 372 24% 37% 32 298 105 193 35% 20% 24 382 112 270 29% 29% 54 Low Need Mid-Low Need 55 Supply 1,032 18% 31 626 71 Percent of K–12 Gap Demand 234 Service Level Rank 1,266 Service Gap Service Level Winterhalter Service Gap 31 Supply Neighborhood ELEMENTARY (GRADES K-5) Demand Overall Rank Need ALL GRADES (K-12) 555 11% 54% 42% 32 Butzel 1,125 198 927 18% 37 471 78 393 17% 33 Tireman 1,395 323 1,072 23% 29 689 70 619 10% 58% 34 Middle Woodward 1,654 706 948 43% 32 807 274 533 34% 56% 35 Jeffries 1,285 313 972 24% 28 723 81 642 11% 66% 36 Grant 1,223 310 913 25% 30 681 117 564 17% 62% 37 Pershing 1,192 489 703 41% 41 461 165 296 36% 42% 38 Airport 1,108 348 760 31% 35 582 125 457 21% 60% 39 McNichols 763 155 608 20% 42 325 43 283 13% 46% 40 Palmer Park 719 101 618 14% 38 376 34 341 9% 55% 41 Foch 691 149 542 22% 44 326 73 252 22% 47% 42 Chandler Park 711 142 569 20% 40 361 54 307 15% 54% 43 St. Jean 763 195 568 26% 39 406 84 322 21% 57% 44 East Riverside 599 119 480 20% 46 258 51 207 20% 43% 45 Boynton 587 198 389 34% 47 190 77 113 40% 29% 46 Jefferson / Mack 382 79 302 21% 48 143 32 111 22% 37% 47 West Riverfront 479 82 397 17% 43 278 25 253 9% 64% 48 Hubbard Richard 413 61 352 15% 45 243 21 222 9% 63% 49 Indian Village 304 53 251 17% 50 100 19 80 19% 32% 50 State Fair 293 87 206 30% 49 120 32 87 27% 42% 51 Central Business District 196 54 142 28% 52 56 22 34 39% 24% 52 Corktown 154 31 123 20% 51 63 7 56 11% 46% 53 Near East Riverfront 82 25 57 30% 53 42 17 25 40% 44% 54 Upper East Central 23 11 12 47% 54 11 4 7 37% 56% 356 108 248 30% 24% Percent of K–12 Gap 29 Service Level 22% Service Gap 19% Supply Demand 229 Rank Service Gap Supply 55 Percent of K–12 Gap 285 HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12) Service Level 30 Demand Rank MIDDLE (GRADES 6-8) 34 221 49 172 22% 19% 20 433 70 362 16% 39% 25 398 116 282 29% 26% 38 308 137 171 45% 16% 28 486 241 244 50% 26% 38 361 191 171 53% 18% 31 306 103 203 34% 21% 43 256 129 127 50% 13% 29 353 116 237 33% 26% 45 190 77 113 41% 12% 38 323 182 141 56% 20% 27 408 141 267 35% 38% 33 322 144 178 45% 23% 44 204 79 125 39% 17% 37 179 36 144 20% 24% 35 258 76 182 30% 30% 41 127 20 107 16% 17% 40 217 46 170 21% 28% 42 138 37 100 27% 18% 34 228 38 190 17% 35% 40 144 33 111 23% 20% 41 206 56 151 27% 26% 39 198 64 134 32% 24% 46 160 48 112 30% 20% 43 124 31 93 25% 19% 36 217 37 180 17% 38% 51 96 66 30 69% 8% 30 301 55 247 18% 63% 45 73 21 52 28% 17% 42 166 27 139 16% 46% 48 69 32 37 46% 9% 47 131 25 106 19% 27% 46 70 21 49 29% 14% 50 101 20 81 20% 23% 44 81 15 66 18% 26% 48 124 19 105 15% 42% 49 56 22 34 39% 17% 49 118 33 85 28% 41% 50 45 12 33 28% 23% 51 95 20 75 21% 53% 52 31 11 20 34% 17% 52 60 13 47 22% 38% 53 20 4 16 20% 29% 53 19 4 15 19% 27% 54 6 3 2 59% 19% 54 7 4 3 53% 25% 56 APPENDIX B: PROFILES OF HIGHEST-NEED NEIGHBORHOODS CERVENY GRANDMONT (Highest-Need Neighborhood #1) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Burns Elementary-Middle School 2 Coleman A. Young Elementary 3 Grade Span Enrollment EAA K-8 468 District: Neighborhood K-5 336 Communication and Media Arts High School District: Magnet/Selective 9-12 602 4 Cooke Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-6 259 5 David Ellis Academy Charter DPSCD Bardwell Group K-8 364 6 Detroit Achievement Academy Charter Grand Valley State University Self-managed K-3 94 7 Detroit Innovation Academy Charter Central Michigan University EQUITY Education K-8 341 8 Dossin Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 366 9 Edison Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-5 268 10 Foreign Language Immersion & Cultural Studies District: Magnet/Selective K-8 697 11 John R. King Academic & Performing Arts Academy District: Neighborhood K-8 837 12 Lincoln-King Academy Charter Grand Valley State University Cornerstone Charter Schools K-8 577 13 Martin Luther King Jr. Education Center Academy Charter DPSCD Self-managed K-8 401 14 Old Redford Academy - High Charter Central Michigan University Innovative Teaching Solutions 9-12 728 15 Renaissance High School District: Magnet/Selective 9-12 1,154 16 Rutherford Winans Academy Charter DPSCD Solid Rock Management Co. K-5 210 17 University YES Academy Charter Bay Mills Community College New Paradigm for Education K-11 911 57 Authorizer Operator Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Elementary (K-5) 1 3 2,145 143 2,002 7% % of Citywide Gap 5% Middle (6-8) 1 2 909 77 832 8% 6% High School (9-12) 6 2 835 246 588 30% 4% Overall (K-12) 1 5* 3,888 466 3,422 12% 5% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 3% 78% Citywide 72% 22% 13% 82% 78% 12% Cerveny Grandmont 18% 1% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP ELL SPED Black Latino White 46,000 65% Worst 37% Red High Poverty 90% 0% 5% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 67,800 47% Better 42% Red High Poverty 76% 0% 13% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 79,450 79% Worse 81% Lime Mid-High Poverty 63% 0% 3% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 45,184 62% Better 64% Yellow High Poverty 75% 0% 14% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 27,000 Worse 53% Orange High Poverty 88% 0% 8% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 22,000 Worse 100% Green High Poverty 95% 0% 0% 98% 0% 1% Strongest 63% Yellow High Poverty 97% 0% 11% 100% 0% 0% Stronger 48,808 75% Better 45% Red High Poverty 81% 0% 15% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 42,533 56% Better 33% Red High Poverty 79% 0% 15% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 92,010 67% Better 79% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 41% 0% 4% 98% 1% 0% Strongest 133,580 63% Better 43% Red High Poverty 79% 0% 18% 98% 1% 0% Stronger 86,900 Worse 81% Yellow High Poverty 94% 0% 9% 93% 1% 1% Strongest 30,180 Best 79% Lime Mid-High Poverty 72% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 75,000 Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 88% 0% 9% 99% 0% 0% Moderate Best 86% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 42% 0% 1% 99% 1% 1% Strongest 67% Yellow High Poverty 92% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Stronger 74% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 74% 0% 12% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 295,523 ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year 99% This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 58 CHADSEY (Highest-Need Neighborhood #2) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Academy of the Americas District: Magnet/Selective Grade Span Enrollment K-10 803 2 Bennett Elementary School District: Neighborhood 3 Blanche Kelso Bruce Academy - West (Cecil Site) Charter Wayne RESA K-5 443 5-8 4 Cesar Chavez Academy Intermediate Charter Saginaw Valley State University 25 Leona Group 3-5 5 Cesar Chavez High School Charter 434 Saginaw Valley State University Leona Group 9-12 725 6 Cesar Chavez Middle School 7 Escuela Avancemos Charter Saginaw Valley State University Leona Group 6-8 585 Charter DPSCD Sanga Consulting, Inc. K-5 8 Harms Elementary School District: Neighborhood 274 K-5 9 Hope of Detroit Academy Charter 410 K-8 570 10 Munger Elementary-Middle School 11 Neinas Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-8 889 District: Neighborhood K-6 258 12 13 Priest Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 657 Roberto Clemente Academy District: Neighborhood K-5 718 14 Southwest Detroit Lighthouse Charter Academy Charter Grand Valley State University EAS Schools K-7 426 15 Universal Academy Charter Oakland University Hamadeh Educational Services K-12 732 16 Voyageur Academy Charter Ferris State University American Promise Schools K-8 617 17 Voyageur Consortium High School Charter Ferris State University American Promise Schools 9-12 428 59 Authorizer Ferris State University Operator Leona Group Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 4 1 1,798 154 1,644 9% 5% Middle (6-8) 3 2 943 257 685 27% 5% High School (9-12) 2 1 969 286 683 29% 3% Overall (K-12) 2 3* 3,709 697 3,012 19% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 14% 88% Citywide 18% 13% Chadsey 78% 50% 12% 5% 3% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP ELL SPED Black Latino White 97,929 78% Worst 60% Yellow Mid-Low Poverty 38% 86% 10% 3% 95% 1% Stronger 67,144 64% Better 64% Yellow High Poverty 87% 70% 7% 4% 85% 10% Strongest 30% Red High Poverty 100% 96% 4% 0% Stronger 39,500 Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 100% 80% 13% 3% 92% 5% Strongest 40,000 Better 85% Red High Poverty 94% 51% 9% 5% 91% 4% Strongest 40,403 Best 84% Lime High Poverty 97% 60% 10% 2% 92% 5% Stronger 32,117 Worst 71% Red High Poverty 99% 72% 4% 6% 87% 7% Strongest Better 74% Yellow High Poverty 94% 69% 7% 5% 86% 7% Strongest 84% Lime High Poverty 95% 72% 12% 7% 92% 1% Moderate 44,933 ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year 60% 111,090 84% Best 63% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 60% 65% 10% 14% 73% 12% Stronger 52,771 52% Worse 63% Red High Poverty 87% 57% 22% 9% 76% 11% Strongest 117,502 57% Worse 73% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 63% 62% 11% 19% 60% 20% Stronger 86,000 83% Better 64% Yellow High Poverty 96% 67% 10% 3% 88% 8% Stronger 78% Yellow High Poverty 82% 46% 9% 31% 63% 6% Weaker 58,000 Best 69% Yellow High Poverty 100% 64% 4% 2% 3% 94% Stronger 25,300 Worse 82% Red High Poverty 82% 2% 6% 70% 24% 6% Moderate 101,900 Best 81% Lime High Poverty 91% 14% 86% 11% 3% Moderate This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 60 FINNEY (Highest-Need Neighborhood #3) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Carleton Elementary School District: Neighborhood 2 Detroit Merit Charter Academy Charter 3 East English Village Preparatory Academy District: Neighborhood 4 Eman Hamilton Academy Charter 5 J.E. Clark Preparatory Academy District: Neighborhood 6 Marquette Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood 7 Marvin L. Winans Academy of Performing Arts Charter 8 Ronald Brown Academy 9 Wayne Elementary School 61 Authorizer Grade Span Enrollment K-5 307 K-8 737 9-12 1,613 K-8 254 K-8 661 K-8 589 K-5 437 District: Neighborhood K-6 629 District: Neighborhood K-5 283 Grand Valley State University DPSCD Saginaw Valley State University Operator National Heritage Academies Educational Partnerships, Inc. Solid Rock Management Co. Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 2 0 1,945 87 1,858 4% 5% Middle (6-8) 2 0 786 65 721 8% 5% High School (9-12) 9 0 644 169 475 26% 3% Overall (K-12) 2 0* 3,375 321 3,055 10% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 20% 3% 78% 15% Citywide 18% 13% 84% Finney 78% 0% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 52,134 48% Worst 50% Orange High Poverty Better 76% Yellow High Poverty Best 46% Red Worst 42% 221,000 115% 51,373 Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) 46,462 ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year ELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ SPED Black Latino White 91% 13% 98% 0% 1% Strongest 91% 9% 97% 0% 1% Weakest Mid-High Poverty 73% 25% 99% 0% 0% Stronger Red High Poverty 89% 11% 100% 0% 0% Stronger 56,852 84% Worst 48% Red High Poverty 78% 15% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 92,618 48% Worse 29% Red High Poverty 81% 18% 99% 0% 1% Strongest 63% Yellow High Poverty 86% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 122,415 54% Better 48% Red High Poverty 76% 17% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 43,470 47% Worse 40% Red High Poverty 83% 20% 100% 0% 0% Stronger This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 62 VERNOR JUNCTION (Highest-Need Neighborhood #4) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Academy of the Americas District: Magnet/Selective Grade Span Enrollment K-10 803 2 Bennett Elementary School District: Neighborhood 3 Cesar Chavez Academy Intermediate Charter Saginaw Valley State University Leona Group K-5 443 3-5 4 Cesar Chavez High School Charter Saginaw Valley State University 434 Leona Group 9-12 5 Cesar Chavez Middle School Charter Saginaw Valley State University 725 Leona Group 6-8 585 6 Clippert Academy 7 Earhart Elementary-Middle School District: Magnet/Selective 5-8 514 District: Neighborhood K-8 8 Escuela Avancemos Charter 670 K-5 9 Harms Elementary School District: Neighborhood 274 K-5 410 10 Hope of Detroit Academy Charter 11 Maybury Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-8 570 K-5 12 Neinas Elementary School 338 District: Neighborhood K-6 258 13 14 Phoenix Elementary-Middle School † EAA K-9 196 Roberto Clemente Academy District: Neighborhood K-5 718 15 Southwest Detroit Lighthouse Charter Academy Charter Grand Valley State University EAS Schools K-7 426 16 Voyageur Academy Charter Ferris State University American Promise Schools K-8 617 17 Voyageur Consortium High School Charter Ferris State University American Promise Schools 9-12 428 18 Western International High School District: Neighborhood 9-12 1,778 63 † Closed after academic year 2015-16. Authorizer DPSCD Ferris State University Operator Sanga Consulting, Inc. Leona Group Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Elementary (K-5) 3 3 1,867 115 1,752 6% % of Citywide Gap 5% Middle (6-8) 12 4 616 185 431 30% 3% High School (9-12) 1 2 923 197 726 21% 5% Overall (K-12) 4 5* 3,406 496 2,910 15% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 80% 20% 78% Citywide 18% 13% Vernor Junction 52% 12% 6% 3% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP ELL SPED Black Latino White 97,929 78% Worst 60% Yellow Mid-Low Poverty 38% 86% 10% 3% 95% 1% Stronger 67,144 64% Better 64% Yellow High Poverty 87% 70% 7% 4% 85% 10% Strongest 39,500 Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 100% 80% 13% 3% 92% 5% Strongest 40,000 Better 85% Red High Poverty 94% 51% 9% 5% 91% 4% Strongest 40,403 Best 84% Lime High Poverty 97% 60% 10% 2% 92% 5% Stronger 46,194 82% Worse 83% Lime High Poverty 89% 70% 3% 3% 93% 4% Strongest 111,090 63% Best 81% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 70% 53% 17% 21% 70% 9% Strongest Worst 71% Red High Poverty 99% 72% 4% 6% 87% 7% Strongest 74% Yellow High Poverty 94% 69% 7% 5% 86% 7% Strongest 32,117 44,933 60% Better 84% Lime High Poverty 95% 72% 12% 7% 92% 1% Moderate 45,322 62% Worse 64% Yellow High Poverty 85% 69% 9% 13% 81% 6% Strongest 52,771 52% Worse 63% Red High Poverty 87% 57% 22% 9% 76% 11% Strongest 75% Lime High Poverty 82% 41% 9% 15% 60% 22% Stronger 64% Yellow High Poverty 96% 67% 10% 3% 88% 8% Stronger 22% 86,000 83% Better 78% Yellow High Poverty 82% 46% 9% 31% 63% 6% Weaker 25,300 Worse 82% Red High Poverty 82% 2% 6% 70% 24% 6% Moderate 101,900 Best 81% Lime High Poverty 91% 14% 86% 11% 3% Moderate Better 74% Red Mid-High Poverty 54% 11% 21% 72% 6% Strongest 299,630 ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year 75% 56% This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 64 EVERGREEN (Highest-Need Neighborhood #5) GENERAL INFORMATION † # Name Type 1 Charles Wright Academy District: Neighborhood Grade Span Enrollment K-4 473 2 Cooke Elementary School District: Neighborhood 3 Cornerstone Health School Charter Grand Valley State University Cornerstone Charter Schools K-6 259 9-12 4 Detroit Service Learning Academy Charter Lake Superior State University Self-managed 426 K-8 5 Emerson Elementary-Middle School 923 District: Neighborhood K-8 6 596 Ford High School EAA 9-12 435 7 Ludington Magnet Middle School District: Magnet/Selective 5-8 336 8 Madison-Carver Academy Charter Grand Valley State University K-8 507 9 Michigan Technical Academy Elementary Charter Central Michigan University K-4 493 10 Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse of Detroit † Charter Central Michigan University K-8 142 11 Old Redford Academy - Elementary Charter Central Michigan University Innovative Teaching Solutions K-5 718 12 Old Redford Academy - High Charter Central Michigan University Innovative Teaching Solutions 9-12 728 13 Old Redford Academy - Middle Charter Central Michigan University Innovative Teaching Solutions 6-8 369 14 Rutherford Winans Academy Charter DPSCD Solid Rock Management Company K-5 210 15 Weston Preparatory Academy Charter Oakland University CS Partners K-8 312 Closed after academic year 2015-16. 65 Authorizer Operator Cornerstone Charter Schools Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 5 0 1,574 44 1,530 3% 4% Middle (6-8) 5 0 616 26 590 4% 4% High School (9-12) 7 1 766 271 494 35% 3% Overall (K-12) 5 1* 2,956 342 2,614 12% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 3% 78% 24% 14% 68% Citywide 13% 85% Evergreen 78% 18% 0% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Children who have changed residence in the past year Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 94,991 64% Better 71% Yellow High Poverty 45,184 62% Better 64% Yellow High Poverty 52,721 Better 76% Lime 87,575 Better 52% ELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ SPED Black Latino White 87% 15% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 75% 14% 99% 0% 0% Strongest High Poverty 84% 10% 94% 1% 0% Strongest Red Mid-High Poverty 73% 11% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 82,203 38% Worse 48% Red High Poverty 90% 12% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 150,000 23% Better 81% Red High Poverty 84% 18% 98% 0% 0% Strongest 95,591 30% Better 76% Red Mid-High Poverty 70% 21% 98% 1% 1% Strongest Better 62% Yellow High Poverty 86% 8% 93% 1% 0% Strongest 57% Orange High Poverty 87% 7% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 73% Yellow High Poverty 100% 14% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 77,130 57,674 Better 63% Yellow High Poverty 91% 6% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 75,000 Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 88% 9% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 36,360 Best 76% Yellow High Poverty 88% 11% 99% 0% 1% Stronger 67% Yellow High Poverty 92% 100% 0% 0% Stronger 76% Yellow High Poverty 77% 97% 2% 1% Strongest 32,000 ‡ Worse 14% This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 66 HARMONY VILLAGE (Highest-Need Neighborhood #6) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type Grade Span Enrollment 1 Bagley Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-6 347 2 Burns Elementary-Middle School EAA K-8 468 3 Coleman A. Young Elementary District: Neighborhood K-5 336 4 David Ellis Academy Charter DPSCD Bardwell Group K-8 364 5 Flagship Charter Academy Charter Central Michigan University National Heritage Academies K-8 716 6 Foreign Language Immersion & Cultural Studies District: Magnet/Selective K-8 697 7 John R. King Academic & Performing Arts Academy District: Neighborhood K-8 837 8 Joy Preparatory Academy Charter Ferris State University Leona Group 3-8 137 9 Lincoln-King Academy Charter Grand Valley State University Cornerstone Charter Schools K-8 577 10 Martin Luther King Jr. Education Center Academy Charter DPSCD Self-managed K-8 401 11 Mary McLeod Bethune Elementary-Middle School EAA K-8 532 12 Mumford High School EAA 9-12 742 13 Noble Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 491 14 Palmer Park Preparatory Academy District: Neighborhood K-8 482 15 Paul Robeson, Malcolm X Academy District: Magnet/Selective K-8 370 16 Renaissance High School District: Magnet/Selective 9-12 1,154 17 Schulze Academy for Technology and Arts District: Neighborhood K-6 492 18 Thurgood Marshall Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-8 540 19 University YES Academy Charter K-11 911 67 Authorizer Bay Mills Community College Operator New Paradigm for Education Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 4 3 1,547 125 1,422 8% 4% Middle (6-8) 6 3 618 58 560 9% 4% High School (9-12) 8 1 668 189 479 28% 3% Overall (K-12) 6 4* 2,833 371 2,462 13% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 80% 3% 79% 78% Citywide 18% 13% Harmony Village 15% 10% 0% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 54,317 58% Worst 39% Red Mid-High Poverty 46,000 65% Worst 37% Red High Poverty 67,800 47% Better 42% Red 27,000 Worse 53% 43,951 Better ELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ SPED Black Latino White 74% 14% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 90% 5% 100% 0% 0% Moderate High Poverty 76% 13% 99% 0% 0% Stronger Orange High Poverty 88% 8% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 76% Yellow High Poverty 96% 9% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 92,010 67% Better 79% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 41% 4% 98% 1% 0% Strongest 133,580 63% Better 43% Red High Poverty 79% 18% 98% 1% 0% Stronger 100,000 Worse 78% Lime High Poverty 78% 14% 99% 0% 1% Moderate 86,900 Worse 81% Yellow High Poverty 94% 9% 93% 1% 1% Strongest 30,180 Best 79% Lime Mid-High Poverty 72% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 82,149 47% Worse 76% Yellow High Poverty 99% 6% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 148,400 49% Best 64% Yellow High Poverty 79% 13% 98% 0% 0% Strongest 143,605 48% Worst 52% Orange High Poverty 82% 26% 98% 1% 0% Moderate 160,261 43% Worse 55% Red Mid-High Poverty 73% 19% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 48,500 49% Worse 74% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 70% 8% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 295,523 99% Best 86% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 42% 1% 99% 1% 1% Strongest 94,991 66% Best 43% Red Mid-High Poverty 74% 14% 98% 1% 1% Strongest 90,905 69% Worse 48% Red High Poverty 84% 26% 99% 0% 1% Moderate 74% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 74% 12% 100% 0% 0% Strongest This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 68 