Detroit Public Schools Community District |
---|
Detroit, Michigan |
District details |
Superintendent: Nikolai Vitti |
# of school board members: 7 |
Website: Link |
Detroit Public Schools Community District is a school district in Michigan.
On July 1, 2016, Detroit's public school system was split into two entities. Detroit Public Schools, which oversaw city schools, was changed into a revenue-collection entity to pay down the system's debt by 2025. A new district called the Detroit Public Schools Community District was created to oversee schools. Learn more about the reorganization of Detroit's public schools here.
Click on the links below to learn more about the school district's...
This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates. |
Nikolai Vitti is the superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools Community District. Vitti was appointed as superintendent on May 23, 2017. Vitti's previous career experience includes working as a superintendent of Duval County Public Schools in Florida, as a chief academic officer of Miami-Dade County Public Schools in Florida, and as a deputy chancellor of the Florida Department of Education.[1]
The Detroit Public Schools Community District Board of Education consists of seven members elected to four-year terms. Board members are elected at-large.[6]
This officeholder information was last updated on April 15, 2021. Please contact us with any updates. |
The Detroit Public Schools Board of Education was composed of 11 members elected to four-year terms. Four board members were elected at large and seven members were elected by district .[7] This board was disbanded on July 1, 2016, with the creation of the Detroit Public Schools Community District. A new seven-member board took office in January 2017 following the November 2016 general election.
A general election was scheduled for November 3, 2020.
The November 2016 election was the first election for a seven-member board authorized by a June 2016 state law reorganizing district operations.[8]
No school board elections were held in 2013 due to a legal dispute. State Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit in 2012 to remove the seven board members who were elected by geographic electoral districts rather than being elected at-large. According to state law, school board members may only be elected by geographic electoral districts instead of at-large as long as district enrollment remains over 100,000 students. Enrollment in the district had not reached 100,000 students since 2008. The school board's attorney, George Washington, denounced the lawsuit as racist and suggested that the state sued in order to allow its emergency manager complete control over Detroit Public Schools.[9][10]
The Detroit Public Schools Community District school board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:[11]
“ | The Board of Education recognizes the value of public comment on educational issues and the importance of allowing members of the public to express themselves on District matters.
|
” |
From 1993 to 2013, the Detroit school district had an average of $1,370,847,000 in revenue and $1,477,182,429 in expenditures, according to the United States Census Bureau's survey of school system finances. The district had a yearly average of $1,291,993,619 in outstanding debt. The district retired $45,816,238 of its debt and issued $173,392,571 in new debt each year on average.[13]
The table below separates the district's revenue into the three sources identified by the agency: local, state, and federal.
