Wayne State University

Fixing Education: Ending How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer

Aya Dudar, Ammar Khan, Dana Suleiman, Abigail Wallace, Rachael Washburn

PS 1010.525

Dr. Andrew Cavin

26 April 2017
 2

Human beings are naturally curious, with a will to learn. Education, therefore, is a basic

right that should not be inhibited by any force, nor be left unaided by anything with the power

and ability to invest in a more improved society. Yet, education is still imperfect in that it is not

resourced efficiently enough that all members within society can learn basic skills and effectively

demonstrate competency. Without these skills, they cannot compete with others around the world

for a place in higher education and work in the global economic market. While the government,

civic, market, and family spheres attempt to come up with a perfect system, students struggle to

learn and become productive members of society.

Although education is a national concern, this paper will be focusing on its circumstances

in Detroit. Detroit Public Schools have repeatedly earned among the lowest test scores in the

nation. Only three percent of fourth graders and four percent of eighth graders in Detroit public

schools met the national math standards in the 2011-2012 school year (Hammer 112). These low

numbers are in part due to the lack of resources and funding that Detroit Public Schools receive.

Students are left to cope with these inadequate resources which affects them not only in school,

but later on in life as well.

The funding problem stems mostly from the system through which funds are distributed,

since American public schools rely heavily on funding from local and state governments through

property taxes. This means that schools in economically disadvantaged areas receive less money

than those in wealthier areas. Not to mention, the funding of Detroit Public Schools also declines

as a surge in under-regulated and under-performing charter schools open and attract students,

spreading out the already limited education funding between more buildings and dragging down

the quality of education for all. These factors make the difference in education that kids receive
 3

more prominent and dependent on the socioeconomic standing of the area, as evidenced in

Detroit Public Schools.

Although this problem has been covered by media and addressed by politicians, little has

proven to effectively ameliorate this issue. The poor distribution of government funding, lack of

consistent benchmarks, and the effects of charter schools have caused a systemic lack of

resources within the Detroit Public School system, reinforcing a subpar education for students.

An analysis of efforts from the different social spheres can be used to identify successful

solutions to this situation.

Background

The inadequate education that Detroit students receive is not a problem to disregard.

Children who receive an inadequate education throughout their elementary, middle, and high

school years will find difficulty catching up later in life. If they are accepted into post-secondary

education, they may struggle, or even drop out, making it more difficult for them to find a job

that will sufficiently support them and a potential family later. Research shows that in 2014, 30

percent of people who dropped out of high school were unemployed, whereas only 14.5 percent

of people that enrolled in college were unemployed (Employment). Without employment, they

will continue to live in an economically disadvantaged area where their children will attend the

same schools that they did. This cycle will then continue on through generations and, if not

improved, will result in higher rates of poverty.

The problem at hand is not only that students are receiving an inadequate education, but

rather the entire system through which funding is distributed to schools. The American federal

government provides only 13 percent of the total money received by public schools, while state

governments provide 43.4 percent and local governments provide 44 percent (What
 4

Pennsylvania). This shows that schools rely heavily on local and state government funding.

Public schools receive funds based mainly on the property taxes in that district. If the property

value is lower, then taxes are lower, and the schools in that district will receive less money than

schools in an area with higher property values. This difference in wealth distribution is clearly

seen between districts such as Detroit and Bloomfield Hills. In Detroit, $12,931 are allocated to

each student in public schools (Michigan 37), whereas in the Bloomfield Hills district, $14,894

are provided per student (Michigan 47). This difference can affect how well a building is

maintained, the amount and condition of the resources students receive like textbooks and

technology, and how much teachers are paid. Schools receiving less money, such as those in

Detroit, will struggle to pay their staff and supply their students with basic school supplies, while

schools with higher property values will receive more money than they need and will continue to

surpass other schools in terms of test scores and quality of education.

Government Sphere: Funding

There have been several policies enacted in the government sphere on a national level as

an attempt to relieve the problem or solve it; however, none of these policies have been

successful. One of these policies is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) created in 2001. The

NCLB both imposes mandates on states and gives them more federal education funding

(Duncombe 381). Through the NCLB, if schools set measurable standards for their students, they

receive more funding from the federal government. It is based on the idea that creating

measurable standards for students will result in an improvement in test scores and overall

schooling (Lee 209). It was implemented to encourage schools with low income students, who

did not perform well, to enhance their teaching methods. This act set a goal of achieving a 100

percent-proficiency mandate, which many believed was an unrealistic goal (Casselman). Schools
 5

that did not achieve this goal were penalized. This policy resulted in some success in schools, but

it also left some schools worse than they previously were. It was successful because it forced

schools to collect data about their students and acknowledge the students that did not perform

well. Moreover, schools had to collect information about their students and make it public, which

brought attention to the gap in education (Casselman). Nevertheless, the main problem with this

policy is that it is being implemented for the wrong reasons. The federal government wanted

schools to perform better simply to raise their overall national ratings. It is punishing the schools

that are unable to produce better numbers, and not giving them the resources they are lacking to

succeed.

One of the structures affecting this policy is that of language. Many students placed in

American schools do not speak English as their first language, and this greatly affects their test

scores. Schools that are not funded properly cannot afford to provide these students with the

extra help that they need. The NCLB did not take into account the reasons why schools are

performing below average, like language barriers, which is why it was unsuccessful as a policy.