MACKENZIE (Highest-Need Neighborhood #7) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Burns Elementary-Middle School EAA 2 Flagship Charter Academy Charter Central Michigan University 3 Hope Academy Charter Eastern Michigan University 4 Mackenzie Elementary-Middle School 5 Noble Elementary-Middle School 69 Authorizer Operator Grade Span Enrollment K-8 468 National Heritage Academies K-8 716 BDFI Educational Services K-8 520 District: Neighborhood K-8 1,045 District: Neighborhood K-8 491 Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 7 0 1,549 158 1,391 10% 4% Middle (6-8) 4 0 714 91 623 13% 4% High School (9-12) 14 0 638 217 421 34% 3% Overall (K-12) 7 0* 2,901 467 2,435 16% 4% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 80% 3% 80% 78% Citywide 18% 13% 16% Mackenzie 11% 1% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 46,000 65% ELL SPED Black Latino White NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ Worst 37% Red High Poverty 90% 5% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 43,951 Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 96% 9% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 166,000 Worse 67% Yellow High Poverty 77% 12% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 111,090 98% Best 41% Red High Poverty 78% 16% 98% 0% 1% Stronger 143,605 48% Worst 52% Orange High Poverty 82% 26% 98% 1% 0% Moderate This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 70 GREENFIELD (Highest-Need Neighborhood #8) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Bow Elementary-Middle School 2 Coleman A. Young Elementary 3 Grade Span Enrollment District: Neighborhood K-8 520 District: Neighborhood K-5 336 Cooke Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-6 259 4 David Ellis Academy Charter DPSCD Bardwell Group K-8 364 5 Detroit Achievement Academy Charter Grand Valley State University Self-managed K-3 94 6 Emerson Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 596 7 Foreign Language Immersion and Cultural Studies District: Magnet/Selective K-8 697 8 Jalen Rose Leadership Academy Charter 9-12 419 9 John R. King Academic and Performing Arts Academy District: Neighborhood K-8 837 10 Lincoln-King Academy Charter Grand Valley State University Cornerstone Charter Schools K-8 577 11 Martin Luther King Jr. Education Center Academy Charter DPSCD Self-managed K-8 401 12 Michigan Technical Academy Elementary Charter Central Michigan University Matchbook Learning K-4 493 13 Mumford High School EAA 9-12 742 14 Old Redford Academy - High Charter 9-12 728 15 Renaissance High School District: Magnet/Selective 9-12 1,154 16 Rutherford Winans Academy Charter K-5 210 17 Schulze Academy for Technology and Arts District: Neighborhood K-6 492 18 University YES Academy Charter K-11 911 19 Vernor Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-6 225 71 Authorizer Central Michigan University Central Michigan University DPSCD Bay Mills Community College Operator American Promise Schools Innovative Teaching Solutions Solid Rock Management Company New Paradigm for Education Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Elementary (K-5) 8 3 1,343 64 1,279 5% % of Citywide Gap 3% Middle (6-8) 8 2 561 29 531 5% 4% High School (9-12) 13 1 584 154 430 26% 3% Overall (K-12) 8 4* 2,487 247 2,240 10% 3% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 78% 3% 77% Citywide 86% 21% 13% 13% Greenfield 78% 18% 1% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Children who have changed residence in the past year Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 59,100 65% Worse 52% Orange High Poverty 67,800 47% Better 42% Red High Poverty 45,184 62% Better 64% Yellow 27,000 Worse 53% 22,000 Worse ELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ SPED Black Latino White 75% 15% 98% 1% 0% Stronger 76% 13% 99% 0% 0% Stronger High Poverty 75% 14% 99% 0% 0% Strongest Orange High Poverty 88% 8% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 100% Green High Poverty 95% 98% 0% 1% Strongest 82,203 38% Worse 48% Red High Poverty 90% 12% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 92,010 67% Better 79% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 41% 4% 98% 1% 0% Strongest Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 87% 15% 100% 0% 0% Strongest Better 43% Red High Poverty 79% 18% 98% 1% 0% Stronger 86,900 Worse 81% Yellow High Poverty 94% 9% 93% 1% 1% Strongest 30,180 Best 79% Lime Mid-High Poverty 72% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 57% Orange High Poverty 87% 7% 99% 0% 0% Strongest Best 64% Yellow High Poverty 79% 13% 98% 0% 0% Strongest Better 76% Yellow High Poverty 88% 9% 99% 0% 0% Moderate Best 86% Lime Mid-Low Poverty 42% 1% 99% 1% 1% Strongest 67% Yellow High Poverty 92% 100% 0% 0% Stronger 43% Red Mid-High Poverty 74% 14% 98% 1% 1% Strongest 74% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 74% 12% 100% 0% 0% Strongest 67% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 72% 8% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 38,000 133,580 148,400 63% 49% 75,000 295,523 94,991 44,608 ‡ 99% 66% 53% Best Worse This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 72 BROOKS (Highest-Need Neighborhood #9) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type Grade Span Enrollment 1 Burns Elementary-Middle School EAA K-8 468 2 Carver Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 324 3 Cody Academy of Public Leadership District: Neighborhood 9-12 315 4 Detroit Innovation Academy Charter K-8 341 5 Detroit Institute of Technology at Cody District: Neighborhood 9-12 269 6 Detroit Premier Academy Charter K-8 725 7 Dossin Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 366 8 Gardner Elementary School District: Neighborhood K-5 228 9 Henderson Academy District: Neighborhood K-8 695 10 Medicine and Community Health Academy at Cody District: Neighborhood 9-12 407 73 Authorizer Central Michigan University Grand Valley State University Operator EQUITY Education National Heritage Academies Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level % of Citywide Gap Elementary (K-5) 10 1 1,365 165 1,200 12% 3% Middle (6-8) 9 1 578 93 485 16% 3% High School (9-12) 18 0 568 194 374 34% 2% Overall (K-12) 10 1* 2,511 452 2,059 18% 3% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 3% 3% 78% 78% Citywide 18% 88% 13% 16% 78% Brooks 10% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP 46,000 65% Worst 37% Red High Poverty 90% 67,102 49% Better 42% Red High Poverty 80% 286,752 15% Worst 52% Red High Poverty 63% Yellow 57% Worse 53,278 Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS Area (Sq. Ft.) 13% ELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ SPED Black Latino White 5% 100% 0% 0% Moderate 11% 88% 5% 6% Stronger 77% 29% 99% 0% 1% Stronger High Poverty 97% 11% 100% 0% 0% Stronger Red Mid-High Poverty 66% 45% 97% 1% 1% Stronger 81% Lime High Poverty 95% 9% 96% 2% 1% Stronger 15% 99% 0% 0% Strongest 8% 61% 2% 37% Stronger 6% 48,808 75% Better 45% Red High Poverty 81% 92,178 57% Worst 60% Yellow High Poverty 78% 109,000 69% Worst 36% Red High Poverty 84% 17% 96% 1% 2% Moderate 73% Yellow Mid-High Poverty 74% 29% 97% 1% 2% Stronger 19% ‡ Children who have changed residence in the past year 28% This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 74 MT. OLIVET (Highest-Need Neighborhood #10) GENERAL INFORMATION # Name Type 1 Brenda Scott Academy for Theatre Arts EAA 2 Dove Academy of Detroit Charter 3 Fisher Magnet Lower Academy 4 Fisher Magnet Upper Academy 5 6 Grade Span Enrollment K-8 835 K-8 440 District: Magnet/Selective K-4 586 District: Magnet/Selective 5-8 456 Law Elementary School EAA K-8 585 Osborn Academy of Mathematics District: Neighborhood 9-12 266 7 Osborn College Preparatory Academy District: Neighborhood 9-12 200 8 Osborn Evergreen Academy Of Design & Alternative Energy District: Neighborhood 9-12 327 9 Pulaski Elementary-Middle School District: Neighborhood K-8 456 10 Trix Performance Academy Charter K-8 397 75 Authorizer Oakland University Education Achievement Authority of Michigan Operator Choice Schools Associates Performance Academies Grade Span Neighborhood Rank (of 54) Performing Schools Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level Elementary (K-5) 9 1 1,484 210 1,274 14% % of Citywide Gap 3% Middle (6-8) 7 1 720 182 538 25% 4% High School (9-12) 27 0 427 160 267 38% 2% Overall (K-12) 9 1* 2,631 552 2,078 21% 3% * Because some schools overlap grade spans, the number of performing schools does not sum. 3% 78% 80% 78% 74% Citywide 18% 13% Mt. Olivet 12% 6% 1% Children eligible for free or reduced-price meals Children who speak English less than very well FACILITIES Children who have changed residence in the past year Adults with a high school diploma PERFORMANCE Adults with at least a bachelor's degree DEMOGRAPHICS NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS ‡ Area (Sq. Ft.) Utilization Conditions Points Earned MDE Rating Poverty Level FRLP ELL SPED Black Latino White 147,620 76% Better 48% Red High Poverty 83% 2% 5% 97% 0% 0% Moderate Worse 84% Lime High Poverty 98% 9% 97% 0% 2% Stronger 49,000 95,098 54% Best 41% Red High Poverty 99% 14% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 147,620 53% Best 41% Red High Poverty 87% 26% 98% 0% 0% Moderate 125,995 48% Better 43% Red High Poverty 89% 11% 99% 0% 0% Stronger 201,884 52% Worst 52% Red High Poverty 80% 24% 98% 0% 0% Moderate 201,884 52% Worst 38% Red High Poverty 77% 22% 99% 0% 0% Moderate 201,884 52% Worst 24% Red High Poverty 78% 37% 97% 1% 0% Moderate 60,966 48% Worse 52% Orange High Poverty 95% 12% 97% 0% 1% Stronger 62% Yellow High Poverty 79% 13% 97% 0% 0% Strongest ‡ This data point is Dynamo Metrics’ Neighborhood School Index, which accounts for the following factors: occupancy, parental involvement, housing market, housing condition, violent crime, and vacant lots. Ratings are relative to other current and former sites of public schools in Detroit. 76 APPENDIX C: COMMUTE PATTERNS IN DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT Map 11: Accountability Rating of DPSCD Schools Attended (Grades K-12) 77 Map 12: Accountability Rating of Elementary Schools Attended (Grades K-5) Mt. Olivet - Pembroke .4 A . Greenfield Redford .4 Bagley A pe?Sh'?9 . Burbank Davison 9,60? Evergreen "m armony Cerveny/ Village I A Rosedale Airport Grandmont (A A Conner Finney A Middle St- Jean Chandler Woodward Brightmoor Mackenzie Kettering - 9? A A0 3' rv ?4 Vl?nterhalter 94 Middle East 4 Cody r00 5 A Central Rosa VA Parks Lower Wood?a?d East 75 Tireman Cegtral Butzel Chadsey Condon Jeffries Vernor/ Junction? 