Revenue by Source | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Local | State | Federal | Revenue Total | |||||||
Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue |
Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $291,529,000 | 25.71% | $713,594,000 | 62.92% | $128,998,000 | 11.37% | $1,134,121,000 | ||||
1994 | $301,334,000 | 24.72% | $778,021,000 | 63.83% | $139,622,000 | 11.45% | $1,218,977,000 | ||||
1995 | $156,198,000 | 12.38% | $997,451,000 | 79.08% | $107,607,000 | 8.53% | $1,261,256,000 | ||||
1996 | $169,582,000 | 12.75% | $1,044,677,000 | 78.56% | $115,529,000 | 8.69% | $1,329,788,000 | ||||
1997 | $187,184,000 | 13.42% | $1,059,768,000 | 75.96% | $148,252,000 | 10.63% | $1,395,204,000 | ||||
1998 | $178,285,000 | 12.55% | $1,094,806,000 | 77.09% | $147,128,000 | 10.36% | $1,420,219,000 | ||||
1999 | $195,157,000 | 13.19% | $1,111,083,000 | 75.09% | $173,472,000 | 11.72% | $1,479,712,000 | ||||
2000 | $208,102,000 | 13.83% | $1,130,732,000 | 75.16% | $165,691,000 | 11.01% | $1,504,525,000 | ||||
2001 | $198,030,000 | 12.89% | $1,150,709,000 | 74.92% | $187,226,000 | 12.19% | $1,535,965,000 | ||||
2002 | $236,230,000 | 14.13% | $1,200,905,000 | 71.83% | $234,843,000 | 14.05% | $1,671,978,000 | ||||
2003 | $246,284,000 | 14.84% | $1,176,357,000 | 70.90% | $236,429,000 | 14.25% | $1,659,070,000 | ||||
2004 | $267,288,000 | 16.27% | $1,122,410,000 | 68.34% | $252,704,000 | 15.39% | $1,642,402,000 | ||||
2005 | $278,668,000 | 17.78% | $1,027,480,000 | 65.57% | $260,915,000 | 16.65% | $1,567,063,000 | ||||
2006 | $290,555,000 | 19.02% | $984,243,000 | 64.44% | $252,659,000 | 16.54% | $1,527,457,000 | ||||
2007 | $320,482,000 | 21.25% | $918,069,000 | 60.87% | $269,588,000 | 17.88% | $1,508,139,000 | ||||
2008 | $334,981,000 | 25.43% | $814,536,000 | 61.82% | $168,009,000 | 12.75% | $1,317,526,000 | ||||
2009 | $313,482,000 | 24.22% | $731,678,000 | 56.53% | $249,063,000 | 19.24% | $1,294,223,000 |
2010 | $279,723,000 | 23.66% | $615,158,000 | 52.03% | $287,377,000 | 24.31% | $1,182,258,000 |
2011 | $237,594,000 | 18.99% | $561,782,000 | 44.91% | $451,471,000 | 36.09% | $1,250,847,000 |
2012 | $263,715,000 | 25.48% | $499,995,000 | 48.31% | $271,358,000 | 26.22% | $1,035,068,000 |
2013 | $234,510,000 | 27.53% | $389,089,000 | 45.67% | $228,390,000 | 26.81% | $851,989,000 |
Avg. | $247,091,095 | 18.57% | $910,597,286 | 65.42% | $213,158,619 | 16.01% | $1,370,847,000 |
The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:
Expenditures by Category | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Instruction | Support Services | Capital Spending | Debt & Gov. Payments | Other | Budget Total | |||||
Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget |
Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $586,247,000 | 51.99% | $459,192,000 | 40.72% | $33,025,000 | 2.93% | $21,357,000 | 1.89% | $27,752,000 | 2.46% | $1,127,573,000 |
1994 | $635,172,000 | 52.18% | $505,667,000 | 41.54% | $20,501,000 | 1.68% | $19,271,000 | 1.58% | $36,610,000 | 3.01% | $1,217,221,000 |
1995 | $794,609,000 | 62.25% | $390,025,000 | 30.55% | $21,597,000 | 1.69% | $18,829,000 | 1.48% | $51,445,000 | 4.03% | $1,276,505,000 |
1996 | $786,115,000 | 57.18% | $503,841,000 | 36.65% | $22,968,000 | 1.67% | $17,398,000 | 1.27% | $44,381,000 | 3.23% | $1,374,703,000 |
1997 | $785,636,000 | 59.15% | $478,463,000 | 36.02% | $20,837,000 | 1.57% | $21,463,000 | 1.62% | $21,909,000 | 1.65% | $1,328,308,000 |
1998 | $784,638,000 | 58.32% | $495,504,000 | 36.83% | $26,582,000 | 1.98% | $19,918,000 | 1.48% | $18,719,000 | 1.39% | $1,345,361,000 |