In addition, this policy did not account for other struggles that the students experience due to

their low socioeconomic status. Some students may have jobs or problems within their

household that keep their focus away from school. The NCLB punished schools if they did not

improve, but it did not address any of the underlying reasons why these schools were performing

poorly in the first place.

Another initiative in the government sphere was the Race to the Top Fund enacted in

2009. Through this policy, schools were awarded additional funding if they achieved better

teacher ratings, test scores, and overall reviews. States received points depending on how well

their schools performed. This policy included three rounds of competition, with only certain
 6

schools qualifying for the second and third round. According to the U.S Department of

Education, this policy was meant to encourage innovation and improve performance in low

achieving schools (Purpose). Similar to the NCLB, this policy only benefitted high achieving

schools. States such as Delaware, Florida, and Kentucky received additional funding; however,

Michigan, Arkansas, and Oklahoma did not receive anything (Race). This only benefited schools

that did not need assistance; it allowed for the thriving schools to improve, but it left the low

performing schools unchanged.

One aspect which will affect funding as well as the opportunities that higher and lower

class students receive is technology. Technology has become an integral part of higher education

and the United States job market, so schools without the proper resources to teach students how

to utilize it can set these students up for failure. Although venture funding for technology has

surpassed over two billion dollars in the United States, finding money for these necessary

technological tools has become increasingly difficult for schools. The biggest problem seems to

be the disparity between rich and poor schools, where schools that get more funding through

taxes have a better ability to provide their students with the experience they need with new and

advanced technology. Schools with as little funding as some of Detroits Public Schools barely

have the budget for textbooks, let alone the Macintosh computers and robotics equipment that

will be the future of the job market.

Government Sphere: Technology

A great reason why funding is becoming more crucial for schools is the introduction of

technology in the classroom. In the twenty-first century, the new generation is being exposed to

technology in a way that people never have before, and several lucrative career paths now lie

within the field. This makes it apparent that technology can be an extremely useful tool for
 7

teachers to use in their teaching methods. With technology, the possible techniques for lesson

plans exponentially increase. The problem is that technology is an expensive tool. Not every

public school can give each of their students the most up to date technology, if any, to work with.

The challenge is making sure that students are all able to access technology to further

supplement their education. Many efforts are being put into solving the issue of the lack of

technology in classrooms, primarily for middle and high school students.

One policy enacted by the government sphere at the national level was the investment

towards technological upgrades in Detroit Public Schools. The Detroit Public School (DPS)

district invested over 49.4 million dollars into school technology upgrades which came from

federal stimulus funding. With this money, over 40,000 netbooks and 5,000 desktops were

purchased (DPS). All DPS students from grades 6-12 were given access to an Asus netbook.

There were also 1.3 million dollars raised in grant funds to purchase 273 SMART boards. With

this technology being integrated into the classroom, teachers had much more flexibility with their

lesson plans (Wainwright). This outlines one of the major benefits of bringing technology into

classrooms.

This policy has allowed for flipped classrooms, where the teacher serves more as a

facilitator to guide students with their learning, rather than being the only source for their

learning. With technology, students are able to view lectures and informational videos during

their own time at home. Furthermore, this allows them to do activities which are best completed

in the classroom, such as asking questions, collaborating on team projects, and group

discussions. They are still able to address any concerns they have with the teacher, so the

students are not on their own. This is very different from the traditional classroom setup where

the expected role of a teacher was to lecture for the majority of the class. With the time that
 8

would have otherwise been spent lecturing, the teacher can dedicate more individualized

attention towards students, who may lack this due to overfilled classrooms and not enough

teachers.

One structural problem that presents a challenge is that teachers did not grow up with this

type of technology in their own lifetime. Some teachers have been teaching for a long time, and

as a result, do not have much exposure to new technology. The structure of a classroom was

relatively consistent until technology was introduced. This makes it difficult for teachers to use

technology in their classrooms, as they do not have experience with technology in a classroom

setting. Their childhoods were at a time where todays technology was not there. However, this

problem is being solved with training programs that are directed towards showing teachers how

to integrate new technology in their classrooms (Technology). These programs help allow

teachers to be more comfortable with the technology that is coming into their classrooms.

Moreover, there is also a bias against technology as a distraction (Heick). Many people

believe that technology can distract students from doing their own work. They also believe that if

it were brought into the classroom, students would not concentrate as much on what was being

taught. However, this should not be something that sways teachers to take technology out of the

classroom. If a student does not want to pay attention, then they will be distracted by other

factors such as food, other students, or sleeping. Technology may distract a few students from

time to time, but its benefits are too powerful to not integrate into the classroom today.

The efforts towards bringing technology into the classroom have been relatively

successful. This has been accomplished by raising a general awareness on the importance of

technology in todays society. The future is deeply rooted within technology, and it does not

seem to be going away anytime soon. One major lesson that can be learned from this policy is
 9

that government funding plays a vital role in solving problems relating to education. Even

though the Detroit Public School district is in desperate need of money for more teachers, they

were still able to receive federal funding to give their middle and high school students access to a

Netbook. In fact, the option to access Netbooks was virtually identical to the option given to the

West Bloomfield School District middle and high schoolers. West Bloomfield is a much

wealthier school district than Detroit, but Detroit used government funding to give their students

the same opportunity to rent out a netbook. With the increase in funding needed from technology

being integrated into classrooms, this policy shows how government funding can step in to help

the DPS district, where there is both inadequate funding and resources. This ensures that students

in these poorer schools will not be put at an even greater disadvantage than they already are at,

and that they are given access to technology as well.

Government Sphere: Curriculum and Testing

While technology is relatively new to schools, standardized testing has been implemented

in the American educational system for several years. In modern society, standardized tests

measure competency for further education and the workforce, despite that the tests are

discriminatory and an unfair means of measurement. The results of these tests are often used for

college admittance, teacher and student evaluation, allocation of funds, and development of

curriculum (Rooks). The tests strangle youth who are already behind, because their lower tests

scores deprive them of gaining funds and resources that are essential to their success, instead

giving the wealth to students who are already succeeding. The United States Department of

Education published a report in 2011 that stated: more than 40 percent of schools that receive

federal Title I money to serve disadvantaged students spent less state and local money on

teachers and other personnel than schools that don't receive Title I money at the same grade level
 10

in the same district (More Than). While MSTEP scores show a more detailed local analysis,

other tests show a better comparison of failure of standardized tests that are not specific to just

Detroit Public Schools. A prime example of the failure of standardized tests as a method of

measurement is the highly-regarded Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA,

which is administered by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, an

international economic and social forum. The PISA has been administered every three years

since 2000 to 15-year-olds in more than 70 countries, testing students in reading, mathematics,

and science literacy (NCES). It is supposedly designed to measure a student's ability to apply

his/her education to real-life scenarios.

The United States has historically had PISA scores lower than expected, so in analyzing

causes, the Washington Post stated that, A weak curriculum could be the culprit [according to

the PISA report]. Common Core Standards Policy was created in 2009 with the intent of

promoting Common Core, standards designed to be similar end-year goals for learning across the

country, to state legislators and local Boards of Education (Council of State Governments).

Common Core was developed by experts and grounded in evidence. The American Federation of

Teachers, a national and state unionized think tank, supports and advocates for Common Core,

arguing that it is a strong program that provides internationally benchmarked, coherent

framework to prepare students (AFT). With a strong, consistent curriculum, youth in Detroit can

have the same expectations as their wealthier-district counterparts, and those in charge of

overseeing the progress of students can distribute funds more fairly to districts in need of greater

support.

However, we are today faced with the reality of Common Cores effectiveness: it fails to

live up to the hopeful expectations of schools, educators, and policy-makers alike. The Michigan
 11

Association of School Boards (MASB) have reported that the Senate Education Committee had

passed Senate Bill 826, which replaced current Michigan State Standards [that] had been in

place since 2010 and [were] based on the Common Core State Standards that were developed by

a consortium of states and education professionals. Legislators use the argument that parents

are concerned that say they can no longer help their children with math homework because of

the convoluted methods that are part of the standards, and that the new bill would give parents

the ultimate opt-out authority[because] the bill requires the state to respect the right of a parent

to opt out of any public school activity, practice, or testing that the parent finds unacceptable,

with no negative repercussions to, or financial impact on, the child, parent, or school and with no

interference from this state (Higgins). The argument made by Jennifer Smith, MASB Director

of Government Relations, was that consistent standards are the only way to obtain accurate

results on student growth and achievement. We need to maintain certainty and consistency in our

schools (Smith). Changing the standard yet again in such a short period of time would, as put in

Higgins article by Kevin Slotts, President of Talent 2025, put us back five to seven years.

While the bill faltered in the State Senate (Higgins), this evidences that the state government

adopted a national policy and is too impatient to see if the standards will have any viable

outcome. Policymakers are either ignoring or not witnessing the full picture, past, present, and

future, of the needs of education.

The pitfall of Common Core is the reliance on standardized testing as a measure of

effectiveness, which was explored in a case study in Georgia, where outcomes of the policies

have resulted in low public confidence in teachers and student performance despite years of

federal and state education reform (Croft, Roberts and Stenhouse). Common Core Curriculum

also fails to incorporate life skills, instead leaving learning tasks such as cooking, basic repairs,
 12

budgeting, and communication skills up to families, which in turn tend to rely heavily on the

civic sphere with organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). I spent my service

learning examining how effective the BSA was at teaching life skills to young adults by working

directly with units in their advancement, contributing to service projects, and developing new

programs and policies to encourage youth to take greater interest in their education and skills. If

the federal government and the state could reach a consensus on a well-rounded education in

America, then perhaps real reform could take place.

Lawmakers, educators, and families need to all agree that the best method to handling the

education of youth is to develop an evolving, extensive method of teaching that engages youth in

being interested in their own learning and skills, and observe the results after more than one

cycle of comparative measurability. While standardized tests are imperfect, they are currently the

most refined method for judging the short-term effectiveness of a youths education against their

peers. Far too often, people get too stuck on what worked well in the past, without truly

researching past the temporary results, and expect that new policies will fail to work before even

having a chance to change anything.