9?6; Springwells West Riverfront Service Gap (Ranked) MDE Accountability Rating . Pembroke Pershing Grant MI, Olivet Burbank I High Need (1 - 1o) . Green Palmer 5% Nolan Evergreen Green?eld Park L. Redford Bagley Fa? Denby . . Ime - MId-ngh Need (11 20) Dawson Conner Yellow Rosedale Airport PM ?eY - Moderate Need (21 - 3o) Cervenv . ra Grandmont Chgiai?er Brightmoor Durfee I Mid-Low Need (MackenZIe Winterhalter woodwa'd Rosa Low Need (41 54) No Grade Cody Brooks Parks Tlreman Lower Lower 1 . . Woodward East Master Plan Students in Neighborhood re?nes gem. Neighborhoods 1 200 0 Central 5? Chadsey Busmess ?rent Park 6 Hubbardzo we 00 Springwells Vern or Richard 00 Junction Iver 2 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 78 Map 13: Accountability Rating of Middle Schools Attended (Grades 6-8) 4 Pembroke .4 Greenfield A A Bagley ?4 Evergreen Redford I Harmony Rosedale Village A Cerveny 39 Grandmont 059 005% . Ve 96 VWnterhalter Brooks A Mackenzie Chadsey Durfee Condon Springwells I I Grant A Olivet I A I Burbank Pershing Davison Ci . Conner Airport Finney A Chandler Middle Woodward Kettering A 1 Middle 94 East A Central Lower Rosa Parks Lower Woodward East 0. Central Butzel Tireman . age Jeffries 15 1 - ront A Midngan Ave Vernor/ Junction Service Gap (Ranked) MDE Accountability Rating I High Need (1 1o) . Green I Mid?High Need (11 ?2o) Lime Yellow I Moderate Need (21 30) Orange I Mid?Low Need (31 4o) . Red No Grade Low Need (41 - 54) Students in Neighborhood aster Plan Neighborhoods 1,200 Park 600 River 200 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 79 Pershing Grant Mt, Oliver Burbank Pembroke Palm? State No an Evergreen Green?eld Bagley Par Fair Denby Redford Dawson Conner Fin ney Harmony chols Rosedale Wlage Cerv eny Grandmont Airport Chandler Park Durfee Middle .ma Woodward Ma cken zle winterhalter Cody Brooks S2335 Tirema Lower Woodward Je?rles Central Condon Central 00 Busmess DIS Chadsey Rueitmnt Io Hubbard ?15 Vern or Richard Junction Springwells Map 14: Accountability Rating of High Schools Attended (Grades 9-12) Pembroke .1 Evergreen 4 - a, Greenfield ?29 Palmer Park Redford - Bagley I Rosedale Cerveny Grandmont - Brightmoor 39 .I Harmony Village McNichols Mackenzie Durfee 1? Vl?nterhalter 96 0,3,7? @111), 4,,8 VA Tireman Condo A A Michigan Ave Chadsey Springwells A Vernor/ Junctio Boynton Mt. Olivet A A Pershing Burbank Denby Davison 1 Kettering A Middle East Central 7. 4 Riverside 7 ower Butzel Lower ?Rosa Parks Woodward East A \l Central Service Gap (Ranked) MDE Accountability Rating Pembroke Pershing Burbank I High Need (1 - 1o) . Green palm SH Nolan ran Evergreen Green?eld Park Fa Li me Redford Bagley a? - MId-High Need (11 20) Dawson Conner Yellow Rosedale Hang: McN-chols Awe? - Moderate Need (21 - 3o) Cerveny . Oran Grandmont (juggle, . Brighrmoor Durfee I Mid-Low Need (31 - 4o) . Red Mme Mackenue Winterhaller ??00qu LOW Need (41 - 54) No Grade Cody Brooks 23;: Master Plan Students in Neighborhood Neighborhoods 1,200 Park 600 River 200 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. Denby Lower Tireman Woodward Je?ries Condon Central Business Chadsey 00 "Io Hubbard 4' Vern or Richard Junction Springwells Fin ney 8o Map 15: Student Travel Distance to School (Grades K-12) Grant 4 Pembroke - - Pershing . Redford Bagiey Mi. Olive! Evergreen Green?eld Palmer Park Harmony q. Conner Village McNichols 5 Rosedale Cerveny/ Davison Grandm Middle Woodward Mackenzie Winterhalter . 94 Middle Brooks Rosa ?East Central 0 Parks River Woodward Tireman Chadsey Condon Service Gap (Ranked) Student Commute Distance . . Pembroke Pershing Grant Burbank I Need (1 10) Less Than 1 Mile Evergreen palm, sme Nolan Green?eld Park . . 1 - 3 Miles Redford Bagley 8? Dent? I Mid?High Need (11 20) Dawson Conner . 3 - 7 Miles Rosedaie McNIchols mm Way I Moderate Need (21 3o) Cerveny dl . 7 - 12 ?es Grandmont Brightmoor Durfee I Mid?Low Need (31 4o) . MM 6 . Greater Than 12 Miles Mackem Woodward Low Need (41 - 54) Cody Brooks $3335 Tireman Lower Lower Woodward Master Plan Students in Neighborhood Je?ries 5? Neighborhoods Central -- 2,400 Chadsey 00% Busrness :rfs'mnl . Park 00 Hubbardzo?b, Dis 1?2 Springwells Vern 0' Richard R. 00 Junction iver 4 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 81 Map 16: Student Travel Distance to Elementary Schools (Grades K-5) Burbank Pembroke . Evergree'iu' Greenfield Bagiey in, Olivet Palmer Park . Harmony Village Cerveny Rosedal.e Grandmont Brightmoor Middle Woodward Mackenzie Vi?nterhalter Central Kettering om, Lower Ve?me Lower Woodward East Central Tireman Jeffries Chadsey Condon Michigan Brooks ast wRiverfront Service Gap (Ranked) Student Commute Distance . Pembroke Pershing Burbank I High Need (1 - 10) Less Than 1 Mile Pam, Nolan ran mom? Evergreen Green?eld I Park 55:: 1 3 Miles Redford ag ey Denby I Mid-High Need (11 - 20) Dawson Conner 0 3 - 7 Miles $57212? McNichols Alma" may - Moderate Need (21 - 3o) Cemenv I . 7 12 ?es Grandmont 01;:ng Brighimoor Durfee I Mid-Low Need (31 - 4o) . Mm, 5 -ntra . GreaterThan 12 Mlles Mackenzre Winterhalter woodwa'd Kettering MaCk . Rosa Middle 0? ow ee (41 54) Brooks Parks Tireman Lower Lower . . Woodward Master Plan Students in Neighborhood Jenna: Seam. Neighborhoods Central -- 1,200 Chadsey 00 Business . we Park 6 Hubbardzo?b DIS 00 Springwells Vern or Richard R. 200 Junction iver Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 82 Map 17: Student Travel Distance to Middle Schools (Grades 6-8) Mt. Olivet Burbank t" Pershing 4 Pembroke Greenfield Redford Evergreen Davison Conner Denby Finney\ Rosedale Cerveny A, Grandmont A McNichols 5 . Harmony Village Airport Chandler Park :5 A a Middle 01" St Jean Brightmoor Woodward VWnterhalter 94 Middle East A Cody Brooks Rosa - Central Mackenzie Parks I t? . Tireman en ra Service Gap (Ranked) Student Commute Distance . . Pembroke Pershing Grant M1, Olivet Burbank I High Need (1 10) Less Than 1 Mlle Evergreen palm, sme Nolan Green?eld Park . . 1 3 Miles Redford Bag'el 8? Denny I Mid?High Need (11 20) Dawson Conner . 3 - 7 Miles Rosedaie McNIchoIs AW Way I Moderate Need (21 3o) Cerveny dl . 7 12 ?es Grandmont Sgrker . Brightmoor Durfee I Mid?Low Need (31 4o) . MM ?3 -ntra . Greater Than 12 Miles Mackenue Winterhalter Low Need (41 - 54) Cody Bmoks E2335 Tireman Lower Lower . . Woodward ST Master Plan Students In Neighborhood James Central Neighborhoods Central .. 1'200 Chadsey 00 Busrness 35' Q, - Rivertmm par 6 Hubbard OO Springwells Vern 0' Richard R. 00 Junctlon Iver 2 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 83 Map 18: Student Travel Distance to High Schools (Grades 9-12) I I I 4 . Pembroke Nolan Greenfield Redford Pershing - Burbank Bagley Mt? Olivet A A Evergreen Harmony Village . Conner Rosedale Cerveny Grandmont .4 .A Brightmoor 39 Mackenzie 6 A ast Vl?nterhalter Central . Cody Brooks 0,90 Woodward Kettering (7/94, er?, Rosa 4 Parks? Lower Lower Butzel Woodward East ?4 Tireman? <0 Chadsey Michigan Ave? Springwells {f Vernor/ Boynton Service Gap (Ranked) Student Commute Distance . . Pembroke Pershing Grant MI, Olivet Burbank I High Need (1 - 10) Less Than 1 Mile Palmer 5m Nolan Evergreen Green?eld Ba Ie pa Fair - - 1 - 3 Miles Redford 9 Denby I Mid-High Need (11 - 20) Dawson Conner 3 - 7 Miles Rosedaie my McNIchols Am" may - Moderate Need (21 - 3o) Cemeny Chandler . 7 12 MlleS Grandmont Park Brightmoor Duifee I Mid-Low Need (31 - 4o) - Mm. ?3 -ntra . Greater Than 12 Miles Mackem Winterhalter wondwam Kettering Mack Low Need (41 - 54) Brooks 22:; Tireman Lower . . Woodward Lower Master Plan Students in Neighborhood Je?ries 5? Neighborhoods Central 1,200 Chadsey 00% BUSINESS afmm we Park 6 Hubbardzo 00 Springwells Vern or Richard Junction River 200 Detroit Public Schools Community District schools only. 84 APPENDIX D: ALIGNING EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS FROM BIRTH THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE Map 18: Service Gap, Early Care and Education (Ages 0-5) Map 19: Service Gap, K-12 Education 85 Table 8: Service Gap Comparison, Early Care and Education and K-12 Education Neighborhood ECE Service Gap Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 K-12 Service Gap Overall Overall Elementary Middle High School (Ages 0-5) (Grades K-12) (Grades K-5) (Grades 6-8) (Grades 9-12) Cerveny / Grandmont 565 343 908 3,422 2,002 832 588 Finney 582 384 966 3,055 1,858 721 475 Chadsey 897 781 1,678 3,012 1,644 685 683 Vernor / Junction 603 464 1,067 2,910 1,752 431 726 Evergreen 510 305 815 2,614 1,530 590 494 Harmony Village 480 263 743 2,462 1,422 560 479 Mackenzie 554 189 743 2,435 1,391 623 421 Greenfield 324 103 427 2,240 1,279 531 430 Brooks 797 417 1,214 2,059 1,200 485 374 Mt. Olivet 571 428 999 2,078 1,274 538 267 Conner 447 324 771 1,754 997 348 409 Burbank 567 358 925 1,870 1,070 171 629 Denby 600 395 995 1,888 984 256 648 Bagley 213 63 276 1,734 968 309 458 Rouge 674 477 1,151 1,755 956 460 340 Rosa Parks 338 45 383 1,649 990 440 220 Springwells 573 386 959 1,825 1,151 45 629 Kettering 224 59 283 1,660 928 318 414 Redford 329 99 428 1,577 1,005 331 241 Rosedale 204 69 273 1,530 887 376 268 Durfee 374 171 545 1,471 801 346 325 Lower Woodward 157 -121 36 1,436 645 344 447 Pembroke 203 20 223 1,473 726 291 457 Brightmoor 333 77 410 1,316 818 319 179 Cody 373 159 532 1,287 753 311 223 Davison 365 239 604 1,353 706 357 289 397 Lower East Central 192 43 235 1,424 698 328 Tireman 293 10 303 1,072 619 282 171 Winterhalter 312 158 470 1,032 555 229 248 Condon 200 41 241 1,010 478 160 372 Jeffries 175 11 186 972 642 203 127 Nolan 326 184 510 947 484 193 270 Middle East Central 96 -80 16 930 406 254 269 Grant 255 116 371 913 564 237 113 Middle Woodward 179 -83 96 948 533 244 171 Butzel 108 48 156 927 393 172 362 Airport 188 -133 55 760 457 178 125 Palmer Park 57 -95 -38 618 341 107 170 Pershing 386 344 730 703 296 141 267 McNichols 151 7 158 608 283 144 182 Chandler Park 260 106 366 569 307 111 151 St. Jean 136 -29 107 568 322 134 112 Foch 92 4 96 542 252 100 190 East Riverside 109 10 119 480 207 93 180 West Riverfront 39 -115 -76 397 253 37 106 Boynton 162 10 172 389 113 30 247 Hubbard Richard 41 -12 29 352 222 49 81 Jefferson / Mack 73 -5 68 302 111 52 139 Indian Village 1 -29 -28 251 80 66 105 85 State Fair 166 34 200 206 87 34 Central Business District -35 -172 -207 142 34 33 75 Corktown -3 -71 -74 123 56 20 47 Near East Riverfront 8 -31 -23 57 25 16 15 Upper East Central -33 -138 -171 12 7 2 3 86 APPENDIX E: DATA AND METHODS METHODOLOGY • Charter schools, officially “public school academies” in Michigan, are publicly funded, free schools.69 An independent operator manages charter schools under the terms of a contract (charter) with a public or nonprofit authorizer, which has the power to open, regulate, and close charter schools. Charter schools enjoy substantial flexibility and autonomy in exchange for high levels of academic performance. (Effective authorizing is crucial to ensuring this balance).70 In academic year 2015-16, DPSCD, EAA, Wayne Regional Educational Service Agency (Wayne RESA), and nine public postsecondary schools authorized K-12 charter schools in Detroit. Per 2016 regulations, however, only