1999 | $820,909,000 | 55.41% | $543,570,000 | 36.69% | $73,915,000 | 4.99% | $21,081,000 | 1.42% | $21,958,000 | 1.48% | $1,481,433,000 |
2000 | $905,457,000 | 57.32% | $514,051,000 | 32.54% | $116,358,000 | 7.37% | $23,488,000 | 1.49% | $20,189,000 | 1.28% | $1,579,543,000 |
2001 | $957,304,000 | 58.92% | $513,606,000 | 31.61% | $111,261,000 | 6.85% | $24,286,000 | 1.49% | $18,348,000 | 1.13% | $1,624,805,000 |
2002 | $850,662,000 | 44.31% | $667,478,000 | 34.77% | $333,885,000 | 17.39% | $37,442,000 | 1.95% | $30,320,000 | 1.58% | $1,919,787,000 |
2003 | $884,202,000 | 44.08% | $690,364,000 | 34.42% | $363,583,000 | 18.13% | $54,200,000 | 2.70% | $13,560,000 | 0.68% | $2,005,909,000 |
2004 | $935,103,000 | 46.27% | $711,064,000 | 35.18% | $280,767,000 | 13.89% | $81,455,000 | 4.03% | $12,734,000 | 0.63% | $2,021,123,000 |
2005 | $877,068,000 | 45.83% | $694,833,000 | 36.31% | $250,955,000 | 13.11% | $81,076,000 | 4.24% | $9,939,000 | 0.52% | $1,913,871,000 |
2006 | $755,205,000 | 46.22% | $654,112,000 | 40.03% | $126,854,000 | 7.76% | $72,564,000 | 4.44% | $25,266,000 | 1.55% | $1,634,001,000 |
2007 | $764,780,000 | 49.77% | $634,297,000 | 41.28% | $33,523,000 | 2.18% | $83,274,000 | 5.42% | $20,827,000 | 1.36% | $1,536,701,000 |
2008 | $703,557,000 | 49.12% | $592,679,000 | 41.38% | $17,595,000 | 1.23% | $89,156,000 | 6.22% | $29,469,000 | 2.06% | $1,432,456,000 |
2009 | $689,064,000 | 51.94% | $520,217,000 | 39.21% | $19,880,000 | 1.50% | $86,639,000 | 6.53% | $10,838,000 | 0.82% | $1,326,638,000 |
2010 | $651,102,000 | 49.34% | $507,335,000 | 38.44% | $40,648,000 | 3.08% | $110,036,000 | 8.34% | $10,622,000 | 0.80% | $1,319,743,000 |
2011 | $557,814,000 | 38.71% | $485,363,000 | 33.68% | $255,458,000 | 17.73% | $131,754,000 | 9.14% | $10,693,000 | 0.74% | $1,441,082,000 |
2012 | $515,473,000 | 41.86% | $378,493,000 | 30.74% | $213,384,000 | 17.33% | $116,464,000 | 9.46% | $7,561,000 | 0.61% | $1,231,375,000 |
2013 | $359,121,000 | 40.68% | $342,976,000 | 38.86% | $59,253,000 | 6.71% | $112,938,000 | 12.79% | $8,405,000 | 0.95% | $882,693,000 |
Avg. | $742,820,857 | 50.52% | $537,291,905 | 36.55% | $116,325,190 | 7.18% | $59,242,333 | 4.24% | $21,502,143 | 1.52% | $1,477,182,429 |
The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.
Debt | |||
---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Retired | Issued | Outstanding |
Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years. | |||
---|---|---|---|
1993 | $31,987,000 | $33,000,000 | $274,465,000 |
1994 | $29,301,000 | $38,120,000 | $283,284,000 |
1995 | $27,194,000 | $0 | $256,090,000 |
1996 | $28,477,000 | $0 | $227,613,000 |
1997 | $35,026,000 | $0 | $336,808,000 |
1998 | $38,615,000 | $0 | $302,943,000 |
1999 | $45,508,000 | $295,565,000 | $550,750,000 |
2000 | $32,699,000 | $9,055,000 | $811,730,000 |
2001 | $22,236,000 | $0 | $854,493,000 |
2002 | $27,276,000 | $414,800,000 | $1,237,569,000 |
2003 | $58,265,000 | $731,900,000 | $1,809,391,000 |
2004 | $40,336,000 | $51,635,000 | $1,765,834,000 |
2005 | $42,887,000 | $213,246,000 | $2,152,009,000 |
2006 | $47,810,000 | $554,093,000 | $3,938,769,000 |
2007 | $58,060,000 | $0 | $947,905,000 |
2008 | $66,739,000 | $0 | $878,061,000 |
2009 | $53,970,000 | $1,000,000 | $970,091,000 |
2010 | $47,700,000 | $290,000,000 | $1,989,985,000 |
2011 | $63,899,000 | $258,972,000 | $2,576,677,000 |
2012 | $73,785,000 | $749,858,000 | $2,948,513,000 |
2013 | $90,371,000 | $0 | $2,018,886,000 |
Avg. | $45,816,238 | $173,392,571 | $1,291,993,619 |
The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.