Civic Sphere

In regard to filling the gap left by the lack of resources within Detroit Public Schools, the

civic sphere acts as a storehouse of non-profit organizations which offer a variety of services to

aid struggling students. Some of these nonprofit organizations, such as the Kresge Foundation,

take a financial approach and attempt to fundraise for the district. Others, such as 826Michigan

and Bridgepointe, take a hands-on approach and match volunteers with students in order to help

tutor and mentor them. All of these efforts, in one form or another, help supplement students

educational experience and academic achievement by acting as a resource in and of themselves.

 13

There are several scientific studies which legitimize the basis on which the civic spheres

efforts are created: the aim of increasing students chances of success. In a 1997 study, a

community volunteer tutoring group called Book Buddies was tested to see if the tutoring

service of this group had a significant effect on the students academic achievement. The study

revealed that participants with greater than 40 [tutoring] sessions significantly outperformed

participants with fewer than 40 sessions on reading and word recognition tests (Invernizzi 277).

Furthermore, a similar study tested another volunteer-based tutoring program in Oregon in its

effectiveness in helping the students improve academically. The results indicate that the students

who were being helped by the tutoring program had a statistically higher reading and testing

performance than their non-tutored counterparts (Baker 507). These scientific studies suggest

that tutoring received from volunteers can indeed impact students academic success.

Despite data suggesting the impact of non-profit organizations, there are still many

obstacles that they face which may impede their effectiveness. There is one structure in particular

which became apparent to me while completing my service learning with Bridgepointe.

Bridgepointe is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to locate volunteers from the suburbs

to schools in need in Detroit. My task was to help 5th grade students prepare for the MSTEP, a

state-wide standardized exam, by building their vocabulary. My service learning was completed

at Neinas Dual Language Academy, located in the Mexican Town area of Detroit. My partner and

Is initial assumption was that the students would be prepared to learn and communicate in

English. The test, after all, was to be administered in English, and the vocabulary was all in

English as well.

Session after session, however, it became apparent to us that these students were facing a

structure which was hindering their academic success and communication skills: language. When
 14

we were not immediately talking to them, many of the students would communicate amongst

themselves in Spanish. Furthermore, in one of the sessions, a student informed me that his

classmate only spoke Spanish. I tried my best to communicate with her and teach her the

material in Spanish, but I wondered if she would be taking the MSTEP in English or Spanish,

and this led me to consider the consequences of this structure on her future education. This is a

difficult obstacle to overcome, given that it is deeply tied within the demographic of the area and

the students personal lives. However, it can be improved with programs from the civic sphere

which specifically cater to Spanish speaking students.

Another obstacle faced by nonprofit organizations is overcoming the effects of the

socioeconomic status of the students in the area. According to the Education Policy Center at

American Institutes for Research, students from low-income families, students of color, English

learners, and immigrant students are more likely than their White middle-class peers to be taught

by inexperienced or ineffective teachersto be situated in a chaotic school environment with

high turnover rates among the adults, and to be excluded from meaningful instruction by

discriminatory disciplinary policies and practices (ODay and Smith 1).

This situation is something I have witnessed first-hand while completing my service

learning, as well as in a previous classroom visit I did for my memo. Often times, the classroom

environment is inconsistent and unpredictable for the students. In my classroom visit, there were

three different adults taking shifts and circulating in and out of the classroom to supervise the

students. Two out of the three adults did not even appear to be teachers; but rather, security or

supervisors who just watched over the kids. This translates into a specific struggle for the civic

sphere, as organizations who tutor students directly in the classroom can be seen as disrupting

the students day-to-day educational routine and contributing to a more chaotic school
 15

environment. Socioeconomic status, like language, is a structure which cannot be solved with a

single solution. It is intertwined with factors such as poverty, crime, drug use, and more. An

improvement in the educational system, however, is an essential step in overcoming this

structure.

When it comes to efforts from the civic sphere, the media can play a positive and helpful

role. The media can promote and inform the public about certain initiatives which have been

taking place, and encourage others to take part as well. An example of this is a news article

which was written about Bridgepointes El Sueo program. El Sueo is a comprehensive

program [that] was developed to help provide resources necessary for academic and social

success helping prepare these children for college (Huhman). The program follows a specific

group of students from Detroit over the course of nine years and provides them with services

ranging from tutoring to swimming lessons. The articles published on this program gave it more

publicity and positive feedback across the media. Social media can also take part with this

publicity, as those who volunteer can share their experiences and inform their followings on what

they can do to help. Lastly, the non-profit organizations themselves can utilize this platform to

achieve a greater outreach.

Market Sphere

While the United States ranks fifth in spending for students, it ranks 25th out of the 71

countries that participate in PISA testing, and only ranks at or below average in the three subject

areas (Ryan). This problem of overspending on education and in turn not receiving academic

results has spurred legislators to make changes to the current public school system. The solution,

for some, was to turn to the market sphere and spur on the creation of charter schools. Charter

schools are publicly financed and tuition-free, but operate independently from traditional school
 16

district governance. Charter schools have been around for a little more than 20 years, and more

than 5,600 charter schools exist in 39 states. Estimates of attendance range from 1.3 to 2 million

students in attendance (Knaak). Within two decades, the concept of charter schools has gone

from being the poster child for school reform to becoming a part of the establishment, with state

and national associations well-staffed with lobbyists and enormous support from mainstream

media, politicians, and well-heeled foundations.

The idea of charter schools is not a new solution to the age-old problem of education

reform in Detroit. The idea was first conceptualized by Albert Shanker, President of The

American Federation of Teachers, in a 1988 address. He outlined a new kind of public school

where teachers were a part of the decision-making process and could experiment freely with

fresh and innovative ways to teach and reach pupils (Kahlenberg). These schools were meant as

a highly innovating housing for new experimentation in education that traditional public schools

could learn from. At first, conservatives in the Reagan era were against the idea, likely because it

allowed mobility and furthered the desegregation of schools. As time went on, however, the idea

of charter schools morphed as conservatives toted charters as a more open marketplace for

families to have choice, while using them as a tool against teacher unions. The 1993 law that

opened Michigan up to charter schools was not spurred on by a failing education system or

financial crisis, but by the free-market inclined governor John Engler who was against public

employee unions. Charter schools are now quite far from their beginnings, and used almost

entirely wrong from their inception. Charter schools now, instead of creating more economically

and racially mixed schools, are more segregated than most public schools (Kahlenberg).

Charter schools have done the opposite of what they are intended. While charter schools

were first envisioned to desegregate public schools by giving disadvantaged and minority
 17

students a choice of where to go to school, they have instead allowed the epidemic of white

flight. In the past 20 years, as African Americans have moved out of Detroit and into the suburbs,

white parents have, whether by chance or design, used the states schools of choice program to

move their children to less diverse, more white traditional public schools. At the same time, some

black families have chosen historically white suburban school districts to send their children,

while others are choosing charter schools that are strikingly more segregated and black. The

school of choice program lets more advantaged families leave the poor public and charter

schools for better schools in the suburbs, leaving economically poor families who cannot afford

to move or for transportation for their children behind in the overwhelming sea of poorly

performing charters.

Charter schools have changed dramatically from their creation, becoming a worse option

for students than traditional public schools. Charter schools have now become a business venture

for for-profit institutions, drawing a lot of interest from lobbyists and special-interest groups.

Groups such as The Great Lakes Education Project have become some of charter schools most

fierce advocates, getting state legislation passed that encourages competition for charter

schools while simultaneously making them more profitable. Pro-charter laws in states often

include laws such as: permitting an unlimited or substantial number of charter schools,

permitting a variety of individuals and groups both inside and outside the existing public school

system to start charter schools, providing automatic blanket waivers from most or all state

education laws and regulations, permitting charter schools to be independent legal entities,

guaranteeing 100 percent of per-pupil state funding to charter schools, and permitting charter

schools to control their funds (Holifield). These deregulations of charters allow the unfettered

growth of for-profit institutions that only compete for the state money that comes with each
 18

student on count day. As more charter schools open their doors to students, the limited amount of

education funding the state has to disperse is then spread out too thinly between more and more

schools, lowering the quality of education for all.

Charter schools are also often given more credit than they deserve. While a lucky few

charter schools are meeting the high academic standards initially hoped for at their inception,

most charter schools are barely doing better than traditional public schools, if not worse. For my

community service, I tutored three kids in a family who had all gone to a charter school for their

first few years in middle school. These children were in a school that only had 80 kids enrolled

from kindergarten to 12th grade, and when they transferred to a normal public school after two

years, they were several grades behind their peers in mathematics and reading. The few examples

of charter schools outperforming public schools have been used as evidence of voucher

programs miracles by proponents, as well as scientific reports with strange and not adequately

explained methods that support their claim (Mathis; Maul). These reports are often to have

dubious means of gathering their data, creating meta-analyses that use extremely narrow data

sets and purposely misrepresent literature to support their cause (Lubienski). In reality, these

charters do much of the damage they aim to prevent.

Charter school failings are exemplified nowhere better than in Detroit. For 23 years,

Michigan has encouraged the building of new charter schools to fix the prominent education

problem facing Detroit, but little success has been shown. Michigan started by lifting all limits

on the number of characters that could be created, and giving institutions 3% of the state money

that came with each student as an incentive (Zernike). This has encouraged the crazy growth of

charter schools in Detroit, over 170 in 2016. Carters are also no longer limited to be created by

non-profit institutions or colleges, but now include for-profit companies. Almost 80% of the
 19

charter schools in Michigan are operated by for-profit companies and institutions, creating a

landscape of cutthroat competition for students and the state funding that follows them (Zernike).

Charter schools have also lobbied for the regulations and oversights that traditional public

schools have to be dropped. These charters are now operating with no monitoring by the State

Department of Education, giving students many options, but not great ones.

The charter school movement has attained an acclaim as educational reform that is not

sustained by juried research or evidential experience. Charter schools will likely continue to

function in Detroit and the United States because of influential backers and the will of

academically oriented parents. However, as a solution to Detroits or America's major

educational needs, they are a failed initiative. Charter schools can be brought back from their

current poor design. With actual oversight on performance by the State Department of Education,

low-performing charter schools could be shut down before they ruin a childs life and chance at a

college education. Charter school creation can also be limited to universities and nonprofit

entities to keep students best interests in mind and prevent the glut of for-profit businesses

competing for state money. Charters can also be brought back to their original design by Albert

Shanker, and can become a place meant for innovation in education democratically run by

teachers. Smart charter schools and voucher programs could move the United States past the

bipartisan debates and towards what they were originally meant for, building models from which

larger systems of education such as public schools can learn innovation from and therefore,

propelling the education system into the future with better succeeding European countries.

Institutional Change Proposal

Although no initiatives have yet solved the funding issue, one system which has proven

to be successful is the public school system in Finland. The Finnish have transformed their entire
 20

educational system around 50 years ago and have achieved a 93 percent graduation rate

(Hancock), where Detroit has only a 58 percent graduation rate (Hammer 112). Finland does this

by allocating resources and attention to students evenly, creating the smallest difference globally

between the weakest and strongest students (Hancock). The most important part of their system,

which differentiates them from the United States, is that they rely heavily on their federal

government for school funding. The federal government in Finland funds 57 percent of the

amount spent on schools and the local government funds the remaining 43 percent (Finland).

Each school in Finland receives the same amount of money per student no matter the economic

status of the area (Hancock). This allows for all students to get an equal education. They are able

to do this because they have higher taxes and they allocate more money from those taxes to

education. They also have a centralized curriculum meaning that all schools teach the same

material and the same goals. This differs from the United States system because there is no

national curriculum in the United States, but states are required to set standards to guide schools

if they want to receive federal funding (International 1). Teachers in the United States prefer to

have more freedom in the classroom, however, this can lead to differences in what children learn

depending on which school they attend.

The main difference between Finland and America is the way in which they fund their

schools. An institutional policy resembling the Finnish system in terms of taxation would greatly

relieve the gap in education in America. It would resolve the funding gap in education, therefore,

improving the quality of education in many schools such as Detroits. This policy requires that

property taxes are collected from an entire county or state and then redistributed equally

throughout all schools. This policy would begin on a smaller scale, where property taxes are

collected by district. Once its success is proven in individual states, taxes can eventually be
 21

collected and equally redistributed on a national level, equalizing funding in schools throughout

America. Schools would continue to receive funding per student, but each student would receive

the same amount of money. This would result in all schools receiving adequate funds for the

number of students they have.

Overall, the amount of money a school receives will no longer depend on the

socioeconomic status of the area which it is in. Schools in lower socioeconomic areas will be the

same as those in wealthier areas. This will allow students to have the same opportunities in the

future in terms of furthering their education and careers, allowing children born into the cycle of

poverty to more easily find a way out.

Direct Action Proposal

After analyzing the existing policies and structures in place, the conditions of the school

district, and current non-profit organizations working within the area, our group would like to

propose a direct-action organization that accounts for all these factors and does its best to try to

work with them. Like the institutional policy, the primary goal is to find a means for alleviating

the deficit of resources within the district. Our proposal is to create a student organization at

Wayne State titled Wayne Students for Students, or Wayne S4S for short. The aim of this

group would be to provide tutoring and mentoring services to students in Detroit Public School

districts in a convenient, effective, and non-disruptive manner.

Wayne S4S would maintain communication with community officials and teachers to

receive their input on what students need the most at that time and place. The group would take

this input into account, and use it to try to help students with their short-term struggles as well as

their long-term ones. Keeping this line of communication open is essential, as through our

analysis we have learned that a factor which has contributed to a shortage of resources is the lack
 22

of consideration for local needs and opinions. After receiving this communication, Wayne S4S

would create programs to cater for these needs. The logistics of this organization would entail an

elected board which receives proposals from members and ranks each proposal on criteria of

effectiveness, level of urgency, and practicality. From there, proposals which rank highest will be

carried out in the community.

An instance which the organizations flexibility would be helpful is in overcoming the

aforementioned structures of language and low socioeconomic status. A program which Wayne

S4S could create is a tutoring service which utilizes Spanish majors and minors to target Spanish

speaking students and gives them supplemental education for strengthening their English

reading, writing, and speaking skills. Wayne S4S could help overcome the socioeconomic

struggle of the students by providing extensive mentoring services to students, and educating

them on the importance of abstaining from risky behaviors. According to a study which analyzed

Big Brothers and Big Sisters, a nationwide youth mentoring program, youth with mentors are

46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs, 27% less likely to begin using alcohol, and 52% less

likely to skip school, all the more reaffirming the positive effects Wayne S4S could have on

students (Impact on Juvenile Justice).

Furthermore, this organization would appeal to pre-professional students, social science

majors, and countless more students on Wayne States campus. In other words, this organization

would attract any student who desires to create a change in Detroit students education through

hands-on community service. Moreover, Wayne S4S would do its best to partner with other

existing organizations, such as Bridgepointe, Books for A Benefit, and 826Michigan, to increase

the service opportunities and connections within the community.

 23

Ultimately, the creation of Wayne Students for Students is founded on the lessons that our

group has learned from other civic sphere policies and organizations. The first lesson is that local

communication is essential for direct change. Second, an organizations ability to be flexible is

key in solving the various needs of students. Third, the services of the organization must

integrate well within the existing classroom environment and not provide a sense of chaos or

inconsistency in the classroom. The last lesson integrated within Wayne Students for Students is

that is must be open to incorporating future lessons to be learned and accommodating for new

structures which may arise.

Comparison of Proposals

Despite the fact that both the direct action and institutional change proposals attempt to

solve the problem at hand, after further analysis, it becomes clear that one solution is more

practical than the other: the direct action proposal. The institutional change would require

property taxes to be equally distributed among all schools. Although this would benefit a greater

amount of less fortunate students, the problem is that the wealthy would be less likely to support

this policy. In theory, wealthier families move to certain areas because of their strong school

districts (Semuels). With this policy in place, these families will think that with less money going

towards these school districts, they are more prone to lowering both their performance and

standards. Therefore, it is anticipated that these families will be reluctant to agree to a proposal

of this type. This drawback will make it all the more difficult for a policy like this to be enacted.

Convincing these wealthy families of a policy that inhibits their higher property taxes from

directly feeding into their respective school districts would take a great amount of effort and be

difficult.
 24

In comparison, the number one roadblock for the grassroots action proposal is finding

people to join the club and devote time out of their busy schedules towards a good cause. This, in

comparison to the previous solution, seems to be much more doable. Spreading awareness to

students around Wayne State University about the creation and purpose of this group while

advertising it as a great way to get community service experience would give Wayne S4S the

start it needs to become a successful organization. Students will also be attracted towards Wayne

S4S because the community service offered would be directed towards the students suffering in

Detroit. Many Wayne State students are passionate about the city of Detroit, and are actively

looking for ways to help solve problems in the city. This group would provide an effective way

for these students to help support a cause that they strongly believe in.

Although the institutional change proposal is less feasible, we believe that it would

provide a wider scale benefit than the grassroots action. The first reason is that the policy would

bring forth a more innovative solution than the grassroots proposal. Since the policy is being

instituted to equalize distribution of property taxes, it would give poor school districts money to

use that they never previously had. There are similar grassroots actions like Wayne S4S already

in place, so it would not provide a change as great as the institutional policy will. Rather, it

would provide a very convenient resource to give to socioeconomically challenged students.

Second, the policy would not hinder the wealthier school districts as much as it may

seem. Although people may believe that less money means less success, a lot of this extra money

given to these wealthy school districts goes towards luxuries that do not directly affect the

success of students in terms of academics. If this money was directed towards needs in less

wealthy school districts, there would likely be a large increase in the success of those school

districts. It would help to solve the gap in funding, and would equalize school districts more.
 25

Finally, there is also a comparable policy that has already shown a tremendous amount of

success. This is in Finland, where education standards rank among the best in the world, and

better than the United States. The grassroots action proposal has many comparable service

groups around many universities, but the impact of these groups does not seem to be nearly as

significant. While the grassroots action proposal is a more feasible and realistic option to bring

into action, the institutional change policy would be more beneficial to students and school

districts in need of money. With such a widespread problem plaguing the nation, using a solution

that could make the most change for the most students, such as an institutional policy, is needed

to propel the United States back to the top of the world in education.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the rise of charter schools, the common core curriculum, and competitive

standardized testing in public schools has aggravated the issue of an unequal distribution of

funds among public schools. Students have had to deal with being short-changed with their

resources and education, and teachers have had to try to work around the circumstances with the

mere incentive of an inconsistent paycheck. The upside to this chronic struggle is the opportunity

to learn from what has and has not worked.

One clear lesson gained from our research is that it is going to take a great amount of

money to solve the problems of education in Detroit. Awareness should be raised to the general

public about the problems with the education system in Detroit. It is evident that Americans tend

to belittle the issues embedded in the educational system due to the recent budget cuts that have

been made in the education department. By raising awareness of the effects that an inadequate

education can have on people and society, we hope to gain the support of enough people to make
 26

a change. Even with recent policies helping solve some of the glaring needs of students in the

city, there are still many problems left to be solved for this school district.

In an ideal world, class sizes could be reduced, more certified teachers could be attracted,

and property taxes could be equally distributed among school districts. If unwavering support

can be gained from people around the area, it would decrease the amount of resistance faced in

the future when trying to solve problems. Popular support could accelerate the speed in which

Detroits educational problems are solved, leading to solutions in the foreseeable future.

Overall, the educational struggle is one that can be conflated to American society as a

whole. In a society where the concept of a self-determined fate is prevalent, the sympathy for the

struggling can be blamed on their lack of work ethic. This is not always the case: in education,

the students rates of academic success are as good as the system implementing it. Nevertheless,

changing a societys conceptions of a topic as extensive as fate is beyond the scope of any one

initiative; as is convincing the wealthy that the lower class deserves a better education at the

expense of their added luxuries. In the meantime, what is feasible is direct solutions that have

short-term improvements on students and collectively translate into long term success. Through

applying the several lessons learned by analyzing initiatives, identifying and working through the

structures in place, and spreading awareness about the situation, a future can be anticipated in

which Detroit Public Students are no longer under-resourced.

 27

Works Cited

Scholarly Sources
Baker, Scott, et al. When Less May Be More: A 2-Year Longitudinal Evaluation of a Volunteer
Tutoring Program Requiring Minimal Training. Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 35, no.
4, 2000, pp. 494519., www.jstor.org/stable/748095.
Croft, Sheryl J, Mari Ann Roberts and Vera L Stenhouse. "The Perfect Storm of Education
Reform: High-Stakes Testing and Teacher Evaluation." Social Justice 42.1 (2016): 70-92.
Web. 29 March 2017.
Duncombe, W., A. Lukemeyer, and J. Yinger. "The No Child Left Behind Act: Have Federal
Funds Been Left Behind?" Public Finance Review 36.4 (2008): 381-407. Web. 28 Mar.
2017.
Garrison, Lawrence, and Mitchell Holifield. "ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE?"
Planning and Changing 36.1. 2005. ProQuest. Web. Accessed 27 March 2017.
Hammer, Peter J. "The Fate of the Detroit Public Schools: Governance, Finance, and
Competition." The Journal of Law in Society 13.1 (2011): 1-152. Web. 28 Mar. 2017.
Invernizzi, Marcia et al. At-Risk Readers and Community Volunteers: A 3-Year Perspective.
Scientific Studies of Reading 1.3 (1997): 277300. Web.
Knaak, William; Knaak, Jean. Charter Schools: Educational Reform or Failed Initiative? Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin; Austin. Summer 2013. ProQuest. Web. Accessed 27
March 2017.
Lee, J., and T. Reeves. "Revisiting the Impact of NCLB High-Stakes School Accountability,
Capacity, and Resources: State NAEP 1990-2009 Reading and Math Achievement Gaps
and Trends." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34.2 (2012): 209-31. Web.
2017.
News Media
Casselman, Ben. "No Child Left Behind Worked." FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, 22 Dec.
2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2017
DPS to Purchase 40,000 Laptop Computers for Teachers, Students in Grades 6-12. DPS. Web.
21 Apr. 2017
 28

Hancock, LynNell. "Why Are Finlands Schools Successful?" Smithsonian.com. Smithsonian

Institution, Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2017.
Heick, Terry. 5 Problems With Technology In Classrooms. TeachThought, 26 May 2016. Web.
22 Apr. 2017
Higgins, Lori. Bill to drop Common Core in Michigan gets mixed reviews in Lansing. 15
February 2017. Detroit Free Press. Web. 29 March 2017.
Huhman, Lonnie. "El Sueno Project Bridges Northville, Novi and Detroit." HometownLife. O&E
Media, 16 May 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.
Kahlenberg, Richard; Potter, Halley. The Original Charter School Vision. The New York Times.
30 Aug 2013. Web. 28 March 2017.
Networks, Secure Edge. 10 Reasons Today's Students NEED Technology in the Classroom.
SecurEdge Networks. Web. 24 Apr. 2017.
Rooks, Noliwe M. Why It's Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests. 11 October 2012. TIME.
Web. 29 3 2017.
Ryan, Julia. American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math. The Atlantic.
Dec 3, 2013. Web. 27 March 2017.
Semuels, Alana. "Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School." The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company, 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.
Smith, Jennifer. Senate Committee Votes to End Common Core. 27 April 2016. Web. 29 March
2017.
Technology for Teaching and Learning. American Institutes for Research, 17 Feb. 2017. Web.
24 Apr. 2017.
Zernike, Kate. A Sea of Charter Schools in Detroit Leaves Students Adrift The New York Times.
28 June 2016. Web 24 Apr. 2017
Think Tanks
AFT. Remarks by AFT Michigan president David Hecker on the Common Core Standards
(Press Release). 30 October 2013. AFT Michigan. Web. 29 March 2017.
<aftmichigan.org/remarks-by-aft-michigan-president-david-hecker-on-the-common-core-
standards/>.
 29

Council of State Governments. Common Core Standards Policy Initiative. 1 January 2017. Web
Article. 29 March 2017.
<www.csg.org/policy/CommonCoreStateStandardsPolicyInitiative.aspx>.
Lubienski, Christopher. Review of A Win-Win Solution and the Participant Effects of Private
School Vouchers Across the Globe National Education Policy Center. 30 June
2016. Web. 28 March 2017. <http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-meta-analysis>.
Mathis, William; Maul, Andrew. Time to Stop the CREDO-Worship? National Education
Policy Center. 27 April 2015. Web. 27 March 2017.
<http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2015/04/review-urban- charter-school>. NCES. Overview. 1
January 2016. National Center for Education Statistics. Web Article. 29 March 2017.
<nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/>.
O'Day, Jennifer, and Marshall Smith. "Equality and Quality in U.S. Education." Education Policy
Center at American Institutes for Research (2016): n. pag. Web.
<educationpolicy.air.org/sites/default/files/Oday-EqualityQuality.pdf>.
"What Pennsylvania Can Learn From Other States Education Funding Formulas." Funding,
Formulas, and Fairness (n.d.): n. pag. Elc-pa.org. Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2017.
Other
"Employment and Unemployment of Recent High School Graduates and Dropouts : Career
Outlook." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Web. 28
Mar. 2017.
"More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds,
Department of Education Research Finds." U.S. Department of Education, 30 Nov. 2011.
Web. 25 Apr. 2017.
"National Office." Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.
<www.bbbs.org/national-office/>.
"Purpose." Race to the Top Fund. US Department of Education (ED), 19 July 2016. Web. 25 Apr.
2017.
"Race to the Top Phase 1 Final Results" (PDF). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March
30, 2010.