three authorizers – Grand Valley State University, Saginaw Valley State University, and Central Michigan University – are legally able to charter new schools as of the publication of this report.71 • Schools of choice in Michigan are public schools that are open to students from outside of the geographical boundaries of the LEA that governs them.72 Thousands of children who live in Detroit attend traditional district and charter schools of choice throughout Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties.73 School Classifications. The unit of analysis for the needs assessment at the core of this study is the school – not the individual student. The methodology uses school-level data to make determinations about educational access at the neighborhood and city levels. In 2015-16, many types of free public schools served students in Detroit. This study categorizes schools along three dimensions: governance, service area or authorizer, and programming. Below is the terminology used to describe the first level of categorization, schools’ governance: • • 87 Traditional district schools are governed by the city’s traditional local educational agency (LEA), Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD). DPSCD assumed the educational responsibilities of Detroit Public Schools (DPS), a separate legal entity that is now responsible exclusively for retiring schools’ accumulated debt, in July 2016.66 In common parlance, “DPS” often refers to DPSCD. DPS oversaw K-12 operations through the academic year that this study analyzes. For clarity and to align with contemporary terminology, this report refers to Detroit’s traditional LEA as DPSCD. The Education Achievement Authority (EAA) of Michigan was a statewide turnaround district that in 2011 assumed managerial responsibility over some of the state’s lowest-performing public schools, including fifteen in Detroit.67 EAA disbanded after the 2016-17 academic year and delegated governance of the Detroit schools formerly under its jurisdiction to DPSCD.68 Schools are then further categorized based on one of two criteria: • Enrollment criteria are used to categorize traditional district schools. Neighborhood schools are open to students within a geographically defined attendance boundary. Magnet or selective schools are open to students across the city and/or by examination; they do not have a geographically defined attendance boundary. Special program schools enroll particular subgroups of students. • Authorizing institutions are used to describe charter schools, which do not have attendance boundaries or entrance examinations. Finally, schools are categorized based on the programming that they offer. Only general education schools with full enrollment and performance data were integrated into the needs assessment. • General education schools are those that do not focus primarily on vocational, special, or alternative education.74 They primarily offer traditional curricula, even though many provide targeted support for particular student subgroups. Magnet and selective schools are considered general education schools for the purposes of this analysis, even though many have specialized curricular themes.75 • A special education school “focuses primarily on special education—including instruction for students with any of the following conditions: autism, deafblindness, developmental delay, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, and other health impairments” and “adapts curriculum, materials, or instruction for students served.”76 • A vocational school “focuses primarily on providing formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, technical, or professional occupations for high school-age students who have opted to develop or expand their employment opportunities, often in lieu of preparing for college entry.”77 • An alternative school “(1) addresses needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school, (2) provides nontraditional education, (3) serves as an adjunct to a regular school, or (4) falls outside the categories of regular, special education, or vocational education.”78 Needs Assessment. At its core, this study is a supply-and-demand needs assessment. The methodology calculates the number of seats available in performing public schools in a neighborhood and compares it to the number of children living there who are participating in the public school system. School performance is constitutive of the determinations that the needs assessment makes. Fundamentally, however, the report is about communities’ access to performing schools in the aggregate, not about individual schools. The base geographical unit for the needs assessment is the neighborhood. To convey meaningful information to decision-makers and stakeholders in K-12 education, the geographies into which the needs assessment divides the city need to balance several competing criteria. The neighborhoods must be small enough to be the foci of locally-calibrated school improvement efforts but large enough to constitute a significant portion of the K-12 ecosystem. At the same time, the neighborhoods should resonate with geographies that city planners, education leaders, and community organizations already recognize and integrate into their strategic initiatives. IFF’s needs assessment for early care and education (ECE) in Detroit, published in 2015,79 balanced these demands by using the names and boundaries of the fifty-four neighborhoods that the Detroit City Council adopted in 2009 88 as part of the city’s Master Plan of Policies.80 Conversations with stakeholders, including this report’s Advisory Committee, confirmed that the Master Plan neighborhoods would be appropriate boundaries for Rethink, Reset, Rebuild. The geographic consistency between this report and IFF’s ECE needs assessment has the added benefit of facilitating alignment between ECE and K-12 planning and programming in Detroit (see Appendix D). In the needs assessment, demand is enrollment in general education schools located in Detroit in academic year 2015-16. Supply is an estimate of the capacity of performing schools, i.e. schools rated Green or Lime by the Michigan Department of Education, located in Detroit in the same year. For traditional district schools, capacity is the average of schools’ enrollment from academic years 2011-12 through 2015-16; for charter schools and EAA schools, capacity is the maximum of schools’ enrollment over those years. The spatial distribution of demand and supply into neighborhoods and attendance boundaries is proportional to school-age population. For traditional district schools and EAA schools with an assigned attendance boundary, each school’s enrollment is distributed spatially throughout the boundary. For magnet schools and others that accept students from all of Detroit, enrollment is distributed throughout the city. For charter elementary and middle schools, one half of the school’s demand or supply is distributed within a 1.78-mile radius, and the remaining half in a radius of 1.82 miles beyond the inner radius. For charter high schools, one half of the school’s demand or supply is distributed within a 2.3-mile radius, and the remaining half in a radius of 3.2 miles beyond the inner radius. These radii are based on the results of a national survey of commute patterns.81 89 Once supply and demand are calculated, the service gap and service level are computed at the neighborhood level for individual grade spans: elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). The service gap is the difference between supply and demand; the service level is the quotient of supply over demand. The former represents the number of students who cannot access a seat in a performing school; the latter represents the proportion of students who can access a seat in a performing school. Neighborhoods are ranked by their service gap within each grade span. A composite ranking is then created from the average of each neighborhood’s elementary, middle, and high school rankings. The ten neighborhoods with the highest composite ranks are identified as Detroit’s highest-need neighborhoods. Facilities Assessment. IFF’s third-party partner, Recon Management, surveyed most of the school buildings in or within one mile of the highest-need neighborhoods in 2017. Usually with assistance from a school building’s engineer or another employee familiar with facilities systems and components, Recon used a facilities survey that IFF Research developed in consultation with IFF’s Real Estate Services department. The survey evaluated the following elements: known environmental concerns; signs of water damage; foundation material and condition; exterior walls material and condition; roof material and condition; weatherproofing and condition of exterior doors and windows; glazing type; fire alarm and sprinkler systems; age and condition of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning components; water heather type and condition; condition of plumbing fixtures; conditions of restrooms; condition of electrical systems and wiring type; materials and conditions of interior floors, walls, Table 9: Building Component Rating System Chart 15: Building Cost Components Rating Description Percent of Replacement Cost Pristine New or like new. Requires only standard/routine maintenance. 0% Good Not new but fully functional. Requires routine maintenance and may need minor repairs. 10% Borderline Serviceable but needs repairs and/or has significant deferred maintenance/ monitoring. 50% Reached expected life. Requires substantial repairs or continuous maintenance/ monitoring. 90% Surpassed useful life. Immediate safety condition. 100% Unsustainable Critical Ceiling Finish Floor Structure Windows & Doors 4% 2% 4% Specialties 5% Floor Finish__ 5% Foundation Roof Structure 29% & Cover 7% 7% Plumbing 10% Lighting____ & Power _ roofing structure, doors, millwork, flooring, and paint; and condition of elements for students with disabilities. Recon rated building systems or components on a scale, with each rating corresponding to an estimated proportion of the cost of replacing the system or component in full (see Table 9 above). IFF relied upon two scales to aggregate ratings into a summative score for each building. The first was the average costs per square foot of new construction activity for public school buildings across Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan: $199.08 for elementary schools, $246.43 for middle schools, and $318.21 for high schools.82 Based on enrollment ratios across the corresponding grade spans (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, respectively), a school was assigned an estimated cost per square foot. For example, if a school’s enrollment was half elementary schoolers and half middle 14% Exterior Walls 13% Interior Wall Finish schoolers, its estimated cost per square foot would be $222.76. The building’s estimated cost per square foot was multiplied by the area of the building (in square feet) to arrive at a rough estimate of the cost of constructing a school building of its size and type in 2017. The second scale is the average distribution of construction costs across various building components, based on a national survey of elementary and secondary school building construction.83 Those ratios are detailed in Chart 15. They do not include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, which are included as a separate per-squarefoot cost.84 The estimated percent of replacement costs for each component are multiplied by their proportion of the overall cost. The resulting product is then multiplied by the overall estimated cost for the building to arrive at an estimated cost for each component. 90 All components’ estimated costs are summed to arrive at an estimated total cost for each building. Overall estimated costs are divided by their square footage and normalized based on their per-square-foot cost to allow for one-to-one comparisons between dissimilar buildings. Each school is assigned a z-score based on its normalized score. Schools with a z-score score greater than one (i.e. the highest estimated costs) received a rating of Worst; schools with a z-score between zero and one received a rating of Worse; schools with a z-score between zero and negative one received a rating of Better; and schools with a z-score less than negative one received a rating of Best. Statistical Tests. All statistical tests were conducted with a significance level of five percent (α = .05). Commute Analysis. Analyses of student commute within Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) utilize anonymized student address data that DPSCD provided to IFF. To estimate students’ travel distance to school, an origindestination (OD) cost matrix was developed to identify the most efficient pathway from students’ address to their school based on factors such as road width and speed limit. DATA Data Sources. City of Detroit Department of Planning and Development Shapefiles (neighborhoods, roads, parks, etc.) Detroit Public Schools Community District Anonymized Student Address Data Attendance Boundary Shapefiles Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2016) Dynamo Metrics Neighborhood School Index Esri 2015 Population Estimates Michigan Department of Education / Center for Educational Performance and Information Accountability Scorecard Educational Entity Master Student Counts Student Assessment National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data Public School Directory Public School Membership U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2015 Five-Year Estimates 91 Works Cited. “2016 Michigan School Scorecards.” Michigan Department of Education, 2016. http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7140-22709_25058---,00.html. Abramson, Paul. “20th Annual School Construction Report: National Statistics, Building Trends and Detailed Analysis.” School Planning & Management, February 2015. Alix, Jay, Deborah DiRezze, Adam Figueiredo, Leah Martin, Karen Morgan, and Carol Weaver. “Report & Recommendations Presented to Judge Steven Rhodes, DPS Transition Manager.” Detroit Public Schools Transition Team, June 17, 2016. http://detroitk12.org/admin/dpscd/#transition-team. Allensworth, Elaine M., Paul T. Moore, Lauren Sartain, and Marisa de la Torre. “The Educational Benefits of Attending Higher Performing Schools: Evidence from Chicago High Schools.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39, no. 2 (June 1, 2017): 175–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716672039. “America’s Largest Charter Public School Communities and Their Impact on Student Outcomes.” A Growing Movement. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, November 3, 2016. http://www.publiccharters.org/ publications/growing-movement-americas-largest-charter-public-school-communities/. “Annotated Bibliography: The Impact of School-Based Poverty Concentration on Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes.” Washington, DC: Poverty & Race Research Action Council, n.d. http://school-diversity.org/researchbriefs/. Baber, R. Jovita, Moira O’Donovan Warnement, and Emily Sipfle. “Quality Schools: Every Child, Every School, Every Neighborhood: An Analysis of School Location and Performance in Washington, DC.” Chicago: IFF, January 2012. http://www.iff.org/our-services/research/. Baber, R. Jovita, and Cristina Silva. “The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: A Place-Based Analysis of School Performance in Indianapolis.” Chicago: IFF, March 2013. http://www.iff.org/our-services/research/. Baber, R. Jovita, Cristina Silva, and Rachel Koch. “A Shared Responsibility: Ensuring Quality Education in Every Cleveland Neighborhood.” Chicago: IFF, 2015. http://www.iff.org/our-services/research/. ———. “The System We Need: A Neighborhood Snapshot of Early Education in Detroit.” Chicago: IFF, 2015. http://www. iff.org/our-services/research/. 92 Batdorff, Meagan, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, and Albert Cheng. “Charter Funding: Inequity Expands.” Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform, April 2014. http:// www.uaedreform.org/charter-funding-inequity-expands/. Belsha, Kalyn. “In Kansas City, a Lesson in Transforming Closed Schools.” The Chicago Reporter, January 24, 2017. http:// chicagoreporter.com/in-kansas-city-a-lesson-in-transforming-closed-schools/. “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment.” Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, September 2017. https://www.crpe.org/publications/better-togetherensuring-quality-district-schools. Binelli, Mark. “Michigan Gambled on Charter Schools. Its Children Lost.” The New York Times Magazine, September 5, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/magazine/michigan-gambled-on-charter-schools-its-children-lost. html. Bross, Whitney, Douglas N. Harris, and Lihan Liu. “The Effects of Performance-Based School Closure and Charter Takeover on Student Performance.” Technical Report. New Orleans: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, October 17, 2016. https://educationresearchalliancenola.org/publications/extreme-measures-when-and-howschool-closures-and-charter-takeovers-benefit-students. Brummet, Quentin. “The Effect of School Closings on Student Achievement.” Journal of Public Economics 119 (November 2014): 108–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.010. Burdick-Will, Julia, Micere Keels, and Todd Schuble. “Closing and Opening Schools: The Association between Neighborhood Characteristics and the Location of New Educational Opportunities in a Large Urban District.” Journal of Urban Affairs 35, no. 1 (February 2013): 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12004. Bytof, Amy. “Michigan Charter School Facts.” MAPSA Blog (blog), September 26, 2016. http://www.charterschools.org/ blog/2016/09/29/michigan-charter-school-facts. Carlson, Deven, and Stéphane Lavertu. “Charter School Closure and Student Achievement: Evidence from Ohio.” Journal of Urban Economics 95 (September 2016): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.07.001. Chambers, Jennifer. “Number of Students Enrolled at DPS Jumps over Last Year.” The Detroit News. September 6, 2017. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/09/06/number-students-enrolled-dps-jumps-lastyear/105320746/. 93 “Charter School Performance in Michigan.” Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, January 11, 2013. https://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html. “City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies,” July 2009. http://www.detroitmi.gov/Government/Departments-and-Agencies/ Planning-and-Development-Department/Master-Planning. Deeds, Vontrese, and Mary Pattillo. “Organizational ‘Failure’ and Institutional Pluralism: A Case Study of an Urban School Closure.” Urban Education 50, no. 4 (June 2015): 474–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913519337. DeGrow, Ben. “School Funding in Michigan Reaches All-Time High.” The Mackinac Center Blog (blog), May 19, 2017. https://www.mackinac.org/school-funding-in-michigan-reaches-all-time-high. Dixon, Jennifer. “Michigan Spends $1B on Charter Schools but Fails to Hold Them Accountable.” Detroit Free Press, June 22, 2014. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/06/22/michigan-spends-1b-on-charter-schoolsbut-fails-to-hold/77155074/. Dowdall, Emily. “Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from Six Urban Districts.” Philadelphia Research Initiative. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, October 19, 2011. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/reports/2011/10/19/closing-public-schools-in-philadelphia-lessons-from-six-urban-districts. Dowdall, Emily, and Susan Warner. “Shuttered Public Schools: The Struggle to Bring Old Buildings New Life.” Philadelphia Research Initiative. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, February 11, 2013. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researchand-analysis/reports/2013/02/11/philadelphia-and-other-big-cities-struggle-to-find-uses-for-closed-schools. “DPSCD Continues Upward Trend of Stabilized Enrollment.” Detroit Public Schools Community District, October 7, 2016. http://detroitk12.org/content/2016/10/07/dpscd-continues-upward-trend-of-stabilized-enrollment/. “DPSCD Welcomes Newly Elected Board Members.” Detroit Public Schools Community District, November 9, 2016. http://detroitk12.org/content/2016/11/09/dpscd-welcomes-newly-elected-board-members/. Einhorn, Erin. “A Year after the Tearful Demise of a Proposed Detroit School Oversight Commission, Backers Seek Another Way to Bring Order to Detroit Schools.” Chalkbeat, July 6, 2017. https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ detroit/2017/07/06/a-year-after-the-tearful-demise-of-a-proposed-detroit-school-oversight-commission-backersseek-another-way-to-bring-order-to-detroit-schools/. ———. “In a District Full of Empty Classrooms and Darkened Hallways, Can Detroit Find a Way to Keep Its Schools Open?” Chalkbeat, May 4, 2017. https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/detroit/2017/05/04/in-a-district-full-of-emptyclassrooms-and-darkened-hallways-can-detroit-find-a-way-to-keep-its-schools-open/. 94 ———. “On Detroit’s First Day of Class, Unusual Staffing Problems Hobble Some Schools and Draw Parent Protests.” Chalkbeat, September 5, 2017. https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/detroit/2017/09/05/on-detroits-first-day-of-classunusual-staffing-problems-hobble-some-schools-and-draw-parent-protests/. ———. “‘Possible, but Daunting’: Inside Nikolai Vitti’s Early Effort to Transform Detroit’s Battered Public Schools.” Chalkbeat, September 11, 2017. https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/detroit/2017/09/11/possible-but-daunting-insidenikolai-vittis-early-effort-to-transform-detroits-battered-public-schools/. Engberg, John, Brian Gill, Gema Zamarro, and Ron Zimmer. “Closing Schools in a Shrinking District: Do Student Outcomes Depend on Which Schools Are Closed?” Journal of Urban Economics 71, no. 2 (March 2012): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.001. Finnigan, Kara S., and Mark Lavner. “A Political Analysis of Community Influence over School Closure.” The Urban Review 44, no. 1 (March 2012): 133–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0179-9. “Fiscal Year 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Foundation Allowance, At Risk, and High School Estimated Payments Conference Report for House Bill 4313 (CR-1).” Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, September 14, 2017. http://www.senate. michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DataCharts/DCk12_DistrictImpact.pdf. Gallagher, Megan, and Amanda Gold. “Subtracting Schools from Communities.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute, March 23, 2017. http://www.urban.org/features/subtracting-schools-communities. Garcia, Daniela, Earl Poleski, Amanda Price, and Al Pscholka. Public school academy; organization; operation; bodies authorized to issue contract; application to obtain contract; contents; oversight; suspension of powers; fees; presumption of legality; intergovernmental agreement to issue public school academy contracts; public school academy located within community district., Michigan Compiled Laws § 380.502 (2016). http://legislature.mi.gov/ doc.aspx?mcl-380-502. ———. Public school academy; scope; powers; definitions., Michigan Compiled Laws § 380.501 (2016). http://legislature. mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-380-501. Good, Ryan M. “Histories That Root Us: Neighborhood, Place, and the Protest of School Closures in Philadelphia.” Urban Geography 38, no. 6 (July 3, 2017): 861–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1182286. ———. “Invoking Landscapes of Spatialized Inequality: Race, Class, and Place in Philadelphia’s School Closure Debate.” Journal of Urban Affairs 39, no. 3 (April 3, 2017): 358–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1245069. 95 Green, Terrance L. “‘We Felt They Took the Heart out of the Community’: Examining a Community-Based Response to Urban School Closure.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 25, no. 21 (March 13, 2017). https://doi.org/10.14507/ epaa.25.2549. Grover, John, and Yvette van der Velde. “A School District in Crisis: Detroit’s Public Schools 1842-2015.” Detroit: LOVELAND Technologies, 2016. https://makeloveland.com/reports/schools. Guerra, Jennifer. “Michigan Dumps Its School Ranking System in Favor of ‘Dashboard.’” Michigan Radio, July 23, 2017. http://michiganradio.org/post/michigan-dumps-its-school-ranking-system-favor-dashboard. Gujral, Sabrina. “RFP-17-0152-0-2017/SAG Facilities Assessment and School Facility Planning Services.” Detroit Public Schools Community District Office of Procurement and Logistics, September 30, 2017. http://www.michiganbids. net/government-agencies/wayne/detroit-public-schools---office-of-procurement-and-logistics-902753/8094423rfp---facilities-assessment-and-school-facility-planning-services.html. ———. “RFP-18-0004-0-2017/SAG Property Securing Services.” Detroit Public Schools Community District Office of Procurement and Logistics, October 18, 2017. http://www.michiganbids.net/government-agencies/wayne/detroitpublic-schools---office-of-procurement-and-logistics-902753/8136798-rfp---property-securing-services.html. Gustafson, Joey. “Charter Authorizers Face Challenges.” Education Next 13, no. 3 (2013): 32–37. Hammer, Peter J. “The Fate of the Detroit Public Schools: Governance, Finance and Competition.” The Journal of Law in Society 13, no. 1 (Fall 2011): 111–54. Han, Chunping, Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow. “Lights Off: Practice and Impact of Closing Low-Performing Schools.” Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2017. http://credo.stanford.edu/closure-virtual-control-records. Higgins, Lori. “EAA’s End Returns Schools to Detroit Fold.” Detroit Free Press. April 29, 2017. http://www.freep.com/story/ news/education/2017/04/29/detroit-schools-education-achievement-authority/100278366/. ———. “In an Already Struggling District, Detroit Schools Deal with Extreme Teacher Shortage.” Detroit Free Press. May 20, 2017. http://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2017/05/21/teacher-vacancies-detroit-schools/331628001/. ———. “Nikolai Vitti Is the Choice for Detroit Superintendent.” Detroit Free Press. April 18, 2017. http://www.freep.com/ story/news/education/2017/04/18/detroit-school-board-superintendent-vitti/100618710/. 96 Hollenbeck, Kevin, Timothy J. Bartik, Randall W. Eberts, Brad J. Hershbein, and Michelle Miller-Adams. “The Road Toward K-12 Excellence in Michigan: How an Upgraded Financing System Can Better Support Enhanced Student Achievement.” Upjohn Institute Technical Reports. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, May 26, 2015. https://doi.org/10.17848/rpt215. Huffman, Alice, Michael Curry, Hazel Dukes, Scot X. Esdaile, James Gallman, John Jackson, Derrick Johnson, et al. “Quality Education for All... One School at a Time.” Hearing Report. Task Force on Quality Education. Baltimore: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, July 2017. http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-taskforce-quality-education-report/. “Interlocal Agreement between the Board of Regents of Eastern Michigan University and the School District for the City of Detroit Creating the Education Achievement Authority,” 2011. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/ EducationAchievementAuthorityAgreement_356040_7.pdf. Keaton, Patrick. “Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010–11.” Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, October 2012. https://nces. ed.gov/pubs2012/pesschools10/glossary.asp. Kemple, James J. “High School Closures in New York City: Impacts on Students’ Academic Outcomes, Attendance, and Mobility.” New York: Research Alliance for New York City Schools, November 2015. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/ research_alliance/publications/hs_closures_in_nyc. Kirshner, Ben, Matthew Gaertner, and Kristen Pozzoboni. “Tracing Transitions: The Effect of High School Closure on Displaced Students.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32, no. 3 (September 1, 2010): 407–29. https://doi. org/10.3102/0162373710376823. Kirshner, Ben, and Kristen M. Pozzoboni. “Student Interpretations of a School Closure: Implications for Student Voice in Equity-Based School Reform.” Teachers College Record 113, no. 8 (2011): 1633–67. Kneebone, Elizabeth, and Natalie Holmes. “U.S. Concentrated Poverty in the Wake of the Great Recession.” Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, March 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/research/u-s-concentrated-poverty-inthe-wake-of-the-great-recession/. Lake, Robin. “The Charter Movement’s ‘Tipping Point’ Strategy Isn’t Working. What Now?” Flypaper (blog), September 20, 2017. https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-charter-movements-tipping-point-strategy-isnt-working-what-now. Lake, Robin, Sarah Yatsko, Sean Gill, and Alice Opalka. “Bridging the District-Charter Divide to Help More Students Succeed.” Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, January 2017. https://www.crpe.org/publications/ bridging-district-charter-divide. 97 Larsen, Matthew F. “Does Closing Schools Close Doors? The Effect of High School Closings on Achievement and Attainment.” Unpublished Working Paper, October 2014. http://www.tulane.edu/~mflarsen/research.html. Lewis, Shawn D. “Detroit Worst in Math, Reading Scores among Big Cities.” The Detroit News. October 28, 2015. http:// www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/10/28/national-assessment-educational-progressdetroit-math-reading-results/74718372/. Mead, Sara, Ashley LiBetti Mitchel, and Andrew J. Rotherham. “The State of the Charter School Movement.” Slide Deck Report. Sudbury, MA: Bellwether Education Partners, September 10, 2015. https://bellwethereducation.org/ publication/state-charter-school-movement. Michelmore, Katherine, and Susan Dynarski. “The Gap within the Gap: Using Longitudinal Data to Understand Income Differences in Student Achievement.” Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2016. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22474. “Michigan Charter Schools - Questions and Answers.” Michigan Department of Education, January 2016. http://www. michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_30334_40088---,00.html. “Michigan Education Finance Study.” Denver: Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, June 2016. https://www.michigan.gov/ documents/budget/Michigan_Education_Finance_Study_527806_7.pdf. Mirel, Jeffrey. The Rise and Fall of an Urban School System: Detroit, 1907-81. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor Paperbacks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Moselle, Ben, ed. National Building Cost Manual. 41st Edition. Carlsbad, CA: Craftsman, 2016. “On the Road to Better Accessibility, Autonomy, and Accountability.” State Policy Analysis. Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2015. http://www.qualitycharters.org/research-policies/archive/2015-state-policyanalysis/. “On the Road to Better Accountability: An Analysis of State Charter School Policies.” State Policy Analysis. Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2014. https://www.charterschoolcenter.org/resource/roadbetter-accountability. “On the Road to Great Charter Schools.” State Policy Analysis. Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2016. http://www.qualitycharters.org/policy-research/state-policy-agenda/2016-spa-report/. 98 Paino, Maria, Rebecca L. Boylan, and Linda A. Renzulli. “The Closing Door: The Effect of Race on Charter School Closures.” Sociological Perspectives 60, no. 4 (August 2017): 747–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416674948. Pratt Dawsey, Chastity. “In Detroit, Only a Mighty Few Can Open New Charter Schools.” Bridge (blog), April 6, 2017. http://www.bridgemi.com/children-families/detroit-only-mighty-few-can-open-new-charter-schools. “Preventing Missed Opportunity: Taking Collective Action to Confront Chronic Absence.” Attendance Works and Everyone Graduates Center, September 2016. http://www.attendanceworks.org/research/preventing-missedopportunity/. “Public School Enrollment Trends in Detroit.” Memorandum. Lansing, MI: Citizens Research Council of Michigan, June 2016. https://crcmich.org/enrollment_trends_detroit-2016/. “Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps.” The Educational Opportunity Monitoring Project. Stanford, CA: Center for Education Policy Analysis, n.d. http://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/ achievement-gaps/race/. Sanburn, Josh. “Inside Detroit’s Radical Experiment to Save Its Public Schools.” Time, September 6, 2016. http://time. com/4390000/detroit-public-schools-charters-debt/. Santos, Adella, Nancy McGuckin, Hikari Yukiko Nakamoto, Danielle Gray, and Susan Liss. “Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey.” Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, June 2011. http:// nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml. Schumacher, Cindy. “Charter School Authorizing: An Introduction to Authorizing in Michigan and the CMU Model.” Presented at the Detroit Education Coalition 2.0 Citywide Planning Committee, Detroit, August 10, 2017. Stackhouse Flores, Shannon. “Quantifying the Achievement Gap: Baseline Characteristics of African-American Student Achievement in Michigan.” Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education, May 2014. https://www.michigan. gov/documents/mde/Quantifying_the_Achievement_Gap_473719_7.pdf. “SVSU Office Receives Accreditation Recommendation.” The Midland Daily News. May 1, 2017. http://www.ourmidland. com/business/article/SVSU-office-receives-accreditation-recommendation-11111265.php. The State School Aid Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 94, § 388.1705, Michigan Compiled Laws (2008). http://legislature.mi.gov/ doc.aspx?mcl-388-1705. 99 Torre, Marisa de la, and Julia Gwynne. “When Schools Close: Effects on Displaced Students in Chicago Public Schools.” Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, October 2009. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/ when-schools-close-effects-displaced-students-chicago-public-schools. “Urban Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions.” Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2015. http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/summary.php. Valencia, Richard R. “The School Closure Issue and the Chicano Community: A Follow-up Study of the Angeles Case.” The Urban Review 16, no. 3 (September 1984): 145–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207499. Vitti, Nikolai. Interview by Chastity Pratt Dawsey, September 5, 2017. http://www.bridgemi.com/talent-education/nikolaivitti-loves-challenge-he-has-one-detroit-public-schools. Zaniewski, Ann. “Detroit Teachers, School District Settle Suit over Building Problems.” Detroit Free Press. January 12, 2017. http://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2017/01/12/school-building-lawsuit-settled/96501140/. Notes. 1 Einhorn, “A Year After.” 2 Sanburn, “Inside Detroit’s Radical Experiment.” 3 “DPSCD Welcomes Newly Elected Board Members”; Higgins, “Nikolai Vitti.” 4 “DPSCD Continues Upward Trend of Stabilized Enrollment.” 5 Chambers, “Number of Students Enrolled at DPS Jumps over Last Year.” 6 “On the Road to Great Charter Schools,” 69–71; Schumacher, “Charter School Authorizing.” 7 DeGrow, “School Funding.” 8 See “Fiscal Year 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Foundation Allowance.” 9 See Mirel, Rise and Fall; Grover and van der Velde, “School District in Crisis.” Lewis, “Detroit Worst in Math, Reading Scores among Big Cities.” 10 “Preventing Missed Opportunity.” 11 100 12 See Higgins, “In an Already Struggling District”; Einhorn, “On Detroit’s First Day of Class.” 13 Zaniewski, “Detroit Teachers, School District Settle Suit over Building Problems.” 14 Grover and van der Velde, “School District in Crisis.” 15 Einhorn, “In a District.” 16 Sanburn, “Inside Detroit’s Radical Experiment.” 17 Hammer, “The Fate of the Detroit Public Schools,” sec. V.A. 18 See Vitti, interview; Einhorn, “‘Possible, but Daunting.’” Hammer, “The Fate of the Detroit Public Schools”; Hollenbeck et al., “The Road Toward K-12 Excellence in Michigan,” 46; “Michigan Education Finance Study,” 68–80. 19 20 “Public School Enrollment Trends in Detroit,” 10–12. 21 Batdorff et al., “Charter Funding,” 211–20. 22 “Charter School Performance in Michigan”; “Urban Charter School Study,” 29–33. See, for example, Dixon, “Michigan Spends”; “On the Road to Better Accountability,” 64–65; “On the Road to Better Accessibility,” 77–78. 23 See Huffman et al., “Quality Education for All,” 25–26; Pratt Dawsey, “In Detroit, Only a Mighty Few”; Binelli, “Michigan Gambled”; Lake et al., “Bridging the District-Charter Divide,” 9–10. 24 25 “Public School Enrollment Trends in Detroit.” 26 Mirel, Rise and Fall, 457–63. 27 “Public School Enrollment Trends in Detroit,” 2. 28 “Better Together,” 4–5. 29 Hammer, “The Fate of the Detroit Public Schools”; Grover and van der Velde, “School District in Crisis.” 30 Grover and van der Velde, “School District in Crisis.” These enrollment figures include all K-12 students attending public schools in Detroit and all Detroit residents attending public school outside of the city. 31 32 See, for example, Mead, LiBetti Mitchel, and Rotherham, “The State of the Charter School Movement,” 40; Bytof, 101 “Michigan Charter School Facts”; “America’s Largest Charter Public School Communities,” 6–8. 33 Lake, “The Charter Movement’s ‘Tipping Point’ Strategy.” 34 Lake et al., “Bridging the District-Charter Divide,” 8. 35 Lake et al., 18–26. See Huffman et al., “Quality Education for All,” 25–26; Pratt Dawsey, “In Detroit, Only a Mighty Few”; Binelli, “Michigan Gambled”; Lake et al., “Bridging the District-Charter Divide,” 9–10. 36 37 See “2016 Michigan School Scorecards.” 38 Guerra, “Michigan Dumps Its School Ranking System.” 39 “2016 Michigan School Scorecards,” 17. See, for example, Baber, O’Donovan Warnement, and Sipfle, “Quality Schools”; Baber and Silva, “The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools”; Baber, Silva, and Koch, “A Shared Responsibility.” 40 A Kruskal–Wallis test revealed statistically significant differences in the proportion of accountability points earned across the four school types, χ2(3, N = 178) = 36.9, p < .001. Levene’s test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F = 1.70, p = .169). A pairwise post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni correction revealed a statistically significant difference in the average ranking of accountability points between neighborhood schools and magnet and selective schools (p < .001) and between neighborhood schools and charter schools (p < .001). It did not reveal statistically significant differences between magnet and selective schools and charter schools (p = 1.00) or between EAA schools and schools of any other type (p ≥ .128). 41 A chi-square test of independence revealed statistically significant associations among the five color-coded performance ratings and the four school types, χ2(12, N = 178) = 42.1, p < .001. 42 43 Kneebone and Holmes, “U.S. Concentrated Poverty in the Wake of the Great Recession.” For a review of the literature on concentrated poverty and academic outcomes, see “Annotated Bibliography: The Impact of School-Based Poverty Concentration on Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes.” 44 45 Michelmore and Dynarski, “The Gap within the Gap.” 46 Stackhouse Flores, “Quantifying the Achievement Gap.” 47 “Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps.” 48 r(178) = -.030, p = .695 49 Grover and van der Velde, “School District in Crisis.” 102 50 Vitti, interview. 51 Gujral, “RFP-18-0004-0-2017/SAG”; Gujral, “RFP-17-0152-0-2017/SAG.” In and around the highest-need neighborhoods, there is a weak but statistically significant inverse correlation between the extent of a building’s facilities needs and the percentage of possible accountability points that a school earned, r(87) = -.216, p = 0.45. A Kruskal-Wallis test did not reveal statistically significant differences in the extent of facilities needs across the five accountability ratings, χ2(4, N = 87) = 3.56, p = .469. 52 See Brummet, “The Effect of School Closings on Student Achievement”; Bross, Harris, and Liu, “The Effects of Performance-Based School Closure”; Carlson and Lavertu, “Charter School Closure and Student Achievement”; Allensworth et al., “The Educational Benefits of Attending Higher Performing Schools”; Han et al., “Lights Off,” chap. 6. 53 54 See Kemple, “High School Closures in New York City.” See de la Torre and Gwynne, “When Schools Close”; Engberg et al., “Closing Schools in a Shrinking District”; Larsen, “Does Closing Schools Close Doors?” 55 56 See Dowdall, “Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia,” 5–6. 57 Dowdall and Warner, “Shuttered Public Schools,” 1. 58 Dowdall and Warner, 15–16. 59 Dowdall, “Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia,” 5–6. See Burdick-Will, Keels, and Schuble, “Closing and Opening Schools”; Gallagher and Gold, “Subtracting Schools from Communities”; Good, “Invoking Landscapes of Spatialized Inequality”; Paino, Boylan, and Renzulli, “The Closing Door.” 60 61 Han et al., “Lights Off,” chap. 4. See Valencia, “The School Closure Issue and the Chicano Community”; Kirshner, Gaertner, and Pozzoboni, “Tracing Transitions”; Deeds and Pattillo, “Organizational ‘Failure’ and Institutional Pluralism”; Good, “Invoking Landscapes of Spatialized Inequality”; Green, “‘We Felt They Took the Heart out of the Community.’” 62 Kirshner and Pozzoboni, “Student Interpretations of a School Closure”; Finnigan and Lavner, “A Political Analysis”; Deeds and Pattillo, “Organizational ‘Failure’ and Institutional Pluralism”; Good, “Histories That Root Us”; Green, “‘We Felt They Took the Heart out of the Community.’” 63 64 See Belsha, “In Kansas City.” 65 Dowdall and Warner, “Shuttered Public Schools,” fig. 4. 103 66 Alix et al., “Report & Recommendations.” 67 “Interlocal Agreement.” 68 Higgins, “EAA’s End.” 69 Garcia et al., Public school academy; scope; powers; definitions.; “Michigan Charter Schools.” 70 Gustafson, “Charter Authorizers Face Challenges.” Garcia et al., Public school academy; organization; operation; bodies authorized to issue contract; Pratt Dawsey, “In Detroit, Only a Mighty Few”; “SVSU Office Receives Accreditation Recommendation.” 71 72 The State School Aid Act of 1979. 73 “Public School Enrollment Trends in Detroit.” This definition borrows from the definition of a “regular school” as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics. See Keaton, “Numbers and Types,” B4. 74 75 Keaton, B3. 76 Keaton, B4. 77 Keaton, B5. 78 Keaton, B1. 79 See Baber, Silva, and Koch, “The System We Need.” 80 “City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies,” 67–212. 81 See Santos et al., “Summary of Travel Trends.” 82 Abramson, “20th Annual School Construction Report,” 31. 83 Moselle, National Building Cost Manual, 44–55. 84 Moselle, 239. 104 333 South Wabash Avenue Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60604 if?org