Year | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|
2019-2020[14] | $38,500 | $74,000 |
Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.[15]
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[16]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 12 | 32 | 10 | 16 | 21-39 | 15-19 | 17 |
2017-2018 | 8 | 18 | 7 | 10 | 20-29 | 6-9 | 11 |
2016-2017 | 10 | 36 | 9 | 10 | 20-29 | 6-9 | 13 |
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[16]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 18 | 40 | 17 | 22 | 21-39 | 20-24 | 21 |
2017-2018 | 13 | 22 | 12 | 16 | 11-19 | 15-19 | 15 |
2016-2017 | 18 | 42 | 17 | 18 | 20-29 | 10-14 | 19 |
The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:[16][17]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-2018 | 77 | GE95 | 78 | 70 | GE50 | PS | 70-79 |
2016-2017 | 78 | 85-89 | 78 | 80 | PS | 70-79 |
Year[18] | Enrollment | Year-to-year change (%) |
---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 49,534 | -0.6 |
2017-2018 | 49,810 | 11.6 |
2016-2017 | 44,616 | - |
During the 2018-2019 school year, 86.1% of the district's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 12.5% were English language learners, and 15.6% of students had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) .[20]
Racial Demographics, 2018-2019 | ||
---|---|---|
Race | Detroit Public Schools Community District (%) | MICHIGAN K-12 students (%) |
American Indian/Alaska Native | 0.1 | 0.6 |
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander | 1.6 | 3.4 |
Black | 82.0 | 17.9 |
Hispanic | 13.5 | 8.1 |
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Two or More Races | 0.3 | 4.2 |
White | 2.4 | 65.8 |
Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.
From 2009 to 2017, the state of Michigan oversaw the school district through an appointed emergency manager.[21]
On March 2, 2009, Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) appointed Robert Bobb to the position of Detroit Public Schools' emergency manager under Public Act 72 of 1990. He was initially appointed to serve a one-year term in order to address the district's legacy budget deficit, which was projected to reach $305.8 million in June 2009. As the emergency manager, Bobb created an internal audit department, led an enrollment drive, and advocated for a successful $500.5 million bond issue to build and modernize 18 schools in the district.[21] In 2011, the projected deficit was $327 million.[22]
In May 2011, Governor Rick Snyder (R) appointed Roy Roberts to the position of emergency manager after Bobb's contract expired.[23] During his time as the emergency manager, Roberts enforced two consecutive balanced budgets and reduced the size of the legacy deficit from $327 million to $72 million, partially through selling more than $200 million in bonds.[24]
On July 15, 2013, Governor Snyder appointed Jack Martin as emergency manager after Roy Roberts left the position following the expiration of his contract. Prior to serving as emergency manager, Martin spent more than 40 years as a Certified Public Accountant, served as the emergency manager for Highland Park City Schools in 2012, and served as the chief financial officer of the city of Detroit. Roy Roberts expressed support for Martin's appointment. Martin stated that he would pursue a similar deficit-reduction path to the one laid out by Roberts.[25][26]
In November 2013, the Michigan Department of Education removed the federal High Risk status from Detroit Public Schools. According to the school district press release on the matter, "With this action, the district will gain an incremental level of independence in its financial and administrative functions."[27]
In January 2015, Gov. Snyder appointed Darnell Earley as the emergency manager, succeeding Jack Martin.[26] Earley resigned from office in February 2016.[28]
In February 2016, former U.S. bankruptcy judge Steven Rhodes was appointed to the position.[29] Rhodes served until 2017 when the newly elected school board was instated. The board worked with the state-appointed Detroit Financial Review Commission.
In September 2014, a majority of the board believed they were authorized to vote out then-emergency manager Jack Martin. According to Public Act 436, a governing body can remove the emergency manager by a two-thirds vote after the manager has served for 18 months. In the resolution passed by the board to remove Martin, the board accused the state of putting the district into a deficit through poor financial decisions and by refusing to let the board take action against those decisions.[30] The board filed a lawsuit asking a judge to allow Martin's immediate removal. Martin's lawyers argued that he not be removed until January 2015, 18 months after his appointment. The school board calculated the 18 months from when PA 436 was passed. The judge granted summary judgment to Martin and dismissed the case. Following the outcome of the lawsuit, the board stated that they would focus on its federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the emergency manager law. Martin left the position in January 2015 and Darnell Earley was appointed as the next emergency manager.[31]
The Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette had filed a lawsuit in order to seven out of the 11 school board members from office, claiming they were holding office illegally because they were elected while the district did not meet the student enrollment requirements allowing school board elections as outlined by state law. The suit was dismissed in 2013. In a statement, the judge said that the state law did not address what should happen in a district where student enrollment had declined, as it had in Detroit.[32]
In 2012, the state created a reform district. In 2013, enrollment in the Detroit school district fell from approximately 74,000 students in 2011 to 51,979 students. Fifteen district schools and nearly 10,000 students were removed to the state reform district.[33]
In his January 19, 2016 address, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) sought approval from the Michigan State Legislature for district reforms. Snyder proposed and State Sen. Goeff Hansen (R) sponsored an education bill in late 2015 that would split DPS into two districts.[34]
In response to the proposal, State Rep. Tim Kelly (R) told the Detroit Free Press that the district's debts should be repaid, but no additional funding should go to the district. State Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D) expressed concern that the proposal would create an appointed school board for the new district rather than an elected body.[34]
On June 21, 2016, Snyder signed a bill authorizing the division of Detroit Public Schools into two entities effective July 1, 2016. The restructuring plan would maintain Detroit Public Schools as a revenue-collecting entity to pay down the district's debts by 2025. The second district would operate schools using $617 million in state funding. The new school district would be governed by a seven-member board elected in November 2016 with finances reviewed by a state-appointed commission.[34]
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan stated that a mayoral commission, which was removed from the bill by House Republicans, should oversee school finances rather than a state-appointed board.[34] State Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D) stated that the bill would not resolve racial disparities in public schools.[35]
In January 2016, district school teachers protested class sizes and classroom conditions by calling in sick. On January 20, 88 of the district's 100 schools were closed as a result of the absences. On the same day, the school district sought a restraining order and injunction against the teachers participating in the protests. The district named a group of participating teachers and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) in the suit, which claimed that 31,000 students (67.4 percent of all students in the district) missed one day of school due to the protests.[36][37]
On January 25, a Detroit judge declined to issue the restraining order, stating there was no indisputable proof that the union or individual teachers were involved with the protests.[38][39]
In August 2016, Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled in favor of teachers Nicole Conaway and Steve Conn, who were sued by the district over their roles in the sick-outs. The district argued that the sick-outs constituted an illegal strike, while Conaway and Conn argued that they were engaging in protected free speech.[40]
Mayor Mike Duggan asked teachers to return to work and acknowledged that the protesters were bringing up legitimate issues. Darnell Earley, the emergency manager for the school district at that time, had indicated that the district lacked the funding to make all of the repairs required in order to address teacher concerns.[37]
Prior to the protests, classroom conditions in the school district were the subject of a CBS News report and of reporting from The Washington Post.[41][42]
Detroit Public Schools Community District
3011 W. Grand Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48202
Phone: 313-240-4377
Michigan | School Board Elections | News and Analysis |
---|---|---|
|
<ref>
tag; name "split" defined multiple times with different content
State of Michigan Lansing (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |