comprehensive annual financial reportdetroit.k12.mi.us/data/finance/docs/2014-2015_cafr.pdf · we...

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

For the Fiscal Year EndedJune 30, 2015

Prepared by:Detroit Public Schools

Detroit, MichiganDivision of Financial ServicesPublished November 2, 2015

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Table of Contents

Page

INTRODUCTORY SECTION

Letter of Transmittal 3Organizational Chart 47List of Appointed Officials 48ASBO Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting 49Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 50

FINANCIAL SECTION

Independent Auditors’ Report 53Management’s Discussion and Analysis 58Basic Financial Statements:

Government-wide Financial Statements:Statement of Net Position 70Statement of Activities 71

Fund Financial Statements:Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds 72Reconciliation - Fund Balances (Deficits) of Governmental Funds

to Net Position (Deficit) of Governmental Activities 73Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) –

Governmental Funds 74Reconciliation - Net Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) of Governmental Funds

to Changes in Net Position (Deficit) of Governmental Activities 75Statement of Fiduciary Net Position 76Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position 77

Notes to Financial Statements 80

Required Supplementary Information: MPSERS Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Plan:

Schedule of the District's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 110Schedule of District Contributions 111

Schedule of Funding Progress – Other Postemployment Benefits Plan 112Schedule of Employer Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits Plan 112Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund 113Notes to Required Supplementary Information 114

Other Supplemental Information: Nonmajor Governmental Funds:

Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 116Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund

Balances – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 118Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – Agency Funds 120


Table of Contents

Page

Budgetary Comparison Schedules:Food Service Fund 121

Debt Information:Schedule of Bonded Indebtedness 122

STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)

Table of Contents 129

Financial Trends (Unaudited)

Net Position by Component 130Changes in Net Position 132Fund Balances, Governmental Funds 134Summary of Governmental Funds Revenues and Expenditures 136Comparison of Unreserved/Unassigned General Fund Balance (Deficit)

to Expenditures and Other Uses 139

Revenue Capacity (Unaudited)

Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property 140Assessed Valuation Data 142Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates 143Principal Property Tax Payers 144Property Tax Levies and Collections 145

Debt Capacity (Unaudited)

Outstanding Debt by Type 146Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt 148Schedule of Legal Debt Margin 149Legal Debt Margin Calculation 150Pledge Revenue Coverage 153Comparison of Bonded Debt to State Equalized Valuation 154Percentage of Debt Service to Non-Capital Expenditures 156

Demographic and Economic Information (Unaudited)

Demographic and Economic Statistics 157Principal Employers 159


Table of Contents

Page

Operating Information (Unaudited)

Operating Statistics 160Full-time Equivalent District Employees by Type 162Summary of Building and Sites 164Schedule of Major Insurance Coverage 189Graduate Information 190

Federal Awards Supplemental Information - Issued Under Separate Cover

INTRODUCTORY SECTION

1

November 2, 2015

Citizens, Darnell Earley, Emergency Manager,and Board of Education, Detroit Public Schools

Detroit, Michigan

We are hereby submitting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Detroit PublicSchools (the "District") for the Fiscal Year (FY) ended June 30, 2015. State and federal statutes requirethat the District issue annual financial reports and that such reports be audited by an independent firmof certified public accountants. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the ComprehensiveAnnual Financial Report and all appropriate disclosures for the FY ended June 30, 2015 in an effort toprovide all interested parties information on the financial condition of Detroit Public Schools.

Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation,including all disclosures, rests with the Division of Finance of the Detroit Public Schools. To provide areasonable basis for making these representations, management of the Detroit Public Schools hasestablished a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the DetroitPublic Schools’ assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for thepreparation of the District’s financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples (GAAP). As the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the Detroit PublicSchools’ comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable ratherthan absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. To thebest of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data is accurate in all material respects and is reportedin a manner designed to present fairly the financial position and results of all operations of the variousgovernment-wide and governmental funds of the District. All disclosures necessary to enable the readerto gain an understanding of the Detroit Public Schools’ financial activities have been included.

The District’s financial statements have been audited by Rehmann Robson, a firm of licensed certifiedpublic accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that thefinancial statements of the District for the FY ended June 30, 2015, are free of material misstatement.The independent audit consisted of reviewing, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts anddisclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significantestimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Theindependent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for renderingan unmodified opinion, suggesting that the District’s financial statements for the FY ended June 30,2015, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP.

In addition, in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the District issued the federallymandated single audit, designed to meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. The standardsgoverning single audit engagements require the independent auditor to report on both the fairpresentation of the financial statements and on the audited District’s internal controls and compliancewith legal requirements, especially concerning the administration of federal awards. This report isavailable separately in the District-issued report on federal awards.

Reporting Entity and Organization

The Detroit Public Schools is an independent reporting entity that follows the criteria established by theGovernmental Accounting Standards Board. All funds of the District are included in this report.

3

Budgetary Controls

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiates the annual budget process by requesting schooldemographic information from the District’s demographer. The demographer provides the projectednumber of students by school and by grade.

Once the budget is balanced, the budget is submitted for review and approval. Upon final approval bythe EM, any adjustments to the budgets are entered into Cognos by the OMB staff and reviewed foraccuracy. Any errors or unusual items are researched and resolved by the OMB staff. The final changesare reviewed by the OMB Executive Director.

OMB prepares budget amendments whenever a budget assumption needs to be significantly modified.During the budget amendment process, OMB amends the budget accordingly based on the revised budgetassumptions and reviews any significant budget variances. The EM will approve the amended budget.

Schools and departments submit budget transfer requests to OMB. This request normally includesadding/deleting positions or transferring funds between line items. Budget adjustments related to grantfunds are reviewed by the Department of State and Federal Programs to confirm the use of fundscomplies with the grant regulations and is included in the state approved consolidated application. Therequest must be approved by the respective Division Head before being forwarded to OMB.

Profile of the Detroit Public Schools

OMB uses this information to perform two calculations. First, OMB calculates the projected state aid(Proposition A Obligation and Discretionary Payment) to be received from the State of Michigan based onthe projected total number of students. Furthermore, the teacher staffing allocation for the schools iscalculated based on class sizes approved by the Superintendent of Academics and the projected numberof students by school and grade.

Afterwards, OMB prepares the projections for the remaining General Purpose revenues (Property Taxes,Medicaid Reimbursement, Sale of Capital Assets, etc.) for the upcoming fiscal year. For the remainingfunds (Adult Education, Grants, Special Education, Food Service), the respective fund managers providethe revenue projections to OMB.

Central administrative offices utilize Modified Zero Base Budgeting to develop their General Purposebudgets for the upcoming fiscal year. Using their current budget as a baseline, central administrativeoffices prepare their budgets for the upcoming fiscal year under different scenarios. Departmentssubmit their recommended budgets for OMB review and analysis. From the review and analysis, OMBselects one of the budget scenarios submitted by each respective central administrative office.

All revenues and expenses (instruction, support services, community, etc.) are entered into theTM1/Cognos (Cognos) budget development system. If the projected expenses exceed the projectedrevenues, OMB will work with members of the Emergency Manager’s (EM) team (Cabinet Members) toidentify potential expenditure reductions.

The School District of the City of Detroit (hereinafter “Detroit Public Schools” or the “District”),incorporated in 1842, is a statutory public body created by the State of Michigan, and functions underthe provisions of the Michigan Public Act 451 of 1976, as amended (“Public Act 451”). The Districtencompasses an area of approximately 140 square miles, and is located within the City of Detroit,Wayne County, Michigan. Although the corporate boundaries of the District are coterminous with thecorporate boundaries of the City of Detroit, the District is a totally separate governmental unit.

Detroit Public Schools is the largest public school system in Michigan. The District is one of the largestemployers in Detroit, employing 6,028 employees (full time equivalents).

4

Profile of the City of Detroit

The City of Detroit is located in Southeastern Michigan, incorporated in 1806, currently occupies a landarea of approximately 140 squares miles and, according to the 2014 census estimate, serves apopulation of 680,250. The City of Detroit is the State of Michigan’s largest city and accounts for nearlyhalf of Wayne County’s population.

Often referred to as the Motor City, the City of Detroit is known for its rich history in the automotiveindustry. Detroit is the world’s automotive center, with the ‘Big Three’, (Chrysler, General Motors, andFord Motor Company) and all other major global automakers having a presence in the area. The majorUS Automakers (Big Three) had increased sales volume over the last couple of years which is a sign ofrecovery and a tremendous lift to the city of Detroit. The North American International Auto Show drawsin hundreds of thousands of people from all around the world to Detroit’s Cobo Hall to see the latest andgreatest innovation in automotive engineering. The 2015 event welcomed the largest crowd ofspectators, 808,775 people, topping the 12 year high total from 2014. The 2015 spectators were able totake in the $279 Million of renovations and improvements to Cobo Hall over the last five years, beginningin 2010 and finishing just before the 2015 North American International Auto Show.

Under Public Act 436, the EM is prescribed all power and authority over all financial, operational andacademic matters of the District as is necessary to address the financial emergency of the District,subject to certain limitations enumerated in Public Act 436. Notwithstanding any agreed uponexpiration date, the EM serves at the pleasure of the Governor and the Governor has the authority toremove the EM with or without cause at any time he may determine. The EM may also be removed: (1)by impeachment and conviction by the State Legislature, or (2) upon serving at least 18 months after hisor her appointment, by resolution of 2/3 vote of the board of education of the District. If theEmergency Manager is removed and the financial emergency has not been rectified, Public Act 436requires the Governor to appoint a new emergency manager; or in the case of removal by the board ofeducation, requires such other remedies to resolve the financial emergency of the District, including butnot limited to a potential neutral evaluation process, chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding, or the eventualre-appointment of a subsequent EM.

The District has operated under the authority of an emergency manager (previously known as emergency“financial” manager under the predecessor authorizing act) since January 26, 2009, when then-GovernorJennifer Granholm determined that a financial emergency existed for the District and appointed RobertC. Bobb to serve as emergency financial manager for the District pursuant to Michigan Public Act 72 of1990, as amended (“Public Act 72”). On May 16, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder determined that thefinancial emergency continued to exist for the District and appointed Roy S. Roberts to replace RobertBobb as emergency manager for the District (“Emergency Manager” or “EM”) pursuant to the authorityof Michigan Public Act 4 of 2011 (“Public Act 4”), which replaced and repealed Public Act 72 in 2011.Mr. Roberts served as Emergency Manager of the District under Public Act 4 until Public Act 4 wassuspended by voter petition for a referendum and temporarily replaced by Public Act 72 in August 2012.Governor Snyder reappointed Mr. Roberts to serve as an Emergency Financial Manager for the Districtunder Public Act 72 (during the suspension period and after Public Act 4 was rescinded by voterreferendum effective November 6, 2012); and in March 28, 2013, reappointed Mr. Roberts as theEmergency Manager for the District when the state legislature subsequently enacted Michigan Public Act436 of 2012 (“Public Act 436”) which currently remains in effect. On July 15, 2013, Governor Snyderappointed Jack Martin as Emergency Manager for the District to replace Roy Roberts who retired on thatsame date. Mr. Martin served as Emergency Manager until Gov. Snyder appointed Darnell Earley to theposition on January 13, 2015.

Refer to note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for more information regarding the reportingentity.

5

The City of Detroit also functions as an entertainment hub, as the emerging casino resort properties,sports venues, and theatre district draw in visitors and tourists. The city of Detroit offers the MGMGrand Detroit, Motor City Casino, Caesars Windsor, and the Greektown Casino resort destinations.These casinos generate hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue and produce thousands of cityjobs. Detroit also has the second largest theater district in the country with over 13,000 theater seats injust a 2 block radius. With the Fox Theater seating over 5,000 just blocks from the Fillmore, OperaHouse, Music Hall, Gem, Century and even the little avant-garde 1515 Broadway is a theater lover’sparadise. The Fisher Theater in Detroit’s new Center area draws in hundreds of thousands of visitorsannually to its Broadway plays. In addition passerby’s stop in the Fisher to take in its breathtaking ArtDeco interior craftsmanship of marbles, mosaics, brass, bronze and hand painted ceilings. Detroit ishome to a rich mix of people from various ethnic backgrounds, including citizens of English, German,Irish, Italian, Polish, Mexican, Middle Eastern, African, and Greek descent. Students and residents takeadvantage of the many recreational and cultural opportunities located within the city limits of Detroit.Detroit is home to some of the nation’s premier athletic centers consisting of Ford Field, Comerica Park,and Joe Louis Arena, providing state-of-the-art sports facilities.

The City of Detroit has two of the nation’s most beautiful city-owned recreational and event facilities;Belle Isle Park and Campus Martius. Belle Isle is a 982-acre (1.534 sq mi) island park in the DetroitRiver, between the United States mainland, connected to Detroit by the MacArthur Bridge, and Canada.It is the largest city-owned island park in the United States and is currently leased to the State ofMichigan. Under the lease agreement the Michigan Department of Natural Resources manages the islandpark and the City of Detroit retains ownership. Belle Isle officially became a state park on February 10,2014. The island is home to the Belle Isle Aquarium, Belle Isle Conservatory, Belle Isle Nature Zoo,Detroit Yacht Club, James Scott Memorial Fountain, Dossin Great Lakes Museum, Coast Guard station,municipal golf course and numerous monuments. Campus Martius Park anchors a two square blockdistrict that is the commercial center and heart of downtown Detroit. Surrounded by over 6.5 millionsquare feet of mixed used space from the stunning historic architecture of the landmark PenobscotBuilding to the contemporary Compuware and Quicken Loans Headquarters and One Kennedy SquareBuildings, the Campus Martius district is a regional destination. All of the major avenues radiate outfrom Detroit’s Point of Origin in the Park. The Campus Martius district is a 24-hour neighborhoodcomprised of 20,000 office employees, 750 residents, 35+ dining options, 50 retail outlets, the WestinBook Cadillac Hotel, 10,000 Parking spaces and over two million annual visitors.

Several new projects have launched to begin engaging stakeholders and citizens to commit to restoringDetroit to its apex as one of America’s greatest cities. Detroiters will soon be able to quickly navigatethroughout the Downtown area as construction has begun for the MI Rail, a light rail line. This project isexpected to be completed in 2016. This new public transportation project will become extremely usefulfor Detroiter’s when the New Sports and Entertainment District is completed. This $650 Million projectwill be a great addition and the focal point of this Entertainment District will be the new home of theDetroit Red Wings. The Detroit Medical Center has seen a great deal of transformations. The $78 MillionHeart Hospital is currently complete and open. By 2017 the Detroit Medical Center will have over $850million in additions, renovations, and cutting edge science equipment upgrades. Over 61 Million dollarswill be dedicated to the upkeep and revitalization of the Brush Park neighborhood addressing, housing,parking, grounds and retail. Major strides have been made when it comes to retail, the second Meijersuper store opened within the Detroit city limits. The 190,000 square foot Meijer, is located on thegrounds of the old Redford High School, which closed in the last 10 years. The opening of Meijer createdover 270 full and part time jobs for Detroiters. In addition, Detroit opened a high end men’s fashionstore in that of John Varvatos in Downtown Detroit this year as well. This opening is major because it isthought to pave the way for many other high end stores to follow suit and open Downtown, creating thebig city shopping vibe. Lastly the success of the Neighbors Wanted Program, has been successful inputting families into vacant homes. The program’s efforts have led to less abandoned homes andovertime will aid in bettering the housing market in the City of Detroit. Detroit is on the rise andreturning Detroit back to its prideful, vibrant, and beautiful glory days.

6

Of the District’s total operating expenditures of approximately $714 million, 47% or approximately $336million, was spent on instruction for the year ended June 30, 2015.

Because the District had a deficit in prior years by State law definition, a revised Deficit EliminationPlan (the Plan) was required by the State of Michigan to be filed in July 2006. This was in accordancewith the refinancing of $210 million in short term borrowings during fiscal year 2005. The Plan includedan explanation for the deficit which included such factors as declining student enrollment, andincreased employee health and benefit costs. Cost reduction initiatives consisting of staff reductions,restricted travel and discretionary spending, debt restructuring and renegotiation of vendor contractswere also included. On a monthly basis, the District submits a General Fund Budgetary Control report tothe State of Michigan to ensure that the District is operating under the requirements of the Plan.

The District began the 2014-2015 school year with a General Fund deficit of $169 million and ended thefiscal year with a deficit of $216 million. Due to the ongoing deficit, the District was required to havean enhanced deficit elimination plan with the Department of Treasury. The State accepted theFinancial Operating Plan of the District on September 3, 2015 based on supplemental information whichincluded budget amendments and the 2016 Budget.

Refer to Management’s Discussion and Analysis for more information regarding General Fundcomparative financial data.

Economic and Geographic Makeup

The District is located in the major urban City of Detroit, which has an estimated population of 680,250inhabitants based on the US Census Bureau’s 2014 estimates. Downtown Detroit has a strong andgrowing residential population that will provide a strong base for future development. According to the2009-2013 American Community Survey estimates, the City has 349,170 households with a median familyincome of $26,325, and a poverty rate of 39.3% for individuals. The survey estimates that the Detroitpopulation is made up of approximately 47% male and 53% female.

National economic factors have a direct impact on the employment rate within the city limits. TheBureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the unemployment rate for the City of Detroit is 14.48% whilethe national unemployment rate was 5.21% and the State of Michigan had a rate of 5.76% during fiscalyear 2015.

Metro Detroit has propelled Michigan's national ranking in emerging technology fields such as lifesciences, information technology, and advanced manufacturing. The economy of the City of Detroit isvery dependent on the automobile manufacturing sector. Other leading industries in the City of Detroitinclude education, healthcare, professional, business and social services.

About the Detroit Public Schools

The District is divided into geographically defined configurations. Each configuration has administrativeresponsibility for the elementary, middle and high schools located within its boundaries, which includeregular, special education, vocational/technical, and alternative programs.

The District has 103 schools, consisting of 7 early childhood schools, 62 elementary schools, 3 middleschools, 18 high schools, 2 alternative education schools, 7 special education, and 4 career technical andvocational centers. These locations provide services to over 47,000 students.

7

State Aid K-12 Membership Analysis

AdditionsStudent (reductions) in

membership Percent Per Pupil state aid duefor funding Increase increase state aid to changing

School Year purposes * (decrease) (decrease) amount enrollment

2004/2005 141,148 (9,267) (6.16)% 7,180$ (66,537,060)$ 2005/2006 130,719 (10,429) (7.39)% 7,259 (75,704,111) 2006/2007 118,394 (12,325) (9.43)% 7,469 (92,055,425) 2007/2008 106,485 (11,909) (10.06)% 7,557 (89,996,313) 2008/2009 95,494 (10,991) (10.32)% 7,660 (84,191,060) 2009/2010 84,877 (10,617) (11.12)% 7,660 (81,326,220) 2010/2011 75,152 (9,725) (11.46)% 7,660 (74,493,500) 2011/2012 66,745 (8,407) (11.19)% 7,190 (60,446,330) 2012/2013 51,318 (15,427) (23.11)% 7,190 (110,920,130) 2013/2014 48,511 (2,807) (5.47)% 7,246 (20,339,522) 2014/2015 47,161 (1,350) (2.78)% 7,296 (9,849,600)

Totals (103,254) (765,859,271)$

Averages (9,387) (9.86)% (69,623,570)$

(*) Blended Student Count

Student Funded Membership

As this chart clearly shows, the Detroit Public Schools has been experiencing a steadily declining K-12funded student membership.

An analysis of this historical declining student enrollment is presented below.

8

1.•

•

•

2.3.

4.5.

•

•

•

•

Provide a high-quality, well-rounded educational experience to all students thatis rigorous, relevant, and engaging.Build strong relationships with students, families, and the community to increasetrust and shared responsibility.Ensure that every classroom has a high quality effective educator, supported byhigh-quality effective administrators and support staff.Align resources to accomplish priorities within a balanced budget.

At least 50% of students in Grades 2 through 10 will meet or exceed their Measures ofAcademic Progress (MAP) one-year growth targetAt least 50% of all high school students will meet or exceed the SAT overall compositebenchmark of 1550Realize a graduation rate of 95% for all incoming Grade 12 students and 75% of graduatingseniors enrolled/applied in post-secondary education

Improve customer service at every “touch point” of work-parents, unions, school staff and the public

Reduce the District’s legacy deficit by 20%

Enhanced policies, procedures and operational efficiency in order to achieve fiscal year 2015 budget

Daily average attendance rate of 90% or better

Improve student achievement as measured by:

The expectations for all students set forth in the Academic Plan, Higher Standards for All emphasizeresearch that support high achievement for all students. We are committed to providing an educationfor every student that challenges them while supporting their success. Every student will graduate fromDetroit Public Schools career and college ready with a 21st century education. We will focus on fourcore strategies:

In partnership with parents and our community, Detroit Public Schools exists to provide a comprehensiveeducational experience that is high quality, challenging, and inspires all students to make a positivecontribution to society. The District has implemented a five-year Academic Plan, which is designed toensure academic excellence. The underlying principle of the plan is to significantly alter theeducational experience of students in grades prekindergarten through grade 12 with the intention ofmeeting the District goals:

From 1999 to the present, school enrollment has experienced a significant decline. Some of the loss canbe attributed to a declining birth rate as well as a continuing exodus of residents from the City ofDetroit. However, the District is faced with a number of significant challenges in attempting to halt orat least slow the rate of student loss. The takeover years 1999-2006 were marked by increased losses tocharter and private schools, which continues to this date. In addition, students enrolled in surroundingdistricts at an unprecedented level as these districts began accepting Detroit residents. Due to thesteady decline of employment opportunities in the State of Michigan, over 30,000 school-age childrenhave left the State with their families, resulting in significant enrollment decline over several years.According to the new census report, the number of Detroit children attending public schools grew fromabout 180,000 in 1990 to about 193,000 in 2000. However, enrollment in Detroit Public Schools fell toabout 168,200 in 2000 and continues to decline. In 2011 enrollment fell from approximately 75,000 to51,318 students in 2013, which a significant portion of this decline is attributed to the removal of 15district schools and nearly 10,000 students to a new state reform district in 2012 known as the EducationAchievement Authority.

The District believes that the best defense against continuing student membership decline is theimprovement of the District. Through the improvement of the physical facilities, providing a safe andclean environment, developing a more efficient and effective organization, and significantly improvingstudent achievement, we are convinced that we can slow the rate of student membership decline.

Educational Programs

9

•••••

•

•

In 2013, the National Council for Social Studies released the College, Career and Civic Life (C3) for SocialStudies Standards as a system of disciplinary inquiry in social studies that allows students to inquire,investigate and communicate the results of their work by taking informed action. During the spring of2014, the District’s curriculum was revised to align with the C3 Framework as well as the Common CoreState Standards.

The Office of Literacy Fiscal Year 2014-2015:

Talent ManagementHigh Quality Teaching and LearningRigorous, Transparent and Continuous Improvement CycleCustomer Service Approach with Community and Each OtherA Secure, Inclusive and Dynamic Culture

Maintained a continued focus on delving deeper into the Michigan State Standards/College andCareer Readiness Standards (CCSS-CCRS) and their implications for teaching and learning withteachers and administrators.

Conducted additional presentations on the Michigan State Standards to the school levelinstructional specialists at each of their monthly meetings. The instructional specialists, acting asthe liaison between the District and the schools, presented the information to staff at theirschools.

Curriculum Initiatives and Programs

District Improvement Initiatives. Detroit Public Schools has focused on coherence and sustainableefforts. The Academic Plan, District Improvement Plan, and Educational Technology Plan align toDistrict goals and objectives, but they also link to major initiatives that focus on increasing studentachievement while meeting the needs of students.

Curriculum Alignment. In June, 2010, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted by theState of Michigan for English language arts and mathematics. The District designed a multi-yearimplementation plan that included the “Getting to know the CCSS” to classroom implementation phase.Both the Office of Literacy and the Office of Mathematics has aligned curriculum to the Common CoreStandards/College and Career Readiness Standards. All professional development is also aligned toCommon Core. The Common Core standards are rigorous and robust. The District is well into theimplementation phase of the CCSS. Each department had specific focuses that are listed below.

It is our belief that collectively these five pillars have a significant impact on student achievement andwill guide the District to one where all schools are providing the highest quality of education for everystudent. The Academic Plan is comprehensive and achievable. It represents systemic change that isrealistic and doable. It is a huge undertaking that will compel students, educators, staff, parents, andcommunity shareholders to acknowledge and embrace our shared responsibility for public education andto collaboratively work with each other to transform Detroit Public Schools so that every student issuccessful— academically, socially, and emotionally.

Key initiatives to support the District goals have been implemented. In addition, we will continue towork toward replicating programs that have proven successful. Program descriptions are listed on thefollowing pages.

We recognize that there are many contributing factors that impact student learning. The District hasadopted five pillars of student achievement consisting of the following factors:

10

•

•

•

•

•

•

••••••

•

•

•

•

Cross-Curricular Mentoring Text StrategiesDifferentiating with Technology in ELAStudent Engagement through Social Studies and ArtProject-based Learning for ELABuilding Cooperative Learning (ELA) K-8 Success for AllMarrying Literacy and Math

The Office of Literacy conducted sessions on the following topics: Elements of Writing, MichiganMerit Exam, Imagine It, Success for All, Informational Text Reading Strategies, Guided HighlightedReading, etc. The participants were given copies of the presentations and these resources wereused by the building level instructional specialist as training tools with teachers.

All professional development offered during the 2014-2015 school year focused on Michigan StateStandards and strategies for implementing the standards.

Provided professional development for the building level instructional specialists around theCommon Core State Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, and Language.

Provided District-wide professional development around the Common Core State Standards for thedistrict’s teachers, for Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language. Topics included:

Maintained a continued emphasis on improving writing instruction and strengthening reading skillsthrough a renewed focus on writing folders and portfolios, and teaching the adopted readingprogram with fidelity.

Conducted ongoing meetings with the ELA Instructional Specialists to build capacity and providesupport to our schools. A calendar of Instructional Specialists cohort group monthly/bi-monthlymeetings was created to professionally develop and build capacity for various Literacy initiatives,including implementing the CCS-CCRS and increasing rigorous and relevant instruction.

We are continuing to support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards into everyclassroom PK-12 through the integration of activities that support teachers, instructionalspecialists, coaches, and administrators. Activities include CCSS content knowledge andimplementation of the standards for student mathematical practices that were emphasized inDistrict-wide meetings, on district professional development days and targeted professionaldevelopment activities.

Curriculum committees continue to review and renew the standards-based curriculum driven bythe college and career readiness standards for grades K through 12 as we review our data points.

Office of Literacy staff delivered Michigan State Standards presentations to the District’sprincipals at meetings held by their assistant superintendents, as well as City-wide meetings, tomaintain a focus on the standards and help administrators understand how to monitor instruction.

Office of Literacy staff continued to view videos and participate in webinars on the Michigan StateStandards. These webinars and videos were shared electronically with the District’s instructionalspecialists. This effort was to ensure that all district-wide staff, shared a common knowledge baseabout the Michigan State Standards and their impact on classroom instruction.

The Office of Mathematics Education Fiscal Year 2014-2015:

11

•

•

•

••

(Northwest Evaluation Association, 2013)

Every meeting and professional development opportunity was focused on helping teachers developa deeper understanding of the mathematical content that they teach along with learning a varietyof ways to differentiate instruction so that no child is left behind.

Monthly meetings target a cohort group of Mathematics Instructional Specialists and Lead teachersthat serve as representatives for their schools who attend a monthly meeting that consist ofprofessional development and receive updates regarding curriculum issues, Smarter Balance M-Step/MME/ACT information, best practices and more. This cohort group returns back to theirhome school and share the information received.

These assessments are untimed. Students should be given as much time to complete a test, aslong as they are making progress.The assessments measure growth and show how students are progressing.Results are received immediately and displayed at the end of the assessment.

Comprehensive Instructional Programs

Detroit Public Schools has utilized the DPS Hub to access curriculum, instructional materials and otherclassroom resources for English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. All corecontent areas have worked to update the instructional materials and resources for Educators. All subjectareas have revised their curriculum to be aligned to the state and national standards.

The District administered the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), from the Northwest EvaluationAssociation (NWEA). This assessment is aligned to the Common Core Standards and will be administeredto students in Grades K through 11. The MAP Assessment will be administered electronically three timesper year. Additional features of the MAP Assessments are:

The Comprehensive Instructional programs are brought to life by our curriculum plan. TheComprehensive Curriculum Plan (CCP) identifies the most essential enabling objectives needed todemonstrate proficiency in performing identified competencies. It aligns curriculum and instruction,develops a different view of assessing student learning, and targets high-performing learning outcomeswhich are critical to applying knowledge both now and in the future. It includes greater rigor incoursework, increased student performance expectations and incorporates state-of-the-art teachingstrategies. The curriculum is designed to guide teachers, to suggest active teachingstrategies/techniques, and to empower teachers to make professional judgments about specificprocedures and instructional materials to use in helping students perform the intended outcomes. Thesubject area curriculum documents have been developed by teams of teachers, and others, identified asoutstanding in their areas of expertise. The curriculum continues to be updated as necessary to alignwith changing state and national standards.

The CCP includes all the current requirements of the Michigan Department of Education and iscorrelated and aligned to the Common Core State Standards, College, Career & Civic ReadinessFramework and/or the Michigan Grade Level and High School Content Expectations. The CCP exceedsstate standards and requirements. It is a living document that is updated as new state and/or federalrequirements emerge. It embodies the new Bloom’s Taxonomy model to support increased academicrigor throughout the District. Students will be engaged in project-based learning applying new learningto new situations and creating products that reflect higher-order thinking skills. The District’s highstandards, rigorous curriculum and instructional programs are designed to be responsive to studentneeds.

12

•

•

•

The Office of Literacy supported and showcased the work of teachers and students with coordinatedprogramming which included:

Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee is the nation’s largest and longest-running educationalprogram. The purpose is to help students improve their spelling, increase their vocabularies,learn concepts, and develop correct English usage that will help them all their lives.

English/language arts

The K-12 Comprehensive Literacy Plan provides a curriculum and instructional guide for literacyteachers. The literacy curriculum is designed to focus literacy instruction on reading, writing, listening,speaking, and language. It guides teachers as they prepare students for the higher levels of literacydemanded by today’s society. Students as early as kindergarten are expected to become literate,demonstrating having a grasp on reading, writing, listening, speaking, and language competencies thatwere not previously expected. All curriculum materials are aligned with the Michigan State Standardsand teachers prepare their students for college and/or careers by ensuring that they are “able to readclosely to determine what the text says explicitly, determine central ideas or themes of a text,interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, and to integrate and evaluate content presentedin diverse media and formats…” and other competencies outlined in the Michigan State Standards.

Battle of the Books is a reading incentive program for children in grades 3-12. The purpose of theprogram is to encourage children to read and to have fun with their peers as they compete againstone another to demonstrate knowledge of the books they have read.

These increased opportunities to engage in the use of literacy skills, to research topics, and haveexposure to general knowledge allows, all students, despite differences, have the ability to connect toinformation needed to function in a global society. The literacy curriculum is designed to engage boththe teachers and students by exposing students to both literary and informational texts that aremeaningful and relevant. Students are led to see cross-curricular connections between the skills andknowledge learned in their Reading/English classes with the other content areas of Mathematics,Science, and Social Studies. The curriculum, based upon an extensive body of research, follows aninstructional design that includes explicit instruction. The teacher uses whole-group instruction toensure that all students are exposed to the important concepts, and then moves to smaller groups, andconcludes by returning to the whole group. Students are also provided opportunities to engage indifferentiated instruction which targets their specific needs. Teachers use technology in their dailyinstruction to enhance lessons and expose students to a wealth of knowledge outside of the classroom.

The curriculum also encourages students to “stretch” their learning opportunities by engaging in Honorsand Advanced Placement Courses. Successful participation in the Language and Composition or theLiterature and Composition AP courses grants students advanced college credit(s).

The District is very concerned about the challenges that our self-contained teachers meet from day-to-day. They are required to know and understand the latest research in all four academic core areas andto teach it well. In an effort to assist self-contained teachers and the students that they teach to cometo know how the four academic core areas relate to one another, we have implemented cross-curricularlessons for grades K-5 during the SY 2013-2014. District curricula also include lesson exemplars thatconnect proven, research based practices. Cross-curricular lessons for Kindergarten through grade 5contain a common theme that connects across reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studiesaimed at assisting self-contained teachers. Research confirms that students benefit from a holisticapproach to learning academic content in a connected learning environment opposed to the restrictedisolated traditional method. Students see how content connects across the subjects and experience adefinite relationship among the disciplines.

Literacy Fair is a district wide opportunity for schools to celebrate and showcase English andLanguage Arts skills, activities, and knowledge gained throughout the academic year.

13

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Quarterly NewsletterA newsletter that highlights various literacy activities and initiatives happening throughout theDetroit Public School district.

Partnered with the Detroit Public Library to allow students to take Accelerated Reader quizzesduring the summer of 2015.

LitClubs are after-school and weekend literacy clubs that promote the foundational model for theLitWorld curriculum which combines resilience building activities with literacy best practices andsets of dynamic lessons around the theme of belonging, friendship, confidence, curiosity, courage,kindness, and hope. It is designed specifically for girls.

LitCamp is an opportunity for LitClub members to participate in LitClub activities and workshopsbased on their personal interests. Workshops include sewing, storyboarding, latch-hooking,making IPad movies, African Dance, etc. It is designed specifically for girls.

Camp Wanna Read A workshop designed to inform teachers about how to implement a reading camp in their schoolto help motivate students to read. It creates a fun and safe environment for students to enjoy theact of reading. The workshop includes all the necessary information to implement a camp inindividual schools.

Advanced Placement (AP) The Office of Literacy continues to work diligently to increase the number of Advanced Placementofferings in our district and to provide teachers with the information, tools, and strategies neededto build successful Advanced Placement programming in their schools and throughout the District.

Detroit Urban Debate League (UDL) The Detroit UDL is a non-profit organization that launches and supports policy debate teams inDetroit-area schools. The program seeks to improve study habits and academic success, increaseself-confidence, improve graduation rates, and increase college scholarship opportunities.

Reading is Fundamental (RIF) Book GiveawaysThemed based book giveaway. Schools create a theme around the book giveaway and eachstudent is allowed to select a book to add to their home library collection. All books donated arenew library books.

Target School Library Make-over at Bates Academy is a 2014 library makeover recipient of theHeart of America & Target Library Makeover. The school received 2,000 new library books, ipads,smart board, furniture, carpet, paint, artwork, and shelving. Each student also received 7 newbooks to take home.

World Read Aloud DayThis program allows for an opportunity to celebrate reading and storytelling with entirecommunities. It also highlights the need for libraries and community centers as crucial spaces todiscover, explore, and foster literacy.

Annual Chancellor’s Reading Carnival for Children (WCCCD)An event that promotes parental involvement and strategies for parental instruction to assist inteaching children to read and write at their grade level. The program allows children to discoverthe wonderful world of books in a secure, comfortable, and fun environment with great stories,interactive programs, exiting giveaways, and stimulating activities in a carnival like atmospheredesigned to make reading exciting and desirable for children grades Pre-k through 8.

14

• Palazzo Strozzi is a competitive course that offers a life changing experience for 11th gradestudents. Participants are immersed in the study of the Italian Renaissance using a rigorouscurriculum designed by the Palazzo Strozzi Foundation. Winners of the 2014/2015 competitionearned the opportunity to study abroad in Italy for 4 weeks during the summer with all expensespaid through the foundation.

The PreK-12 Comprehensive Mathematics Plan provides a curriculum and instructional guide formathematics teachers. The mathematics curriculum is designed to focus mathematics instruction. Highyet attainable curriculum standards are required to produce a society that has both the capability tothink and reason mathematically and have a useful base of mathematical knowledge and skills needed inlife. The mathematics curriculum is designed to enrich the mathematical experiences of both teachersand students. It builds on fundamental mathematical strands and integrates mathematics into othersubject areas. The curriculum is based upon an extensive body of research related to how studentslearn mathematics and provides opportunities for all students to develop mathematical proficiency. Themathematics curriculum outlined in curriculum guides and pacing charts is aligned to the Common CoreState Standards for Mathematics and multiple literacies i.e., numeric, graphic, financial, textual,graphic, visual, multimedia, and digital. The curriculum guides represent a scope and sequence ofinstruction. Guides and pacing charts delineate what mathematics students need to know and be able toperform. These documents provide the blueprint for rigorous content in mathematics curriculum.

The early years in mathematics education provides a foundation for future mathematics learningthrough hands-on and real world activities. K-8 mathematics classrooms exceed state standards byrequiring 90-minutes of uninterrupted, daily mathematics instruction. The District has institutedAlgebra in grade 8. The goal is to support students based on their readiness level. These opportunitiesexist throughout the mathematics pipeline from kindergarten to grade 12.

K-12 students who struggle in mathematics will be identified based on test results from benchmarkassessments and grades to receive additional support through all-inclusive support services. In addition,ninth grade students who have been identified as needing additional support will receive a double doseof algebra in grade 9. High school students complete Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and oneadditional higher level mathematics course. Those who take Algebra I prior to high school can beginwith Geometry. All high school students must complete four years of mathematics to meet graduationrequirements regardless of where they begin. Students interested in challenging themselves areencouraged to enroll in Pre-AP/honors and Advanced Placement courses in mathematics.

Technology plays an integral role in the conceptual development of strong mathematical ideas withunderstanding. Technology helps to support student investigations into every area of mathematics andfacilitates a focus on decision making, reflection, reasoning, and problem solving. Whether thetechnology is graphing calculators, Geometer’s Sketchpad, Tinkerplots (dynamic software), motiondetectors (Calculator Based Rangers), or video on real news; it will play an essential role in ourclassrooms to bring the mathematics to life.

The instructional framework for teaching mathematics includes explicit instruction, whole groupinstruction, small group instruction centered on rigorous tasks, small group differentiated instruction,higher-order questioning strategies, multiple literacy strategies, and more. Mathematics learningrequires actively engaged students. Teachers focus instruction on meaningful development of essentialmathematical ideas outlined in curriculum guides and state standards. New concepts and skills aredeveloped through real world problem solving opportunities to support a relevant education.Cooperative learning enables small groups of students to discuss, explore, discover, make conjectures,and use appropriate technology to develop conceptual understanding. Whole group collaborationfollows with discussion of the specific concepts, connections, and predictions. As students developnumeracy skills and concepts, they become more confident and motivated in the expression of theirmathematical abilities. They learn to enjoy and value mathematics, think analytically, and understandthe role of mathematics in everyday life.

Mathematics

15

••••••••••••

Response-to-Intervention incorporated in our daily work –

Tier 1 – Ongoing

The District's mathematics curriculum is supported in building student capacity through the inclusion ofthe following departmental programs and projects:

Chess LeagueSTEM Summer Camp (e.g., Summer Engineering Experience for Kids, West Point STEM Camps, andBitmap for Girls)

Classroom teachers Incorporate guiding questions to assess understanding (checkpoints, monitor and give individual feedback).

Tier 2 – Strategic

Mathematics Interventions – The following interventions are used to support the comprehensivemathematics program:

Common Core State Standards for Mathematics TransitionDistrictwide Mathematics Lead Teachers MeetingDetroit Public Schools-Wayne State University PartnershipsUniversity of Michigan Architecture PrepWoodrow Wilson Teacher FellowsSeventh Grade PrealgebraEighth Grade Algebra 1Academic Games™

District-wide K-12 Mathematics Professional Development District-wide K-12 Mathematics Instructional Specialists and Coaches Meetings

Renaissance Learning Accelerated Math – Accelerated Math is a progress-monitoring software tool thatmanages and monitors mathematics skills practice, from first grade mathematics through calculus.Customized practice assignments and test are printed for each students’ work is scored and results arereported immediately.

Cambium-V-Mathematics Interventions - Is both a researched and scientifically base program withdemonstrated success in accelerating math skills acquisition for students with disabilities, therebyimproving their academic skills aligned with their (IEP's) Individual Educational Plan. VPORT is an onlinedata management system used to store, organize, manage and report student data. Data is available forreview at the student, classroom, building, and district level- 24- hours per day; 7 days- per-week by theteacher, coaches, and administrators.

Online Tutorial programs are available through the DPS HUB - The mathematics program features has apart of the support materials “Lesson Tutorial” videos that are aligned with the instructional materialsused in the classroom. These videos offer additional examples with hints as well as prerequisite reviewsto assist struggling students. These videos are found on Parent and Student Learning Village.

The District currently has partnerships with several universities e.g., WSU, UDM, UM, and MSU. TheDistrict will continue to expand opportunities for students to participate in dual enrollment. TheDistrict is looking for ways to expand these opportunities and is beginning to work with CTE programs toconnect with university and college programs at the beginning stages of planning. A listing of severalcollaborations can be found in the STEM section.

Tier 3 – IntensiveTeachers incorporate supplemental programs i.e., Intervention module, Accelerated Math, Freeonline tutorial through Khan Academy http://www.khanacademy.org/ (website-videos, practice).

When Targeted assistance is needed teachers form small group settings in their classroom.

16

The K-12 Comprehensive Science Plan provides a curriculum and instructional guide for Scienceteachers. The intention of the Science curriculum structure is to create consistent, cohesive, and highquality teaching and learning district-wide in Science across the District. This is significant in order toenable better collaboration between colleagues, less disruption for transient students, and focusedinstructional outcomes. Additionally, the use of Driving Questions, Scientific Explanations, hands oninvestigations, and technology integration throughout the curriculum provides an inquiry based andliteracy laced environment. Instructors are challenged to create lessons that are rigorous, relevant, andengaging. The Science curriculum also encourages partnerships with local non-profits, institutions ofhigher education, businesses, and educationally enriching environments, to allow students to experienceScience connections in the real world. During 2014-2015, Science Saturdays K-12 PLC’s were heldmonthly which utilized teacher-leaders alongside instructional specialists from the Office of ScienceEducation as the facilitators for these sessions. Teachers who attended the Saturday professionaldevelopment experienced hands-on activities, content, and ideas for the upcoming curricular units. Thefeedback from these sessions was extremely positive, and assisted teachers in making the curriculumcome alive in the classroom.

The vertical (K-12) and horizontal (across the grade level) alignment of the Science curriculum areconstantly being reviewed to address issues related to the learning and data cycles. The K-12 Sciencecurriculum has instructional units that cover multiple Grade Level Content Expectations, include a preand post-test, and are organized by a Driving Question that students investigate throughout the unit. Atthe end of each unit, students should be able to construct a Scientific Explanation that answers theDriving Question with a claim and multiple pieces of evidence gained either through text, experience,investigation, or instruction. There are between 4-6 units during an academic school year.Additionally, at the elementary level, the Science units have been re-arranged in order to best alignwith the Literacy units that contained Science content, in order to best support cross-curricular teachingin grades K-6. Additionally, for middle school level, grade level themes were developed thatencompassed all units for the entire year. Finally, ancillary programs that best support and enhanceScience instruction are encouraged, and a document was created that identifies programs and field tripsthat best align with each unit for K-8 to assist both teachers and administrators in identifying the bestuse of funds and instructional time with enrichment experiences.

High school graduation requirements demand three credits of Science (Biology is mandated, thenstudents can take either Physics or Chemistry, and one additional Science elective). Some of theelectives offered at the high school level are Forensics, Robotics, Environmental Science, and EarthScience. Many high schools have had guest speakers and outreach programs from our local universitiessuch as Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, Oakland University, University ofMichigan, and Wayne State University. Advanced Placement (AP) Science courses are also offered atsome high schools.

Office of Science

17

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Camp Invention @ The Detroit Children’s MuseumCranbrook Partnership schools

The Office of Science Education also manages the Detroit Children’s Museum, which providesexperiences that are aligned to the current curriculum content in a hands-on and interactiveenvironment. The Detroit Children’s Museum provided services to over 90,000 Detroit Public Schoolsstudents contacts in the 2014-2015 school year through outreach programs, the lending collectionmuseum visits, and our Family Saturdays.

Greening of Detroit

Girls Exploring Engineering @ WSUGrand Prix Fifth Gear Go GREEN ChallengeGreen Living Science

The District's Science Curriculum is supported and enhanced by participation in the following:

K-8 Science enrichment opportunities:

Technology is a critical element of Science, and Science instruction. It is imperative to integratetechnology in instruction, and utilize it in a manner that enhances the Science experience and deepensthe content knowledge for the student. There are digital resources for curriculum available through theDPS HUB. Science materials are available in a digital format. Teachers are encouraged to share digitalcontent through the internet, PowerPoint presentations, interactive white boards, document cameras,and Flex cams. Examples of how and when to use these technology components are in the curriculumguides provided and are highlighted at professional development sessions. Additionally, the use ofprobeware and data collection tools is encouraged. Finally, identifying technology that can support,challenge, and engage students individually is an important element in differentiated instruction. Tothat end, the Office of Science, in collaboration with the Detroit Mathematics and Science Center,created a document that includes helpful Science links for students and parents. This document, as wellas multiple other helpful links, is available on our detroitk12.org website on the Science page.

AWIM (A World in Motion) engineering programBaySailBelle Isle Aquarium/Conservatory Partnership

DAPCEP (Detroit Area Pre College Engineering Program)In School & Saturday programDetroit Children’s Museum programmingDetroit River Water FestivalDetroit Zoo/Belle Isle Nature Zoo partnershipEngineering is ElementaryFarm 2 School Centers (School gardens & Nutrition education)Family Science & Family EngineeringFuture City Competition Girls are IT

Heroes Alliance MTU NSBE Alternative Spring Break//Family Engineering events Recycling (Recycle Here! and Green Living Science)RoboticsScience FairSTEAM after school programYou Be the Chemist

18

•••••••••••••••••

••••••••

High School Science enrichment opportunities:

ACT-SODAPCEP Saturday programsEnvironmental Justice Farm 2 School Centers (School gardens & Nutrition education)Go GREEN ChallengeInternshipsJunior Science and Humanities Symposium

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Related Programs

The District has placed added emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics subjectsby strengthening the academic curriculum and increasing student access to and participation with STEMrelated activities and programs. The Office of Science and the Office of Mathematics Education, incollaboration with the Detroit Mathematics and Science Center, provided over $30,000 in mini grants toScience and Mathematics teachers in the District during the 2014-2015 school year. Teachers wereawarded materials for their classroom related to Mathematics or Science, buses for field trips, admissionto museums, and many other items that provided enriching experiences for students.

Detroit Public Schools is in a partnership with the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship, a highlycompetitive program that recruits people with STEM degrees or backgrounds into the teaching field.During the 2013-2014 school year, the District hosted 12 fellows in 4 Detroit Public Schools Our studentstruly benefit from the real world STEM expertise these fellows bring to the classroom, and the fellowsare at a great advantage because they are learning under some of our best teachers. This partnershipinvolves Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and Wayne StateUniversity.

Office of Science Innovative Programs (moving forward):

Mazda STEMMTU NSBE Alternative Spring Break//Engineering Presentations Recycling (Recycle Here! and Green Living Science)Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)RoboticsScience FairSTEAM after school program University outreach programs WSU Detroit Pre-Medical Scholars ProgramWoodrow Wilson Teaching Fellows (STEM background)

Belle Isle Aquarium/Conservatory PartnershipCross Curricular Connections/alignment across content areasDistrict-wide recycling Family Engineering, Family Math, or Family Science Events at every schoolSchool gardens

“Visiting Scientist at Every School”

Science enriching activities at every schoolSTEAM (Arts Infused Science instruction

19

••••••••••

•••••

Office of Mathematics Education innovative STEM related programs are:

Academic GamesDetroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program (DAPCEP)

The curriculum is based on national standards for social studies, the College, Career and Civic Life (C3)Framework for Social Studies and Common Core Standards and is continuously revised to provide themost current researched based approaches to content instruction and assessment. It is based on asystem of disciplinary inquiry that closely supports the Common Core State Standards for Literacy. Italso takes into consideration the developmental stages of children by beginning in Kindergarten with thecourse entitled, Myself and Others that is used as a foundation from which to expand students’ learningabout the world. The social studies curriculum culminates with the final required course offered ineleventh grade, World History and Geography. Twelfth grade students may select from an array ofelective and Advanced Placement courses. The elementary and middle school curriculum shows thestudents an ever broadening view of the world while each high school course has a disciplinary focus. Allcourses are integrative using as pillars the core social studies disciplines of: economics, civics, historyand geography. The curriculum also integrates across the other social science disciplines and othercontent areas with an emphasis on literacy and using current technology. Service Learning and personalfinance are essential components of social studies and are included in each course to varying degrees.

Social studies electives available to high school students include: African American History, AfricanCivilizations, Anthropology, Asian Studies, African Studies, Basic Law, Criminal Law, Ethnic Studies,Latin American Studies, Living Skills, Native American Studies, Psychology, Sociology, SocialResponsibility, Student Government and Test Taking Skills.

To provide increased rigor and college readiness, the following Advanced Placement courses areoffered: European History, Macroeconomics, Government and Politics: Comparative, Microeconomics,Psychology, Government and Politics: United States, United States History and World History.

The Office of Social studies provides curriculum and instructional support and leadership to the District’sschools. The social studies curriculum for Detroit Public Schools is designed to teach students thecontent knowledge, intellectual skills and civic values necessary for fulfilling the duties of citizenry in aparticipatory democracy and to also effectively engage in the global society.

Family Engineering, Family Math, or Family Science Events at every school Mathematics Bee Project SEED Robotics (Project Based learning)

Social Studies

Robotics, Engineering & Technology Day (RET)Science Engineering Fair in Metropolitan Detroit Summer Engineering Experience for Kids (SEEK) Camp for grades 3-5 students (Project Basedlearning)

Transportation and Civil Engineering (T.R.A.C.) (Project Based learning) University of Detroit Mercy (UDM), Georgia Tech and DPS Collaborative

Math-Science Center collaboration is one of many programs between Office of Science and Office ofMathematics Education.

Robotics at the Grand Prix Annual Auto races

WSU Math Corp for middle and high school students West Point Leadership and Ethics Conference for students YES! Expo at Ford Field, Companies and universities STEM Career Fair

20

The Office of Social Studies provides rigorous and relevant professional development for teachers andadministrators. Workshops are also offered to parents to assist them in helping their children at home.The office also supports many enrichment programs and activities for students that enhance learningand application of social studies content including:

Teachers are encouraged to use the Powerful and Authentic Social Studies (PASS) model for instruction.This inquiry based model involves the in-depth study of meaningful concepts that require the use ofprimary sources and higher order thinking skills as outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy along with usingstrategies and activities that replicate tasks performed in life beyond the classroom. This model alsorequires integration across content areas and across social studies’ disciplines and allows fordifferentiation of instruction.

In developing curriculum, selecting materials and in instruction: the tenets of African-centerededucation and multicultural education are followed. Particular respect is given to the diversity andequality of mankind and how culture influences learning, behavior and perspectives. Core DemocraticValues; which are common beliefs essential to our society, are infused throughout the curriculum.

Restorative Practices : A social science that promotes and strengthens positive school culture andrelationships District-wide training and ongoing support are provided to schools and support staff.

Anti-Bullying: Creating Good Citizen Programs : Includes a curriculum and programs to assist staffand parents in combating bullying. In the context of the social studies curriculum, teacherspromote anti-bullying while fostering good citizenship. Annual camps, conferences and workshopsare held to promote anti-bullying and good citizenship.

Cultural Heritage Activities : Includes a curriculum that helps students to conduct in-depth studyof cultures using the core social studies’ disciplines, as a culminating activity students are invitedto submit samples of their study and participate in a cultural heritage gala.

Culturally Influenced Social Studies : Includes technology based units built in collaboration withteachers and community that focus on providing perspectives of peoples that are often omittedunintentionally or by design.

Detroit Public Schools’ Social Studies Olympiad : The Social Studies Olympiad is a fun andchallenging competition that encourages students to learn and apply essential concepts.

Financial Literacy Programs : Money Wise programs are offered to all high school economicsstudents. Money Smart Week activities are available to students of all grade levels.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Saturday Academy : This supplemental program willprovide high school students enhanced concentration, mentor support and internship opportunitiesas they gain skills and certificates that will enable them to become GIS professionals.

Mock Elections : Students learn the importance of democracy through mock elections held duringevery major city, state and national election season.

Service Learning Showcase : Students showcase service learning projects that have a curriculumconnection, address a community need, involve research, and include community partnerships and action.

Geographic Information Systems : Online and teacher led courses and after school programs thatlead to certificates and careers in the field of Geographic Information Systems.

21

The District's Office of Foundation for Early Learners offers comprehensive quality programs for studentsstarting at age four. Through the Great Start Readiness Program and Title I, students are provided a full-day early learning experience. Staffed with highly qualified teachers and associate teachers, learning isfacilitated through developmentally appropriate lessons that are scientific and researched based.Students engage in daily activities that foster growth in the eight domains of learning; LanguageDevelopment, Literacy, Mathematics, Science, Creative Arts, Social–Emotional Development, Health-Physical Development, and Nutrition. Detroit Public Schools early childhood programs are dynamic andinclusive, as such students with special needs are welcome in the District’s programs. Intervention andsupport are provided through the Office of Specialized Student Services utilizing the ResourceCoordinating Team model.

During fiscal year 2014, the programs served 3,074 Pre-Kindergarten students in 65 buildings throughoutthe District.

In September 2014, the Detroit Public Schools partnered with two non-profit agencies, DevelopmentCenters, Inc. and Southwest Counseling Solutions, Inc., to offer 16 additional early childhood classroomsfor ages 0-5 opening Head Start pre-kindergarten classrooms at Beard, Earhart, Durfee, Gompers andMark Twain. In total, DPS houses 197 programs to provide over 3,300 eligible four year olds with a highquality early learning experience and 0--3 early learning programming for infants and toddlers at Beard.

Early Childhood Education

Teen Court: In partnership with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, The Teen Courtexperience is designed to reduce the likelihood of incarceration for juvenile misdemeanoroffenders and to foster interest in careers in the legal profession. This program is connected tobasic law and criminal justice courses. Teen Court also promotes positive behavior in the youthfuloffenders and in the students involved in the program.

Teen Leadership Institute : The Teen Leadership Institute is a citywide organization that givesstudents experience in governance. The Institute brings together high school students from acrossthe city to engage in Service Learning Projects, Bill Writing, Mock Jury Trials, ParliamentaryProcedures, Fundraising, Michigan Youth in Government Conferences and other activities thatstrengthen their leadership and communication skills, and prepare them for college and beyond.

International Education Week : This program provides students with information about globaleducational and career opportunities as well as information about various cultures.

Lemonade Day : A cross curricular economics unit that will culminate with students operating abusiness in the form of lemonade stands.

Professional Learning Communities (PLC) : The Office of Social Studies will facilitate ProfessionalLearning Communities around challenging topics and to provide support and updates toparticipants. The PLCs will include: Lead Social Studies Teachers, Culturally Responsive Teaching,Teen Court, Teen Leadership Advisers and Service Learning.

Summer School Programming for grades 3-8 : Summer school will be offered to students in grades3-8 with an emphasis on differentiating instruction and reinforcement of important social studiesconcepts. The summer school courses integrate content across the curriculum.

22

Foundation for Early Learners

Alignment of Key Developmental Indicators (KDI) and Child Observation Record (COR) with Common Core Standards

MathematicsCommon Core Standards KDI COR

English Language Arts - Foundation for Early Learners Prekindergarten students receive rich literacyactivities through the use of effective teaching strategies and meaningful learning experiences,delivered through a scientific-research based methodology developed by the High Scope Foundation. TheHigh Scope Curriculum focuses on dimensions of school readiness that include: approaches to learning,social and emotional development, physical development and health, language, literacy, andcommunication, mathematics, creative arts, science and technology, and social studies. This program isaugmented with supplemental resources that are student centered, promote higher order thinking,decision-making and problem solving skills. The Early Learning Expectations and High Scope KeyDevelopmental Indicators align with the demands of the Common Core Learning Standards reflecting theCommon Core’s emphasis on literacy instruction across disciplines.

Mathematics - Foundation for Early Learners Prekindergarten students receive early math conceptsthrough the use of instructional strategies provided through the High Scope curriculum. The High Scopemath curriculum is a comprehensive set of detailed plans for small and large group activities whichfocus on number, geometry, measurement, algebra, counting, part-whole relationships, shapes,patterns, and data analysis.

The early learning expectations for 3 and 4 year old children support Kindergarten common corestandards by describing the knowledge and skills typically developing children might reasonably beexpected to acquire as a result of experiencing a quality learning environment in the preschool years.

32. Counting: Children count things.

BB. Counting

The Early Math Learning Expectations (ELE) along with High Scope Key Developmental Indicators (KDI)are in alignment with the Math Common Core Standards. The chart below gives a brief design that alignsthe Early Math Learning Expectations and High Scope KDI’s with Common Core Standards (CCSS).

Counting and Cardinality Knownumber names and the countsequence

E. Mathematics VI. Mathematics and Science

K.CC.1 Count to 100 by ones and bytens.

K.CC.2 Count forward beginningfrom a given number within theknown sequence (instead of havingto begin at 1).


VI. Mathematics and Science

K.CC.3 Write numbers from 0 to 20.Represent a number of objectswith a written numeral 0-20 (with 0representing a count of noobjects).

BB. Counting

Count to tell the number of objects E. Mathematics V. Language and Literacy

E. Mathematics

23

K.CC.6 Identify whether thenumber of objects in one group isgreater than, less than, or equal tothe number of objects in anothergroup, e.g., by using matching andcounting strategies. (Include groupswith up to ten objects.)

a. When counting objects, say thenumber names in the standardorder, pairing each object with oneand only one number name andeach number name with one andonly one object.


b. Understand that the last numbername said tells the number ofobjects counted. The number ofobjects is the same regardless oftheir arrangement or the order inwhich they were counted.c.Understand that each successivenumber name refers to a quantitythat is one larger.

32. Counting: Children count things.+

BB. Counting


BB. Counting

K.CC.7 Compare two numbersbetween 1 and 10 presented aswritten numerals.

31. Number words and symbols: Children recognize and use number words and symbols.

K.CC.5 Count to answer “howmany?” questions about as many as20 things arranged in a line, arectangular array, or a circle, or asmany as 10 things in a scatteredconfiguration; given a number from1-20, count out that many objects.

Compare numbers E. Mathematics VI. Mathematics and Science

K.CC.4 Count to tell the number ofobjects. Understand therelationship between numbers andquantities; connect counting tocardinality.

31. Number words and symbols: Children recognize and use number words and symbols. 32. Counting: Children count things.

X. Writing

E. Mathematics

Common Core Standards KDI COR

24


BB. Counting


BB. Counting


BB. Counting


BB. Counting


BB. Counting

E. Mathematics

33. Part-whole relationships: Children combine and separate quantities of objects.

E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics

33. Part-whole relationships: Children combine and separate quantities of objects.

Work with numbers 11-19 to gainfoundations for place value

K.NBT.1 Compose and decomposenumbers from 11 to 19 into tenones and some further ones, e.g.,by using objects or drawings, andrecord each composition ordecomposition by a drawing orequation (such as 18 = 10 + 8);understand that these numbers arecomposed of ten ones and one,two, three, four, five, six, seven,eight, or nine ones.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking

Understand addition as puttingtogether and adding to, andunderstand subtraction as takingapart and taking from.

K.OA.1 Represent addition andsubtraction with objects, fingers,mental images, drawings (drawingsneed not show details, but shouldshow the mathematics in theproblem), sounds (e.g., claps),acting out situations, verbalexplanations, expressions, orequations.

K.OA.2 Solve addition andsubtraction word problems, andadd and subtract within 10, e.g.,by using objects or drawings torepresent the problem.

K.OA.3 Decompose numbers lessthan or equal to 10 into pairs inmore than one way, e.g., by usingobjects or drawings, and recordeach decomposition by a drawingor equation (e.g., 5 = 2 + 3 and 5 =4 + 1).

Number and Operations In Base Ten VI. Mathematics and Science

25


E. Mathematics

34. Shapes: Children identify, name, and describe shapes.35. Spatial awareness: Children recognize spatial relationships among people and objects.

E. Mathematics

34. Shapes: Children identify, name, and describe shapes.

K.G.1 Describe objects in theenvironment using names ofshapes, and describe the relativepositions of these objects usingterms such as above, below,beside, in front of, behind, andnext to.

I. Mathematics and Science

CC.Identifying position and direction EE. Identifying materials and properties


EE. Identifying materials and properties


BB. Counting

K.OA.4 For any number from 1 to 9,find the number that makes 10when added to the given number,e.g., by using objects or drawings,and record the answer with adrawing or equation.

Understand addition as puttingtogether and adding to, andunderstand subtraction as takingapart and taking from.

K.OA.5 Fluently - add and subtractwithin 5.

E. Mathematics


Measurement and Data

Classify objects and count thenumber of objects in eachcategory.

K.MD.3 Classify objects into givencategories; count the numbers ofobjects in each category and sortthe categories by count. (Limitcategory counts to be less than orequal to 10.)

E. Mathematics

32. Counting: Children count things.34. Shapes: Children identify, name, and describe shapes.


Y. Sorting objects BB. Counting

Geometry

Identify and describe shapes (suchas squares, circles, triangles,rectangles, hexagons, cubes,cones, cylinders, and spheres)

26






AA. Comparing properties


III. Creative Representation

I. Making and building models

K.G.4 Analyze and compare two-and three- dimensional shapes, indifferent sizes and orientations,using informal language to describetheir similarities, differences, parts(e.g., number of sides andvertices/“corners”) and otherattributes (e.g., having sides ofequal length).

K.G.5 Model shapes in the world bybuilding shapes from components(e.g., sticks and clay balls) anddrawing shapes.

K.G.6 Compose simple shapes toform larger shapes. For example,"can you join these two triangleswith full sides touching to make arectangle?”

Identify and describe shapes (suchas squares, circles, triangles,rectangles, hexagons, cubes,cones, cylinders, and spheres)

K.G.2. Correctly name shapesregardless of their orientations oroverall size.

E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics


E. Mathematics


K.G.3 Identify shapes as two-dimensional (lying in a plane,“flat”) or three-dimensional(“solid”).



Analyze, compare, create, andcompose shapes.

Science and Technology – Foundation for Early Learners Prekindergarten students receive early scienceconcepts through the use of the High Scope curriculum. High Scope implements early science throughthe use of instructional strategies which include observing early learners as they explore their world byclassifying, experimenting, predicting, drawing conclusions, and communicating ideas. Early childhoodstudents are also encouraged to use technology in the classroom. Many of the classrooms haveinteractive white boards and desk top computers to ensure the youngest students are equipped with thenecessary skills to operate in a global society. In addition, teachers are involved in professionaldevelopment to assist with the teaching and learning of the current trends in technology for earlychildhood education.

Social Studies - Foundation for Early Learners Prekindergarten students receive early social skillsconcepts through the use of the High Scope curriculum instructional strategies. Those strategies includeengaging students in key areas of social learning such as: self-identify sense of competence, emotions,empathy, community, building relationships, cooperative play, moral development, and conflictresolution.

27

••••••••••••••••••

Vision and Hearing Screening

PNC Grow up Great - The PNC Grow Up Great Initiative has an Executive Readership Program. Thisinitiative allows PNC executives an opportunity to read the first Tuesday of every month for 1 hour in 28Grow Up Great classrooms. The 15 executives read a different book each month for the entire schoolyear. During the visit, the executive reads the book and then engages the students with an activitybased on the literature. Finally, the book is donated to the classroom to support the PNC Grow Up Greatclassroom library.

Summer Academy – The Foundation for Early Learners provide a Summer Academy for pre-kindergartenstudents. Instruction includes daily developmentally appropriate practices which will provideopportunities for an integrated technology, writing, literacy, mathematics, science and art curriculum.

Volunteer Reading Corps – The Volunteer Reading Corps program is an early intervention plan createdby the District and The Detroit Free Press. This initiative depends on volunteers to tutor students inreading. Each volunteer is asked to serve at least an hour a week. The program’s organizers have set upa 30 minute structured module which is used with individual/group of students on a weekly basis. Duringthis period, observation by teachers and evaluation by way of the Michigan Educational AssessmentProgram will track each student’s progress. The goal is for each tutor to continue working with the samechild prekindergarten through third grade.

Wrap-around Services – Critical to meeting the needs of general and special education students are thesupport structures to teaching and learning rigorous content. These structures ensure a safe, stable andnurturing school environment for students, which include:

In the ELE and Key Developmental Indicators align with the demands of the Common Core LearningStandards reflecting the Common Core’s emphasis on literacy instruction across disciplines.

Extended Learning Opportunities - The Foundation for Early Learners provide students with a variety ofextended learning opportunities in literacy to ensure all students are provided the additional supportand time needed to meet and exceed ELA expectations.

Guidance CounselorsAttendance AgentsPsychologist Social Workers Speech and Language Services, and Occupational TherapistPhysical Therapist Music TherapistTeacher consultants for each disability

Teaching and Learning Support

Uniform VouchersTransportation services for general and special education studentsHomeless student supportMigrant student supportSafe Routes to SchoolUniversal Breakfast, Lunch and SnackAnti-bulling InitiativesHomebound services for ill students

28

•

••

• Spring administration of the M-Step in grades 3-8 and 11

Comprehensive Assessment Programs

To support teaching and learning, Detroit Public Schools implemented a comprehensive assessmentprogram that is aligned with the curriculum and includes a variety of evaluation methods designed toassess and monitor student progress. These include:

In support of the District’s mission to ensure achievement of high academic standards by all students,the District’s Professional Development Plan is premised on delivering research-based learningexperiences aimed at advancing performance for all teachers, support staff and administrators. As arelated objective, the Professional Development Plan also charts pathways for professional growth andcareer advancement that will produce a highly efficient and well-trained workforce. The end-result willbe increased student achievement by ensuring that each child receives quality instruction from a highlyeffective teacher throughout their learning experiences in Detroit Public Schools. At the end of the2014-2015 school year, Detroit Public Schools had an increase in the number of teachers attendingprofessional development sessions across the district. We believe the increase can be attributed to thehigh-quality professional development offered from various departments. There was also aconcentrated effort of support provided to teachers that had previously been labeled minimallyeffective and ineffective through job-embedded professional development at the school level andservices provided through the district level instructional specialists in the content areas.

Differentiated Learning approach to Professional Development

Content: What?

A process framework will be implemented that displays the knowledge and skills (content) expectationsfor the District's professional development. The framework will include processes that depictprioritized, essential, expected and enriched learning experiences for all instructional professional andparaprofessional roles driven by student performance data. One of the examples that we will highlightthat was put in place is the emphasis on personalized professional development for staff. Teachers,paraprofessionals and administrators were able to take advantage of on-demand professionaldevelopment through our Professional Development Portal – PD360. The portal contains thousands ofvideos that enhance teaching practice by providing actual classroom footage of teachers instructingusing best practices, as well as strategies presented by leading educators and researchers such as RobertMarzano and Charlotte Danielson.

Examining trends in MEAP and MME data over the course of the last 3 years to determine areas offocusAdministration of the STAR Reading and Mathematics in Grades K-12Administration of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Assessment for students in grades Kthrough 11 to assess student growth in the academic areas of reading, language usage,mathematics, and science.

District-wide Professional Development

29

••••

•

•••

•

•

•••

The District has undertaken a systemic overhaul of its professional development planning process toimplement a results-oriented model that:

The District will incorporate a reflective study that improves quality teaching and learning by requiringthat all professional development is measured and monitored. The development of essential knowledgeand skills is accomplished through job-embedded professional learning. This view reflects a belief thatteachers’ knowledge and skills are dynamic rather than static. In other words, knowledge aboutteaching is continually generated through the study and reflection of their teaching practices.Professional growth is guided by beliefs, quality teaching and data driven practices and is critical tosuccessful implementation. DPS has a comprehensive teacher evaluation and professional growthsystem that allows educators to monitor their instructional practices and receive feedback fromadministrators. The system begins with teachers developing a professional learning plan (PLP) andsetting goals in the areas that they would like to strengthen their practice. Administrators review theplans and help the educators monitor their progress through periodic observations and post-observationconferences.

Context: Why?

Professional learning is driven by student results, i.e. NWEA-MAP, MEAP, MME, Pre-and Post-tests andother student performance measures. The theory of action that drives the District is building the beliefthat all children can learn and building the capacity of adults to help them do so. This belief drives theDistrict’s professional development design: clear, appropriate targets, belief in the capacities ofchildren (and the adults who teach them), and use of data to evaluate progress and aid in formulation ofstrategy. The belief is that effective effort by students is the key to high-level learning, and the use ofclear targets and data drives transformative strategies. In order for student achievement to increase,we must invest time in professional development for our teachers, administrators, and support staff.Ongoing professional development is provided for all of the content areas on a monthly basis.

Detroit Public Schools professional development activities must:

Process: How?

Offers sustained professional learning reinforced through targeted follow-up support activitiesAligns PD activities with District goals, student instructional needs, and individual teacher needsProvides a tiered level of support for professional learning based on the school’s accountabilitylevelOffers professional development that aligns to the State’s Differentiated AccountabilityrequirementsExpands the depth of specific professional learning experiences while narrowing the focus toemphasize research-based professional development that directly impacts teaching and learningReduces isolated workshopsIncreases the availability of school-based offeringsFacilitates coordination among the District and Regional staff that provide and overseeprofessional development

Have a clear focus on learning and learnersTarget both individual and organizational changeMake small changes guided by an overarching visionBe ongoing and procedurally embedded to reinforce and promote learning

Improves student achievement through the monitoring of each employee’s development andensures that each student has a highly effective educator as their instructor

30

••••

I.a.

i.

ii.

iii.

II.i.

ii.

III.

i.

ii.

IV.V.

VI.

VII.i.ii.iii.

Some of our accomplishments during the 2014-2015 school year include the following:

Technology Readiness Infrastructure TrainingUtilizing Technology to Differentiate Instruction

Multiple sources of student achievement data

To ensure that the Professional Development Plan targets District-wide professional development needs,the plan incorporates data and information collected from the following sources:

The District's professional development accommodates diverse methods of professional learning,spanning collective training opportunities for broader audiences as well as targeted professionaldevelopment to support individual growth. In addition to ensuring that new skills are applied toclassroom instruction as a result of participation in professional development activities, continuousmonitoring allows the District to chart future professional development needs. Information collected bymonitoring PD services and knowledge transfer will identify strengths and weaknesses in curriculum,instruction, and professional development that will in turn shape future instructional and professionaldevelopment programs. The monitoring of professional development thus becomes an active agent in anongoing process of continuous improvement.

The regular assessment of professional learning activities also aids the District in establishing meaningfullong-range benchmarks that gauge broader programmatic impact. By identifying specific objectives, theDistrict can measure tangible results yielded by professional development initiatives and assess theimplications of those results.

Needs assessment surveys of instructional personnel and school-based administratorsDistrict strategic goalsApplicable State and Federal mandates

45 Schools engaged in an initiative to build capacity at the teacher and student level on the use of digital resources to increase student engagement.Teachers were able to participate in online modules facilitated by representatives in their schools on how to integrate technology in all areas of the curriculum.

2-day follow-up workshops with district level instructional specialists to learn the techniques of training at an optimal level.

Training Instructional Specialists in Training Techniques

Ongoing workshops to teach teachers how to utilize netbooks, ipads, tablets, document cameras, data projectors, Interactive whiteboards, and classroom response systems. (3 to 5 year implementation).

Guidance and techniques from the Bob Pike Train-the-Trainer center in motivational and engaging strategies to utilize with teachers to keep students interested in learning (2 year implementation)

3 staff members within the Office of Professional Development have become certified trainers for BbCCompleted 25 + hours of training and passed the assessment to obtain certification (Obtained Spring 2013)

The Introduction of Restorative Practices

Certified Trainers in the Use of Blackboard Collaborate (Online Collaboration platform that supports virtual classrooms and mobile learning)

Observations – administrators conduct 3-4 observations throughout the year to provide constructive feedback to teachers around the goals that they have set and give opportunities to measure growth.Student Growth – teachers are able to access their effectiveness through the examination of how students are learning within their classes (district level data (NWEA-MAP and interim assessments used as benchmarks). Continued Training for the District in Restorative Practices

Key central office staff members received trainingSupport staff were selected to support training and implementation of modelA comprehensive Implementation Plan was implemented

31

The District applied for and received Grant funds form the U.S. Department of Education incollaboration with the U. S. Department of Education of Justice to assist in the development of practicesand strategies to enhance school climate. The District was awarded in the amount of $705,797 inFederal funding to continue the process of building positive school climates by implementing theMDE/.MIBLSI framework district-wide. With the School Climate and Culture Grant, there will be anoption to renew over the next five years based on implementation data.

Mathematics Block - Students are offered a 90- minute mathematics block to provide all studentsadditional time for instruction, intervention and support for learning. The mathematics block providesactivities that focus students’ work on cross-curricular connections, multiple representations,differentiated instruction, RtI intervention, project based learning, mathematics vocabulary building,Marzano 10, and ongoing progress monitoring to inform instructional decisions, and more.

Literacy Block - students are offered meaningful literacy activities that engage them in authenticreading and writing throughout the 90-minute literacy time block. The 90-minute literacy block includesmodeled or shared reading, word work, guided reading, independent reading, literature study andindependent study work in centers, and follow-up to specific lessons.

Extended Day - provides students in grades 3-8 additional support, intervention, and acceleration in theareas of reading and mathematics. Each day the students experience an extended 2 ½ hours ofinstructional time. The Extended Day program includes 1-hour for reading, 1-hour for math, 20 minutesfor a nutritional snack break and 5 minutes for both class change and dismissal.

The District works collaboratively with Wayne State University using grant funds to offer a programdesigned to address the professional development of highly qualified special education teachers inmathematics. The goal is to provide 90 hours of research-based and collaboratively plannedprofessional development (organized around district, State and national standards) to deepen knowledgein mathematics. This is the fifth year of the program and 25 teachers have been selected annually.

The District works collaboratively with Wayne State University using “Project Pathways Teach Grant”funds which offer a $5,000 dollar Scholarship to non-certified candidates who are interested in teachingin the critical shortage areas of Bilingual and Special Education. The goal of the partnership is toincrease the pool of qualified teachers in both of these high need content areas. Candidates must beemployed in one of the following District classifications: Education Technician, Non- certified SubstituteTeacher, School Service Assistant, Special Education Aide, and Special Education Trainable Aide.Candidates must have accumulated at least 64 credit hours with a 2.5 cumulative GPA from anaccredited College or University. Candidates must commit to completing a Michigan teachercertification program and remain employed with the District for at least five years.

The District applied for and was awarded through an application process funding to initiate the(MIBLSI/MTSS), Michigan Integrated Behavior Learning Support Initiative/ Multi-Tiered System ofSupport. The project is designed to help schools develop an integrated model of school-wide system ofsupport in reading and behavior. The practices are provided by staff to improve student outcomes. Thesystems are the structures created to support staff in implementing successful practices. Information isused for decision making, identifying appropriate (evidence-based) practices that meet student need,evaluation of student outcomes as a result of the practices, and evaluation of the structure to supportstaff implementation efforts. There are currently 12 schools utilizing this initiative and we areexpanding the program throughout the District over the next few years.

Extended Learning Opportunities

The District continues to provide students with a variety extended learning opportunities to ensure allstudents are provided the additional support and time needed to meet and exceed expectations:

32

•••••••

•••

Parent Advisory Council on Student Achievement (PACSA)

This cohort of parents will be trained to focus on the academic improvement of all students in theschool. The training will include using data related to academic performance to make suggestions to theleadership of the school.

The ultimate goal is to build capacity in all interested adults to support the efforts of the school and itsstudents, teachers and principal. Each member of the cohort must complete 15-20 hours successfully ofthe targeted curriculum in order to be certified as a PACSA Member. The curriculum consists of:

The District, through a partnership with Detroit Parent Network, operated eight parent resource centersthat are comfortable spaces for parents and guardians to meet. The in-school centers, which aregeographically placed across the city, provide training and resources to parents of the District'sstudents, helping them be involved in their children's education.

Parent and Community Engagement 2.0 is a plan to increase parent involvement through new school-based Parent Resource Centers, ongoing training camps that focus on parenting, workshops and more.This Title I initiative was developed with input from parents and guardians, community leaders and theDetroit Parent Network.

Parent Advisory Council on Student Achievement (PAC-SA)

The District, through a partnership with Detroit Parent Network, operated eight parent resource centersthat are comfortable spaces for parents and guardians to meet. The in-school centers, which aregeographically placed across the city, provide training and resources to parents of the District'sstudents, helping them be involved in their children's education.

Understanding School DataSchool Culture and ClimateTitle I Parent InvolvementPresentation SkillsConducting Productive Meetings

PACSA members must attend a “Corporate Citizenship Conference” to:

Conflict ResolutionCorporate Support for Academic Initiatives

share the academic strategyinform on participation opportunitiesunderstand what commitment looks like get their commitment to adopt a cluster of schools

Parent and Community Engagement Opportunities

Parent and Community Engagement 2.0 is a plan to increase parent involvement through new school-based Parent Resource Centers, ongoing training camps that focus on parenting, workshops and more.This Title I initiative was developed with input from parents and guardians, community leaders and theDetroit Parent Network.

Summer Enrichment Academy - the District provides a Summer Academy for students grades 3 through8. Students received differentiated instruction based on a personalized curriculum that includedstandards based lessons for reading and hands-on materials for mathematics at each grade level.Students participated in classes that integrated technology, writing, literacy, and mathematicscurriculum into their classes.

Credit Recovery – Students in grades 9-12 who need to recovery credits for classes are provided anopportunity. Credit recovery includes course offerings in the four core content areas. Students areafforded the option of participating in one or both of two eight-week credit recovery sessions.

33

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

The requirement in ESEA Section 1114 (a) (1) that a school have a poverty percentage of 40percent or more in order to operate a school-wide program. The MDE and the State EducationAgency (SEA) requests this waiver so that an LEA may implement interventions consistent with theturnaround principles or interventions that are based on the needs of the students in the schooland designed to enhance the entire educational program in a school in any of its Priority andFocus schools that meet the definitions of “Priority schools” and “Focus schools,” respectively, setforth in the document titled ESEA Flexibility, as appropriate, even if those schools do not have apoverty percentage of 40 percent or more.

ESEA Section 1117 (c) (2) (A) - that authorizes an SEA to reserve Title I, Part A funds to reward aTitle I school that (1) significantly closed the achievement gap between subgroups in the school;or (2) has exceeded AYP for two (2) or more consecutive years. The SEA requests this waiver sothat it may use funds reserved under ESEA Section 1117 (c) (2) (A) for any of the State’s Rewardschools that meet the definition of “Reward schools” set forth in the document titled ESEAFlexibility.

The flexibility to establish new Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) using the 2014-2015proficiency rates as the baseline and allowing schools nine (9) years to achieve 85 percentproficiency. ESEA Section 1116 - The approval of Michigan’s request changes the identificationmethod of schools not making AYP and adds a mechanism for recognizing schools that are makingsignificant gains toward and/or meeting rigorous AYP benchmarks.

ESEA Section 1003 (a) - The SEA requests this waiver so that it may allocate section 1003 (a) fundsto its LEAs in order to serve any of the State’s Priority and Focus schools that meet the definitionsof “Priority schools” and “Focus schools,” respectively, set forth in the document titled ESEAFlexibility.

ESEA Sections 1116 (a) (1) (A)-(B) and 1116 (c) (1) (A) - Michigan’s waiver aligns District and schoolAYP determinations with the State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, andsupport system. The SEA and its LEAs must report on their performance against the AMOs for allsubgroups identified in ESEA Section 1111(b) (2) (C) (v), and use performance against the AMOs tosupport continuous improvement in Title I schools that are not Reward schools, Priority schools, orFocus schools.

ESEA Section 1116 (b) (c) – Exemption from Local Education Agency’s (LEA’s) and their Title Ischools having to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, aTitle I school that fails, for two (2) consecutive years or more, to make AYP, and for a school soidentified and its LEA to take certain improvement actions.

Michigan School Accountability Scorecards

Beginning with the 2011-2012 school year, per the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), implications for not making accountability targets shifted from the AYP Michigan School Report Cards to the Top-to-Bottom list. The Michigan School Accountability Scorecard replaces the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)Report Card that was required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The AccountabilityScorecards incorporates AYP determinations as required by Federal law. On July 19, 2012, the UnitedStates Department of Education approved Michigan’s ESEA Flexibility Wavier Request. Michiganrequested flexibility renewal in ten (10) out of fourteen (14) ESEA provisions. The United StatesDepartment of Education renewed Michigan’s ESEA Flexibility request on August 13, 2015. Michigan’sapproved ESEA Flexibility Renewal allows for the following waivers for accountability:

34

1)a.b.c.d.e.f.g.

2)3)4)5)

1)2)

The Michigan School Accountability Scorecards include indicators for assessment participation andproficiency on MEAP, MI-Access, and MME. The Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP),Michigan Department of Education’s new summative assessment will replace the MEAP on the 2015-2016Scorecard. The M-STEP measures student growth. English language arts and mathematics are assessedin Grades 3–8, science in Grades 4 and 7, and social studies in Grades 5 and 8. It also includes theMichigan Merit Examination in 11th grade, which consists of a college entrance exam, work skillsassessment, and M-STEP summative assessments in English language arts, mathematics, science andsocial studies. Scorecards also include indicators for attendance or graduation rates, educatoreffectiveness label-reporting completion rates, teacher-student data link collection completion rates,Accreditation School System Review (SSR), Self-Assessment (SA) or the Interim Self-Assessment (ISA)report completion and School Improvement Plan (SIP) report completion.

Participation

A school must test 95 percent of its students in total and in each required student subgroup defined bythe Federal law. The subgroups are:

Racial/Ethnic Groups

Bottom 30%

Black or African American

Attendance Rate for elementary and middle schools

American Indian or Alaska NativeAsian AmericanNative Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoWhiteMultiracial

Districts are treated as a single entity. The District’s Michigan School Accountability Scorecard status isno longer based on determinations at each level (elementary school, middle school, high school).Instead of attendance, graduation rates will be included in overall District Scorecard calculations, unlessthe District did not have a graduation rate calculated for it.

Other Academic Indicators

In addition, the school must meet or exceed the other academic indicators, one of which is attendanceor graduation rate, as set by the State:

These achievement goals must be reached for each subgroup that has at least thirty (30) Full AcademicYear (FAY) students in the group.

Objective

The school must attain its differentiated target achievement goal in reading, writing, mathematics,science and social studies for all students and each subgroup indicated above or reduce the percentageof students in the non-proficient category of achievement by Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor has beensuspended until the 2016-2017 school year.

Students with DisabilitiesLimited English ProficientEconomically Disadvantaged

Graduation Rate for the District and high schools

35

Is in the top 5% of schools onthe improvement metric in theTop-to-Bottom ranking.

Reward Schools

School will be recognized for their achievementsthrough communication disseminated to localmedia.

Promising practices will be highlighted atconference i.e., the Michigan Department ofEducation’s (MDE’s) School ImprovementConference etc.

School and District Set Aside

School will be recognized for their achievementsthrough communication disseminated to localmedia.

Promising practices will be highlighted atconference i.e., the Michigan Department ofEducation’s (MDE’s) School ImprovementConference etc.

Schools in the top 5% of the Top-to-Bottom ranking. Also includesany school that:

Michigan School Accountability Scorecard Met/Not Met

Schools cannot receive “green” status on SchoolReport Card or AYP until gaps are minimized

District Support for Focus schools required

Is designated as a "Beating theOdds" school.

Is in the top 5% of schools onthe improvement metric in theTop-to-Bottom ranking.

Schools in the top 5% of the Top-to-Bottom ranking. Also includesany school that:

Is designated as a "Beating theOdds" school.

Schools are identified as No Status, Priority, Focus or Reward schools based on the Top-to Bottommethodology that includes data from achievement, improvement and achievement gap standardizedscores.

Turnaround Model Transformation Model Restart Model School Closure

MDE will provide support: Analyzing achievement data Facilitating professional dialogue Customizing interventions Target efforts toward supporting needs oflowest achievers in the school (likely throughstrengthening or recalibrating the multi-tieredsystem of support)

IdentificationPriority School

Focus School

DescriptionSchools in the bottom 5% of theTop-to-Bottom ranking.

Schools with the largestachievement gaps defined as thedifference between the averagescale score for the top 30% ofstudents and the bottom 30% ofstudents

The renewed ESEA Flexibility Wavier will allow MDE to establish new Differentiated Proficiency Targetsusing the 2015-2016 school year as the baseline, allowing schools nine (9) years to achieve 85 percentproficiency.

ConsequenceSchools designated as Priority schools mustimplement one (1) of or four (4) interventionmodels:

36

Exited Priority

Schools as of

2013‐2014

20 0 0

I.II.III.IV.V.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI.XII.

Purple The District/School has met all applicable Participation and Compliance Factor

requirements; have no Full Academic Year (FAY) students.

5 1

42

2013‐2014

Compiled Number of Schools

We are actively working to address the District issues through our 2013-2017 Strategic Plan, “TheNeighborhood-Centered, Quality Schools,” available online at http://detroitk12.org/strategicplanning.

Foster School-Based LeadershipCelebrate and Promote Success

Status

22

October 2015

Number of Schools

Priority

FocusReward

Specific curriculum actions are based on the District’s strategic plan to:

Broaden Services to Address Student NeedsSupport Parents and FamiliesOffer Broad/High Quality ProgramsImprove Customer ServiceCreate Safe Learning EnvironmentsTransform Central and School based services to serve customers betterImprove TechnologyMinimize the Impacts of Change

Ensure Fiscal StabilityImprove Attendance and Discipline

1 5

The ESEA flexibility waiver covering the 2014-15 school year recognizes assessment transitions and theimpacts on accountability. Transition data will be available late fall 2015.

As of October 1, 2015, the District currently has twenty-two (22) Priority schools, one (1) Focus Schooland five (5) Reward Schools. The 2013-2014 school year was the first time schools were able to exit fromthe Priority status. Twenty (20) schools were exited. The identification of Priority and Focus schoolshas been suspended until the 2016-2017 school year.

The Michigan School Accountability Scorecard replaces the AYP Met and Not met with a five (5)-colorscale.

Green

Lime

Yellow

Orange

The District/School has attained 85% or greater of the possible Accountability

Scorecard points.

The District/School has attained at least 70% but less than 85% of the possible

Accountability Scorecard points.





The District/School has attained less than 50% of the possible Accountability

Scorecard points.

Red

37

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

••

•

•

-

-

Four (4) Core Strategies

Goal 5 - Improve customer service at every “touch point” of work-parents, unions, staff and thepublic

Goal 1 - Improve student achievement as measured by:

50% of students in Grades 2 through 10 meeting or exceeding their Measures of AcademicProgress (MAP) one-year growth target Increase in the average composite ACT score for Grade 11 students by at least one-halfpercentage point above 2013 averages Realize a graduation rate of 95% for all incoming Grade 12 students and 75% of graduatingseniors enrolled/applied in post-secondary education

Goal 2 - Daily average attendance rate of 90% or better

Goal 4 - Reduce the District’s $72 million legacy deficit by 20%

Goal 3 - Enhanced policies, procedures and operational efficiency in order to achieve fiscal year2013 budget

Additionally, we will continue to focus on the following District-wide goals and core strategies:

District-wide Goals

Build strong relationships with students, families, and the community to increase trust andshared responsibility. Ensuring that every classroom has a high quality effective educator, supported by high-quality effective administrators and support staff. Align resources to accomplish priorities within a balanced budget.

The District's students live in a digital world and a global society, and so must be prepared for thechallenges of a dynamic, digital world. Currently, the District utilizes technology in a variety of ways.The list below is a compilation of current and future usage:

Learning in the Digital Age

core and supplementary technology-based interventions in core subject areas;24/7 applications for remediation, acceleration, and enrichment that truly extend learningbeyond the bell;online access to textbooks, instructional materials, and library research databases;

Parent CONNECT

organization of learning resources: lessons plans, pacing guides, and instructional focus calendarson the DPS Hub; Data Director—a program that allows teachers to utilize test data to drive instruction in theclassroom. So far, more than 4,000 teachers have successfully accessed the program, many ofwhich use it daily.

Detroit Public Schools parents can now access a variety of education resources, includingonline textbooks and class assignments, for their children from anywhere with an Internetconnection, thanks to a brand new robust online parent portal.

The online portal is part of a District-wide strategy to accelerate the District'stransformation into a 21st-century learning environment by enabling parents to continuestudents' education at home after school hours and on weekends.

Provide a high quality, well-rounded educational experience to all students that is rigorous,relevant, and engaging.

38

School Reform Initiative

Technology Integration: Additionally, the District, through its professional development efforts,emphasizes the need for all teachers to integrate technology into their classroom instruction to theextent possible to foster creative thinking with the vision that technology can be used comprehensivelyand purposefully to support students in mastering the full range of what they need to learn. The goal isto integrate technology as a fundamental building block of the curriculum and ensure that our studentsare globally aware, civically engaged, and fluent in information, media and technology skills. Forexample, multimedia applications and Internet resources can help students visualize, explore andmaster core academic concepts. Students can use technology to dig deeply into research topics, workwith others to shape their own projects and present their knowledge creatively. Technology in thedistrict includes, White Boards, NBC Learn, Blackboard Collaborative, computers, iPads, graphingcalculators, document cameras, probeware, and utilizing the internet for educational purposes. Duringthe Summer Learning Academy, when the focus was on Science and Social Studies, participating schoolsreceived access to Discovery Education and SPARK Learning systems to aid with Science instruction.

District Options: Over the past decade, virtual education, in its contemporary form of asynchronous,computer-generated interaction between a teacher and students over the Internet, has grown from anovelty to an established mode of education that recent statistics indicate may provide all or part offormal schooling for nearly one in every 50 students in the United States. The District provides severaloptions for distance learning or virtual schooling to students.

Virtual Education

Online Secondary Courses: For several years, students have been able to enroll in online secondarycourses through the Michigan Virtual School (MVS), on a part-time basis. MVS is the District’s part-timesupplemental program. The school opened in 2003 and offers high school courses for students seekingadditional course work and/or credit recovery. Courses are franchised from Michigan Virtual School andare taught by District teachers. Students in need of a computer to matriculate are loaned laptops fromthe District. MVS is funded through the Enhancing Education through Technology Grant.

Additionally, students can take courses directly with MVS. MVS offers a wide array of middle and highschool courses. Students must be enrolled in a public or private school or be registered with theDistrict’s home education office to participate in MVS courses.

Detroit Public Schools Online Academy: The District is moving forward with plans to offer robustopportunities for K-12 students to enroll in online courses with the ultimate goal of establishing anonline academy.

In August 2012, Michael Flanagan, Superintendent of the Michigan Department of Education publishedthe 2013-2014 Priority Schools list. Priority Schools (formerly known as Persistently Lowest AchievingSchools and SIG) are public schools identified in the bottom 5% of the statewide Top to Bottom ranking.The priority school designation reflects minimal performance on the MEAP writing, reading math,science, and Social Studies. For high schools, graduation rate are also factored into the overall score.As a result, Priority schools must construct a reform/redesign plan that focuses on rapid turnaround tosignificantly improve student achievement. Schools in the Priority Group must complete a four yearcycle of improvement.

Forty-Two (42) District elementary, middle and high schools are Priority Schools. Twenty-six (26) of theDistrict’s Priority Schools sit at the lowest 5% of the state achievement metric. As such, each schoolmust create a reform/redesign plan that addresses the deficiencies outlined in the achievement gaps.To support this effort Superintendent Karen Ridgeway has charged the District's Office of SchoolTurnaround, and the Office of School Improvement to assist principals and school team with writing areform plan that meets the State standards.

39

•••••

Talent management

The District’s support of the Priority schools is part of the broader district-wide strategy for improvingteaching and learning. The District’s Academic Plan outlines the following commitments:

High quality teaching and learning Rigorous, transparent and continuous improvement cycle

Over 3,000 new laptop and desktop computers were deployed into the district’s classrooms as a part ofthe ongoing hardware refresh program. Classrooms also saw the introduction of new Dell Venue tabletsrunning Windows 8.1 to replace the aging Asus netbook hardware. In 50% of the district’s classroomsthat contain the oldest telecommunication equipment, a Voice over IP (VoIP) phone system install iscurrently underway. This strategy is in an effort to help parents communicate with teachers and schooladministrators.

The District’s alignment of support to the Priority Schools with the District’s Academic Plan is designedto provide sustainability for the reform models selected for each school.

The Division of Technology and Information Services provides the technology blueprint for bestpractices, policies, procedures and service levels that are consistent with the objectives of DetroitPublic Schools. The division continues to review and update its strategy; and take advantage of grantsand other funding sources to enable the academic program core, by providing more digital capacity.

Technology

Support from Detroit Public Schools' Academic Department will include wrap around services from theOffices of: Mathematics, Literacy, Social Studies and Science. The disaggregation of school and studentdata will be facilitated through the Office of Evaluation, Research, and Assessment (OERAS) supportingschools with cohort, longitudinal, and performance data. Providing a Michigan Statewide System ofSupport are District Representatives Wayne County Regional Educational Association (Wayne RESA);Michigan State University; and the Michigan Department of Education State Reform Officer.

A Needs Assessment was conducted to determine the best reform model for the schools. Based upon thedata evaluated the District selected the following reform models: Eighteen (18) Turnaround and twenty-four (24) Transformations. Selected Reform Models are aligned with the State’s requirements for priorityschools.

This year the division achieved its goals with quality. The district completed its participation in thetechnology readiness pilot with more than 2.2 Million tests taken. These achievements set the stage fora successful 2015 on-line testing season. The district was first in the number of successful MSTEP tests(more than 97,000) taken; and the total percentage of tests taken, out of the total possible number oftests that could be taken was more than 94%.

The division developed and launched over 100 individual school websites; and in partnership with theOffice of Communications, an iPhone app to provide additional resources to connect people to DPS.These websites and the app allow each school to communicate directly to their students, parents andfaculty members all of the activities that are important to their individual program. Some of the keyfeatures included on these platforms are: event calendars, athletic schedules, parent notices andenrollment information.

Customer service approach to community and each other A secure, inclusive and dynamic culture.

This past winter, the division began upgrading all of the fiber optic network connections to the schoolswhich increased the available maximum bandwidth limit for each location to 10Gbps. The district’srouters, firewalls, content filters and Intrusion Prevention System were also upgraded last summer tohandle a full 20Gbps connection speed to the Internet. All of these network improvements are managedand served out of the recently upgraded district centralized data center.

40

As the new fiscal year opens, the division will begin the migration of all staff and student accounts toOffice 365 for use during the 2015-2016 school year. This cloud-based suite of software products andutilities includes several key components that will move the district forward on a single platform tocommunicate, collaborate and educate district students. District students and staff can now access,create, store and retrieve their documents from any computing device anywhere in the world.Educational software included with Office 365 are Class Notebook (OneNote), Outlook, OneDrive, Word,Excel, PowerPoint, Skype, Yammer and many more. A particular objective for IT will be to support viaon-line training teachers, administrators and student users on this technology.

The work to optimize the use of the newly implemented Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systemPeopleSoft 9.2, to leverage the investment, continues. This includes a laser-focused concentration ontraining and business process improvement. Over 50 on-line tutorials can be accessed through theEmployee Online Learning System (ELMS); and as business processes are improved, additional trainingmaterials will be developed. Moreover, focus will be given to core training that impacts all district staffsuch as; HR/Payroll Self Service, Basic Computer skills, Cyber Security and Customer Service courses.

As of June 30, 2010, the District had and a cumulative General Fund deficit of $327 million. Thefollowing fiscal year (2011) the cumulative General Fund deficit was reduced to $284 million. The fiscalyear ended June 30, 2012 was a year with mixed results. The District completed the planning phase formany of its initiatives to restore fiscal integrity. These initiatives generated approximately $152 millionin expenditure reductions when compared to fiscal year 2011. All major expenditure categoriesdecreased with the exception of debt service. This $152 million in expenditure reductions was notsufficient to offset the $233 million in revenue decreases. The revenue decrease was lead by a 40% or$168 million decline in Federal revenue sources. As such, General Fund expenditures exceeded revenueby $41.8 million. When you factor out the debt service payments of $52.8 million for fiscal year 2012,the District reflected a modest $11 million operating surplus before debt service. However, due to therestructuring of the Districts short term-debt, it was able to decrease its cumulative General Funddeficit to $76.3 million by year end.

During fiscal year 2015, the District received $9.9 million less in property taxes and $6 million less in theannual rent from EAA. The District also anticipated revenue of $3.7 million from the cell towers salewhich unfortunately could not be recognized in fiscal year 2015 but over a period of 28 years or more.

A continuing financial and budgetary challenge for the District was the continuing decrease in pupilenrollment. Over the past several years, the District’s pupil enrollment decrease has averagedapproximately 10%. In fiscal year 2014, pupil enrollment decreased by approximately 5%.

Division of Finance

Office of Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 the District was able to reduce General Fund expenditures by$208.8 million but there was also a decrease in revenues of $189.1 million. In addition, the District'sadjusted Act 18 shared revenue formula resulted in $17.8 million less than originally anticipated. TheDistrict currently provides for such estimated adjustments in its budgets.

As of June 30, 2014, the District had a cumulative General fund deficit of $169 million. Many facturesattributed to the increase in the deficit such as the District's major federal and state grants werereduced by approximately $40 million when compared to the previous year. This reduction was notfinalized until the mid-point of the fiscal year. As a result, expenditures that the District had plannedto charge to certain grants in some cases were required to be charged to the District's General Fund-General Purpose fund, thus creating a significant imbalance between General Fund revenues andexpenditures. In fact, General Fund revenues declined by over $61 million or 8.74%. Fiscal year 2014expenditures increased by a modest $4 million or approximately one-half of one percent (0.59%). Themodest increase in expenditures is reflective of the District's ongoing efforts to keep downward pressureon its expenditures.

41

•••••••••

•

•

•

•••

Implementation of new ERP system to enhance operational efficiencies

Office of Chief Operating Officer

The Operations Division of the District is managed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), who isresponsible for overseeing the Departments of Physical Plant Operations, Environmental Health andSafety, Auxiliary Services and Energy Management, Student Transportation, Food Services, Real Estateand Capital Improvements.

Division of Operations and Auxiliary Services

Expenditures from Operations actually decreased this fiscal year which reflected a net profit of $3.3million excluding debt service of $56.9. Therefore, management is making the critical decisions in ofreducing expenditures.

Central administration reorganization and restructuring

In fiscal year 2015, total revenues were $660 million which was a reduction of $42.6 million from thefinal budget. Expenditures were $714 million which was a decrease of $65 million for the final budget.This reflected a $216 million deficit which was a decrease of $22 million from the final budget.

The above decrease in the deficit was due to the reduction in spending and enhancing revenue whichincluded:

Staff reductions to align staffing with pupil enrollmentReduction in general fund discretionary spendingUnion concessionsIncreasing revenue through enrollment incentivesEmployees Severance Plan

Employees benefits restructuring

Some key financial initiatives that the District is continuing or has completed in its strategicimprovement plan are:

Sale of surplus real estate and other property

Continued implementation of a comprehensive corrective action plan to improve internal controlsand the integrity of financial information.Restructured the Finance Division to include the District’s technology and information services,procurement, and internal audit departments.Establishing leadership and management development programs to prepare finance staff for newroles in the organization, in conjunction with the complete implementation of a new PeopleSoftenterprise resource planning system.Re-engineering major internal fiscal processes to optimize efficiencies and cost effectiveness.Fully documenting all major processes and adopting and implementing best-in-class processes.Preparing comprehensive written policies and procedures that cover all aspects of the District’sfinancial operations.

In order to restore fiscal integrity, the District’s Emergency Manger issued several executive orders toassume control over the District’s financial matters and to address other priorities which includetermination of significant non-academics major consultant contracts, rebidding major vendor contactsand negotiating prior reductions, and modifying union contracts.

42

One major initiative undertaken by the Office of the Chief Operating Officer this fiscal year involveswaiver of a City Ordinance. Beginning in early 2015, the school district began the petition process tothe City of Detroit, Building and Safety Engineering Department for variance of its Ordinance requiringpost-of-duty of a boiler operator (or building engineer) in DPS schools. In lieu of the physical placementof a boiler operator, in some schools, DPS proposed the install of safety controls which would allow forthe remote monitoring of boilers its boilers. The contingent approval of the variance translates intopotential recover $3.1M in labor savings along with increase operational efficiencies for the schooldistrict.

Department of Physical Plant Operations

The Department of Physical Plant Operations (PPO) provides custodial services, building repair andmaintenance, heating and cooling services and grounds maintenance support for 91 school sites and 15support locations. The Department is organized into four functional areas – custodial, heating andcooling, building repair and grounds. FY2014-2015 proved to be an unprecedented year, due to thesuccessful commitment of three (3) facility service providers; US Metro Group, The Facility Group andLakeshore-Rickman Joint Venture replacing Sodexo School Services which submitted notice ofdiscontinuation of services effective June 28, 2014.

Office of School Nutrition (aka Food Services)

Another major initiative this fiscal year pertains to the school district’s camp. The Office of the COO incollaboration with the Office of Science issued an Request for Proposal (RFP) for an operator for CampBurt Shurly which is located at 15100 Goodland Road in Gregory, Michigan and consists 223.2 acres moreor less of natural wooded land with Lake Frontage. In years past the camp was only open to DPS studentsduring the summer months and now that the management and operation of the camp has been sourcedto Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries (DRMM), the camp has opportunity to operate year-round. DPS stillowns the property.

The Office of School Nutrition (OSN) operates as a special revenue fund, thereby : not for profit foodmanagement company that serves as the school food authority for the District, the EducationAchievement Authority (EAA), Highland Park Community Schools (HPCCS) and twenty- seven (27) publicschool academies. As the school food authority, OSN sponsors, administers, manages and operates fivefederally reimbursed child nutrition programs under the auspices of the United States Department ofAgriculture and the Michigan Department of Education.

OSN‘s mission is to provide healthy nutrient dense school meals to all student grades PreK – 12 and non-graded educational sites at no charge. Based on a school site requirement, OSN provides breakfast,lunch and supper meals. In select schools, OSN offers the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP).FFVP introduce students to raw fruits and vegetables in order to increase awareness by students eatingsamples of the items. OSN also provide value added benefits such as school gardens (8o school gardens),and nutrition education programs for both students and parents. Both programs are provided in supportof student achievement and learning, parental involvement and community engagement. To ensureevery student can participate in the school meals program OSN provides menu selections that includevegetarian, Halal, peanut, gluten and soy free menus. The OSN continues its focus on technology byproviding schools with Touch Screens to improve the line speed at schools and improved programaccountability.

These facility service providers support the school district by providing personnel for engineering,custodial and maintenance services along with management. The Facility Group manages 38 buildings,US Metro Group manages 37 buildings and Lakeshore-Rickman Joint Venture manages 28 buildings eachbringing a wealth of talent, experience, innovation to assist the school district support its schoolbuildings.

43

OSN participates in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) by providing three meals per day tostudents who are enrolled in the District's summer residential program at Camp Burt Shurly and abreakfast and hot lunch to eligible children who are enrolled in any District summer school orcommunity based enrichment program.

For the fourth year, the hunger advocacy organization, Food Research Action Committee (FRAC) rankedthe District fourth in the nation for feeding 87% of the enrollment a school breakfast. The Office ofSchool Nutrition has completed four years of Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), whereby all studentsmay eat meals at no charge.

Transportation

Detroit Public Schools enrollment has somewhat stabilized with smaller declines than past years causingtransportation eligibility and ridership levels to have experienced a slight decrease. For fiscal year 2014-2015, the Office of Student Transportation provided yellow bus service to approximately 10,030 regulareducation students, down from approximately 10,430 in fiscal year 2014. The outsourcing oftransportation for all eligible students has resulted in the stabilization and reduction in transportationcost. The District has been able to maintain the number of three (3) tier bus routes and the most cost-effective routes. The District continues to improve on its commitment of providing safe, efficient, andtimely transportation for all Detroit Public Schools’ students. The District was able to reduce thenumber of Taxi Cabs by 3% from fiscal year 2013-2014 by working collaboratively with the DistrictsOffice of Specialized Student Services and Placement. The reductions were mainly the result of usingthe process of reviewing the student’s pickup location and identifying the closest school(s) with thechild’s program before the placement is made. For fiscal year 2014-2015, the District TransportationService Providers (TSP) continues to find ways to increase its commitment to bus safety resulting in acontinuous reduction in the number of incidents on buses and accidents involving school buses resultingin a reduction in insurance cost for the TSP’s and a reduction in the number of student suspensions.

Capital Improvement Program

Capital improvements within the District are financed primarily through voter-approved bond programs.During the fiscal year ending 2015, the District managed capital improvements under two voter-approved bond programs – one approved by voters in 1994 and the other in 2009. Below aredescriptions of each program’s activities during the fiscal year.

1994 Bond Program

In 1994, Detroit voters approved $1.5 billion in bonds to begin the improvement of facilities throughoutthe District. During the first six years of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) progress was slow. In2000, under the leadership of a Chief Executive Officer, a revamped Capital Improvement Programbegan implementation of the CIP aggressively. As of June 30, 2015, over 99% of the 1994 bondauthorization had been expended on capital improvements. Activity during fiscal year 2015 consisted ofCharles R. Drew Transition Center site enhancements, closeout of projects, support for litigationinvolving the construction of Cass Tech some smaller scale mechanical upgrades, securityenhancements, signage enhancements, and development of a revised Master Facilities Plan.

44

Net proceedspremiums and Number of Expenses and Net available

interest projects encumbrances to fundthrough underway or through projects as of

Series June 30, 2015 completed June 30, 2015 June 30, 2015

I $ 104,010,868 150 $ 104,010,868 $ -

II 227,473,447 300 227,473,447 -

III 465,749,022 156 465,749,022 -

IV 392,473,015 50 392,473,015 -

V 417,580,116 196 416,452,951 1,127,165

$ 1,607,286,468 852 $ 1,606,159,303 $ 1,127,165

• •• •• •• •

AmountIssued Final Maturity Interest Rate

$ 90,000,000 May 1, 2025 3.19% 200,000,000 May 1, 2039 4.59% -7.47% 160,910,000 May 1, 2029 6.65% 49,630,000 May 1, 2040 6.68%

Note: QSCB - Qualified School Construction Bonds, BAB - Qualified School Construction Bond

Name/Type of Bond

Series 2009A QSCBSeries 2009B BAB

Pursuant to the authorization, the District has issued bonds totaling $500.54 million in the followingseries:

The value of work performed during fiscal year 2015 was $ 1,454,622.

The following is a recap of the activities for each bond series as of June 30, 2015:

The CIP is divided into to eight major components:

Improvements to existing schoolsAthletic field improvementHealth initiativesSupport services

New constructionRemodelingSpecial educationTechnology initiatives

Proposal S - 2009 School Construction and Modernization Program

On November 3, 2009, Detroit voters approved Proposal S, authorizing the District to issue $500.54Million in bonds for school construction and renovation projects. Proposal S projects include theconstruction of 3 new high schools and 4 new PK-8 schools and the renovation of eleven other schools.In addition, Proposal S funding was to be used to construct a replacement command center for theDistrict’s Office of Public Safety, implement security and information technology improvements atmultiple sites and demolish and decommission closed schools.

Series 2010A QSCBSeries 2010B BAB

45

2009A 2009B 2010A 2010BBuild and Build and Build and Build andSite Bonds Site Bonds Site Bonds Site Bonds

$ 1,187,840 $ 2,088,013 $ 1,571,215 $ 555,216 89,159,930 197,453,306 159,807,073 49,945,350

$ 90,347,770 $ 199,541,319 $ 161,378,288 $ 50,500,566

Marios Demetriou Delores A. BrownDeputy Superintendent of Finance and Operations Executive Director of Finance

In January 2010, the District hired Walbridge Joint Venture for DPS, LLC as program manager to overseethe effective development and implementation of the Proposal S School Building Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP). An aggressive implementation schedule was established by the District in order tocomply with federal requirements that funds were capitalized on projects within (36) thirty-six monthsof the issuance of bonds. As of the close of fiscal year 2010, one new high school, two pre-kindergartenthrough 8th (PK-8) grade schools and a number of school modernization projects were completed. As ofthe close of fiscal year 2012, the remaining major and modernization projects including: (2) two newhigh schools, (2) two new PK-8 schools, (4) four major high schools renovations, additional schoolmodernization projects, and the implementation of district-wide security/information technologyprojects were completed. All projects have obtained final certificate of occupancy and achieved finalclose-out. The District has complied with capitalizing the entire funds for the QSCB funds, and thecapitalizing of (85%) eight-five percent of the BAB funds within the (36) thirty-six month requirement.

Respectfully submitted,

The preparation of this report was accomplished through the commitment, dedication, and tirelesseffort of the entire Division of Finance. We would also like to extend our thanks to other District andnon-district personnel who assisted in the preparation of this report.

Acknowledgments

As of June 30, 2015, the following amounts have been expended on Proposal S projects:

Accomplishments

Accomplishments and Acknowledgments

The Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO) has awarded the Certificate ofExcellence in Financial Reporting, and the Government Finance Officers Association of the United Statesand Canada (GFOA) has awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting tothe Detroit Public Schools for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal yearending June 30, 2014. This was the tenth year the District has received both prestigious awards. In orderto be awarded the Certificates of Excellence and Achievement, the District published an easily readableand efficiently organized CAFR. The report satisfied both GAAP and applicable legal requirements.

A Certificate of Achievement is only valid for a period of one year. We believe that our current CAFRcontinues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are submitting it toboth GFOA and ASBO to determine its eligibility for another certificate.

Bond Issuance CostCapital Outlay

Expenditures

46


List of Appointed OfficialsJune 30, 2015

Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, ICMA-CM, MPA

CABINET

General Counsel Jean-Vierre Adams, Esq.Auditor General Odell W. BaileyExecutive Director, Funds & Development Linda BlantonChief Public Safety Officer Stacy BrackensActing Chief Financial/Deputy Chief Financial Officer Delores BrownChief Strategy Officer Roderick BrownChief Labor Relations and Human Resources Officer Gwendolyn deJonghChief, Information Technology and Strategic Officer Diane JonesInspector General (Interim) Bernadette KakoozaChief of Staff, Academics Shirley Mobley-WoodsSuperintendent of Academics Karen P. RidgewayChief Innovation Officer Lamont D. Satchel, Esq.Chief Operations Officer Mark Schrupp, Esq.Chief of Staff Kevin A. Smith, Esp.Director, Charter Schools Kisha VerduscoAssistant Superintendent, Community Relations Steven WaskoChief Communications Officer Michelle Zdrodowski

BOARD OF EDUCATION

President (District 5) Herman DavisVice President (At Large) Ida ShortAt Large Member LaMar LemmonsAt Large Member Patricia Johnson SingletonAt Large Member Reverend David MurrayDistrict 1 Tawanna SimpsonDistrict 2 Elena M. HerradaDistrict 3 Annie CarterDistrict 4 Judy SummersDistrict 6 Wanda RedmondDistrict 7 Juvette Hawkins-Williams

48

FINANCIAL SECTION

51

Rehmann Robson

1500 W. Big Beaver Rd. 2nd Floor Troy, MI 48084 Ph: 248.952.5000 Fx: 248.952.5750 rehmann.com

CPAs & Consultants Wealth Advisors Corporate Investigators

Rehmann is an independent member of Nexia International.

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

November 2, 2015

Emergency ManagerDetroit Public SchoolsDetroit, Michigan

Report on the Financial Statements

Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Independent Auditors' Responsibility

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each majorfund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Detroit Public Schools (the “District”), as ofand for the year ended June 30, 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, whichcollectively comprise the District’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures inthe financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including theassessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud orerror. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’spreparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures thatare appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on theeffectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit alsoincludes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness ofsignificant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation ofthe financial statements.

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements inaccordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includesthe design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fairpresentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud orerror.

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. Weconducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan andperform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free frommaterial misstatement.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis forour audit opinions.

53

Opinions

Funding Uncertainties

Other Matters

Required Supplementary Information

Other Information

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to previously present fairly, in all material respects,the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the major fund, and the aggregateremaining fund information of Detroit Public Schools as of June 30, 2015, and the respective changes infinancial position thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America.

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’sDiscussion and Analysis, the schedules for the pension plan, the Schedule of Funding Progress andSchedule of Employer Contributions, and Budget Comparison Schedule for the general fund as listed inthe table of contents be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information,although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental AccountingStandards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basicfinancial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have appliedcertain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditingstandards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries ofmanagement about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information forconsistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and otherknowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinionor provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us withsufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements thatcollectively comprise the District’s basic financial statements. The combining fund financial statements,budgetary comparison schedules, introductory section, schedule of bonded indebtedness, and statisticalsection listed in the table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not arequired part of the basic financial statements.

The District has suffered recurring operating deficits in the General Fund. Management's plans withregard to these matters are described in note 15.

Implementation of GASB Statement No. 68

As described in Note 18, the City implemented the provisions of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, in the current year. Accordingly, beginning net position ofgovernmental activities were restated. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

54

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued, under separate cover, ourreport dated November 2, 2015, on our consideration of the District's internal control over financialreporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, andgrant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testingof internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not toprovide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is anintegral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in consideringthe District's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

The introductory section and statistical section have not been subjected to the auditing proceduresapplied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion orprovide any assurance on them.

The combining fund financial statements, budgetary comparison schedule, and schedule of bondindebtedness are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to theunderlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Suchinformation has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financialstatements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such informationdirectly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statementsor to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance withauditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combiningfund financial statements and budgetary comparison schedule are fairly stated, in all material respects,in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

55

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

57


Management's Discussion and Analysis

1.

2.

3.

About Detroit Public Schools

Financial Highlights

Government-wide financial statements:

·

···

Fund financial statements:

·

·

The total fund balance deficit for all governmental funds increased from a deficit of $(122.0) million in FY 2014 toa deficit of $(175.9) million in FY 2015.The general fund deficit increased from $(169.5) million in FY 2014 to $(215.9) million in FY 2015.

Our discussion and analysis of Detroit Public Schools’ (the "District") financial performance provides an overview of theDistrict’s financial activities for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. The intent of this management discussion andanalysis is to look at the District’s financial performance as a whole; it should be read in conjunction with thetransmittal letter, financial statements and notes to the basic financial statements to enhance their understanding.

Total net deficit increased from $763.7 million in FY 2014 to $1,664.7 million in FY 2015.Total revenues increased from $810.9 million in FY 2014 to $820.3 million in FY 2015.Total expenses decreased from $888.0 million in FY 2014to $863.0 million in FY 2015.

The District has prepared its annual financial report using a combination of both government-wide financial statementsand fund financial statements. The basic financial statements contain three components:

This report presents the financial highlights for the last year and contains required and other supplementalinformation.

Government-wide financial statements including the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activitieswhich provide a broad, long-term overview of the District’s finances, in a manner similar to a private sectorbusiness.

Fund financial statements including governmental funds, which focus on near-term inflows and outflows ofavailable resources, as well as on balances of available resources available at the end of each fiscal year, andfiduciary funds, which account for the funds that the District holds in a fiduciary capacity for others. Thesestatements include the Balance Sheets and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in FundBalances.

Notes to the basic financial statements.

Detroit Public Schools is an urban public school district located in the City of Detroit. It is a fiscally independentdistrict governed by the Emergency Manager that was appointed by the Governor.

The District has 103 schools, consisting of 7 early childhood schools, 62 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 18 highschools, 2 alternative education schools, 7 special education schools, and 4 career technical and vocational centers.

Key financial highlights for 2015 are as follows:

The District implemented GASB Statement No. 68 in the current year. In addition to expanded disclosurerequirements, the District is required to report its proportionate share of the MPSERS net pension liability on thestatement of net position. This change has resulted in a negative total net position of governmental activities of$(1,664,735,120).

58



General Fund budgetary comparison schedules:

·

·

·

Overview of the Government-wide Financial Statements

The actual fund deficit of $(215.9) million was less than the final budgeted deficit of $(238.2) million by $22.3million.

Actual revenues were less than final budgeted revenues by $42.6 million, primarily due to the reduction in theDistrict's federal funding associated with current spending levels, reductions in Act 18 revenues received throughWayne RESA, and reductions in State Aid caused by enrollment decreases. In addition, proceeds from sales ofcapital assets were less than budget. Expenditures were less than final budgeted expenditures by $65.3 million, primarily due to the reduction in federalfunding and spending.

Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the District that are principally supported bytaxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities).

Financial Analysis of the District as a Whole

The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the District’sfinances in a manner similar to a private sector business. The statement of net position and the statement of activitiesprovide information about the activities of the District as a whole, presenting both an aggregate view and a long-termview of the finances. These statements include all assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities and deferredinflows of resources using the accrual basis of accounting. This basis of accounting includes all of the current year’srevenue and expenses regardless of when cash is received or paid.

The statement of net position presents information on all of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources,liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the net balance reported as net position. Increases or decreases innet position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position is improving or deteriorating.

The statement of activities presents information showing the change in net position during the fiscal year. All changesin net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing ofthe related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in the statement for some items that will result incash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but not used vacation leave).

All of the District’s services are reported in the government-wide financial statements, including instruction, supportservices, community services, food services and athletics. Property taxes, state aid, and interest and investmentearnings finance most of these activities. Additionally, all capital and debt financing activities are reported here.

59



Net Position

Governmental Activities

Percentage2015 2014 Change

Current and other assets 177,652,012$ 232,184,660$ (23.49)%Capital assets, net 1,379,453,373 1,455,873,724 (5.25)%Total assets 1,557,105,385 1,688,058,384 (7.76)%

Deferred outflows 139,984,107 25,625,936 446.26 %

Other liabilities 1,244,387,375 354,913,083 250.62 %Long-term liabilities 2,020,955,918 2,122,425,129 (4.78)%Total liabilities 3,265,343,293 2,477,338,212 31.81 %

Deferred inflows 96,481,319 - 100.00 %

Net position:Net investment in

capital assets (126,652,164) (101,890,474) 24.30 %Restricted 23,546,812 26,280,121 (10.40)%Unrestricted (deficit) (1,561,629,768) (688,043,539) 126.97 %

Total net position (1,664,735,120)$ (763,653,892)$ 118.00 %

Statement of Net Position. The statement of net position provides the perspective of the District as a whole. Thefollowing table provides a summary of the District's net position as of June 30, 2015 and 2014:

The District’s net deficit was $1,664.7 million at June 30, 2015, as compared to a net deficit of $763.7 million atJune 30, 2014. The unrestricted net position deficit balance highlights a potential inability to meet future operationalneeds as well as working capital and cash flow requirements. The operating results of the General Fund have asignificant impact on the change in unrestricted net position (deficit) from year to year.

60



Change in Net Position



Program revenues:Charges for services 2,942,123$ 2,806,704$ 4.82 %Operating grants 384,597,111 350,154,648 9.84 %

General revenues:Property taxes 156,450,484 177,706,934 (11.96)%Unrestricted state aid 265,091,387 259,541,573 2.14 %Interest and investment earnings 36,302 50,582 (28.23)%Other 11,159,377 20,596,137 (45.82)%

Total revenues 820,276,784 810,856,578 1.16 %

Functions / program expenses:Instruction 374,874,427 381,901,033 (1.84)%Support services 313,548,618 318,332,081 (1.50)%Community services 3,258,057 4,179,408 (22.05)%Food services 42,542,212 44,916,670 (5.29)%Athletics 3,345,514 2,434,401 37.43 %Interest on long-term debt 106,764,573 113,673,948 (6.08)%Depreciation (unallocated) 18,679,335 22,536,086 (17.11)%

Total functions / program expenses 863,012,736 887,973,627 (2.81)%

Change in net position (42,735,952) (77,117,049) (44.58)%Net position:

Beginning of year (763,653,892) (686,536,843) 11.23 %Restatement for implementation

of GASB 68 (858,345,276) - 100.00 %End of year (1,664,735,120)$ (763,653,892)$ 118.00 %

Statement of Activities. The results of operations for the District as a whole are reported in the statement of activitieswhich shows the change in net position for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014:

The cost of all governmental activities this year was $863.0 million. Certain governmental activities were partiallyfunded from those who benefited from the programs through charges for services of $2.9 million or by the othergovernments and organizations that subsidized certain programs with grants and contributions of $384.6 million. Theremaining “public benefit” portion of the District’s governmental activities was funded primarily by $156.5 million intaxes and $265.1 million in unrestricted federal funds and state aid. The District experienced a decrease in net positionof $42.7 million. As a result, the District reduced expenditures in instructional by $6.7 million with a decrease of $18.2million in non-instructional areas.

This decrease in net position was largely due to decreases in property tax revenues of $21.2 million and other generalrevenues of $9.4 million, as well as the continued burden of legacy costs including interest payments on long-termoperating debt of $17.3 million.

As discussed above, the net cost shows the financial burden that was placed on the State and the District’s taxpayersby each of these functions. Since property taxes for operations and unrestricted state aid constitute the vast majorityof District operating revenue sources, the Emergency Manager, the Board of Education and administration mustannually evaluate the needs of the District and balance those needs with available unrestricted resources. The overallfinancial position of the District continues to be challenged as enrollment declines.

61



Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation)


Land 55,678,168$ 56,905,839$ (2.16)%Land improvements 102,443,164 106,689,413 (3.98)%Buildings and building improvements 1,804,653,250 1,861,454,223 (3.05)%Machinery and other equipment 207,722,273 207,808,739 (0.04)%Buses and other vehicles 2,509,961 3,079,925 (18.51)%Construction in progress 3,169,727 6,098,344 (48.02)%

2,176,176,543 2,242,036,483 (2.94)%

Less accumulated depreciation (796,723,170) (786,162,759) 1.34 %

Total capital assets, net 1,379,453,373$ 1,455,873,724$ (5.25)%

Outstanding Debt


General obligation bonds 1,452,075,000$ 1,541,209,870$ (5.78)%Unamortized bond premium 74,129,609 67,568,056 9.71 %Long-term notes payable 259,257,063 298,857,734 (13.25)%Other long-term liabilities 235,494,246 214,789,469 9.64 %Total long-term debt 2,020,955,918$ 2,122,425,129$ 0.32 %

Capital Asset and Debt Administration

Capital Assets. The District’s investment in capital assets for its governmental activities as of June 30, 2015 amountsto $1,379.5 million (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings andbuilding improvements, vehicles, furniture and equipment. This amount represents a net decrease (including additions,disposals, impairment and depreciation) of $76.4 million.

This year’s additions of approximately $8.3 million included building renovations, site improvements and equipment.The District issued $290 million and $210.5 million in fiscal year 2010 and 2011 respectively, as provided under ProposalS, that funded the majority of the additions. More detailed information about the District’s capital assets is provided inNote 5 to the basic financial statements.

Long-Term Debt. As of June 30, 2015, the District had $1.452 billion in bonds outstanding, plus $74.1 million inunamortized bond premiums, for a total of $1.526 billion. This represents a decrease of 5.13% from the previous year.

The State limits the amount of general obligation debt that schools can issue to 15 percent of the assessed value of alltaxable property within the District’s boundaries. If the District issues “qualified debt,” (i.e., debt backed by the Stateof Michigan), such obligations are not subject to this debt limit.

Other obligations include accrued vacation pay, sick leave, employee severance plan, workers’ compensation andhealth insurance claims, and legal claims. More detailed information about the District’s long-term liabilities isprovided in Note 7 of the notes to the basic financial statements.

62



·

·

Because the focus of the governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it isuseful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented forgovernmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand thelong-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet andthe governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance provide a reconciliation tofacilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities.

As the District ended this year, the governmental funds reported a combined fund deficit for fiscal year 2015 of $175.9million, which is an increase in the fund deficit of $54.0 million from fiscal year 2014. The primary reasons for theincrease in the fund deficit are as follows:

There was an increase in general fund revenue compared to last year of $18.5 million. $6.9 and $32.8 million wasdue to the increase in federal and state funds, respectively.

Total expenditures decreased by $7.2 million, which reflects that the District is making the hard decisions of bothreduction of staff and discretionary spending. Based on expenditures exceeding revenue by $53.6 million, theDistrict needs to continue making the difficult decisions in reducing staff and other expenditures in eliminating thedeficit.

Financial Analysis of the District’s Funds

These funds are reported using the modified accrual method of accounting, which measures cash and all other financialassets that can be readily converted to cash. These statements provide a detailed short-term view of the District’soperations and the services it provides.

The District uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. TheDistrict maintains separate funds for general operations, food services, debt service, and capital projects. The focus ofthe District’s governmental funds is to provide information on near term inflows, outflows, and balances of availableresources. Such information is useful in assessing the District’s financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fundbalance may serve as a useful measure of the District’s net resources available for spending at the end of the year.

63



General Fund

Year Ended Year Ended Percentage2015 2014 Change

RevenuesLocal sources 105,322,614 126,426,524 (16.69)%State sources 385,812,644 353,056,789 9.28 %Federal sources 169,259,155 162,383,151 4.23 %

Total revenues 660,394,413 641,866,464 2.89 %

ExpendituresCurrent:

Instruction 335,669,369 346,100,939 (3.01)%Support services 316,574,183 312,753,894 1.22 %Community services 3,301,079 4,198,638 (21.38)%Athletics 1,590,407 1,626,152 (2.20)%

Debt service:Principal retirement 39,600,671 37,767,192 4.85 %Payment of interest 17,294,384 18,706,209 (7.55)%

Capital outlay - 101,379 (100.00)%Total expenditures 714,030,093 721,254,403 (1.00)%

Revenues under expenditures (53,635,680) (79,387,939) (32.44)%

Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in 1,762,100 2,484,518 (29.08)%Transfers out - (94,602) (100.00)%Proceeds from sale of capital assets 5,401,970 1,419,640 280.52 %

Total other financing sources 7,164,070 3,809,556 88.06 %

Net change in fund deficit (46,471,610) (75,578,383) (38.51)%Fund deficit:

Beginning of year (169,460,307) (93,881,924) 80.50 %End of year (215,931,917) (169,460,307) 27.42 %

Based on our analysis of the information below, general fund revenue was higher than fiscal year 2014 due to increasesin State and Federal sources. Expenditures also decreased from the previous year due to the District’s cost savingeffort.

General Fund

Other Governmental Funds

Food services. In fiscal year 2015, expenditures decreased by $3.6 million with expenditures and other financing usesless than revenues and other financing sources by $1.2 million, increasing the fund balance from $5.0 million in fiscalyear 2014 to $6.1 million in fiscal year 2015.

Special Revenue

64



·

·

Judgment levy. The judgment levy fund deficit increased from $541,457 in 2014 to $1,279,367 in 2015 primarily dueto decreases in property tax revenue and claims payments for past judgments.

The actual support services expenditures of $319.2 million are $25.9 million less than the final budget of $345.0million. The decrease is primarily due to reduced federal fund spending in the instructional staff support area andreduced expenditures in central support services.

General Fund Budgetary Highlights

The District revises its budget over the course of the year, to manage unexpected changes in revenues andexpenditures. State law requires that the budget be amended to ensure that expenditures do not exceedappropriations and available revenues and fund balance. The final amendment to the budget was approved in June2015. A schedule showing the District’s original and final budget amounts compared with actual revenues andexpenditures is provided in the Required Supplemental Information section of these financial statements. Significantbudget variances were as follows:

The actual revenues of $660.3 million are $45.0 million less than the final budgeted revenue of $705.4, due to areduction in federal funding and spending.

Debt Retirement

2009A, 2009B, 2010A, and 2010B Building Site Improvement Bonds Funds. On December 30, 2009, the Districtissued the 2009A and 2009B Building Site Improvement Bonds for a total of $290.0 million. These bonds were authorizedunder Proposal S which was passed by the citizens of Detroit on November 3, 2009. Proposal S authorized the District toissue $500.5 million in long-term bonds for the purpose of constructing eight (8) new schools and renovating ten (10)existing schools. In October 26, 2010, the District issued the remaining $210.5 million authorized under Proposal S asthe 2010A and 2010B Building Site Improvement Bonds. These Bonds are supported by the property tax revenues leviedby the City of Detroit on behalf of the District. A total of 18 schools will be rebuilt or renovated under the DetroitPublic School's School Construction Project. Eight schools will be replaced with new buildings, including three highschools. Ten schools will receive major renovations, four of which are scheduled to be completed by the end of theyear. All schools will receive technology upgrades and improved security measures. Federal regulations stipulate thatthe project’s bond funds be spent within three years.

The 2009A Building and Site Bond Funds were fully expended in prior years. For the year ended June 30, 2015, the2009B and 2010B Building Site Improvement Bond Funds had expenditures of $516,000 and $1.7 million, respectively.Unspent bond proceeds at year end for these funds were $1.1 million and $(.8) million.

Bond redemption. The bond redemption fund balance decreased from $36.0 million in 2014 to $31.8 million in 2015primarily due to proceeds from the School Bond Loan Fund.

Capital Projects

1994 School Building Site Improvement Bonds Series V. The fund balance in Series V decreased from $4.4 million infiscal year 2014 to $3.1 million in fiscal year 2015 due to capital outlay expenditures of $1.3 million.

1986 School Building Site Improvement Bonds. The only activity in this fund was accrual of a small amount ofinterest.

Durant Bond. The primary activity in this fund was capital outlay expenditures of $45,957, which exhausted theremaining fund balance from 2014.

65



Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budget and Rates

· Academic Competitiveness ·Organizational Development· Governance ·Special Education· Staff Development ·Transportation· Cash Flow Stability ·Customer Service· Higher Education/Collaboration ·Comprehensive Funding Strategy

·

·

·

·

·

On March 3, 2015, the Emergency Manager announced the District’s implementation of the 10-Point Management Plandesigned to guide the District toward financial stability and educational competitiveness, and ensure that it canachieve long-term sustainability. The goal of this management plan is to provide a strategy for determining andevaluating relevant and specific criteria for assessing and implementing operational and academic change within theorganization. The plan identifies 10 critical points and objectives for each that will need to be met based upon theDistrict Cabinet’s review of data and other information related to the day-to-day work performed by the staff.Implemented with fidelity, this 10-Point Management Plan will make the District a more efficient and effective node onDetroit’s education network, and will position the organization for both sustainability and a return to local control.

While some aspects of this important work are more long-term, there are a number of immediate next steps that theDistrict will be acting upon which include convening a summit of education service providers, which will consider theCoalition’s recommendations (due March 31, 2015), with the goal of achieving the following:

Establish a special education task force to address location of classes, enrollment rules, long-term strategy, andfunding formulas.

Evaluating existing schools and programs in order to determine potential closures, consolidations, or relocationsprior to start of 2016-17 school year and in the future. This will be done in conjunction with our existing,comprehensive strategic planning process.

A moratorium on creating new schools before autumn 2015.

Establish a working group to identify shared facility opportunities and potential closure of substandard facilitiesacross the District.

Consideration of options regarding the potential for restructuring the District’s obligation.

Ultimately, the end result is improving the quality of education provided to the children of Detroit.

Due to the critical nature of the District’s efforts to stabilize and increase student enrollment, prior to the beginning ofthe school, the District conducted open houses to encourage the community to enroll their students and providedinformation on their particular school’s curriculum. Other activities included walks, fairs, park events and callingcampaigns at local schools. Based on the ongoing campaign, the fiscal year 2016 enrollment projections assume anenrollment decrease in line with the last two years of approximately 2%. Student membership projection for fundingpurposes is 46,331 (42,384 for general and 3,947 for special education students), with a per foundation allowance of$7,434 per student.

The following are the 10 critical areas of focus (five academic and five operational) covered by the plan:

Fiscal year 2016 will be a transitional year, in which targeted cost reductions will be made in areas that do not impactthe quality of education delivery. In addition to a review of all contracts, policies and procedures, the District isfocusing on key areas during the restructuring process: central office administration, special education, curriculum and instruction, grants, and staffing models, as well as non-core programs.

66



· Staff reductions in alignment with declining enrollment ·Increasing revenue thru pupil retention initiatives· Reductions in general fund discretionary spending ·Employee concessions/benefit restructuring· School closures

Contacting the District’s Financial Management Team

This financial report is designed to provide the District’s citizens, taxpayers, parents, students, investors and creditorswith a general overview of the District’s finances and to demonstrate its accountability for the money it receives. Ifyou have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact Detroit Public Schools, Divisionof Finance, 3011 West Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48202.

Or visit our website at www.detroitk12.org for a complete copy of this report and other financial information.

On September 3, 2015, the District received a letter from the Department of Treasury on the Enhanced DeficitElimination Plan requirements which took in consideration the Financial and Operating plans plus supplementalinformation that the District provided including budget amendments and the adopted 2016 fiscal year budget. TheState accepted the Financial Operating Plan to meet the state requirements pursuant to MCL 380.1220(5) of anenhanced deficit elimination plan.

The District’s fiscal year 2016 budget did not include any school closures. District studies revealed that it lost anaverage of thirty percent (30%) of the students when a school was closed. The District is currently reviewing optionsfor reducing its excess student capacity without suffering high pupil losses resulting from school closures.

For fiscal year 2016, the District continued to require all central office units to participate in a modified Zero BaseBudgeting process. Because of the District’s declining fiscal health, each central unit was required to presentstrategies to reduce expenditures by 20-40% in non-personnel costs.

State funding continues to represent the most significant sources of revenue for the District. The most significantcomponent of the District’s State funding is the per pupil Foundation Allowance. The blended formula for fiscal year2016 has changed. The formula is 90% of the October count and 10% of the prior February count. Based on the Districtincurring a deficit in FY 2010, the District is required to provide the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) a DeficitElimination Plan (DEP). This plan represents the District’s assessment and recommendation concerning the availableresources in compliance with the Michigan Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act. The District’s Deficit EliminationPlan was initially approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction on August 4, 2010. The most recent revision ofthe DEP was approved on August 19, 2014, which included an extension through June 30, 2019 when the deficit shouldbe eliminated. This plan includes budget reduction and revenue enhancement strategies to address the deficit.Reductions to the general fund include:

67

BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

69


Statement of Net PositionJune 30, 2015

GovernmentalActivities

AssetsCash and cash equivalents (Note 3) 44,696,885$ Receivables:

Due from other governmental units (Note 4) 98,600,051 Land contract (Note 4) 2,836,353 Taxes 18,082,585 Other (Note 4) 6,386,199

Prepaids 2,275,464 Restricted assets: (Note 8)

Cash and cash equivalents (Note 3) 4,774,475 Capital assets not being depreciated (Note 5) 58,847,895 Capital assets being depreciated, net (Note 5) 1,320,605,478

Total assets 1,557,105,385

Deferred outflowsDeferred charge on refunding 16,758,605 Deferred pension amounts 123,225,502

Total deferred outflows of resources 139,984,107

LiabilitiesAccounts payable 78,839,496 Accrued salaries and benefits 124,319,172 Due to other governmental units 20,336,366 Notes payable 82,800,000 Interest payable 15,703,401 Other 16,792,357 Unearned revenue - unexpended restricted funds 21,436,602 Long-term liabilities (Note 7 & 11):

Due within one year 117,502,385 Due in more than one year 1,903,453,533

Net other postemployment benefit obligation (Note 13) 11,423,985 Net pension liability 872,735,996

Total liabilities 3,265,343,293

Deferred inflows of resourcesDeferred pension amounts 96,481,319

Net positionNet investment in capital assets (Note 10) (126,652,164) Restricted for debt service 16,497,983 Restricted for state and other programs 925,808 Restricted for food service 6,123,021 Unrestricted (deficit) (1,561,629,768)

Total net position (1,664,735,120)$

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these basic financial statements.

70


Statement of ActivitiesFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Net (Expense)Operating Revenue and

Charges Grants and Changes inFunctions / Programs Expenses for Services Contributions Net Position

Governmental activitiesInstruction 374,874,427$ 69,891$ 203,373,959$ (171,430,577)$ Support services 313,548,618 2,025,918 115,203,801 (196,318,899) Community services 3,258,057 - 3,001,771 (256,286) Food service 42,542,212 846,314 44,757,764 3,061,866 Athletics 3,345,514 - - (3,345,514) Interest on long-term debt 106,764,573 - 18,259,816 (88,504,757) Depreciation (unallocated portion) 18,679,335 - - (18,679,335)

Total governmental activities 863,012,736$ 2,942,123$ 384,597,111$ (475,473,502)

General revenuesTaxes:

Property taxes, levied for general purposes 65,981,648 Property taxes, levied for debt services 90,468,836

State aid not restricted to specific purposes 265,091,387 Interest and investment earnings 36,302 Other 11,159,377

Total general revenues 432,737,550

Change in net position (42,735,952)

Net position, beginning of year, as restated (1,621,999,168)

Net position, end of year (1,664,735,120)$


Program Revenues

71


Balance SheetGovernmental FundsJune 30, 2015

Nonmajor TotalGeneral Bond Governmental Governmental

Fund Redemption Funds FundsAssets

Cash and cash equivalents 44,696,265$ -$ 620$ 44,696,885$ Receivables (Note 4):

Due from other governmental units 94,988,283 - 3,611,768 98,600,051 Taxes 8,318,139 9,325,452 438,994 18,082,585 Land contract 2,836,353 - - 2,836,353 Other 6,369,109 - 17,090 6,386,199

Due from other funds (Note 6) - 25,613,908 5,660,213 31,274,121 Prepaids 2,252,428 - 23,036 2,275,464 Restricted assets: (Note 8)

Cash and cash equivalents (Note 3) 17,617 56,583 4,700,275 4,774,475 Total assets 159,478,194$ 34,995,943$ 14,451,996$ 208,926,133$

LiabilitiesAccounts payable 74,137,639$ 2,325$ 4,699,532$ 78,839,496$ Accrued salaries and benefits 124,319,172 - - 124,319,172 Compensated absences (Note 7) 277,562 - - 277,562 Unearned revenue - unexpended restricted funds 21,436,602 - - 21,436,602 Due to other governmental units 17,001,314 3,198,644 136,408 20,336,366 Due to other funds (Note 6) 30,184,596 - 1,089,525 31,274,121 Notes payable 82,800,000 - - 82,800,000 Interest payable 406,410 - - 406,410 Other 16,472,983 - 319,374 16,792,357

Total liabilities 367,036,278 3,200,969 6,244,839 376,482,086

Deferred inflows of resourcesUnavailable revenue - long-term receivables 8,373,833 - - 8,373,833

Fund balances (deficits) (Note 9)Nonspendable 2,252,428 - 23,036 2,275,464 Restricted 925,808 31,794,974 9,509,358 42,230,140 Unassigned (219,110,153) - (1,325,237) (220,435,390)

Total fund balances (deficits) (215,931,917) 31,794,974 8,207,157 (175,929,786)

Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resourcesand fund balances (deficits) 159,478,194$ 34,995,943$ 14,451,996$ 208,926,133$


72


Reconciliation Fund Balances (Deficits) of Governmental Funds to Net Position (Deficit) of Governmental Activities June 30, 2015

Fund balances (deficits) - total governmental funds (175,929,786)$

Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of netposition are different because:

Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and are not reported as assets in the funds 1,379,453,373

Other long-term assets are not available to pay current periodexpenditures and are therefore deferred in the governmentalfunds 8,373,833

Differences between actuarially determined net other postemployment benefitcosts and actual contributions reported in governmental funds are accumulatedand reported as net other postemployment obligations (11,423,985)

Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current periodand are not reported in the governmental funds:

Compensated absences and employee severance plan (17,760,998) Workers' compensation and health insurance (18,167,069) Bonds and notes payable (1,785,461,672) Deferred charge on refunding 16,758,605 School bond loan payable (195,871,743) Legal and other (3,416,874)

Accrued interest payable is not included as a liability in governmental funds (15,296,991)

Certain pension-related amounts, such as the net pension liability and deferred amountsare not due and payable in the current period or do not represent current financialresources and therefore are not reported in the funds.

Net pension liability (872,735,996) Deferred outflows related to the net pension liability 123,225,502 Deferred inflows related to the net pension liability (96,481,319)

Net position of governmental activities (1,664,735,120)$


73


Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits)Governmental FundsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Nonmajor TotalGeneral Bond Governmental Governmental

Fund Redemption Funds FundsRevenues

Local sources 105,322,614$ 88,508,342$ 2,878,701$ 196,709,657$ State sources 385,812,644 33,129,520 1,653,364 420,595,528 Federal sources 169,259,155 13,352,426 43,044,669 225,656,250

Total revenues 660,394,413 134,990,288 47,576,734 842,961,435


Instruction 335,669,369 - - 335,669,369 Support services 316,574,183 - - 316,574,183 Community services 3,301,079 - - 3,301,079 Food service - - 42,667,931 42,667,931 Athletics 1,590,407 - - 1,590,407

Debt service:Principal retirement 39,600,671 71,779,870 - 111,380,541 Payment of interest 17,294,384 95,787,560 - 113,081,944 Issuance costs - 1,243,540 - 1,243,540

Capital outlay - - 3,677,462 3,677,462 Other - 62,355 2,707,724 2,770,079

Total expenditures 714,030,093 168,873,325 49,053,117 931,956,535

Revenues under expenditures (53,635,680) (33,883,037) (1,476,383) (88,995,100)

Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in 1,762,100 - - 1,762,100 Transfers out - - (1,762,100) (1,762,100) Issuance of long-term debt-School Bond Loan Fund - 28,384,590 - 28,384,590 Issuance of long-term debt - 192,580,000 - 192,580,000 Premiums on issuance of long-term debt - 23,843,976 - 23,843,976 Payment to bond escrow agent - (215,180,436) - (215,180,436) Proceeds from sale of capital assets 5,401,970 - - 5,401,970

Total other financing sources (uses) 7,164,070 29,628,130 (1,762,100) 35,030,100

Net change in fund balances (46,471,610) (4,254,907) (3,238,483) (53,965,000)

Fund balances (deficits), beginning of year (169,460,307) 36,049,881 11,445,640 (121,964,786)

Fund balances (deficits), end of year (215,931,917)$ 31,794,974$ 8,207,157$ (175,929,786)$


74


ReconciliationNet Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) of Governmental Fundsto Change in Net Position of Governmental ActivitiesFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Net change in fund balances (deficits) - total governmental funds (53,965,000)$

Governmental funds report capital outlays not financed by capital leases as expenditures.In the statement of activities, these costs are allocated over their estimated useful lives asdepreciation. Impairment expenses in the statement of activities would have been expendedin prior years in the governmental funds. Governmental funds report proceeds from sale of capital assets as increases to financial resources. In the statement of activities, the difference between proceeds and net book value is a gain or loss.

Depreciation expense (53,434,467) Capital outlay 8,349,749 Change in long-term land contacts receivable for sale of capital assets (142,649) Proceeds from sale of capital assets (5,259,321) Loss on sale of capital assets (26,076,311)

Bond proceeds provide current financial resources to governmental funds in the period issued, but issuing bonds increases long-term liabilities in the statement of net position. Repayment of bond principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduceslong-term liabilities in the statement of net position.

Issuance of long-term debt-refunding bonds (192,580,000) Premium received on issuance of long-term debt (23,843,976) Payments to escrow for advance refunding of bonds 215,180,436 Issuance of long-term debt-School Bond Loan Fund (28,384,590) Principal payment on long-term liabilities 111,380,541

The receipt of long-term receivables represent revenue in the fund financial statements,but are reported as a reduction of receivables in the statement of activities, converselynew long-term receivables are considered unavailable and not recognized in the fund, but are considered earned and reported as revenue in the statement of activities

Collections on long-term assets not considered to be available in the governmental funds (28,222,131) Increases in long-term assets not considered to be available in the governmental funds 5,537,480

Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of currentfinancial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in the funds.

Change in the net pension liability and related deferred amounts 12,353,463 Change in accrued interest on long-term debt 4,453,610 Amortization of deferred amount of refunding bonds (1,589,642) Amortization of bond premiums 4,759,298 Change in the accrual for compensated absences and employee severance plan 6,524,383 Change in the accrual for other postemployment benefit costs (4,829,809) Change in the accrual for legal obligations 1,796,941 Change in the accrual for worker's compensation and health insurance losses 5,256,043

Change in net position of governmental activities (42,735,952)$


Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because:

75


Statement of Fiduciary Net PositionFiduciary FundsJune 30, 2015

Agency Private-purposeFund Trust Fund

StudentActivities Scholarships

AssetsCash and cash equivalents (Note 3) 1,356,801$ 610,223$ Other 40 1,500

Total assets 1,356,841$ 611,723

LiabilitiesDue to student groups and other 1,356,841$ 8,142

Net positionRestricted for scholarships 603,581$


76


Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net PositionFiduciary FundsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Private-purposeTrust Fund

ScholarshipsAdditions

Private donations 108,024$ Interest 219

Total additions 108,243

DeductionsScholarships/Professional development and other purchased services 85,857

Change in net position 22,386

Net position, beginning of year 581,195

Net position, end of year 603,581$


77

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

79


Notes to Financial Statements

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The accounting policies of the Detroit Public Schools (the “District”) conform to accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America (GAAP) as applicable to governmental units. The following is a summaryof the significant accounting policies used by the District.

Reporting Entity

Effective January 13, 2015, the Governor appointed Darnell Earley to serve as the District’s new EmergencyManager. Mr. Earley serves at the pleasure of the Governor and the Governor has the authority to remove the EMwith or without cause at any time. The EM may also be removed by a 2/3 vote of the local governmental unit’sgoverning body if the emergency manager has served at least 18 months after appointment by the Governor or byimpeachment and conviction by the State Legislature.

On May 16, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder appointed Roy S. Roberts to serve as EM for the District, pursuant to Act 4for an initial term to expire on May 16, 2012. On March 7, 2012, Mr. Roberts was reappointment by GovernorSnyder for an additional one-year term. Subsequently, the validity of Act 4 was challenged in a public referendumprocess that resulted in suspending Act 4 and reinstating Act 72 in early August 2012, pending the outcome of thereferendum election in November 2012. At the start of the suspension period, the Governor appointed Mr.Roberts as Emergency Financial Manager for the District pursuant to the reinstated Act 72. The statewide electionon November 6, 2012 invalidated Act 4, with Act 72 continuing in effect until March 28, 2013. On that date, thenew Act 436 became effective and Mr. Roberts was appointed Emergency Manager for the District under Act 436.He served as such until July 15, 2013. On July 15, 2013, the Governor appointed Jack Martin to serve as theDistrict's Emergency Manager.

The School District is a statutory public body created by the State of Michigan and functions under the provision ofAct 451. The School District holds all power of a school board under Act 451 as well as those additional powersand limitations of a school board for a first class school district. Detroit Public Schools is the only first class schooldistrict in Michigan with an 11 Member Board.

Act 436 grants an emergency manager powers and authority similar to those previously granted to an emergencyfinancial manager under Act 72, while providing additional powers to an EM to operate all aspects of the schooldistrict or other local governmental unit for which he or she has been appointed. Under Act 436, a school districtemergency manager does not have the unilateral power to initiate a Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing on behalf of theschool district, and needs the Governor’s written approval for such filing.

In addition, the EM powers include, but are not limited to, the authority to:

Amend, revise, approve, or disapprove the budget of the local government, and limit the total amountappropriated or expended; receive and disburse on behalf of the local government all federal, state, and localfunds earmarked for the local government. These funds may include, but are not limited to, funds for specificprograms and the retirement of debt; require and approve or disapprove, or amend or revise a plan for payingall outstanding obligations of the local government; make, approve, or disapprove any appropriation, contract,expenditure, or loan; the creation of any new position, or the filling of any vacancy in a position by anyappointing authority; act as sole agent of the local government in collective bargaining with employees orrepresentatives and approve any contract or agreement; employ or contract for, at the expense of the localgovernment and with the approval of the state financial authority, auditors and other technical personnelconsidered necessary to implement this act; remove, replace, appoint, or confirm the appointments to anyoffice, board, commission, authority, or other entity which is within or is a component unit of the localgovernment.

80



Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements

Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation

Amounts reported as program revenue include (1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, orprivileges provided, (2) operating grants and contributions, and (3) capital grants and contributions. Internallydedicated resources are reported as general revenue rather than as program revenue. Likewise, general revenueincludes all taxes and unrestricted State Aid.

As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financialstatements.

Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide financial statements are reported using theeconomic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenue is recorded when earnedand expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Propertytaxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are levied. Grants, categorical aid, and similar itemsare recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met.

Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and fiduciary funds even though the latter areexcluded from the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds are reported asseparate columns in the fund financial statements.

The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities)report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government. For the most part, the effectof interfund activity has been removed from the accompanying statements. Governmental activities, whichnormally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-typeactivities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. All of the School District’sgovernment-wide activities are considered governmental activities. The statement of activities demonstrates thedegree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Directexpenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function. Program revenue includes (1) charges tocustomers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by agiven function and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capitalrequirement of a particular function. Taxes, intergovernmental payments, and other items not properly includedamong program revenues are reported instead as general revenue.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in accordance with criteria established by theGovernmental Accounting Standards Board for determining the various governmental organizations to be includedin the reporting entity. These criteria include significant operational and financial relationships that determinewhich of the governmental organizations are a part of the School District’s reporting entity, and whichorganizations are legally separate, component units of the School District. Based on the application of thecriteria, the School District does not contain any component units.

Fund financial statements. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financialresources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenue is recognized as soon as it isboth measurable and available. Revenue is considered to be available if it is collected within the current period orsoon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the District considers revenues tobe available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period, or one year forexpenditure-driven grants. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrualaccounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences andclaims and judgments (such as self-insurance, contingencies), are recorded only when payment is due.

81



The private-purpose trust fund is used to account for resources legally held in trust, including contributionsreceived by the District to be awarded in the form of scholarships.

Agency funds are custodial in nature and do not present results of operations or have a measurement focus.The District presents and maintains an agency fund to record the transactions of student groups for school andschool-related purposes. The funds are segregated and held in trust for the students.

The bond redemption fund is a debt service fund used to record principal and interest payments related tobonds issued by the District.

The general fund is the District’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the District,except those accounted for or reported in another fund. The District maintains separate subfunds within thegeneral fund for federal activities, adult education and special education.

When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the government’s policy to userestricted resources first, and then unrestricted resources as they are needed.

Property taxes, unrestricted State Aid, intergovernmental grants, and interest associated with the current fiscalperiod are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenue of the current fiscalperiod. All other revenue items are considered to be available only when cash is received by the District.

The District receives shared revenues from the Wayne County Regional Education Services Agency (Wayne RESA)which are used to partially fund its center based Special Education Program. The District records recipientrevenue from such nonexchange transactions when all eligibility requirements have been met and in the sameperiod the provider expenditures are recorded by Wayne RESA. Amounts initially received by the District aresubject to adjustment in future periods, and may decrease. Management does not believe that the amount offuture adjustments is reasonably estimable.

Special revenue funds are used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that arerestricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. TheDistrict’s special revenue fund is the food service fund. Any operating deficit generated by this fund is theresponsibility of the general fund.

The District reports the following major governmental funds:

Fiduciary fund statements are also reported using the accrual basis of accounting. The District maintains a StudentActivities Fund to record funds received and expended for student activities. It also maintains a private purposetrust fund, the Scholarship Fund, to record private donations and scholarships awarded from these donations. Theprivate purpose trust fund uses the economic resources measurement focus.

Capital projects funds are used to record bond proceeds or other revenue and the disbursement specificallydesignated for acquiring new school sites, buildings, equipment, and for remodeling. The fund operates untilthe purpose for which it was created is accomplished. The District’s nonmajor capital projects funds includethe 1986 School Building Site Improvement Bonds; the 1994 School Building Site Improvement Bonds Series V;the 2009B and 2010B Building Site Improvement Bonds; and the Durant Bond funds.

Debt service funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, orassigned to expenditure for principal and interest. The District’s nonmajor debt service fund is the judgmentlevy fund.

In addition, the District reports the following fund types:

82



Assets, Deferred Outflows of Resources, Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Equity

Building and building improvement 20-50Buses and other vehicles 5-10Furniture and other equipment 5-20

Deposits and investments. Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-terminvestments with a maturity of three months or less when acquired. Investments are stated at fair value.

Deferred outflows of resources. In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report aseparate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflowsof resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and will not berecognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then. The District reports deferred outflow forthe loss on bond refundings. This amount represents the difference in the carrying value of refunded debt and itsreacquisition price. This amount is deferred and amortized over the shorter of the life of the refunded orrefunding debt. The District also reports deferred outflows of resources related to the net pension liability. Aportion of these costs represent contributions to the plan subsequent to the plan measurement date. Moredetailed information on pension-related deferred outflows of resources can be found in Note 12.

Long-term obligations. In the government-wide financial statements, long-term debt and other long-termobligations are reported as liabilities in the statement of net position.

Compensated absences. The liability for compensated absences reported in the government-wide statementsconsists of unpaid, accumulated vacation and sick leave balances. A liability for these amounts is reported ingovernmental funds as it comes due for payment. The liability has been calculated using the vesting method, inwhich leave amounts for both employees who are currently eligible to receive termination payments and otheremployees who are expected to become eligible in the future to receive such payments upon termination areincluded.

Buildings, equipment, and vehicles are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following useful lives(in years):

Capital assets. Capital assets, which include land, buildings, equipment, and vehicles, are reported in thegovernmental activities column in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by theDistrict as assets with an initial individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of fiveyears. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donatedcapital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. Costs of normal repair andmaintenance that do not add to the value or materially extend asset life are not capitalized. The District does nothave infrastructure-type assets.

Receivables and payables. In general, outstanding balances between funds are reported as “due to/from otherfunds.” All trade and property tax receivables are shown net of an allowance for uncollectible amounts. Propertytaxes are assessed as of December 31st and the related property taxes become a lien on December 1st of thefollowing year. These taxes are billed on July 1st for approximately 50% of the taxes and on December 1st for theremainder of the property taxes. Taxes are considered delinquent on March 1st of the following year. At this time,penalties and interest are assessed and the total obligation is added to the county tax rolls.

Prepaids. Prepaid expenditures of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather thanwhen purchased. Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future fiscal years and are recorded asother assets in both the district-wide and fund financial statements. Reported prepaid items are equally offset bynonspendable fund balance which indicates that they do not constitute “available spendable resources” eventhough they are a component of current assets.

83



2. STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Fund equity. Governmental funds report nonspendable fund balance for amounts that cannot be spent becausethey are either (a) not in spendable form or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact.Restricted fund balance is reported when externally imposed constraints are placed on the use of the resources bygrantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments. Committed fund balance is reported foramounts that can be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of thegovernment’s highest level of decision making authority, the Emergency Manager. An Executive Order of theEmergency Manager is required to establish, modify or rescind a fund balance commitment. The District reportsassigned fund balance for amounts that are constrained by the government’s intent to be used for specificpurposes, but are neither restricted nor committed. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for theGeneral Fund.

In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts during thecurrent period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debtissuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts are reported as other financing uses.

Bond premiums and discounts costs are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effectiveinterest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount.

Capital projects fund compliance. The capital projects funds include capital project activities funded withbonds issued after May 1, 1994. For current year activity of the 1994 Building Site Improvement Bonds Series V,2009 Series A Building Site Improvement Bonds Fund, 2009 Series B Building Site Improvement Bonds Fund, andthe 2010 Series A and B Building Site Improvement Bonds Funds, the District has complied with the applicableprovisions of §1351a of the State of Michigan’s School Code.

Deficit equity. For the year ended June 30, 2015, the District had a deficit unassigned fund balances in theGeneral Fund, Judgment Levy nonmajor debt service fund, and Durant Bond nonmajor capital projects fund of$219,110,153, $1,279,367, and $45,870, respectively, which is a violation of State law. This condition is furtherdiscussed in note 15.

When the District incurs an expenditure for purposes for which various fund balance classifications can be used, itis the District’s policy to use restricted fund balance first, then committed fund balance, assigned fund balance,and finally unassigned fund balance.

Pensions. For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferredinflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of thePlan and additions to/deductions from the plan fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis asthey are reported by the plan. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions)are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fairvalue.

Deferred inflows of resources. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes reporta separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflowsof resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not berecognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The governmental funds report unavailablerevenues, which arises only under a modified accrual basis of accounting, from long-term receivables. Theseamounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available.The District also reports deferred inflows related to its pension plan. More detailed information on pension relateddeferred inflows of resources is presented in Note 12.

84



Budget Actual Variance

General FundGeneral administration 6,462,078$ 7,583,101$ 1,121,023$ School administration 33,091,117 35,378,176 2,287,059 Business office 10,824,368 16,031,649 5,207,281 Transportation 29,169,431 32,840,089 3,670,658 Other support service 166,539 433,088 266,549 Athletics 953,390 1,590,407 637,017 Debt service 56,001,079 56,895,055 893,976

3. DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS

Statement of Net PositionCash and cash equivalents 44,696,885$ Restricted cash and cash equivalents 4,774,475

Statement of Fiduciary Net PositionStudent activities - cash and cash equivalents 1,356,801 Scholarships - cash and cash equivalents 610,223

Total 51,438,384$

Deposits and investmentsBank deposits (checking and savings accounts) 2,813,324$

Investments:Money market accounts 48,625,060

Total 51,438,384$

Michigan law authorizes the District to deposit and invest in:

Certificates of deposit insured by a State or national bank, savings accounts of a state or federal savings andloan association, or certificates of deposit or share certificates of a state or federal credit union organized andauthorized to operate in this State. In addition, the District is allowed to invest funds in certificate of depositswith financial institutions that participate in the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS)Program.

Bonds, bills, or notes of the United States; obligations, the principal and interest of which are fully guaranteedby the United States; or obligations of the State. In a primary or fourth class district, the bonds, bills, or notesshall be payable at the option of the holder upon not more than 90 days notice or, if not so payable, shall havematurity dates not more than 5 years after the purchase dates.

A reconciliation of cash and investments as shown on the Statement of Net Position and Statement of FiduciaryNet Position is as follows:

Excess of expenditures over appropriations. For the year ended June 30, 2015, expenditures exceededappropriations at the legal level of budgetary control as follows:

85



The District’s investment policy allows for the following types of investments:

The District has designated three banks and one credit union for the deposit of its funds.

Custodial Credit Risk - Deposits. Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the District’sdeposits may not be returned to it. The District’s investment policy requires that financial institutions beevaluated and only those with an acceptable risk level are used for the District’s deposits for custodial credit risk.At year end, the District’s deposit bank balance of $4,119,911 had $3,312,567 of bank deposits (checking andsavings accounts) that were uninsured and uncollateralized. The District believes that due to the dollar amountsof cash deposits and the limits of FDIC insurance, it is impractical to insure all deposits. As a result, the Districtevaluates each financial institution with which it deposits funds and assesses the level of risk of each institution;only those institutions with an acceptable estimated risk level are used as depositories.

The District’s cash and investments are subject to several types of risks, which are explained in more detailbelow:

Securities issued or guaranteed by agencies or instrumentalities of the United States government or federalagency obligation repurchase agreements, and bankers’ acceptance issued by a bank that is a member of thefederal deposit insurance corporation.

Commercial paper rated prime at the time of purchase and maturing not more than 270 days after the date ofpurchase.

The investment policy adopted by the District has authorized investments as listed in the State statutory authorityas listed above.

Commercial paper rated prime at the time of purchase and maturing not more than 270 days after the date ofpurchase.

Certificates of deposit insured by a State or national bank, organized and authorized to operate in this State orcertificates of deposits issued by a State or Federal savings and loan association, organized and authorized tooperate in this State.

Bonds, bills or notes of the United States; obligations, the principal and interest of which are fully guaranteedby the United States; or obligations of the State.

Investment pools, as authorized by the surplus funds investment pool act, composed entirely of instrumentsthat are legal for direct investment by a district.

Surplus funds investment pool under P.A. 1982, No. 367.

Mutual funds composed entirely of investment vehicles that are legal for direct investment by a district.

Custodial Credit Risk - Investments. Custodial credit risk is the risk that, in the event of the failure of thecounterparty, the District will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that arein the possession of an outside party. The District’s policy for custodial credit risk states that custodial credit riskwill be minimized by limiting investments to the types of securities allowed by State law, and by pre-qualifyingthe financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries, and advisors with which the District will do businessusing the criteria established in the investment policy. At year end, the District did not hold any investments thatwere subject to custodial credit risk.

86



Investment Fair Value Maturities RatingRating

Organization

JP Morgan US Treasury Plus MoneyMarket Fund Institutional Class 48,199,108$ N/A AAAm/Aaa-mf S&P/Moody's

MILAF+ Cash Management Class 5,225 N/A AAAm/NR S&P/Moody'sMILAF+ Max Class 420,727 N/A AAAm/NR S&P/Moody's

Total investments 48,625,060$

Concentration of Credit Risk. The District places no limit on the amount the District may invest in any one issuer.The District’s policy minimizes concentration of credit risk by requiring diversification of the investment portfolioso that the impact of potential losses from any one type of security or issuer will be minimized. All investmentsheld at year end are reported in the schedule above.

Foreign Currency Risk. Foreign currency risk is the risk that an investment denominated in the currency of aforeign country could reduce its U.S. dollar value as a result of a change in foreign currency exchange rates. Statelaw and the District’s policy prohibit investment in foreign currency.

Credit Risk. State law limits investments in commercial paper to the top two ratings issued by nationallyrecognized statistical rating organizations. The District’s investment policy does not further limit its investmentchoices. At year end, the credit quality ratings of debt securities are as follows:

Interest Rate Risk. Interest rate risk is the risk that the value of investments will decrease as a result of a rise ininterest rates. The District’s investment policy does not restrict investment maturities, other than commercialpaper which can only be purchased with a 270-day maturity. The District’s policy minimizes interest rate risk byrequiring the structuring of the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements forongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities in the open market; and investing operating fundsprimarily in shorter-term securities, liquid asset funds, money market mutual funds, or similar investment poolsand limiting the average maturity in accordance with the District’s cash requirements. At year end, the Districtdid not hold any investments with maturity dates.

87



4. RECEIVABLES

Nonmajor Total

Bond Governmental Governmental

General Fund Redemption Funds Activities

Receivables:

Due from other

governmental units 94,988,283$ -$ 3,611,768$ 98,600,051$

Land contract 2,836,353 - - 2,836,353

Taxes 8,318,139 9,325,452 438,994 18,082,585

Other 6,369,109 - 17,090 6,386,199

112,511,884$ 9,325,452$ 4,067,852$ 125,905,188$

5. CAPITAL ASSETS

Beginning Disposals and Ending

Balance Transfers Additions Adjustments Balance

Capital assets, not being depreciated:

Land 56,905,839$ -$ -$ (1,227,671)$ 55,678,168$

Construction in progress 6,098,344 (2,938,782) 4,246,914 (4,236,749) 3,169,727

63,004,183 (2,938,782) 4,246,914 (5,464,420) 58,847,895

Capital assets, being depreciated:

Buildings and building

improvements 1,861,454,223 1,009,330 3,719,407 (61,529,710) 1,804,653,250

Land improvements 106,689,413 1,322,354 72,033 (5,640,636) 102,443,164

Vehicles 3,079,925 - 40,912 (610,876) 2,509,961

Machinery and other equipment 207,808,739 607,098 270,482 (964,046) 207,722,273

2,179,032,300 2,938,782 4,102,834 (68,745,268) 2,117,328,648

Less accumulated depreciation for:

Buildings and building

improvements 558,225,297 - 43,644,075 (38,513,954) 563,355,418

Land improvements 54,590,210 - 4,820,482 (3,146,579) 56,264,113

Vehicles 2,539,525 - 145,909 (610,877) 2,074,557

Machinery and other equipment 170,807,727 - 4,824,001 (602,646) 175,029,082

786,162,759 - 53,434,467 (42,874,056) 796,723,170

Total capital assets

being depreciated, net 1,392,869,541 2,938,782 (49,331,633) (25,871,212) 1,320,605,478

Total capital assets, net 1,455,873,724$ -$ (45,084,719)$ (31,335,632)$ 1,379,453,373$

Of the receivables listed above, $2,480,030 of the land contract receivable is not expected to be collected withinone year.

Receivables as of year end for the District’s individual major funds and the nonmajor funds in the aggregate,including the applicable allowances for uncollectible accounts, are as follows:

Capital asset activity of the District’s governmental activities is as follows:

88



Depreciation expense was charged to activities of the District as follows:

Depreciation

Function Expense

Instruction 28,842,723$

Support services 3,473,225

Community service 29,391

Food service 879,669

Athletics 1,530,124

Unallocated 18,679,335

53,434,467$

RemainingBond issue Spent to Date Commitment

2003B Series V 416,452,951$ 767,176$

2010B 49,945,350 737

466,398,301$ 767,913$

Construction commitments

Depreciation expense was unallocated where the District considers its assets to impact multiple activities andallocation is not practical.

The District has active construction projects at year end. At year end, the District’s commitments withcontractors are as follows in the listed bond issues:

In accordance with GASB Statement No. 42, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Impairment of Capital Assetsand for Insurance Recoveries, impaired capital assets that will no longer be used are reported at the lower ofcarrying value or fair value. The fair values of District buildings identified for closure were estimated, and thebook values were adjusted if the fair value was lower than the net book value. Assets with a carrying value ofapproximately $13 million are considered to be idle at year end.

Asset impairment

89



6. INTERFUND RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES AND TRANSFERS

Fund Due To

Nonmajor

Bond Governmental

Fund Due From Redemption Funds Total

General Fund 24,849,555$ 5,335,041$ 30,184,596$

Nonmajor governmental funds 764,353 325,172 1,089,525

25,613,908$ 5,660,213$ 31,274,121$

Interfund receivables and payables occur in the course of ordinary operations and reflect short-term transactionsbetween funds.

At fiscal year end, interfund transfers consisted of a $1,762,100 transfer from the nonmajor food service fund tothe general fund for administrative costs.

The composition of interfund balances is as follows:

90



7. LONG-TERM DEBT

Beginning Due Within

Description Balance Additions Deductions Ending Balance One Year

Bonds payable

School building & site improvement:

Series 1998C 51,965,000$ -$ (3,610,000)$ 48,355,000$ 3,800,000$

Series 2001A 183,695,000 - - 183,695,000 -

Series 2002A 35,785,000 - - 35,785,000 -

Series 2005A 470,735,000 - (243,935,000) 226,800,000 -

Series 2009A 79,967,400 - (5,047,400) 74,920,000 5,595,000

Series 2009B 192,800,000 - (1,400,000) 191,400,000 5,250,000

Series 2010A 145,665,000 - (1,575,000) 144,090,000 7,755,000

Series 2010B 49,630,000 - - 49,630,000 -

Series 2012A 312,595,000 - (7,775,000) 304,820,000 8,490,000

Series 2015A - 192,580,000 - 192,580,000 22,605,000

Series 1998 (Durant) 18,372,470 - (18,372,470) - -

Total school building & site improvement 1,541,209,870 192,580,000 (281,714,870) 1,452,075,000 53,495,000

Unamortized bond premium 67,568,056 23,843,976 (17,282,423) 74,129,609 9,260,258

Total bonds payable 1,608,777,926 216,423,976 (298,997,293) 1,526,204,609 62,755,258

Notes payable

Series 2011 188,352,734 - (23,310,671) 165,042,063 24,415,928

Series 2012 110,505,000 - (16,290,000) 94,215,000 17,105,000

Total notes payable 298,857,734 - (39,600,671) 259,257,063 41,520,928

Total installment debt 1,907,635,660 216,423,976 (338,597,964) 1,785,461,672 104,276,186

Other liabilities

Compensated absences payable 2,622,609 583,684 (42,728) 3,163,565 583,684

Employee severance plan 21,809,183 8,451,743 (15,385,931) 14,874,995 8,451,743

Workers' compensation and

health insurance claims 23,423,112 44,926,076 (50,182,119) 18,167,069 773,898

Legal and other 5,213,815 3,416,874 (5,213,815) 3,416,874 3,416,874

School Loan Revolving Fund 161,720,750 34,150,993 - 195,871,743 -

Total other liabilities 214,789,469 91,529,370 (70,824,593) 235,494,246 13,226,199

Total long-term obligations 2,122,425,129$ 307,953,346$ (409,422,557)$ 2,020,955,918$ 117,502,385$

The District issues bonds to provide for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities and theacquisition of certain equipment. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith andcredit of the District. The District has issued notes payable to refinance short-term State Aid Anticipation notesinto long-term payables. Other long-term obligations include compensated absences, termination benefits, claimsand judgments, and certain risk liabilities. In prior years, the General Fund has typically been used to liquidatenonbonded debt related long-term liabilities. The current portion of compensated absences reported in theGeneral Fund, $277,562 relates to the unpaid balance for terminated employees as of June 30, 2015, which isexpected to be paid using current available resources.

Long term obligation activity is summarized as follows:

91



Effective Date Year of Serial Interest Amount of

Description of Issue Maturity Rates of Debt Original Issue

Bonds payable

Series 1998C 11/01/1998 2025 3.50% - 5.25% 84,855,000$

Series 2001A 10/30/2001 2031 3.00% - 6.00% 438,365,000

Series 2002A 10/29/2002 2032 3.00% - 6.00% 388,995,000

Series 2005A 08/17/2005 2032 5.00% - 5.25% 500,000,000

Series 2009A* 12/30/2009 2025 3.19% 90,000,000

Series 2009B 12/30/2009 2039 5.06% 200,000,000

Series 2010A* 10/06/2010 2029 6.65% 160,910,000

Series 2010B 10/06/2010 2040 6.85% 49,630,000

Series 2012A 03/13/2012 2033 3.00% - 5.00% 337,735,000

Series 2015A 02/11/2015 2025 3.00% - 5.00% 192,580,000

School Building and Site

Improvement Bonds Notes Payable

Year Ended

June 30, Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total

2016 53,495,000$ 84,801,816$ 138,296,816$ 41,520,928$ 11,481,166$ 53,002,094$

2017 56,535,000 81,964,226 138,499,226 43,537,684 9,471,291 53,008,975

2018 58,995,000 79,772,394 138,767,394 45,653,774 7,355,298 53,009,072

2019 61,525,000 77,538,335 139,063,335 47,864,278 5,141,291 53,005,569

2020 64,285,000 75,080,275 139,365,275 49,886,482 3,117,218 53,003,700

2021-2025 369,675,000 333,275,988 702,950,988 30,793,917 1,462,711 32,256,628

2026-2030 460,780,000 219,078,969 679,858,969 - - -

2031-2035 229,715,000 69,700,806 299,415,806 - - -

2036-2040 97,070,000 19,064,222 116,134,222 - - -

1,452,075,000$ 1,040,277,031$ 2,492,352,031$ 259,257,063$ 38,028,975$ 297,286,038$

Effective Date Year of Serial Interest Amount of

Description of Issue Maturity Rates of Debt Original Issue

Notes payable

Series 2011 10/13/2011 2021 4.75% 244,910,407$

Series 2012 05/17/2012 2020 1.260% - 5.018% 141,095,000

The effective issue dates, year of maturity, serial interest rate, and original amount of issue for the bondsoutstanding at June 30, 2015 is as follows:

Annual debt service requirements to maturity for long-term debt are as follows:

* - Annual payments are paid to a trustee that holds the proceeds in trust for payment of the full amount of the bonds atmaturity. The bonds are considered to be defeased at the time payments are made to the trustee.

Notes Payable

The effective issue dates, year of maturity, serial interest rate, and original amount of issue for the notesoutstanding at June 30, 2015 is as follows:

92



Principal Interest Total

Beginning balance 152,916,577$ 8,804,173$ 161,720,750$

Additions 28,384,590 5,766,403 34,150,993

Ending balance 181,301,167$ 14,570,576$ 195,871,743$

On March 12, 2015, the District issued $192,580,000 School Building and Site Improvement Refunding Bonds withan interest rate of 3.00%-5.00% to refund $209,935,000 of outstanding 2005A Series Bonds with an average couponrate of 5.00%. This refunding resulted in a savings of $27,336,925 and an economic gain of $24,890,098. The netproceeds of the 2015 bonds were used to purchase direct United States Treasury securities. These securities weredeposited in an irrevocable escrow fund to be used to pay, when due, the principal, and interest on the refundedbonds. The refunded 2005A Series were called for redemption on May 1, 2015, and were paid from the escrowfund.

School Loan Revolving Fund

The school loan revolving fund payable represents notes payable to the State of Michigan for loans made to theDistrict, as authorized by the 1963 State of Michigan Constitution, for the purpose of paying principal and intereston general obligation bonds of the District issued for capital expenditures. Interest rates are to be annuallydetermined by the State Administrative Board. The interest rate charged to the District for the year was 3.4%through June 30, 2015. Repayment is required when the millage rate necessary to cover the annual bonded debtservice requirements falls below 7.0 mills. As of June 30, 2015, the District did not have a current balance due asa result of this requirement. The District is required to levy mills and repay the State any excess of the amountlevied over the bonded debt service requirement. Due to the variability of the factors that affect the timing ofrepayment, including the future amount of state-equalized value of property in the District, no provision forrepayment has been included in the above amortization schedule. Changes in principal and interest were asfollows:

On October 13, 2011, the District issued long-term notes to refinance $231 million of short-term state aidanticipation notes. On May 17, 2012, the District entered into an amended and restated multi-year repaymentagreement with the Michigan Finance Authority to redeem bonds issued in 2005. Those bonds were originallyissued in April 2005 to refinance $210 million in short-term state aid anticipation notes.

Advance refundings

On August 19, 2011 the District’s Emergency Manager signed an Amended Order Relating to Wage, Compensationand Benefits Structure For District Employees (“Amended Order”). Wage and compensation restructuringprovisions of the Amended Order became effective July 29, 2011. The Amended Order, among other wage andcompensation restructuring provisions, suspended payment by the District of any sick days remaining unused atthe time of an employee’s resignation or retirement.

Compensated absences

93



During Fiscal Year 2013, union contracts were negotiated suspending payment of unused sick leave daysthroughout the duration of the agreements. This suspension is applicable to all Detroit Public Schools unions withthe exception of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. As part of the union contract, these benefits werenegotiated at a reduced rate each year with a maximum of 200 days paid to retirees. The District has agreed toprovide restoration and payment of unused sick days at retirement for employees who retire effectively July 1 andAugust 1 and whose irrevocable separation-from-service form is submitted no later than May 1 of each year until2016. It is the District’s intent to periodically review this and other provisions in the Amended Order todetermine if any should be modified.

The District is paying a severance incentive payment to an eligible employee who participates in the Plan,provided that the employee has fulfilled his/her contractual obligations through his/her exit date. Eligibleemployees electing the Plan were required to select a separation of service date of June 30, 2013, or a separationdate of June 30, 2014 or July 31, 2014 (for qualified DFT members assigned to summer school or extended yearprograms) for the plan offered in 2014. The District reserves the right to change the separation date of aparticipant to an alternate date based on operational needs as determined solely by the District; however, thealternate date shall not be later than June 30, 2015 or July 31, 2015. If the District exercises this right, thealternate date selected by the District became the separation of service date of the Employee. An employeeretained through an alternate date selected by the District receives the same Plan benefit dollar amount he/shewould have received had the District not changed the exit date, but the Plan benefit payments started not laterthan four months following his/her actual exit date. Failure to fulfill contractual obligations through theemployee's exit date will result in forfeiture of the Plan benefits. Death or disability is not considered a lack offulfillment of contractual obligations, and does not preclude the Employee from receiving Plan benefits.

Following separation from service with the District the employee is free to accept full or part-time employmentwith another employer, or perform substitute services, or other employment with the District at the District's solediscretion.

For the 2013 plan, employees who elected to participate in the ESP will receive a severance incentive payment inan amount equal to sixty-five percent (65%) of his/her 2012-2013 post-concession base annual salary. Employeeselected to participate in the Plan from May 13, 2013 through June 28, 2013. In fiscal year 2013, the Plan had 184participants. For the plan offered in 2014, employees who elect to participate in the ESP will receive a severanceincentive payment in an amount equal to sixty percent (60%) of his/her 2013-2014 base annual salary, plusapplicable sick leave pay and Termination Incentive Pay ("TIP").

Termination Benefits - Employee Severance Plans

The Employee Severance Plan ("ESP") was available to actively working employees with Detroit Public Schools("the District") represented by the Detroit Federation of Teachers ("DFT") excluding hourly and substitutes, who,(1) had ten or more years of service with the District as of June 30, 2013; or (2) were earning a minimum of$60,000 and had a minimum of 5 years of service with the District as of June 30, 2013. The Plan was also availableto employees represented by AFSCME, Local 345, OSAS, OSAS Related, DAEOE, DAEOE Related, Police OfficersAssociation of Michigan (POAM), POAM Related, Police Officers Labor Council, NISP, Paraprofessionals and nonrepresented employees including Principals, Assistant Principals, and Executive staff who had ten or more years ofservice with the District as of June 30, 2013. However, the Plan was not available to any District employee whonotified the District in writing on or before May 1, 2013 that he/she would be resigning or retiring from DPS forthe 2012-2013 school year, was a substitute, temporary or contracted employee, was laid off or terminated, orwho had previously retired and returned to the District. A similar plan was also made available to employeesrepresented by DFT meeting the same requirements as of June 30, 2014 and 2015.

94



8. RESTRICTED ASSETS

GovernmentalActivities

Unspent bond proceeds and related interest 4,053,653$ Unspent property taxes levied for debt service 56,966 Unspent food services fund proceeds 646,239 Unspent adult education funds 17,617

4,774,475$

9. FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS)

NonmajorBond Governmental

General Fund Redemption Funds Total

Fund balancesNonspendable:

Prepaids 2,252,428$ -$ 23,036$ 2,275,464$

Restricted for:State and other programs 925,808 - - 925,808 Food service - - 6,123,021 6,123,021 Debt service - 31,794,974 - 31,794,974 Capital projects - - 3,386,337 3,386,337

Total restricted 925,808 31,794,974 9,509,358 42,230,140

Unassigned (deficits) (219,110,153) - (1,325,237) (220,435,390)

Total fund balances (deficits) (215,931,917)$ 31,794,974$ 8,207,157$ (175,929,786)$

The balances of the restricted asset accounts are as follows:

The unspent bond proceeds and related interest of the capital projects funds are required to be set aside forconstruction. The unspent program income earned by the food service fund is required to be set aside for foodservices. The unspent receipts for adult education is required to be set aside for adult education. In addition, theunspent property taxes levied in the debt service fund are required to be set aside for future bond principal andinterest payments. These amounts have been classified as restricted assets.

Participants receive payment of the total Plan benefit over a period of five years, divided into 60 equal monthlypayments paid to an annuity contract or custodial account that is designed to meet the tax-qualificationrequirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 403(b).

95



10. NET INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL ASSETS

Capital assets:Capital assets not being depreciated 58,847,895$ Capital assets being depreciated, net 1,320,605,478

1,379,453,373 Related debt:

Bonds payable 1,526,204,609 Deferred charge on refunding (16,758,605) Unspent bond proceeds (3,340,467)

1,506,105,537

Net investment in capital assets (126,652,164)$

11. RISK MANAGEMENT

Claims liability, June 30, 2013 28,044,656$ Claims incurred during fiscal year 2014,

including changes in estimate 59,807,309 Payments on claims (64,428,853) Claims liability, June 30, 2014 23,423,112 Claims incurred during fiscal year 2015,

including changes in estimate 44,926,076 Payments on claims (50,182,119)

Claims liability, June 30, 2015 18,167,069$

As of June 30, 2015, net investment in capital assets was comprised of the following:

A reconciliation of the District’s self-insured claims liability at June 30, 2015 is as follows:

The District is self-insured for workers’ compensation, certain health benefits and other claims, litigation, andassessments. Accruals for claims, litigation, and assessments are recorded in the government-wide financialstatements. These accruals are recorded in the fund financial statements, within the governmental funds, whenthe amounts are due and payable at year-end. There were no significant reductions in coverage from the prioryear.

Health insurance and workers’ compensation claims that are probable of loss and estimable in amount areincluded in the government-wide financial statements. The amount of claims liability is based on analysesperformed by outside consultants and includes an estimate of incurred claims that have not yet been reported.

The liability for workers’ compensation claims includes an estimate of loss and allocated loss adjustment (ALAE).The estimate of loss is based on historical loss runs for the workers’ compensation program through June 30,2015. ALAE represents the cost of legal fees, expert testimony, medical examination, etc., that are associatedwith the defense and settlement of particular claims. Unallocated loss adjustment expenses are not included inthe estimate.

Various legal actions, proceedings, and claims are pending or may be asserted in the future against the District,including those arising out of personal injuries and civil actions. Some of the foregoing matters involvecompensatory and/or punitive damage claims.

96



12. RETIREMENT PLAN

General Information about the Pension Plan

Plan Type Plan Status

Member Investment Plan (MIP) Defined Benefit ClosedBasic Defined Benefit Closed

Pension Plus Hybrid OpenDefined Contribution Defined Contribution Open

Members hired between July 1, 2010 and September 3, 2012 were enrolled in the Pension Plus plan. Membershired on or after September 4, 2012 are automatically enrolled in this plan unless an election is made toparticipate in the defined contribution plan. The plan includes a pension component as well as a savingscomponent. Member contributions to the savings component are match at a rate of 50% by the employer (up to amaximum of 1%) and invested in a 401(k) plan.

Plan Description. The District contributes to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System(“MPSERS”), a cost-sharing multiple-employer pension plan administered by the State of Michigan Department ofManagement and Budget, Office of Retirement Services with oversight from a 12-member board. Benefitprovisions are established and may be amended by state statute. The Office of Retirement Services issues apublicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information forMPSERS. That report can be obtained by writing to Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System, 7150Harris Drive, P.O. Box 30171, Lansing, Michigan, 48909 or by calling (517) 322-5103.

Participants are enrolled in one of multiple plans based on date of hire and certain voluntary elections. Asummary of the pension plans offered by MPSERS is as follows:

Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, the ultimate outcome of which is not predictable; however, theDistrict’s management believes the resulting liabilities from outstanding legal actions, proceedings, and claimswill not have a material adverse effect upon the District’s financial position or results of operations. At June 30,2015, the District has recorded an estimated liability of approximately $3.4 million for pending litigation as a long-term obligation.

A member first enrolling in MPSERS on or after September 4, 2012 may elect to enroll in the defined contribution plan. Employer and employee contribution rates and vesting requirements are consistent with the definedcontribution component of the Pension Plus plan as described above.

Plan Name

The Member Investment Plan (MIP) includes additional subgroups based on hire date. The MIP Fixed plan includesmembers hired prior to January 1, 1990. The MIP Graded plan includes members first hired from January 1, 1990through June 30, 2008. The MIP Plus plan includes members first hired from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.Members who initially enrolled in the MIP plan and made a voluntary election to contribute a higher rate areparticipants in the MIP 7 % plan.

Effective February 1, 2013, members that initially enrolled in MIP were provided the option to convert to adefined contribution plan (Basic 4%). In these instances, any service credit accumulated under the definedbenefit plan before February 1, 2013 is retained. For service performed after this date, the converted planmember receives 4% employer contributions to a personal 401(k) account.

97



Eligibility Based on Years of Service Vesting

Member Investment Plan (MIP) Age 46 with 30 years or age 60 with 10 years 10 yearsBasic Age 55 with 30 years or Age 60 with 10 years 10 yearsPension Plus Age 60 with 10 years 4 yearsDefined Contribution Age 46 with 30 years or age 60 with 10 years 4 years

Plan

Contributions. Employer contributions to the plans are based on a percentage of covered payroll that has beenactuarially determined as an amount that, when combined with employee contributions, is expected to financethe cost of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfundedaccrued liability. Member contributions are determined based on date of hire and the plan selected. In addition,the District is invoiced monthly an amount that approximates 7.63% of covered payroll for "MPSERS UAALStabilization." This additional contribution is offset by monthly State aid payments equal to the amounts actuallybilled by the Office of Retirement Services. For the plan year ended September 30, 2015, an additional 1.13%MPSERS liability prepayment was invoiced as a one-time cost. Employer contribution requirements for pension,inclusive of the MPSERS UAAL Stabilization and one-time prepayment rates, range from 27.52% to 31.83% ofcovered payroll. Plan member contributions range from 0.0% to 7.0% of covered payroll.

The District's contribution to MPSERS under all pension plans for the year ended June 30, 2015, inclusive of theMPSERS UAAL Stabilization and one-time prepayment, was $98,482,599.

Pension Liabilities, Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions

At June 30, 2015, the District reported a liability of $872,735,996 for its proportionate share of the net pensionliability. The net pension liability was measured as of September 30, 2014, and the total pension liability used tocalculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation rolled forward from September 30,2013. The District’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the District’s long-termshare of contributions to the pension plan relative to the projected contributions of all participating schooldistricts, actuarially determined. At September 30, 2014, the District’s proportion (as calculated by MPSERS) was3.96221%.

Benefits Provided. MPSERS provides retirement, death, disability and postemployment benefits to eligibleparticipants. Retirement benefits are calculated as a percentage of the employee's final average compensationtimes the employee's years of service. All participants qualify for a benefit multiplier of 1.5% for the first 30 yearsof service. Certain benefit groups receive a reduced rate of 1.25% for service above 30 years. Disability benefitsare calculated the same as regular service retirement. Participants are eligible to receive full retirement benefitsupon reaching the age and years of service requirements below. Most plans offer additional options for earlyretirement if certain stipulations have been met. Voluntary contributions vest immediately.

98



Net DeferredDeferred Deferred Outflows

Outflows of Inflows of (Inflows) ofResources Resources Resources

Changes in assumptions $ 32,202,091 $ - $ 32,202,091 Changes in proportion and differences between

District contributions and proportionate shareof contributions 224,197 - 224,197

Net difference between projected and actualearnings on pension plan investments - 96,481,319 (96,481,319)

32,426,288 96,481,319 (64,055,031)District contributions subsequent to the

measurement date 90,799,214 - 90,799,214

Total $ 123,225,502 $ 96,481,319 $ 26,744,183

Year EndedJune 30, Amount

2016 $ (15,688,500)2017 (15,688,500)2018 (15,688,500)2019 (16,989,531)

Total $ (64,055,031)

Wage inflation 3.5%Salary increases 3.5% to 12.3%, including wage inflation at 3.5%Investment rate of return 8.0% (7.0% for the Pension Plus plan)Cost of living adjustments 3.0% annual, non-compounded for MIP membersHealthcare cost trend rate 8.5% year 1 graded to 3.5% year 12

For the year ended June 30, 2015, the District recognized pension expense of $70,752,360. At June 30, 2015, theDistrict reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pension from thefollowing sources:

The amount of deferred outflows of resources related to District contributions subsequent to the measurementdate will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June 30, 2016. Otheramounts reported as pension-related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources will berecognized in pension expense as follows:

Actuarial Assumptions. The total pension liability in the September 30, 2013 actuarial valuation was determinedusing the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement:

The mortality table used in this valuation was the RP-2000 Male and Female Combined Healthy Life MortalityTables, adjusted for mortality improvements to 2025 using projection scale BB. For retirees, 100% of the tablerates were used. For active members, 80% of the table rates were used for males and 70% of the table rates wereused for females.

99



Target Allocation

Long-termExpected RealRate of Return

Expected Money-

Weighted Rate of Return

Domestic equity pools 28.00% 4.80% 1.34%Alternative investment pools 18.00% 8.50% 1.53%International equity 16.00% 6.10% 0.98%Fixed income pools 10.50% 1.50% 0.16%Real estate and infrastructure pools 10.00% 5.30% 0.53%Absolute return pools 15.50% 6.30% 0.98%Short-term investment pools 2.00% -0.20% -0.02%

100.00% 5.50%

Inflation 2.50%

Investment rate of return 8.00%

1% Decrease (7.0%)

Current Discount Rate

(8.0%)1% Increase

(9.00%)

1,150,626,415$ 872,735,996$ 638,609,215$

Asset Class

Discount Rate. The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 8.0%. The projection of cashflows used to determine the discount rate assumed that plan member contributions will be made at the currentcontribution rate and that District contributions will be made at contractually required rates, actuariallydetermined. Based on those assumptions, the pension plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be availableto make all projected future benefit payments of current active and inactive employees. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefitpayments to determine the total pension liability.

Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate. The following presents the net pensionliability of the District, calculated using the discount rate of 8.0%, as well as what the District’s net pensionliability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1% lower (7.0%) or 1% higher (9.0%) than thecurrent rate:

District's proportionate share of the net pensio

Assumption changes as a result of an experience study for the periods 2007 through 2012 have been adopted bythe System for use in the annual pension valuations beginning with the September 30, 2014 valuation.

The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-blockmethod in which best-estimates of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension planinvestment expense and inflation) are developed for each asset class. These ranges are combined to produce thelong-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the target assetallocation percentage and by adding expected inflation. The target allocation and best estimates of arithmeticreal rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table:

liability

100



13. POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS – TERMINATION INCENTIVE PLAN (TIP)

Plan Description. The Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), Local 231 union contract from July 1, 2009 throughJune 30, 2012 includes a professional compensation clause: Termination Incentive Plan. This Plan started onJanuary 12, 2010 and was expected to expire in fiscal year 2012. On August 19, 2011, the District’s EmergencyManager signed an amended order relating to wages, compensation, and benefits structure for Districtemployees. This amended order suspended the Termination Incentive Plan. The plan applies to all salariedmembers of DFT except assistant attendance officers, accompanists and members who work less than .5 FTEs.$250 was deducted each pay except during the summer. Plan-to-date, these deductions amounted to $49 million. If an employee retires or resigns after this agreement, the employee is entitled to $1,000 for each year of serviceup to nine years with a cap of $9,000. No payment will exceed the amount contributed. Payments are subject topension calculations and reportable to the Office of Retirement at the time the employee receives the funds fromthe District.

Payable to the Pension Plan. At June 30, 2015, the District reported a payable of $76,164,997 for the outstandingamount of pension contributions to the Plan required for the year ended June 30, 2015. This amount includedapproximately seven months of contractually required contributions which the District has not yet remitted to thePlan due to cash flow difficulties.

Other Postemployment Benefits

Retirees enrolled in MPSERS before September 4, 2012 have the option of participating in the Premium Subsidyplan, a defined benefit postemployment healthcare plan, which is funded by employers on a cash disbursementbasis. The State of Michigan has contracted to provide the comprehensive group medical, hearing, dental andvision coverage for retirees and beneficiaries. All health care benefits are on a self-funded basis. A significantportion of the premium is paid by MPSERS with the balance deducted from the monthly pension. Employercontributions range from 2.20% to 2.71% of covered payroll. Plan participants contribute 3% of covered payroll tothe Retiree Healthcare Fund. At retirement, these individuals receive a subsidy for healthcare premiums thatcovers up to 80% of cost.

Plan members enrolled on or after September 4, 2012 participate in the Personal Healthcare Fund . This definedcontribution other postemployment benefits plan includes a required 2% employee contribution into a personaltax-deferred account, which is matched by an additional 2% employer contribution. Employees are fully vested inthese contributions which can be used, along with earnings thereon, to pay for postemployment healthcareexpenses. Plan members working prior to September 4, 2012 were given the option to convert from the PremiumSubsidy plan to the Personal Healthcare Fund option. Effective February 1, 2014, these members are no longerrequired to make the 3% employee contribution. Amounts paid into the Retiree Healthcare Fund betweenSeptember 4, 2012 and February 1, 2014 were credited to each individual’s Personal Healthcare Fund account.Any contributions made prior to September 4, 2012 are pending a Supreme Court resolution.

Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position. Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position isavailable in the separately issued MPSERS financial statements available on the State of Michigan Office ofRetirement Services website at www.michigan.gov/orsschools.

The District’s contributions to MPSERS for other postemployment benefits amounted to $9,905,566 for the yearended June 30, 2015.

101



Annual required contribution 9,228,694$ Interest on net OPEB obligation 164,854 Adjustment to annual required contribution (2,280,459)

Net OPEB cost (expense) 7,113,089 Contributions made (2,283,280)

Increase in net OPEB obligation 4,829,809 Net OPEB obligation, beginning of year 6,594,176

Net OPEB obligation, end of year 11,423,985$

Three-Year Trend Information

Percentage ofYear Net Net OPEB Cost Net OPEB

Ended OPEB Cost Contributed Obligation

06/30/2013 7,292,832$ 82.2% 3,108,825$ 06/30/2014 6,917,077 49.6% 6,594,176 06/30/2015 7,113,089 32.1% 11,423,985

Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation. The District’s annual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost was$7,113,089. The required contribution was determined as part of the June 30, 2015 actuarial valuation, using theunprojected unit credit actuarial cost method. Significant actuarial assumptions include a 2.5% investment rate ofreturn (net of administrative expenses). The District's unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being amortizedusing the level dollar method on a closed basis. The remaining amortization period at June 30, 2015 is 3 years.

The schedule of funding progress, presented as RSI following the notes to the financial statements, presentsmultiyear trend information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over timerelative to the actuarial accrued liability for benefits.

Funded Status. As of June 30, 2015, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the actuarial accrued liability forbenefits was $16,617,931, all of which was unfunded.

Actuarial Methods and Assumptions . Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on thesubstantive plan (the Plan as understood by the employer and Plan members) and include the types of benefitsprovided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between theemployer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques thatare designed to reduce the effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial valueof assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations.

The following table shows the components of the District's annual OPEB cost for the year, the amount actuallycontributed to the Plan, and changes in the District's net OPEB obligation:

Funding Policy. The contribution requirements of Plan members and the District are established and may beamended by the District’s Emergency Manager. The District is required to contribute the annual requiredcontribution of the employer (ARC) at an actuarially determined rate as required by the parameters of GASBStatement 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to covernormal costs each year and amortize any unfunded liability (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed 30years.

102



14. STATE AID ANTICIPATION NOTES

Note

Date of Issuance

Maturity Date Interest Rate

Beginning Balance Additions Retirements Ending Balance

2013C 08/27/13 08/20/14 4.375% 92,000,000$ -$ (92,000,000)$ -$

2014E 08/29/14 08/20/15 2.850% - 107,800,000 (107,800,000) -

2015B 05/19/15 06/01/16 4.750% - 82,800,000 - 82,800,000

92,000,000$ 190,600,000$ (199,800,000)$ 82,800,000$

15. FUNDING UNCERTAINTIES

·········· Employees benefits restructuring

On May 19, 2015, the District issued $82,800,000 to refinance $78,550,000 of the 2014E State Aid Anticipationnotes. These proceeds of these notes, along with set aside payments of $29,250,000, were used to purchasedirect United States Treasury securities. These securities were deposited in an irrevocable escrow fund to be usedto pay, when due, the principal, and interest on the refinanced notes. As a result, the refinanced notes areconsidered to be defeased and the liability for notes has been removed from the financial statements.

Staff reductions to align staffing with pupil enrollmentReductions in general fund discretionary spendingSchool closures

The District receives over 55 percent of its funding for regular operations from the State of Michigan through its“foundation allowance” and other school district funding. The foundation allowance for the current fiscal yearwas determined by the State and paid on the basis of the number of students attending the District on count dayin October 2014 and in February 2015. The District has experienced declines in enrollment which resulted inreductions in State and Federal revenues. These declines in revenue have challenged the District to reduceoperating expenditures including facilities, staffing, health care, pension and other costs.

As required by State law, a public school district that incurs a deficit must submit a deficit elimination plan to the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) for review and approval. The District’s latest plan was approved by theState Superintendent of Public Instruction in August 2014.

The Deficit Elimination Plan addresses the deficit through development of plans for reductions in general fundspending, and enhancement of revenues including:

Implementation of new ERP system to enhance operational efficiencies

Union concessions

The proceeds from the sale of these notes provide the District with funds to meet its cash flow requirements forthe current fiscal year. The District's State Aid revenue is pledged to repay this obligation, and amounts are set-aside from State Aid revenues due the District sufficient to retire this obligation at maturity.

Increasing revenue through pupil gain and retention initiativesEmployees Severance PlanSale of surplus real estate and other property

Central administration reorganization and restructuring

103



The District was also required to provide to the Department of Treasury an Enhanced Deficit Elimination Planwhich was accepted by the State Treasurer’s office on September 3, 2015. This year’s deficit is less than budgetamendment five which projected a deficit of $238 million. The actual deficit for fiscal year 2015 is $216 million.There still remains a significant deficit which must be dealt with in Fiscal year 2016 and beyond. Therefore inorder to reorganize the District, Detroit Public Schools is undertaking a major transformation and reorganizing theCentral Office and streamlining support to direct more resources to the schools which will provide them withmore authority at the school level.

The fiscal year 2016 budget reflects a $50 million shortfall in cash in the early spring which requires support fromthe State. Without this support, it is very difficult for the District to continue operations. After 2016, theDistrict will continue to require assistance from the State. Therefore, the District must reform from the currentstructure.

In order to reform the District, various initiatives have taken place.

In December 2014, a diverse cross-section of leaders representing Detroit’s education, civic, philanthropic,business, religious, and community sectors led by the Skillman Foundation formed a Coalition for the Future ofDetroit Schoolchildren (the “Coalition”). The Coalition’s work focused on the City’s charter schools, the Districtand the Education Achievement Authority (“EAA”), a school district created in 2011 to operate the State’s lowestachieving schools, and how the City’s fragmented school systems impact student outcomes and efficiency inoperations. On March 30, 2015, the Coalition fulfilled its stated charge to create a list of suggested educationchanges and present them to public officials and lawmakers, including the Governor and the City’s Mayor. TheCoalition’s recommendations included the creation of a Detroit city commission to implement and administer aunified system for transportation and other support services for all public and charter schools located in the City,the return of all EAA schools to the District and a proposed assumption of all District outstanding obligationssupported by a pledge of the District’s State Aid.

With the implementation of innovative revenue producing initiatives and the reduction or elimination of manyexpenditures, the District is committed to the elimination of the legacy deficit and right-sizing Detroit PublicSchools so that it provides a quality education to the children of Detroit.

The District's ability to stabilize its financial condition has a direct correlation to its ability to increase pupilenrollment, stabilize and enhance its revenues, and complete a comprehensive restructuring of its operations.

The continuing decline in enrollment for fiscal year 2015 provided the District with challenges maintaining abalanced budget throughout the year. To mitigate the District’s traditional enrollment decline, it has developeda comprehensive pupil retention and gain program that was implemented in FY 2014 and continued through fiscalyear 2015. The loss of enrollment in the Fall 2015 suggests that the measures are beginning to show results.

On October 19, 2015, Governor Snyder presented a legislative package for Detroit Public Schools that is focusedon a financially sound system and provide families with more quality educational options. The Governor’srecommendations were primarily based on the work of the Coalition. He announced that creating a debt-freeschool district will cost the state up to $715 million over 10 years. This is due to the operating debt expecting toincrease to $515 million by June 30, 2016 and the new district requiring $200 million for related start-up costs forcapital improvements and additional debt expected in the first few years. Under this proposal, the Old DPSwould repay the debt using an existing 18-mill non-homestead property tax millage which expires in 2022, whichcurrently makes up the local portion of the school operating funds. In addition, the proposal calls for the New DPSto collect all of the State Aid payments allocable to the district to fund its operations.

104



·

·

·

·

16. POLLUTION REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES

17. JOINTLY GOVERNED ORGANIZATION

Education Achievement Authority

Since the announcement of the Governor’s proposal, other legislative propositions have been suggested torestructure education in the city of Detroit. The outcome of any reform initiated by the Governor on the District,or any legislation proposed to restructure the District and its operations is still being reviewed. It is expectedthat legislation will be introduced in the very near future.

The District currently is in the midst of restructuring its support services by reducing 100 central office positionsby January 1, 2016. In addition, it is taking other austerity measures such as offering even more cost effectivehealth plans, continuing the prior 10% pay reductions, selling excess properties, and restructuring existing vendorcontracts.

Creating a new, traditional public school district – the Detroit Community School District which would educatethe students (New DPS), with the current Detroit Public Schools existing to address the debt (Old DPS). Thestudents, employees, contracts, employee benefits, and assets would move to the new district. TheGovernor’s proposal includes DPS as well as the EAA and the charter schools. The new district would begoverned by a seven-member board initially appointed by the Governor and the mayor of Detroit which wouldtransition to an elected board in 2021.

A Detroit Education Commission would be created, appointed by the governor and mayor, to engage with thecommunity in hiring a Chief Education Officer. This Officer would hold the low-performing schoolsaccountable and reward and increase the number of high-performing schools.

The Chief Education Officer would operate a common enrollment system with common forms, enrollmentperiods and notification dates that will assist parents in identifying and evaluating their options in order tochoose school’s that is best for their children’s needs.

This restructuring plan calls for the New DPS and Old DPS to be overseen by a Financial Review Commissionuntil the District’s debt is repaid in full.

The proposed legislative package includes:

Under federal and state asbestos and lead abatement laws and guidelines, the District is required to performasbestos and lead abatement in school facilities. The District’s Office of Environmental Health and Safety hiresconsultants to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination and to design and conduct remediation plans toaddress these environmental issues. As required by law, 6-month surveillance and 3-year re-inspections areperformed. There is no liability for pollution remediation costs recorded as of June 30, 2015.

Creation and purpose. The Education Achievement Authority (EAA), a Michigan public body corporate and specialauthority was created effective June 24, 2012. The Michigan Legislature implemented Section 5 of Article III ofthe State Constitution of 1963 and Section 28 of Article VII of the State Constitution of 1963 by enacting theUrban Cooperation Act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sese) PA7, MCL124.501 to 124.512 (“Act”). Under the act, a publicagency may jointly exercise with any other public agency any power, privilege, or authority that the agenciesshare in common and that each might exercise separately. An agreement between one or more public agenciesunder the act may provide for a separate legal or administrative entity, which must be a public body corporate orpolitic, to administer or execute the agreement.

105



1.

2.

It is the intent of Eastern Michigan University (University) and the District, at the request of the Governor of theState of Michigan, to utilize existing constitutional and statutory law to establish a mechanism for providingimproved public educational services. The University and the District intend to achieve their goal by creating aseparate legal entity named the Education Achievement Authority (Authority). Effective June 24, 2012, theDistrict entered into an “Interlocal Agreement” with the Board of Regents of Eastern Michigan University.

The District agreed that the Authority would administer or execute the joint powers, duties, functions,responsibilities, and authority possessed by the District and the University as necessary to provide innovative,flexible, transparent, safe, efficient, and effective public educational services.

· Assistance with Medicaid billing

· Network operations services

Authority Governance. The governing body of the District appoints 2 residents of the State as members of theAuthority Board. The governing body of the University appoints 2 residents of the State as members of theAuthority Board. The Governor of the State appoints 7 residents of the State as members of the Authority Board.The Governor designates an Authority Board member to serve as Chairperson of the Authority Board.

The Executive Committee of the Authority consists of 5 members of the Authority Board and exercises the powersof the Authority unless otherwise provided in the Agreement.

At the time of the formation of the Authority, the Emergency Manager of the District serviced on the Board of theAuthority, as well as the Chairman of the Executive Committee.

Various Lease, Asset Transfers and Pre-K Agreements – Effective July 1, 2013, the District leased 15 of itsschools to the Authority. The initial terms of the leases are for a three (3) year period. The base rent foreach of the 15 schools is $1.00 per year. In addition, the Authority agreed to pay the District no later thanAugust 24, 2014, the sum equal to the number of Detroit Resident Students attending school at the premisesmultiplied by $910. Similar payments are to continue, under the leases, until all the District operating debtresulting from deficit financing, outstanding as of June 30, 2013 and each June 30th, thereafter has beenretired. The District also agreed to provide limited pre-kindergarten services in certain leased schools.

The cost reimbursement for these services is approximately $500,000 for fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.

· Pupil food services· Security services

· High school athletic services

· Joint grant management

Authority Operations. The Authority began organizing during FY 2012-2013 and began actual operation of schoolseffective July 1, 2013. To facilitate the Authority’s operations, the District and Authority staff engaged in certaintransition activities and tasks. These activities and tasks resulted in the Authority and the District entering intoseveral agreements effective July 1, 2013:

Master Service Agreement - This agreement covers any services that the District may provide to the Authorityand the related compensation the District is to receive for those services. Subsequent to June 30, 2013 andcontinuing through the current fiscal year, the District agreed to provide the following services to theAuthority at cost:

106



18. RESTATEMENTS

19. SUBSEQUENT EVENT

State Aid Revenue Notes

On September 16, 2015, the Michigan Finance Authority issued $121,200,000 in State Aid Revenue Notes, Series2015E, School District of the City of Detroit, maturing on August 22, 2016 in the amount of $121.2 million. Thenotes carry an interest rate of 5.75 percent. The proceeds from the sale of these notes will provide the Districtwith funds to meet its cash flow requirements in fiscal year 2016. The District’s State Aid revenue is pledged torepay this obligation, and amounts are set-aside from State Aid revenues due the School District sufficient toretire this obligation at maturity.

The Authority is responsible for all costs of operating the various schools. The District will reimburse theAuthority for costs required to mitigate facility code violations up to a maximum of twenty percent of theannual rental payments. Generally, all fixtures, equipment and furnishings paid for by the District, remain theproperty of the District.

The District adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions , in the current year. As a result of this change, beginning net position of governmental activities was decreased by$858,345,276.

Outstanding receivables from the EAA as of June 30, 2015 were approximately $5.5 million.

107

REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

109


Required Supplementary InformationMPSERS Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Plan

Year Ended June 30, 2015

District's proportion of the net pension liability 3.96221%

District's proportionate share of the net pension liability 872,735,996$

District's covered-employee payroll 330,958,130

District's proportionate share of the net pension liability as a percentageof its covered-employee payroll 263.70%

Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 66.20%

The amounts presented for each fiscal year were determined as of September 30 of the preceding year.

Schedule of the District's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability

Note: GASB 68 was implemented in fiscal year 2015. This schedule is being built prospectively. Ultimately, 10 years of data will be presented.

110


Required Supplementary InformationMPSERS Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Plan


Contractually required contributions 98,482,599$

Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (98,482,599)

Contribution deficiency (excess) -$

District's covered-employee payroll 314,790,059$

Contributions as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 31.29%

Schedule of District Contributions

Note: GASB 68 was implemented in fiscal year 2015. This schedule is being built prospectively. Ultimately, 10 years of data will be presented.

111


Required Supplementary InformationFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Schedule of Funding ProgressOther Postemployment Benefits Plan

Actuarial Actuarial UnfundedActuarial Value of Accrued AAL FundedValuation Assets Liability (AAL) (UAAL) Ratio

Date (a) (b) (b-a) (a / b)

06/30/2011 -$ 32,180,704$ 32,180,704$ 0.0%06/30/2013 - 25,627,103 25,627,103 0.0%06/30/2015 - 16,617,931 16,617,931 0.0%

Schedule of Employer ContributionsOther Postemployment Benefits Plan

AnnualYear Ended Required PercentageJune 30, Contributions Contributed

2011 8,074,988$ 90.7%2012 10,261,492 87.9%2013 7,632,963 78.5%2014 7,655,578 44.8%2015 9,228,694 24.7%

112


Required Supplementary InformationBudgetary Comparison Schedule - General FundFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

VarianceOriginal Final With FinalBudget Budget Actual Budget

RevenuesLocal sources

Special education millage 42,689,166$ 41,011,077$ 30,085,680$ (10,925,397)$ Other 108,662,496 89,006,608 75,236,934 (13,769,674)

Total local sources 151,351,662 130,017,685 105,322,614 (24,695,071) State sources 361,548,947 384,986,851 385,812,644 825,793 Federal sources 156,156,530 187,969,665 169,259,155 (18,710,510)

Total revenues 669,057,139 702,974,201 660,394,413 (42,579,788)

ExpendituresInstruction 319,109,387 371,584,480 335,669,369 (35,915,111)

Support servicesPupil services 60,122,328 67,463,416 52,375,223 (15,088,193) Instructional staff support 58,548,474 78,792,830 62,830,196 (15,962,634) General administration 6,830,748 6,462,078 7,583,101 1,121,023 School administration 35,279,744 33,091,117 35,378,176 2,287,059 Business office 9,324,934 10,824,368 16,031,649 5,207,281 Operations & maintenance 78,049,928 88,903,080 79,307,554 (9,595,526) Transportation 26,910,502 29,169,431 32,840,089 3,670,658 Central support service 26,474,558 30,195,677 29,780,386 (415,291) Other support service 104,795 166,539 433,088 266,549

Total support services 301,646,011 345,068,536 316,559,462 (28,509,074)

Community services 3,709,231 5,294,392 3,301,079 (1,993,313)

Food service 13,037 - - -

Athletics 863,300 953,390 1,590,407 637,017

Facilities acquisitions and improvement - 455,346 14,721 (440,625)

Debt service 56,509,586 56,001,079 56,895,055 893,976

Total expenditures 681,850,552 779,357,223 714,030,093 (65,327,130)

Revenues under expenditures (12,793,413) (76,383,022) (53,635,680) 22,747,342

Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in 2,400,000 2,400,000 1,762,100 (637,900) Proceeds from sale of capital assets 11,700,000 5,204,321 5,401,970 197,649

Total other financing sources (uses) 14,100,000 7,604,321 7,164,070 (440,251)

Net change in fund balances 1,306,587 (68,778,701) (46,471,610) 22,307,091$

Fund balances (deficit), beginning of year (169,460,307) (169,460,307) (169,460,307)

Fund balances (deficit), end of year (168,153,720)$ (238,239,008)$ (215,931,917)$

See notes to required supplementary information.

113


Notes to Required Supplementary Information

1. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING

2. BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING BASIS DIFFERENCES

Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in theUnited States and State law for the general fund and all special revenue funds. All annualappropriations lapse at fiscal year end.

The budget has been presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in theUnited States of America.

Encumbrance accounting is employed in governmental funds. Encumbrances (e.g., purchase orders,contracts) outstanding at year end do not constitute expenditures or liabilities because the goods orservices have not been received as of year end; the commitments will be reappropriated and honoredduring the subsequent year as appropriate.

The budget document presents information by fund and function. The legal level of budgetary controladopted by the governing body (i.e., the level at which expenditures may not legally exceedappropriations) is at the functional level. State law requires the District to have its budget in placeby July 1. Expenditures in excess of amounts budgeted are a violation of Michigan law. State lawpermits districts to amend their budgets during the year. During the year, the budget was amended ina legally permissible manner.

114

OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

115


Combining Balance SheetNonmajor Governmental FundsJune 30, 2015

Special DebtRevenue Service

Fund Fund

1994 School1986 School Building SiteBuilding Site Improvement

Food Judgment Improvement BondsService Levy Bonds Series V

AssetsCash and cash equivalents 429$ -$ -$ -$ Receivables:

Due from other governmental units 3,611,768 - - - Taxes - 438,994 - - Other 17,090 - - -

Due from other funds 5,335,041 - - - Prepaids 23,036 - - - Restricted assets:

Cash and cash equivalents 646,239 383 28 3,628,552

Total assets 9,633,603$ 439,377$ 28$ 3,628,552$

LiabilitiesAccounts payable 3,168,172$ 985,627$ -$ 545,521$ Due to other governmental units - 136,408 - - Due to other funds - 596,709 - 21,682 Other liabilities 319,374 - - -

Total liabilities 3,487,546 1,718,744 - 567,203

Fund balances (deficit)Nonspendable 23,036 - - - Restricted 6,123,021 - 28 3,061,349 Unassigned - (1,279,367) - -

Total fund balances (deficit) 6,146,057 (1,279,367) 28 3,061,349

Total liabilities and fund balances (deficit) 9,633,603$ 439,377$ 28$ 3,628,552$

116

Capital Projects Funds

2009B 2010BBuilding Site Building SiteImprovement ImprovementBonds Fund Bonds Fund Durant Bond Total

-$ -$ 191$ 620$

- - - 3,611,768 - - - 438,994 - - - 17,090

325,172 - - 5,660,213 - - - 23,036

- 425,073 - 4,700,275

325,172$ 425,073$ 191$ 14,451,996$

212$ -$ -$ 4,699,532$ - - - 136,408 - 425,073 46,061 1,089,525 - - - 319,374

212 425,073 46,061 6,244,839

- - - 23,036 324,960 - - 9,509,358

- - (45,870) (1,325,237)

324,960 - (45,870) 8,207,157

325,172$ 425,073$ 191$ 14,451,996$

117


Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund BalancesNonmajor Governmental FundsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Special DebtRevenue Service

Fund Fund

1994 School1986 School Building SiteBuilding Site Improvement

Food Judgment Improvement BondsService Levy Bonds Series V

RevenuesLocal sources 906,280$ 1,969,814$ 20$ 2,094$ State sources 1,653,364 - - - Federal sources 43,044,669 - - -

Total revenues 45,604,313 1,969,814 20 2,094


Food service 42,667,931 - - - Capital outlay - - 48,245 1,332,728 Other - 2,707,724 - -

Total expenditures 42,667,931 2,707,724 48,245 1,332,728

Revenues over (under) expenditures 2,936,382 (737,910) (48,225) (1,330,634)

Other financing usesTransfers out (1,762,100) - - -

Net change in fund balances 1,174,282 (737,910) (48,225) (1,330,634)

Fund balances, beginning of year 4,971,775 (541,457) 48,253 4,391,983

Fund balances (deficit), end of year 6,146,057$ (1,279,367)$ 28$ 3,061,349$

118

Capital Projects Funds

2009B 2010BBuilding Site Building SiteImprovement ImprovementBonds Fund Bonds Fund Durant Bond Total

197$ 209$ 87$ 2,878,701$ - - - 1,653,364 - - - 43,044,669

197 209 87 47,576,734

- - - 42,667,931 1,301,643 948,889 45,957 3,677,462

- - - 2,707,724

1,301,643 948,889 45,957 49,053,117

(1,301,446) (948,680) (45,870) (1,476,383)

- - - (1,762,100)

(1,301,446) (948,680) (45,870) (3,238,483)

1,626,406 948,680 - 11,445,640

324,960$ -$ (45,870)$ 8,207,157$

119


Statement of Changes in Assets and LiabilitiesAgency FundFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Balance BalanceJune 30, 2014 Additions Deletions June 30, 2015

AssetsCash 1,317,151$ 3,396,123$ 3,356,473$ 1,356,801$ Other 40 - - 40

Total assets 1,317,191$ 3,396,123$ 3,356,473$ 1,356,841$

LiabilitiesDue to student groups and other 1,317,191$ 3,396,123$ 3,356,473$ 1,356,841$

120


Budgetary Comparison ScheduleFood Service FundFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

VarianceOriginal Final With FinalBudget Budget Actual Budget

RevenuesLocal sources

Other 1,629,350$ 1,639,351$ 906,045$ (733,306)$ Earnings on investments 9,500 9,500 235 (9,265)

State sources 1,016,641 1,084,989 1,653,364 568,375 Federal sources 44,484,145 44,581,262 43,044,669 (1,536,593)

Total revenues 47,139,636 47,315,102 45,604,313 (1,710,789)

ExpendituresFood service:

Salaries 11,711,767 9,943,754 9,412,948 (530,806) Benefits 5,680,964 4,809,078 4,116,866 (692,212) Purchased services 2,179,886 2,458,336 1,066,366 (1,391,970) Supplies 24,486,358 25,028,520 24,424,489 (604,031) Other 190,000 194,155 1,848,597 1,654,442

Capital outlay 490,661 2,481,259 1,798,665 (682,594)

Total expenditures 44,739,636 44,915,102 42,667,931 (2,247,171)

Revenues over expenditures 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,936,382 536,382

Other financing usesTransfers out (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (1,762,100) 637,900

Net change in fund balances - - 1,174,282 1,174,282$

Fund balances, beginning of year 4,971,775 4,971,775 4,971,775

Fund balances, end of year 4,971,775$ 4,971,775$ 6,146,057$

121


Schedule of Bonded IndebtednessFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Interest Bonds BondsMaturity Rate Maturing Outstanding Outstanding Current

Description Date (Percent) per Period July 1, 2014 Issued Retired June 30, 2015 Portion

Series 1998CAmount of issue - $84,855,000

Due May 1:

2015 5.250 3,610,000$ 3,610,000$ -$ (3,610,000)$ -$ 3,800,000$

2016 5.250 3,800,000 3,800,000 - - 3,800,000 -

2017 5.250 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 -

2025 5.250 40,555,000 40,555,000 - - 40,555,000 -

Total Series 1998C issue 51,965,000 - (3,610,000) 48,355,000 3,800,000

Series 2001AAmount of issue - $438,365,000

Due May 1:

2022 6.000 14,320,000 14,320,000 - - 14,320,000 -

2023 6.000 15,180,000 15,180,000 - - 15,180,000 -

2024 6.000 16,095,000 16,095,000 - - 16,095,000 -

2025 6.000 17,055,000 17,055,000 - - 17,055,000 -

2026 6.000 24,420,000 24,420,000 - - 24,420,000 -

2027 6.000 25,885,000 25,885,000 - - 25,885,000 -

2028 6.000 27,430,000 27,430,000 - - 27,430,000 -

2029 6.000 43,310,000 43,310,000 - - 43,310,000 -

Total Series 2001A issue 183,695,000 - - 183,695,000 -


Due May 1:

2019 6.000 11,240,000 11,240,000 - - 11,240,000 -

2020 6.000 11,915,000 11,915,000 - - 11,915,000 -

2021 6.000 12,630,000 12,630,000 - - 12,630,000 -

Total Series 2002A issue 35,785,000 - - 35,785,000 -

The Bonds were issued for the purposes of (i) defraying the cost of advance refunding a portion of the District's School Building and Site Bonds (Unlimited Tax GeneralObligation), Series 1992, dated July 1, 1992, in the original principal amount of $33,000,000 and its School Building and Site Improvement Bonds (Unlimited Tax GeneralObligation), Series 1996A, dated March 1, 1996, in the original principal amount of $89,000,000 and (ii) paying costs of issuance of the Bonds.

The Bonds were issued for the purpose of defraying the cost of acquiring, construction, and reconstructing certain permanent improvements to existing school facilitiesand sites, acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and acquiring certain equipment, including school buses and technology, and paying costs of issuanceof the Bonds.

The Bonds were issued for the purpose of defraying the cost of acquiring, construction, and reconstructing certain permanent improvements to existing school facilitiesand sites, acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and acquiring certain equipment, including school buses and technology, and paying costs of issuanceof the Bonds.

122






Due May 1:

2015 5.000 34,000,000$ 34,000,000$ -$ (34,000,000)$ -$ -$

2016 5.000 24,670,000 24,670,000 - (24,670,000) - -

2017 5.000 30,480,000 30,480,000 - (30,480,000) - -

2018 5.000 30,850,000 30,850,000 - (30,850,000) - -

2019 5.000 21,150,000 21,150,000 - (21,150,000) - -

2020 5.000 22,215,000 22,215,000 - (22,215,000) - -

2021 5.000 23,325,000 23,325,000 - (23,325,000) - -

2022 5.000 13,275,000 13,275,000 - (13,275,000) - -

2023 5.000 13,945,000 13,945,000 - (13,945,000) - -

2024 5.000 14,625,000 14,645,000 - (14,645,000) - -

2025 5.000 15,380,000 15,380,000 - (15,380,000) - -

2026 5.250 16,145,000 16,145,000 - - 16,145,000 -

2027 5.250 16,990,000 16,990,000 - - 16,990,000 -

2028 5.250 17,890,000 17,890,000 - - 17,890,000 -

2029 5.250 18,825,000 18,825,000 - - 18,825,000 -

2030 5.250 65,715,000 65,715,000 - - 65,715,000 -

2031 5.250 69,165,000 69,165,000 - - 69,165,000 -

2032 5.250 22,070,000 22,070,000 - - 22,070,000 -

Total Series 2005A 470,735,000 - (243,935,000) 226,800,000 -

The Bonds were issued for the purpose of refunding the District bonds for achieving debt service savings.

Series 1998 (Durant)Amount of issue - $59,304,433

Due May 15:

2015 4.760 18,372,470 18,372,470 - (18,372,470) - -

Total Series 1998 (Durant) 18,372,470 - (18,372,470) - -


Due May 1:

2015 3.190 5,047,400 5,047,400 - (5,047,400) - 5,595,000

2016 3.190 5,595,000 5,595,000 - - 5,595,000 -

2017 3.190 6,325,000 6,325,000 - - 6,325,000 -

2018 3.190 7,055,000 7,055,000 - - 7,055,000 -

2019 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2020 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2021 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2022 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2023 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2024 3.190 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - 7,700,000 -

2025 3.190 9,745,000 9,745,000 - - 9,745,000 -

Total Series 2009A issue 79,967,400 - (5,047,400) 74,920,000 5,595,000

The Bonds were issued for the School Construction and Modernization Program, (Proposal S), including construction, and renovating certain school facilities and sites,acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds. There are annual sinking fund deposits made by the District to anescrow account held by the trustee until debt is paid.

123





Series 2009BAmount of issue - $200,000,000

Due May 1:

2015 5.060 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ -$ (1,400,000)$ -$ 5,250,000$

2016 5.060 5,250,000 5,250,000 - - 5,250,000 -

2017 5.060 1,600,000 1,600,000 - - 1,600,000 -

2018 5.060 1,700,000 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000 -

2019 5.060 1,800,000 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 -

2020 5.060 1,900,000 1,900,000 - - 1,900,000 -

2021 5.060 2,300,000 2,300,000 - - 2,300,000 -

2022 5.060 2,400,000 2,400,000 - - 2,400,000 -

2023 5.060 2,500,000 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 -

2024 5.060 2,600,000 2,600,000 - - 2,600,000 -

2025 5.060 2,700,000 2,700,000 - - 2,700,000 -

2026 5.060 3,150,000 3,150,000 - - 3,150,000 -

2027 5.060 6,275,000 6,275,000 - - 6,275,000 -

2028 5.060 6,525,000 6,525,000 - - 6,525,000 -

2029 5.060 6,625,000 6,625,000 - - 6,625,000 -

2030 5.060 6,925,000 6,925,000 - - 6,925,000 -

2031 5.060 6,925,000 6,925,000 - - 6,925,000 -

2032 5.060 8,925,000 8,925,000 - - 8,925,000 -

2033 5.060 9,550,000 9,550,000 - - 9,550,000 -

2034 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

2035 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

2036 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

2037 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

2038 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

2039 5.060 18,625,000 18,625,000 - - 18,625,000 -

Total Series 2009B issue 192,800,000 - (1,400,000) 191,400,000 5,250,000

The Bonds were issued for the School Construction and Modernization Program, (Proposal S), including construction, and renovating certain school facilities and sites,acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds.

124






Due May 1:

2015 6.645 1,575,000$ 1,575,000$ -$ (1,575,000)$ -$ 7,755,000$

2016 6.645 7,755,000 7,755,000 - - 7,755,000 -

2017 6.645 6,910,000 6,910,000 - - 6,910,000 -

2018 6.645 7,895,000 7,895,000 - - 7,895,000 -

2019 6.645 7,620,000 7,620,000 - - 7,620,000 -

2020 6.645 7,985,000 7,985,000 - - 7,985,000 -

2021 6.645 8,095,000 8,095,000 - - 8,095,000 -

2022 6.645 8,525,000 8,525,000 - - 8,525,000 -

2023 6.645 8,960,000 8,960,000 - - 8,960,000 -

2024 6.645 9,415,000 9,415,000 - - 9,415,000 -

2025 6.645 9,885,000 9,885,000 - - 9,885,000 -

2026 6.645 16,850,000 16,850,000 - - 16,850,000 -

2027 6.645 14,265,000 14,265,000 - - 14,265,000 -

2028 6.645 14,650,000 14,650,000 - - 14,650,000 -

2029 6.645 15,280,000 15,280,000 - - 15,280,000 -


Series 2010BAmount of issue - $49,630,000

Due May 1:

2030 6.845 1,200,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2031 6.845 6,000,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2032 6.845 1,400,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2033 6.845 5,250,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2034 6.845 1,600,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2035 6.845 1,700,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2036 6.845 1,800,000 4,510,000 - - 4,510,000 -

2037 6.845 1,900,000 4,515,000 - - 4,515,000 -

2038 6.845 2,300,000 4,515,000 - - 4,515,000 -

2039 6.845 2,400,000 4,515,000 - - 4,515,000 -

2040 6.845 2,500,000 4,515,000 - - 4,515,000 -

Total Series 2010B issue 49,630,000 - - 49,630,000 -

The Bonds were issued for the School Construction and Modernization Program, (Proposal S), including construction, and renovating certain school facilities and sites,acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds.

The Bonds were issued for the School Construction and Modernization Program, (Proposal S), including construction, and renovating certain school facilities and sites,acquiring new sites, constructing new school buildings, and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds. There are annual sinking fund deposits made by the District to anescrow account held by the trustee until debt is paid.

125






Due May 1:

2015 5.000 7,775,000$ 7,775,000$ -$ (7,775,000)$ -$ 8,490,000$

2016 5.000 8,490,000 8,490,000 - - 8,490,000 -

2017 5.000 8,595,000 8,595,000 - - 8,595,000 -

2018 5.000 8,725,000 8,725,000 - - 8,725,000 -

2019 5.000 9,100,000 9,100,000 - - 9,100,000 -

2020 5.000 9,500,000 9,500,000 - - 9,500,000 -

2021 5.000 9,910,000 9,910,000 - - 9,910,000 -

2022 5.000 20,505,000 20,505,000 - - 20,505,000 -

2023 5.000 21,465,000 21,465,000 - - 21,465,000 -

2024 5.000 22,480,000 22,480,000 - - 22,480,000 -

2025 5.000 23,655,000 23,655,000 - - 23,655,000 -

2026 5.000 24,905,000 24,905,000 - - 24,905,000 -

2027 5.000 26,145,000 26,145,000 - - 26,145,000 -

2028 5.000 27,450,000 27,450,000 - - 27,450,000 -

2029 5.000 14,520,000 14,520,000 - - 14,520,000 -

2030 5.000 16,095,000 16,095,000 - - 16,095,000 -

2031 5.000 16,900,000 16,900,000 - - 16,900,000 -

2032 5.000 17,745,000 17,745,000 - - 17,745,000 -

2033 5.000 18,635,000 18,635,000 - - 18,635,000 -


The Bonds were issued for the purpose of refunding the District bonds for achieving debt service savings.


Due May 1:

2016 0.000 22,605,000 - 22,605,000 - 22,605,000 22,605,000

2017 3.000 29,105,000 - 29,105,000 - 29,105,000 -

2018 5.000 29,410,000 - 29,410,000 - 29,410,000 -

2019 5.000 19,635,000 - 19,635,000 - 19,635,000 -

2020 5.000 20,625,000 - 20,625,000 - 20,625,000 -

2021 5.000 21,655,000 - 21,655,000 - 21,655,000 -

2022 5.000 11,520,000 - 11,520,000 - 11,520,000 -

2023 5.000 12,105,000 - 12,105,000 - 12,105,000 -

2024 5.000 12,645,000 - 12,645,000 - 12,645,000 -

2025 5.000 13,275,000 - 13,275,000 - 13,275,000 -

Total Series 2015A issue - 192,580,000 - 192,580,000 22,605,000

Total Bonded Indebtedness 1,541,209,870$ 192,580,000$ (281,714,870)$ 1,452,075,000$ 53,495,000$

126

STATISTICAL SECTION

127


Statistical and Other Information

Contents

Financial Trends

Revenue Capacity

Debt Capacity

Demographic andEconomic Information

Operating Information

This part of the Detroit Public Schools comprehensive annual financial report presents detailedinformation as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, notedisclosures, and required supplementary information says about the District’s overall financial health.

Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the ComprehensiveAnnual Financial Reports for the relevant year.

These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand howthe District’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time.

These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factorsaffecting the District’s ability to generate its property and sales taxed.

These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordabilityof the District’s current levels of outstanding debt and the District’s ability toissue additional debt in the future.

These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the readerunderstand the environment within which the District’s financial activities takeplace and to help make comparisons over time and with other governments.

These schedules contain information about the District’s operations andresources to help the reader understand how the District’s financial informationrelates to the services the District provides and the activities it performs.

129


Net Position by ComponentLast Ten Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Governmental activitiesNet investment in capital assets (126,652,164)$ (101,890,474)$ (104,187,628)$ (84,403,887)$ (44,848,714)$ Restricted 23,546,812 26,280,121 10,697,352 25,328,112 12,513,705 Unrestricted (deficit) (1,561,629,768) (688,043,539) (593,046,567) (559,178,274) (579,276,828)

Total net position (1,664,735,120)$ (763,653,892)$ (686,536,843)$ (618,254,049)$ (611,611,837)$

Notes:

Source: District financial data

Investment in capital assets, net of related debt was renamed net investment in capital assets and net assets were renamed net position in accordance with GASB Statement 63 in 2013. Ending balance in 2012 is modified due to the restatement of net position, in accordance with GASB Statement 65 in 2013.

GASB Statement No. 68 was implemented for the year ended June 30, 2015, which resulted in recording a net pension liability of approximately $873 million; however, prior years were not restated.

130

Table 1 - Unaudited

Fiscal Year

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

(12,287,463)$ 38,305,516$ 124,719,105$ 144,094,948$ 164,888,672$ 22,459,798 12,650,359 1,958,584 66,910,536 89,371,255

(606,040,072) (537,004,403) (496,160,580) (406,294,081) (356,159,141)

(595,867,737)$ (486,048,528)$ (369,482,891)$ (195,288,597)$ (101,899,214)$

131


Change in Net PositionLast Ten Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year

2015 2014 2013 2012Expenses

Governmental activities:Instruction 374,874,427$ 381,901,033 401,258,566 526,348,957$ Support services 313,548,618 318,332,081 314,621,635 345,153,784 Community services 3,258,057 4,179,408 5,981,778 4,604,817 Food services 42,542,212 44,916,670 43,959,918 34,086,192 Athletics 3,345,514 2,434,401 3,002,862 7,805,374 Other - - - - Interest on long-term debt 106,764,573 113,673,948 111,697,124 122,975,912 Asset impairment (unallocated) - - 9,360,414 10,764,807 Depreciation (unallocated) 18,679,335 22,536,086 21,541,615 20,018,147

Total government expenses 863,012,736 887,973,627 911,423,912 1,071,757,990

RevenuesGovernmental activities:

Charges for services:Instruction 69,891 89,143 100,052 78,891 Support services 2,025,918 1,315,269 1,593,766 1,388,739 Community services - - - 1,647,820 Food services 846,314 1,141,865 1,200,848 1,572,962 Athletics - 260,427 - - Other - - - -

Total charges for services 2,942,123 2,806,704 2,894,666 4,688,412

Operating grants and contributionsInstruction 203,373,959 196,846,203 208,216,572 267,391,564 Support services 115,203,801 88,748,955 99,798,117 120,549,577 Community services 3,001,771 3,537,521 6,244,224 4,663,877 Food service 44,757,764 42,049,657 40,760,694 39,912,409 Interest on long-term debt 18,259,816 18,972,312 20,127,707 20,137,748

Total operating grants and contributions 384,597,111 350,154,648 375,147,314 452,645,175

Net (expense) revenue (475,473,502) (535,012,275) (533,381,932) (614,424,403)

General revenueProperty taxes, levied for general purposes 65,981,648 72,788,602 63,043,585 65,704,812 Property taxes, levied for debt services 90,468,836 104,918,332 89,646,763 110,728,384 Federal and State aid not restricted to

specific purposes 265,091,387 259,541,573 299,188,576 400,803,077 Interest and investment earnings 36,302 50,582 108,119 407,035 Other sources 11,159,377 20,596,137 25,114,404 30,138,883 Gain on sale of capital assets - - - -

Total general revenue 432,737,550 457,895,226 477,101,447 607,782,191

Change in net position (42,735,952)$ (77,117,049)$ (56,280,485)$ (6,642,212)$


132

Table 2 - Unaudited

Fiscal Year

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

611,628,161$ 659,447,235$ 752,747,589$ 772,341,873$ 793,522,108$ 794,562,326$ 462,355,647 465,526,570 505,070,567 592,082,327 623,849,751 639,214,481

7,043,199 6,228,773 6,143,462 6,237,298 8,389,521 4,826,249 32,980,463 37,229,504 38,963,042 40,053,509 40,901,528 44,092,775 2,269,079 4,554,281 4,422,031 5,245,057 5,123,975 4,604,056

- - - 4,154,908 372,406 7,349,305 128,123,673 118,103,645 84,951,020 82,989,739 80,823,093 77,948,487

3,687,466 7,521,571 10,331,441 1,530,156 - - 19,786,260 20,877,173 21,836,314 21,909,926 25,223,665 15,618,000

1,267,873,948 1,319,488,752 1,424,465,466 1,526,544,793 1,578,206,047 1,588,215,679

48,415 83,493 903,105 1,020,089 1,079,099 984,197 432,622 533,643 21,545,210 8,626,987 533,441 425,003 919,117 1,366,268 1,125,950 1,219,867 905,686 687,752

2,508,188 3,402,434 3,174,649 6,208,012 6,510,291 7,045,785 - - - - - - - - - 471,226 157,137 -

3,908,342 5,385,838 26,748,914 17,546,181 9,185,654 9,142,737

409,360,403 351,412,988 339,060,897 263,353,436 338,648,478 292,546,831 175,937,815 144,694,269 123,683,553 145,807,342 197,111,202 203,112,297

5,585,678 5,108,590 6,101,932 6,002,362 17,984,302 4,383,535 34,885,836 38,203,272 34,437,913 33,994,157 38,202,644 39,085,719 17,350,377 5,608,447 5,547,552 5,735,799 - -

643,120,109 545,027,566 508,831,847 454,893,096 591,946,626 539,128,382

(620,845,497) (769,075,348) (888,884,705) (1,054,105,516) (977,073,767) (1,039,944,560)

56,410,405 79,914,407 106,047,874 100,631,922 82,980,245 88,759,919 73,096,327 95,894,938 122,835,111 117,449,527 113,279,928 111,052,199

442,955,285 473,108,302 529,681,734 628,649,789 728,459,038 786,283,179 1,458,533 1,660,631 1,663,493 6,337,079 11,821,254 16,871,373

31,180,847 8,677,861 12,090,856 25,915,070 11,893,301 3,707,459 - - - 927,835 - (1,029,140)

605,101,397 659,256,139 772,319,068 879,911,222 948,433,766 1,005,644,989

(15,744,100)$ (109,819,209)$ (116,565,637)$ (174,194,294)$ (28,640,001)$ (34,299,571)$

133


Fund Balances, Governmental FundsLast Ten Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year

2015 2014 2013 2012General fund

Reserved -$ - -$ -$ Unreserved (deficit) - - - - Nonspendable 2,252,428 1,884,258 1,725,059 72,589 Restricted 925,808 925,808 198,967 7,089,577 Unassigned (deficit) (219,110,153) (172,270,373) (95,805,950) (83,465,550)

Total general fund (215,931,917) (169,460,307) (93,881,924) (76,303,384)

Other governmental fundsReserved - - - - Unreserved (deficit), reported in:

Special revenue funds - - - - Debt service funds - - - - Capital projects funds - - - -

Nonspendable 23,036 30 25 27,063 Restricted 41,304,332 48,036,948 34,738,751 93,379,815 Unassigned, (deficit) (1,325,237) (541,457) (355,708) -

Total other governmental funds 40,002,131 47,495,521 34,383,068 93,406,878

Total fund balance (deficit) (175,929,786)$ (121,964,786)$ (59,498,856)$ 17,103,494$

Notes:In 2011, the classification of fund balances changed due to the implementation of GASB Statement No. 54.


134

Table 3 - Unaudited

Fiscal Year

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

-$ 1,595,185$ 3,198,678$ 2,589,003$ 1,572,839$ 1,457,301$ - (328,894,450) (222,168,097) (142,313,755) (5,350,257) 20,565,392

509,585 - - - - - - - - - - -

(284,438,900) - - - - -

(283,929,315) (327,299,265) (218,969,419) (139,724,752) (3,777,418) 22,022,693

- 5,925 35,261 6,176 86,603,515 116,264,295

- 6,733,742 2,243,944 1,952,408 1,088,220 3,541,762 - 12,740,999 20,729,314 9,857,109 - - - 292,671,361 47,370,858 59,075,288 - -

6,900 - - - - - 271,404,958 - - - - -

- - - - - -

271,411,858 312,152,027 70,379,377 70,890,981 87,691,735 119,806,057

(12,517,457)$ (15,147,238)$ (148,590,042)$ (68,833,771)$ 83,914,317$ 141,828,750$

135


Summary of Governmental Funds Revenues and ExpendituresLast Ten Fiscal Years

2015 2014 2013 2012Revenues

Local sources 196,709,657$ 234,411,297 207,434,598$ 261,281,507$ State sources 420,595,528 387,693,581 413,569,799 500,073,239 Federal sources 225,656,250 216,307,442 233,659,752 300,520,978

Total revenue 842,961,435 838,412,320 854,664,149 1,061,875,724

Other financing sourcesIssuance of long-term debt 192,580,000 - - 723,740,407 Issuance of long-term debt - School

Bond Loan Fund 28,384,590 44,862,031 33,504,736 26,117,459 Premiums on issuance of long-term debt 23,843,976 - - 33,276,484 Transfers in 1,762,100 2,579,120 2,404,243 2,288,493 Proceeds from sale of capital assets 5,401,970 1,483,001 2,248,058 2,311,803 Insurance recoveries - - - -

Total revenues, other financingsources and special items 1,094,934,071 887,336,472 892,821,186 1,849,610,370

ExpendituresInstruction 335,669,369 346,100,939 360,997,638 512,527,707 Supporting services 316,574,183 312,753,894 303,272,788 360,893,321 Community services 3,301,079 4,198,638 5,908,567 4,590,852 Food services 42,667,931 41,383,657 40,945,682 32,398,541 Athletics 1,590,407 1,626,152 1,086,674 1,843,774 Other expenditures 2,770,079 1,397,801 710,864 3,241,427 Principal retirement 111,380,541 105,202,003 84,090,768 73,784,713 Payment of interest 113,081,944 124,730,109 112,938,096 116,464,187 Issuance costs 1,243,540 - - 2,451,036 Capital outlay 3,677,462 9,830,089 57,068,216 199,849,920

Total expenditures 931,956,535 947,223,282 967,019,293 1,308,045,478

Other financing usesPayment to bond escrow agent 215,180,436 - - 509,655,448 Transfers out 1,762,100 2,579,120 2,404,243 2,288,493

Total expenditures and other uses 1,148,899,071 949,802,402 969,423,536 1,819,989,419

Net change in fund balances (53,965,000)$ (62,465,930)$ (76,602,350)$ 29,620,951$


Fiscal Year

136

Table 4 - Unaudited

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

233,875,430$ 273,113,320$ 311,066,987$ 334,004,589$ 318,376,379$ 294,169,835$ 561,170,297 615,238,695 731,678,516 814,535,184 918,069,421 984,242,851 460,768,789 322,373,492 254,964,616 196,922,940 311,237,975 266,609,818

1,255,814,516 1,210,725,507 1,297,710,119 1,345,462,713 1,547,683,775 1,545,022,504

210,540,000 290,000,000 - - - 554,093,250

48,794,483 - - - - - - - - - - -

4,276,196 13,376,219 13,228,192 4,108,115 21,300,056 21,128,011 4,140,337 6,211,988 2,075,901 927,835 - 228,675

- - 1,000,000 - - -

1,523,565,532 1,520,313,714 1,314,014,212 1,350,498,663 1,568,983,831 2,120,472,440

570,944,813 653,879,283 691,555,408 724,697,732 774,288,861 773,046,823 456,746,498 470,532,656 483,804,795 558,235,588 597,198,103 614,815,850

7,001,886 6,298,430 6,145,431 6,189,193 8,388,184 4,804,658 31,454,505 35,991,283 35,360,977 37,703,275 40,632,285 43,819,136

784,915 3,014,348 2,876,323 2,927,216 3,888,729 3,546,883 604,367 22,265 311,525 443,815 525,510 7,352,515

64,031,522 47,426,720 54,852,267 69,499,581 58,059,847 47,809,942 131,982,898 110,055,735 85,756,621 81,870,707 78,146,946 64,564,284

2,140,005 3,275,853 - - - - 250,968,146 42,998,118 19,878,944 17,571,529 33,529,178 126,854,552

1,516,659,555 1,373,494,691 1,380,542,291 1,499,138,636 1,594,657,643 1,686,614,643

- - - - - 549,186,565 4,276,196 13,376,219 13,228,192 4,108,115 21,300,056 21,128,011

1,520,935,751 1,386,870,910 1,393,770,483 1,503,246,751 1,615,957,699 2,256,929,219

2,629,781$ 133,442,804$ (79,756,271)$ (152,748,088)$ (46,973,868)$ (136,456,779)$

Fiscal Year

137

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Table 5 - Unaudited

Comparison of Unreserved/Unassigned General Fund Balance (Deficit)to Expenditures and Other UsesLast Ten Fiscal Years

General FundBalance

Undesignated/ (Deficit) as a Unassigned Expenditures Percentage of

Fund Balance and ExpendituresFiscal Year (Deficit) Transfers Out and Other Uses

2006 20,565,392$ 1,404,346,153$ 1.46 %2007 (5,350,257) 1,408,896,310 (0.38)%2008 (142,313,755) 1,318,000,355 (10.80)%2009 (222,168,097) 1,217,397,731 (18.25)%2010 (328,894,450) 1,188,798,098 (27.67)%2011 (284,438,900) 1,088,467,571 (26.13)%2012 (83,465,550) 934,317,506 (8.93)%2013 (95,805,950) 725,557,870 (13.20)%2014 (172,270,373) 721,349,005 (23.88)%2015 (219,110,153) 714,030,093 (30.69)%

Notes:In 2011, the District implemented GASB Statement No. 54.


139


Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable PropertyLast Ten Fiscal Years

CommercialFiscal year and Industrial Residential Personal Total

2006 3,108,619,547$ 8,649,348,048$ 1,623,886,327$ 13,381,853,922$ 2007 3,177,015,982 8,622,589,002 1,654,017,924 13,453,622,908 2008 3,403,595,304 9,063,123,282 1,646,721,974 14,113,440,560 2009 3,516,906,221 8,815,608,633 1,612,957,472 13,945,472,326 2010 3,433,282,486 7,427,226,864 1,637,133,708 12,497,643,058 2011 3,272,941,262 6,331,071,460 1,516,381,857 11,120,394,579 2012 3,278,070,594 5,475,901,289 1,369,132,417 10,123,104,300 2013 2,994,270,539 4,850,303,038 1,592,878,021 9,437,451,598 2014 2,826,135,748 4,292,795,455 1,862,606,852 8,981,538,055 2015 2,736,014,806 3,335,506,139 1,740,559,868 7,812,080,813

Notes:

Source: Wayne County Equalization Report and Wayne County Assessor’s Office.

Property in Wayne County is reassessed every year. The county assesses property at 50% of actual value for commercial, industrial, and residential. Estimated actual value is calculated by sales and 50% of the market value.

Assessed Value

140

Table 6 - Unaudited

TaxableAssessedValue as a

Taxable Value Percentage of

Commercial Total Direct Actual Taxableand Industrial Residential Total Tax Rate Value

2,305,221,321$ 4,943,143,580$ 7,248,364,901$ 31.070 54.17%2,403,532,121 5,240,724,042 7,644,256,163 31.000 56.82%2,637,024,764 5,615,394,554 8,252,419,318 31.000 58.47%2,761,560,896 5,660,265,286 8,421,826,182 30.831 60.39%2,797,752,487 5,291,054,707 8,088,807,194 30.831 64.72%2,698,852,119 4,896,647,203 7,595,499,322 30.933 68.30%2,794,557,203 4,591,718,704 7,386,275,907 30.831 72.96%2,588,946,917 4,265,567,182 6,854,514,099 30.928 72.63%2,490,320,049 3,948,185,909 6,438,505,958 31.142 71.69%2,434,041,947 3,138,728,012 5,572,769,959 31.341 71.34%

141


Assessed Valuation DataFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Percent PercentAssessed Value at of Total of Total

Type of Property December, 31 2013* Real Property Roll

Commercial property 2,204,881,995$ 36.32% 28.22%Industrial property 531,132,811 8.75% 6.80%Residential property 3,335,506,139 54.93% 42.70%

Total real property 6,071,520,945 100.00% 77.72%

Personal property 1,740,559,868 22.28%

Total property 7,812,080,813$ 100.00%

* The December 31, 2013 valuations, used for the 2014 tax year levy, are the basisof the District's fiscal year revenue.

Source: Wayne County Equalization Report (2014)

142


Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates(Rates per $1,000 of assessed value)Last Ten Fiscal Years

School District Direct Rates Overlapping Rates

WayneRegional Wayne

State Education CountySchool School Judgment Education City of Wayne Service Community Wayne

Fiscal Year Operating Debt Levy Total Tax Library Detroit County * Agency College County

17.554 13.000 0.070 30.624 5.000 4.631 30.020 8.037 3.464 2.477 13.978 18.000 13.000 - 31.000 6.000 4.631 31.340 8.057 3.464 2.477 13.998 18.000 13.000 - 31.000 6.000 4.631 28.020 8.057 3.464 2.477 13.998 17.831 13.000 - 30.831 6.000 4.631 27.429 8.137 3.464 2.477 14.078 17.831 13.000 - 30.831 6.000 4.631 28.867 5.648 3.464 2.477 11.589 17.831 13.000 0.102 30.933 6.000 4.631 28.867 5.648 3.464 2.477 11.589 17.831 13.000 0.300 31.130 6.000 4.631 29.508 5.648 3.464 2.241 11.353 17.831 13.000 0.097 30.928 6.000 4.310 29.566 5.648 3.464 2.241 11.353 18.000 13.000 0.142 31.142 6.000 4.631 28.947 5.648 3.464 3.241 12.353 18.000 13.000 0.341 31.341 6.000 4.631 29.777 5.648 3.464 3.241 12.353

* Wayne County includes only the Summer tax rate for 2015, the Winter tax rate has not yet been certified.

Source: City of Detroit Finance Department and Michigan Department of Education

2015

2013

20072006

20082009201020112012

2014

143


Principal Property Tax PayersCurrent Year and Nine Years Ago

PercentPercentage of Total

of Total CityTaxable Taxable Taxable TaxableAssessed Assessed Assessed Assessed

Value Rank Value Value Rank Value

DTE Electric/Gas Company/DTE Energy 475,823,016$ 1 6.71% 332,956,000$ 2 3.58%Marathon Oil/Ashland Petroleum LLC 446,744,505 2 6.30% 147,481,000 4 1.59%Vanguard Health Systems-Hospitals 289,130,855 3 4.08% N/A N/A N/AMGM Grand Detroit LLC 208,272,612 4 2.94% 61,013,000 8 0.66%

109,236,952 5 1.54% 135,344,000 5 1.46%FCA US LLC 96,896,310 6 1.37% 709,126,000 1 7.63%Detroit Entertainment LLC 61,783,200 7 0.87% N/A N/A N/A1000 Webward LLC 59,282,000 8 0.84% N/A N/A N/AGreektown Casino LLC 50,498,193 9 0.71% 42,983,000 10 0.46%General Motors LLC 47,695,130 10 0.67% 188,179,000 3 2.02%American Axle & Manufacturing N/A N/A N/A 105,233,000 6 1.13%Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. N/A N/A N/A 84,347,000 7 0.91%One Detroit Center N/A N/A N/A 46,654,000 9 0.50%

1,845,362,773$ 26.04% 1,853,316,000$ 19.93%

Total City of Detroit Taxable Value 7,086,484,884$ 9,298,274,087$

Source: City of Detroit Finance DepartmentWayne County Equalization ReportState of Michigan

2015 2006

Taxpayer

Riverfront Holdings Inc./Riverfront Towers Holdings LLC

144


Property Tax Levies and CollectionsLast Ten Fiscal Years

Collected within the FiscalYear of the Levy Total Collections to Date

Collections inTaxes Levied Percentage Subsequent Percentage

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Years Amount of Levy

2006 214,890,102$ 193,916,874$ 90.24% 6,722,296$ 200,639,170$ 93.37%2007 228,833,869 204,384,211 89.32% 765,619 205,149,830 89.65%2008 246,225,824 230,270,039 93.52% (42,100) 230,227,939 93.50%2009 269,556,295 234,030,965 86.82% (82,838) 233,948,127 86.79%2010 227,718,945 193,126,724 84.81% (154,391) 192,972,333 84.74%2011 188,429,294 143,149,083 75.97% (508,974) 142,640,109 75.70%2012 209,559,164 142,043,643 67.78% - 142,043,643 67.78%2013 195,877,828 128,077,732 65.39% - 128,077,732 65.39%2014 191,242,663 124,056,078 64.87% - 124,056,078 64.87%2015 174,225,424 122,452,804 70.28% - 122,452,804 70.28%

Source: District Financial Data

145


Outstanding Debt by TypeLast Ten Fiscal Years


School School EnergyBuilding and Revenue Revenue Bond Loan/ Conservation

Fiscal year Site Bonds Notes Revolving Fund Bonds

2006 1,410,854,681$ 210,000,000$ -$ 33,610,423$ 1,775,000$ 2007 1,346,402,296 200,400,880 - 33,709,997 350,000 2008 1,309,906,692 191,025,666 - 13,769,339 - 2009 1,271,181,088 180,464,033 - 10,130,729 - 2010 1,546,284,681 168,565,000 - 7,048,042 - 2011 1,713,324,681 155,165,000 231,000,000 48,711,003 - 2012 1,656,414,681 - 372,945,694 76,444,630 - 2013 1,682,260,941 - 336,624,926 108,054,546 - 2014 1,608,777,926 - 298,857,734 161,720,750 - 2015 1,526,204,609 - 259,257,063 195,871,743 -

Notes:n/a* - Per capita personal income information not available.

Source: District financial data, Bureau of the Census

146

Table 11 - Unaudited

Total PercentageCapital Primary of Personal PerLeases Government Income Population Capita

2,608,954$ 1,658,849,058$ n/a* 836,056 1,984$ 1,612,551 1,582,475,724 n/a* 834,116 1,897

722,024 1,515,423,721 n/a* 916,952 1,653 - 1,461,775,850 n/a* 912,062 1,603 - 1,721,897,723 n/a* 910,921 1,890 - 2,148,200,684 n/a* 713,777 3,010 - 2,105,805,005 n/a* 706,585 2,980 - 2,053,324,153 n/a* 701,475 2,927 - 2,069,356,410 n/a* 688,701 3,005 - 1,981,333,415 n/a* 680,250 2,913

147


Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities DebtJune 30, 2015

Estimated AmountDebt Percentage Applicable to

Government Unit Outstanding Applicable Primary Government

City of Detroit 2,621,837,454$ 100.00% 2,621,837,454$ County of Wayne 315,956,111 15.97% 50,458,191

Subtotal, overlapping debt 2,672,295,645 District direct debt 1,981,333,415

Total direct and overlapping debt 4,653,629,060$

Note: To determine the percentage of overlap, the Municipal Advisory Council of Michigan considers the overlapping debt burden, apportioned by taxable valuation. Taxable values are based on the latest State Green Book Values. Direct and indirect debts are included.

Sources: Municipal Advisory Council of Michigan, District Financial Statements

148


Schedule of Legal Debt MarginJune 30, 2015

Summary of Bonded Indebtedness2014 Actual Valuation (True Cash Value) 15,779,990,805$ 2014 SEV 7,812,080,813$ 2014 Taxable Value 5,572,769,959$ Direct Bonded Indebtedness 1,981,333,415$ Percentage of Direct Bonded Indebtedness to Actual Valuation 12.56%Percentage of Direct Bonded Indebtedness to Taxable Valuation 35.55%Population Census (calendar 2015) 680,250 Per Capita Direct Bonded Indebtedness 2,913$ Overlapping Indebtedness 2,672,295,645$ Combined Direct and Overlapping Indebtedness 4,653,629,060$ Percentage of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Indebtedness to Actual Valuation 29.49%Percentage of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Indebtedness to Taxable Value 83.51%Per Capita Direct and Overlapping Bonded Indebtedness 6,841$ Bonded Debt Limit - 15% of taxable value 835,915,494$ Net Debt Applicable to Limit -$

Bonded Debt Limit

The bonded debt limit calculated above does not include deficit bonds, school bus purchase notes, and bondsqualified for participation in the Michigan School Bond Loan Fund, a program established pursuant to the provisions of Section 16 ("Qualified Bonds").

Source: Michigan Finance Authority - Revenue Bonds (School District of the City of Detroit), Series 2013

Note: All of the District's outstanding debt qualifies for the State of Michigan's School Bond Loan FundProgram; all such debt is exempt from the requirements of the Legal Debt Limitation per Section 1351(3) perAct 451 of Michigan Law.

149


Legal Debt Margin CalculationLast Ten Fiscal Years

2015 2014 2013 2012

Debt limit 835,915,494$ 965,775,894$ 1,415,617,740$ 1,642,467,979$ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - -

Legal debt margin 835,915,494$ 965,775,894$ 1,415,617,740$ 1,642,467,979$

Total net debt applicable to thelimit as a percentage of debt limit 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Source: Bond offering circulars for the School District of the City of Detroit

Note: All of the District's outstanding debt qualifies for the State of Michigan's School Bond Loan Fund Program; all such debt is exempt from the requirements of the Legal Debt Limitation per Section 1351(3) per Act 451 of Michigan Law.

150


2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

1,853,349,880$ 1,529,940,484$ 1,271,181,088$ 1,309,906,692$ 1,394,741,113$ 2,012,834,235$ - - - - 350,000 1,775,000

1,853,349,880$ 1,529,940,484$ 1,271,181,088$ 1,309,906,692$ 1,394,391,113$ 2,011,059,235$

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09%

151


Pledge-Revenue CoverageLast Ten Fiscal Years

Debt service

Fiscal year Revenue Principal Interest Total Coverage

2006 112,006,972$ 45,427,962$ 69,376,769$ 114,804,731$ 0.98 2007 110,290,382 45,938,836 71,115,728 117,054,564 0.94 2008 118,683,555 56,048,563 72,045,478 128,094,041 0.93 2009 125,902,480 50,491,633 82,320,167 132,811,800 0.95 2010 97,241,426 35,527,687 69,679,912 105,207,599 0.92 2011 90,796,050 50,631,522 98,997,520 149,629,042 0.61 2012 124,927,722 46,655,000 90,791,664 137,446,664 0.91 2013 108,969,511 47,770,000 96,256,389 144,026,389 0.76 2014 150,255,742 67,434,811 106,023,900 173,458,711 0.87 2015 134,990,288 71,779,870 95,787,560 167,567,430 0.81

Note: The revenue pledged for the annual debt and interest payments consists of property taxes received from the City of Detroit.


153


Comparison of Bonded Debt to State Equalized Valuation and PopulationLast Ten Fiscal Years

Bonded Restricted NetFiscal Year Debt For Debt Service Bonded Debt

2006 1,410,854,681$ 26,008,575$ 1,384,846,106$ 2007 1,366,359,681 19,232,256 1,347,127,425 2008 1,328,659,681 9,801,895 1,318,857,786 2009 1,288,729,681 20,432,854 1,268,296,827 2010 1,546,284,681 12,444,416 1,533,840,265 2011 1,713,324,681 2,373,540 1,710,951,141 2012 1,656,414,681 15,952,557 1,640,462,124 2013 1,608,644,681 14,395,351 1,594,249,330 2014 1,541,209,870 36,049,851 1,505,160,019 2015 1,452,075,000 31,794,974 1,420,280,026

* State Equalized Value/Taxable Values for a tax year are valuations as of December 31of the previous year.

Sources: Wayne County Equalization Report, Detroit Public School Data, U.S. Census Bureau.

154


Percent OfBonded Debt To

Tax State Equalized State Equalized Per CapitaYear Valuation Valuation Population Bonded Debt

2005 13,412,228,230$ 10.52% 836,056 1,688$ 2006 13,455,174,731 10.15% 834,116 1,638 2007 14,113,440,560 9.41% 916,952 1,449 2008 13,945,472,326 9.24% 912,062 1,413 2009 12,497,643,058 12.37% 910,921 1,697 2010 11,120,394,579 15.41% 713,777 2,400 2011 10,123,104,300 16.36% 706,585 2,344 2012 9,437,451,598 17.05% 701,475 2,293 2013 8,981,538,055 17.16% 688,701 2,238 2014 7,812,080,813 18.59% 680,250 2,135

155


Percentage of Debt Service to Non-Capital Expendituresto Expenditures and Other UsesLast Ten Fiscal Years

Percentage ofDebt Service to

Debt Service Non-Capital Non-CapitalFiscal Year Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures

2006 112,374,226$ 1,559,760,091$ 7.20%2007 136,206,793 1,561,128,465 8.72%2008 151,370,288 1,481,567,107 10.22%2009 140,608,888 1,365,282,676 10.30%2010 157,482,455 1,324,844,408 11.89%2011 196,014,420 1,265,726,332 15.49%2012 190,248,900 1,107,595,803 17.18%2013 197,028,864 910,969,792 21.63%2014 229,932,112 935,478,755 24.58%2015 224,462,485 923,606,786 24.30%

Note: Debt Service expenditures consist of principal retirement and payment ofinterest. Non-capital expenditures consist of all expenditures other than amounts capitalizedand do not include other financing uses.


156


Demographic and Economic StatisticsLast Ten Fiscal Years

Per CapitaPersonal Personal Unemployment

Calendar Year Population (a) Income Income Rate (b)

2006 836,056 n/a* n/a* 7.402007 834,116 n/a* n/a* 7.202008 916,952 n/a* n/a* 8.702009 912,062 n/a* n/a* 15.202010 910,921 n/a* n/a* 14.302011 713,777 n/a* n/a* 24.402012 706,585 n/a* n/a* 18.302013 701,475 n/a* n/a* 18.602014 668,701 n/a* n/a* 16.402015 680,250 n/a* n/a* 16.70

Notes: n/a* = City of Detroit information not available.

Source:(a) U. S. Census Bureau(b) U. S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics

157


Principal EmployersCurrent Year and Nine Years Ago

2015 2006

Percentage of Percentage ofTotal Total

Employer Employees Rank Employment Employees Rank Employment

Rock Ventures 11,524 1 15.4% N/A N/A N/ADetroit Medical Center 10,528 2 14.0% 10,141 3 12.3%City of Detroit 9,137 3 12.2% 13,554 2 16.4%Henry Ford Health System 8,879 4 11.8% 7,801 5 9.5%U.S. Government 6,358 5 8.5% 5,424 7 6.6%Detroit Public Schools 6,258 6 8.3% 14,913 1 18.1%Wayne State University 6,010 7 8.0% 5,077 8 6.2%Chrysler Group L.L.C. 5,870 8 7.8% 9,835 4 11.9%Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan 5,426 9 7.2% N/A N/A N/AGeneral Motors Company 5,051 10 6.7% 5,951 6 7.2%State of Michigan N/A N/A N/A 5,000 9 6.1%St. John Health N/A N/A N/A 4,823 10 5.8%

Total Employees Working In TheCity of Detroit 75,041 82,519

Sources: Crain's Detroit BusinessDistrict Human Resource SystemCity of Detroit Finance DepartmentBureau of Labor Statistics

159


Operating StatisticsLast Ten Fiscal Years

Operating Cost per PercentageFiscal year Enrollment expenditures Pupil change

2006 130,719 1,447,382,665$ 11,073$ (1.50)%

2007 118,394 1,424,921,672 12,035 8.70 %

2008 106,485 1,330,196,819 12,492 3.79 %

2009 95,494 1,220,054,459 12,776 2.28 %

2010 84,877 1,169,738,265 13,782 7.87 %

2011 75,152 1,067,536,984 14,205 3.07 %

2012 66,745 915,495,622 13,716 (3.44)%

2013 51,318 712,922,213 13,892 1.28 %

2014 48,511 707,461,081 14,584 4.98 %

2015 47,161 702,573,048 14,897 2.15 %

Notes:Operating expenditures are total expenditures less debt service and capital outlays

Source: Nonfinancial information from District records.

160


Cost per Percentage Teaching Pupil-teacher Average dailyExpenses Pupil change staff ratio attendance

1,588,215,679$ 12,150$ 2.27 % 7,628 17.1 86 %

1,573,663,459 13,292 9.40 % 7,064 16.8 81 %

1,526,544,793 14,336 7.85 % 6,269 17.0 84 %

1,424,465,466 14,917 4.05 % 5,797 16.5 84 %

1,319,488,752 15,546 4.22 % 5,222 16.3 83 %

1,267,873,948 16,871 8.52 % 4,982 15.1 77 %

1,071,757,990 16,058 (4.82)% 4,396 15.2 82 %

911,423,912 17,760 10.60 % 3,398 15.2 86 %

887,973,627 18,305 3.07 % 3,398 15.2 86 %

863,012,736 18,299 (0.03)% 3,056 15.4 77 %

161


Full-time Equivalent District Employees by TypeLast Ten Fiscal Years

2015 2014 2013 2012

Officials, administrators, managers 189.0 204.0 222.0 218.0 Principals 96.0 96.0 101.0 129.0 Assistant Principals 48.0 50.0 52.0 54.0 Classroom teachers 2,808.8 3,100.8 3,088.0 4,048.8 Guidance 100.0 100.0 97.0 131.0 Psychological 52.8 58.8 64.8 74.2 Librarians/Audio-Visual staff 2.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 Consultants/Supervisors of instruction 246.8 230.0 223.0 295.0 Other professional staff 358.6 387.4 383.2 387.7 Teacher aides 1,034.0 1,123.0 1,143.0 1,189.0 Technicians 8.0 9.0 11.0 15.4 Clerical/Secretarial staff 319.0 340.0 375.0 437.0 Service Workers 753.0 821.0 810.0 819.0 Skilled crafts 12.0 13.0 13.0 11.0 Laborers - Unskilled - - - -

Staff totals 6,028.0 6,535.0 6,586.0 7,818.1

Part-time staff 442.0 493.0 482.0 551.0

Substitute staff:Instructional 238.0 237.0 193.0 347.0 Noninstructional support 9.0 7.0 117.0 47.0

Substitute staff totals 247.0 244.0 310.0 394.0

Note: Full-time equivalent employees are as of June 30.

162


2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

196.0 189.0 218.0 200.0 215.0 199.0 145.0 173.0 184.0 187.0 220.0 229.0 98.0 90.0 131.0 150.0 148.0 173.0

4,380.7 5,222.0 5,797.1 6,269.3 7,064.4 7,628.2 148.0 186.0 216.0 234.5 263.8 289.5 73.4 82.0 90.0 100.0 102.0 100.5 12.0 29.0 47.0 49.0 58.0 63.0

424.2 118.0 246.4 265.9 289.2 295.2 443.9 491.0 579.9 601.5 618.6 612.2

1,371.0 1,480.0 1,486.0 1,539.0 1,616.0 1,712.0 17.0 19.0 19.0 21.0 22.0 21.0

494.0 617.0 775.0 845.0 902.0 910.0 898.0 1,954.0 2,380.0 2,684.0 2,189.0 2,259.0 13.0 325.0 405.0 460.0 487.0 427.0

- 14.0 19.0 27.0 28.0 42.0

8,714.2 10,989.0 12,593.4 13,633.2 14,223.0 14,960.6

691.0 751.0 791.0 1,106.0 1,785.0 2,318.0

468.0 344.0 500.0 682.0 561.0 599.0 67.0 133.0 129.0 298.0 384.0 1,074.0

535.0 477.0 629.0 980.0 945.0 1,673.0

163


Last Ten Fiscal Years

School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Elementary SchoolsAtkinson (1927)

Square feet (2)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 47,697

Capacity (3)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 425

Enrollment (4)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 293

Bagley (1929)

Square feet 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317 54,317

Capacity 596 596 596 596 596 574 574 574 574 574

Enrollment 369 344 409 461 443 448 471 540 522 458

Barton (1945)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 38,848 38,848 38,848 38,848 38,848 38,848

Capacity --- --- --- --- 470 441 441 441 441 441

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 400 362 282 285 284 368

Beard ECC (1896)

Square feet 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060 37,060

Capacity 369 369 369 369 369 310 310 310 310 310

Enrollment --- 72 73 126 161 175 168 179 169 163

Beckham Academy (2001)

Square feet --- --- --- 104,836 104,836 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000

Capacity --- --- --- 875 875 783 783 783 783 783

Enrollment --- --- --- 518 556 687 704 605 757 760

Bennett (1911)

Square feet 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144 67,144

Capacity 697 697 697 697 697 673 673 673 673 673

Enrollment 530 469 487 509 555 514 561 546 618 618

Berry (1961)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 31,600

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 290

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 216

Birney (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 55,711 55,711 55,711

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 424 424 424

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 230 254 277

Bow (1949)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 59,100 59,100 59,100 59,100

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 652 652 652 652

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 482 495 495 505

Brady (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 64,318

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 619

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 395

Brewer (1931)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 57,894 57,894 57,894

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 655 655 655

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 468 524 506

Brown (2001)

Square feet 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415 122,415

Capacity 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170

Enrollment 680 692 766 808 879 1,138 1,116 1,096 1,044 1,041

Bunche (1955)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 56,488 56,488 56,488 56,488

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 492 492 492 492

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 275 339 345 276

Burns (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 65,370

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 723

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 518

Burt (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 49,750 49,750 49,750 49,750

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 476 476 476 476

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 275 291 332 357

Campbell (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 56,833 56,833 56,833 56,833

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 417 417 417 417

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 231 276 315 318

Summary of Buildings and Sites

Fiscal Year

164



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Carleton (1945)

Square feet 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134 52,134

Capacity 640 640 640 640 640 641 641 641 641 641

Enrollment 358 342 358 375 454 495 449 430 447 516

Carstens (1915)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 91,277 91,277 91,277 91,277 91,277

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 526 526 526 526 526

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 199 234 261 339 330

Chrysler (1962)

Square feet 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066 23,066

Capacity 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Enrollment 170 178 180 163 174 174 175 174 165 163

Clark (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 61,202 61,202 61,202

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 801 801 801

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 333 398 398

Clemente, Roberto (2001)

Square feet 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000

Capacity 862 862 862 862 862 786 786 786 786 786

Enrollment 760 753 771 701 742 812 803 782 771 684

Clinton (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 49,930 49,930 49,930

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 542 542 524

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 262 263 278

Cooke (1925)

Square feet 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184 45,184

Capacity 420 420 420 420 420 412 412 412 412 412

Enrollment 364 361 403 363 373 425 358 361 347 322

Coolidge (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 57,528 57,528 57,528

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 715 715 684

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 327 337 375

Courville (1921)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 79,691

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 852

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 514

Crary (1938)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,742 48,742 48,742 48,742

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 552 552 552 552

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 330 380 384 439

Davison (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 110,388 110,388 110,388 110,388

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 968 968 968 968

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 735 821 866 722

Dossin (1949)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 50,508 50,508 50,508 50,508

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 404 404 404 458

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 366 294 382 358

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Bethune Academy) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 64 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Brenda Scott) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 50 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Burns) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 33 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Edmonson) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 38 43 44 50 48 --- --- --- --- ---

165



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Fleming) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 49 66 66 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Glazer) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 4 28 29 33 34 --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Katherine White) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 35 30 31 33 33 --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Law) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 51 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Loving) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 30 32 33 35 32 --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at MacDowell) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Murphy) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 41 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Nolan) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Phoenix Academy) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 17 --- --- --- --- --- ---

DPS Foundation for Early Learners (at Rutherford) (Program)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 38 34 35 30 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Edison (1921)

Square feet 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263 44,263

Capacity 476 476 476 476 476 459 459 459 459 448

Enrollment 308 316 339 291 325 368 361 291 310 310

Edmonson (1956)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 65,904 65,904 65,904 65,904

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 574 574 574 574

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 294 296 289 324

Elementary School at Elmdale (1999)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 37,198 37,198 37,198

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 368 368 368

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 183 231 216

Emerson (1947)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 126,805 126,805 126,805 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 473 473 473 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 337 358 375 ---

Fairbanks (1955)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 31,136

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 282

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 229

166



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Fleming (1962)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 58,690 58,690 58,690 58,690

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 659 659 659 477

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 743 631 646 408

Gardner (1925)

Square feet 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634 32,634

Capacity 397 397 397 397 397 432 432 432 432 432

Enrollment 293 294 294 295 266 276 251 282 296 287

Genesis (2002)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 37,199

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 396

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 338

Glazer (1967)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 409 409 409 409 409

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 262 310 334 365 315

Gompers (1954)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 31,369 31,369 31,369 31,369 31,369

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 356 356 356 356 356

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 251 313 311 321 285

Greenfield Park (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 72,296

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 468

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 274

Guyton (1921)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 47,264 47,264 47,264

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 479 479 542

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 307 314 375

Hamilton (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 51,373 51,373 51,373

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 482 482 482

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 245 235 292

Hanneman (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 45,968

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 502

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 377

Hanstein (1919)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 35,832 35,832 35,832 35,832

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 383 383 383 383

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 297 279 276 305

Harding (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 71,600 71,600 71,600 87,748

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 646 646 646 905

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 305 339 360 367

Harms (1915)

Square feet 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933 44,933

Capacity 687 687 687 687 687 616 616 616 616 616

Enrollment 457 437 526 585 550 583 640 644 606 573

Healy (1949)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17,230

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 239

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 134

Heilmann Park ES (2002)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 95,098 95,098 95,098

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 797 797 797

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 713 756 691

Higgins (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 52,570

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 462

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 340

Holcomb (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,241 48,241 48,241 48,241

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 484 484 484 484

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 279 288 340 368

167



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Holmes, O. W. (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 64,611 64,611 64,611

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 637 637 637

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 330 375 386

Houghten (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 58,368 58,368 58,368

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 540 540 540

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 233 278 303

Howe (2002)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 98,174 98,174 98,174 98,174 98,174

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 760 760 760 760 760

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 387 489 429 541 535

Hutchinson (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 55,672 55,672 55,672

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 628 628 628

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 384 447 407

Jamieson (1961)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 64,930 64,930 64,930 64,930

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 841 841 841 841

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 456 501 542 479

Joyce (1914)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,918 48,918 48,918

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 517 517 517

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 342 430 446

King ES (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 47,314 47,314 47,314

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 601 601 601

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 494 564 559

Kosciusko (1955)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 39,057

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 394

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 286

Lodge (1950)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 21,514 21,514 21,514

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 239 239 239

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 142 172 196

Logan (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 54,810 54,810 54,810 54,810 54,810 54,810

Capacity --- --- --- --- 683 639 639 639 639 639

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 466 510 574 594 596 609

Loving (1982)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 49,200 49,200 49,200 49,200 49,200

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 482 482 482 482 482

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 271 304 320 400 261

MAAT Imhotep (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 51,958

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 536

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 274

MacCulloch (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 71,350

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 806

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 383

MacDowell (1940)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 519 519 519 519

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 426 419 427 378

Macomb (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 30,689 30,689 30,689

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 403 403 403

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 162 232 296

Mann (1944)

Square feet 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909 44,909

Capacity 492 492 492 492 492 464 464 464 464 464

Enrollment 395 379 427 457 416 421 390 342 399 390

168



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Marshall, John (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 62,166 62,166 62,166

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 819 819 775

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 446 500 560

Marshall, Thurgood (1920)

Square feet --- --- 90,905 90,905 90,905 90,905 90,905 90,905 90,905 90,905

Capacity --- --- 781 781 781 712 712 712 712 712

Enrollment --- --- 434 403 369 364 363 387 440 443

Mason (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 46,870 46,870 46,870 46,870 46,870 46,870

Capacity --- --- --- --- 465 390 390 390 390 549

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 350 367 382 343 355 402

Maybury (1909)

Square feet 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322 45,322

Capacity 542 542 542 542 542 645 645 645 645 645

Enrollment 405 340 354 304 394 594 619 648 651 627

McColl (1949)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 413 413 413 413

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 263 273 271 314

McFarlane (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 59,008 59,008 59,008 59,008

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 430 430 430 430

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 341 329 356 411

McGregor (1952)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42,924

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 470

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 269

McKenny (1950)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 67,295 67,295 67,295 67,295

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 632 632 632 632

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 307 375 368 449

Monnier (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 50,413

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 568

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 277

Munger (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 115,691 115,691 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,025 1,025 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 354 482 ---

Neinas (1916)

Square feet 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771 52,771

Capacity 499 499 499 499 499 498 498 498 498 498

Enrollment 313 268 324 404 365 359 369 387 433 466

Northwest ELC (1968)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12,400 12,400 12,400

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 135 135 145

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 110 117 124

Oakman (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- 46,464 46,464 46,464 46,464 46,464 46,464 46,464

Capacity --- --- --- 446 446 373 373 373 373 373

Enrollment --- --- --- 288 297 277 265 290 271 277

Parker (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 70,528

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 734

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 461

Pasteur (1930)

Square feet 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541 56,541

Capacity 607 607 607 607 607 500 500 500 500 500

Enrollment 476 414 463 389 416 398 364 361 336 343

169



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Priest (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 117,502 117,502 117,502

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,145 1,145 1,145

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 813 840 908

Rutherford (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 51,356 51,356 51,356 51,356 51,356 51,356

Capacity --- --- --- --- 534 457 457 457 457 457

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 355 373 439 440 428 363

Schulze (2002)

Square feet 94,991 94,991 --- --- --- --- 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991

Capacity 749 749 --- --- --- --- 749 749 749 749

Enrollment 553 574 --- --- --- --- 725 635 659 630

Stark (1969)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 62,240 62,240 62,240

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 407 407 478

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 172 187 213

Stephens (1913)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 76,119 76,119 76,119

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 694 694 694

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 287 317 378

Stewart (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 58,800

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 309

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 309

Thirkell (1914)

Square feet --- --- 68,701 68,701 68,701 68,701 68,701 68,701 68,701 68,701

Capacity --- --- 528 528 528 609 609 609 609 609

Enrollment --- --- 568 463 569 461 432 517 543 494

Van Zile (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 48,068 48,068 48,068 48,068 48,068

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 562 562 562 562 446

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 278 415 530 570 498

Vernor (1945)

Square feet 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608 44,608

Capacity 428 428 428 428 428 452 452 452 452 452

Enrollment 277 275 293 299 304 322 315 332 322 366

Von Steuben (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 52,768

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 619

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 362

Wayne (1929)

Square feet 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296 45,296

Capacity 606 606 606 606 606 519 519 519 519 519

Enrollment 323 313 339 322 335 388 427 466 516 417

Webster (1955)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 58,822 58,822 58,822 58,822 58,822

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 427 427 427 427 427

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 315 357 383 397 358

White, K. (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 97,217 97,217 97,217

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,052 1,052 1,052

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 620 697 609

Wilkins (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,801 48,801 48,801 48,801

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 525 525 525 525

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 386 438 472 561

Wright, Charles (2002)

Square feet 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991

Capacity 739 739 739 739 739 746 746 746 746 746

Enrollment 506 486 524 599 599 693 607 639 622 631

170



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Young, C. (1982)

Square feet 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800 67,800

Capacity 718 718 718 718 718 692 692 692 692 692

Enrollment 436 451 515 577 632 691 613 577 560 604

K - 8 SchoolsAcademy of the Americas (1996)

Square feet 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929 97,929

Capacity 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116

Enrollment 819 739 734 693 745 713 684 718 778 757

Angelou, Maya (1993)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 46,700

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 554

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 524

Ann Arbor Trail (1946)

Square feet 44,850 44,850 44,850 44,850 44,850 44,850 44,850 43,343 43,343 43,343

Capacity 626 626 626 626 626 532 532 532 532 532

Enrollment 399 451 505 505 495 513 476 459 452 451

Bates Academy (1992)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 63,632

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 921

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 839

Bates Academy (at Beaubien MS) (1966)

Square feet 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 128,190 ---

Capacity 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,393 1,393 1,393 1,393 ---

Enrollment 813 852 862 852 855 834 852 858 854 ---

Bethune Academy (1922)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 82,149 82,149 82,149 82,149

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,111 1,111 1,111 1,032

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 615 582 741 754

Bethune Academy (at Fitzgerald) (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 100,662 88,110 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,132 908 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 802 808 --- --- --- ---

Blackwell Institute (1980)

Square feet 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044 57,044

Capacity 808 808 808 808 808 817 817 817 817 817

Enrollment 387 391 436 471 516 637 693 670 660 668

Bow (1949)

Square feet 59,100 59,100 59,100 59,100 59,100 59,100 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 804 804 804 804 804 652 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 520 442 511 557 562 676 --- --- --- ---

Boynton (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 120,132 120,132 120,132

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 977 977 912

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 274 323 392

Brewer Academy (at Columbus MS) (1928)

Square feet 54,174 54,174 54,174 54,174 54,174 54,174 54,174 --- --- ---

Capacity 812 812 812 812 812 807 807 --- --- ---

Enrollment 516 507 553 553 595 611 716 --- --- ---

Bunche Academy (at Duffield) (1922)

Square feet 109,671 109,671 109,671 109,671 109,671 113,455 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,142 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 550 501 531 531 564 580 --- --- --- ---

Burns (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 65,370 65,370 65,370 65,370 65,370 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 823 799 799 799 799 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 564 626 677 754 822 ---

Burton International (1921)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 59,136 59,136 59,136 59,136

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 612 612 612 612

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 649 647 692 624

171



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Burton International (at Pelham) (1963)

Square feet 114,200 114,200 114,200 114,200 114,200 114,200 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,038 1,038 1,038 1,038 1,038 940 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 632 540 614 693 788 868 --- --- --- ---

Butzel (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 135,600 135,600 135,600

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,070 1,070 1,070

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 388 501 470

Cadillac (1919)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 51,832

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 804

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 473

Carstens Academy (at Remus Robinson) (1977)

Square feet 128,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 785 785 785 785 785 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 425 498 557 639 663 --- --- --- --- ---

Carver (1953)

Square feet 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102 67,102

Capacity 668 668 668 668 668 794 794 794 794 794

Enrollment 367 311 350 368 354 408 494 502 556 569

Clark (1925)

Square feet 56,852 56,852 56,852 56,852 56,852 56,852 61,202 --- --- ---

Capacity 789 789 789 789 789 876 876 --- --- ---

Enrollment 677 763 791 729 688 599 603 --- --- ---

Coffey (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 47,464 47,464 47,464 47,464

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 685 685 685 689

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 386 388 508 507

Cooper (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 82,338

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,021

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 430

Courtis (1967)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 63,374 63,374 63,374

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 725 725 995

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 262 347 381

Davison (1916)

Square feet 110,388 110,388 110,388 110,388 110,388 110,388 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,051 1,051 1,051 1,051 1,051 968 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 697 717 750 701 689 733 --- --- --- ---

Detroit Open (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 35,500 35,500 35,500

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 342 342 389

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 226 277 286

Dixon (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 60,554 60,554 60,554 60,554

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 877 877 877 877

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 535 576 596 611

Dixon Academy (at Lessenger) (1963)

Square feet 93,258 93,258 93,258 93,258 93,258 93,258 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 914 914 914 914 914 775 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 649 758 774 675 772 777 --- --- --- ---

Dossin (1949)

Square feet 50,508 50,508 50,508 50,508 50,508 50,508 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 489 489 489 489 489 404 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 408 389 422 394 403 429 --- --- --- ---

Drew Academy (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 139,000 139,000 139,000 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 915 915 915 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 388 344 432 ---

Duffield (1922)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 113,455 113,455 113,455 113,455

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,142 1,142 1,142 1,142

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 388 438 550 493

172



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Durfee (1928)

Square feet 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870 170,870

Capacity 1,561 1,561 1,561 1,561 1,561 1,218 1,218 1,218 1,218 1,218

Enrollment 503 540 670 745 898 619 735 604 655 583

Earhart Elementary/Middle (2011)

Square feet 111,090 111,090 111,090 111,090 111,090 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 704 771 772 846 776 --- --- --- --- ---

Edmonson (1956)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 65,904 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 574 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 395 --- --- --- ---

Ellington, Duke (1978)

Square feet --- --- --- 82,954 82,954 82,954 82,954 82,954 82,954 82,954

Capacity --- --- --- 855 855 818 818 818 818 818

Enrollment --- --- --- 334 471 552 611 576 597 552

Ellington, Duke at Beckham (2001)

Square feet 104,836 104,836 104,836 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,069 1,069 1,069 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 668 745 795 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Emerson (1947)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 126,805

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,038

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 793

Emerson (1947)

Square feet 126,805 126,805 126,805 126,805 126,805 126,805 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,586 1,586 1,586 1,586 1,586 473 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 651 721 757 761 790 705 --- --- --- ---

Farwell (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 96,304 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 886 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 650 --- --- --- --- ---

Fisher Magnet (at Burbank) (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 91,020 91,020 91,020

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 678 678 678

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 591 597 497

Fisher Magnet Lower Academy (at Heilmann Park ES) (2002)

Square feet 95,098 95,098 95,098 95,098 95,098 95,098 95,098 --- --- ---

Capacity 866 866 866 866 866 873 873 --- --- ---

Enrollment 691 652 653 680 758 791 894 --- --- ---

Fisher Magnet Upper Academy (at Heilmann Park MS) (2003)

Square feet 147,620 147,620 147,620 147,620 147,620 147,620 147,620 --- --- ---

Capacity 1,088 1,088 1,088 1,088 1,088 1,460 1,460 --- --- ---

Enrollment 481 523 559 546 652 625 871 --- --- ---

Fitzgerald (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 88,110 88,110 88,110 88,110

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 908 908 908 941

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 600 589 624 736

Foreign Language Immersion (1992)

Square feet 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010 92,010

Capacity 1,037 1,037 1,037 1,037 1,037 985 985 985 985 882

Enrollment 662 739 738 678 653 661 629 685 716 663

Garvey Academy, Marcus (at Jones) (1962)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,141 48,141 48,141

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 485 485 485

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 259 285 266

Garvey Academy, Marcus (at Butzel) (1964)

Square feet 144,400 144,400 144,400 144,400 144,400 135,600 135,600 --- --- ---

Capacity 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 989 989 --- --- ---

Enrollment 518 429 493 511 588 644 663 --- --- ---

173



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Golightly Center (1919)

Square feet 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134 107,134

Capacity 1,054 1,054 1,054 1,054 1,054 986 986 986 986 986

Enrollment 449 456 498 504 599 627 666 716 830 782

Gompers Elementary/Middle (2011)

Square feet 111,882 111,882 111,882 111,882 111,882 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 826 821 927 821 971 --- --- --- --- ---

Grant (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 51,918

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 657

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 485

Greenfield Union (1914)

Square feet 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285 75,285

Capacity 893 893 893 893 893 955 955 955 955 955

Enrollment 378 391 409 365 399 484 554 560 678 583

Hamilton (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 51,373 51,373 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 585 585 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 490 590 --- --- ---

Henderson Academy (1963)

Square feet 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 --- --- ---

Capacity 1,013 1,013 1,013 1,013 1,013 1,297 1,297 --- --- ---

Enrollment 773 774 809 815 683 745 693 --- --- ---

Henderson Lower (1994)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 30,191 30,191 30,191

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 340 340 340

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 242 280 266

Henderson Upper (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 109,000 109,000 109,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 952 952 952

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 457 584 641

Holmes, A. L. (1915)

Square feet 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217 102,217

Capacity 813 813 813 813 813 989 989 989 989 989

Enrollment 533 508 575 422 448 471 533 564 690 483

Holmes, O. W. (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 64,611 64,611 64,611 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 794 880 880 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 420 506 594 --- --- ---

Hughes, Langston Academy (1952)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 55,360 55,360 55,360 55,360

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 692 692 692 752

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 301 236 248 302

Hughes, Langston Upper Academy (at Taft) (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 95,591 95,591 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 805 851 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 357 419 --- --- --- ---

Hutchins at McMichael Technological Academy (1982)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 85,079 85,079 85,079 85,079 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 725 725 725 725 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 394 417 422 549 ---

Hutchinson (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 55,672 55,672 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 628 628 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 369 413 --- --- ---

Hutchinson at Howe (2002)

Square feet 98,174 98,174 98,174 98,174 98,174 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 745 745 745 745 745 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 385 483 559 549 592 --- --- --- --- ---

Jemison, Mae C. (at Herman Rodgers) (1942)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 77,384 77,384 77,384 77,384 77,384 77,384

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,250 1,118 1,118 1,118 1,118 1,118

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 474 523 500 676 737 628

174



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Jordan, Barbara (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 160,261 160,261 160,261 160,261

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 564 620 773 623

King J.R. (at Cerveny) (1923)

Square feet 133,580 133,580 133,580 133,580 133,580 133,580 133,580 --- --- ---

Capacity 1,320 1,320 1,320 1,320 1,320 1,024 1,024 --- --- ---

Enrollment 849 874 984 929 979 1,068 856 --- --- ---

Law Elementary (2001)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 125,995 125,995 125,995 125,995 125,995 125,995

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,227 1,244 1,244 1,244 1,244 1,244

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 769 734 889 1,014 990 678

Lessenger Preparatory Academy (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 93,258 93,258 93,258 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 775 775 775 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 358 400 480 ---

MacDowell (1940)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 52,500 52,500 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 566 519 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 436 523 --- --- --- ---

Mackenzie Elementary/Middle (2012)

Square feet 111,774 111,774 111,774 111,774 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 1,074 906 1,015 964 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Malcolm X Academy (at Dewey) (1955)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 78,850 78,850 78,850 78,850

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 966 966 966 966

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 317 334 496 497

Marquette (1949)

Square feet 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618 92,618

Capacity 1,233 1,233 1,233 1,233 1,233 996 996 996 996 996

Enrollment 639 790 818 863 875 888 821 816 904 773

Marshall, Thurgood (1920)

Square feet 90,905 90,905 90,905 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 781 781 781 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 576 578 531 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Mason Elementary/Middle (at Farwell MS) (1964)

Square feet 96,304 96,304 96,304 96,304 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 974 974 974 974 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 503 530 609 736 --- --- --- --- --- ---

McMichael Technological Academy K-8 (1982)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 85,079

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 784

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 524

Munger Elementary/Middle (2012)

Square feet 111,245 111,245 111,245 111,245 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 933 786 866 917 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Murphy (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 107,591 107,591 107,591 107,591 107,591 107,591

Capacity --- --- --- --- 774 1,095 1,095 1,095 1,095 1,045

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 590 580 499 375 493 553

Nichols (1910)

Square feet 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904 51,904

Capacity 481 481 481 481 481 475 475 475 475 475

Enrollment 286 251 255 272 325 375 418 320 347 335

Noble (1920)

Square feet 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605 143,605

Capacity 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 939 939 939 939 1,078

Enrollment 543 592 625 478 426 416 510 418 515 491

175



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Nolan Elementary/Middle (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 112,432 112,432 112,432 112,432 112,432 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,183 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 572 577 800 627 717 ---

Owen Academy (at Pelham) (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 114,200 114,200 114,200 114,200

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 940 940 940 948

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 267 357 474 463

Palmer Park Prep Academy (at B. Jordan) (1928)

Square feet 160,261 160,261 160,261 160,261 160,261 160,261 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,115 1,115 1,115 1,115 1,115 1,040 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 557 643 538 546 611 577 --- --- --- ---

Parker Elementary/Middle (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 70,528 70,528 70,528 70,528 70,528 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 941 907 907 907 907 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 636 588 502 595 666 ---

Phoenix Academy (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 112,628 112,628 112,628 112,628 112,628 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 907 814 814 814 814 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 459 476 543 684 687 ---

Priest Elementary/Middle (1923)

Square feet 117,502 117,502 117,502 117,502 117,502 117,502 117,502 --- --- ---

Capacity 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,161 1,450 1,450 --- --- ---

Enrollment 814 761 823 932 981 953 812 --- --- ---

Pulaski (1942)

Square feet 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966 60,966

Capacity 955 955 955 955 955 755 755 755 755 755

Enrollment 536 491 512 473 588 619 623 653 751 488

Richard, G. (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 43,664 43,664 43,664

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 784 784 784

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 431 507 492

Robeson, Paul (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 201,389 201,389 201,389 201,389

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 617 562 619 739

Robeson, Paul / Malcolm X Academy (1917)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 201,389 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 1,323 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 661 --- --- --- ---

Robeson, Paul / Malcolm X Academy at Hally (1927)

Square feet 48,500 48,500 48,500 48,500 48,500 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 750 750 750 750 750 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 361 422 446 412 606 --- --- --- --- ---

Robinson, Remus Academy (1977)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 128,000 128,000 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 1,104 1,104 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 444 517 --- --- ---

Sampson (1911)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 69,897

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 700

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 382

Sampson Webber Academy (1964)

Square feet 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 145,118 ---

Capacity 1,101 1,101 1,101 1,101 1,101 981 981 981 981 ---

Enrollment 405 381 455 555 633 387 483 558 726 ---

Schulze (2002)

Square feet --- --- 94,991 94,991 94,991 94,991 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- 813 813 813 749 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- 676 706 887 817 --- --- --- ---

Scott, Brenda (2003)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 147,620 147,620 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,152 1,098 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 851 1,033 --- --- --- ---

176



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Sherrard (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 99,081

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 833

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 382

Sherrill (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 783 783 783 783 783

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 449 551 454 497 537

Spain (1912)

Square feet 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591 145,591

Capacity 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 990 990 990 990 990

Enrollment 545 586 649 696 747 780 837 809 809 784

Stewart, Carlyle K-8 Learning Academy (at MacCulloch) (1925)

Square feet --- --- 71,350 71,350 71,350 71,350 71,350 ---

Capacity --- --- 903 805 805 805 805 ---

Enrollment --- --- 488 549 632 682 692 ---

Thirkell (1914)

Square feet 68,701 68,701 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 619 619 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 671 555 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Trix (1944)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 48,208 48,208 48,208 48,208 48,208 48,208

Capacity --- --- --- --- 659 710 710 710 710 657

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 414 440 520 331 427 459

Twain, Mark (1961)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 53,356 53,356 53,356

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 624 624 471

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 289 288 257

Twain, Mark Academy (at Boynton) (1925)

Square feet 120,132 120,132 120,132 120,132 120,132 120,132 120,132 --- --- ---

Capacity 936 936 936 936 936 977 977 --- --- ---

Enrollment 255 260 259 231 273 310 364 --- --- ---

Vetal (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 66,553 66,553 66,553 66,553 66,553

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 883 883 883 883 977

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 503 511 530 594 532

Webber (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 145,118

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 981

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 473

Westside Multicultural Academy (2002)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 71,283 71,283 71,283 71,283

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 597 597 597 597

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 282 313 364 388

White, Katherine Elementary/Middle (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 97,217 97,217 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 1,359 1,359 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 651 784 --- --- ---

Wilkins (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- 48,801 48,801 48,801 --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- 534 534 525 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 273 334 384 --- --- --- ---

Winship (1942)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 80,185

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 777

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 383

Winterhalter (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 125,504 125,504 125,504

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,439 1,439 1,439

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 512 638 715

177



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Middle SchoolsBarbour (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 156,000 156,000 156,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,353 1,353 1,353

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 370 455 481

Beaubien (1966)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 128,190

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,393

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 345

Cerveny (1923)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 133,580 133,580 133,580

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,090 1,090 1,090

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 398 521 306

Cleveland (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 102,352

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,078

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 672

Clippert Academy (1905)

Square feet 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194 46,194

Capacity 626 626 626 626 626 567 567 567 567 567

Enrollment 512 490 497 483 523 530 446 380 347 385

Columbus (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 54,174 54,174 54,174

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 898 898 898

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 370 455 486

Detroit Lions Alternative MS (1963)

Square feet 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241 32,241

Capacity 146 146 146 146 146 197 197 197 197 197

Enrollment 89 105 112 113 74 107 116 146 116 128

Drew (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 139,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,224

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 534

Earhart (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 104,450 104,450 104,450 104,450

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 936 936 936 936

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 558 633 644 624

Earhart MS (at Southwestern HS) (1915)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 313 --- --- --- ---

Farwell (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 96,304 96,304 96,304 96,304 96,304

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 889 889 889 889 889

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 344 434 513 591 606

Hally (1927)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 48,500 48,500 48,500 48,500 48,500

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 801 801 801 801 801

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 249 368 460 538 596

Hancock Center (at Arts in Academics) (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 16,727 16,727 16,727 --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 105 105 105 --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 38 40 40 --- ---

Hancock Center (1971)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12,412 12,412

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 105 105

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 55 71

Heilmann Park MS (2003)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 147,620 147,620 147,620

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,141 1,141 1,141

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 507 671 745

Hutchins (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 138,056

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,341

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 372

178



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Joy (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 149,208

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,311

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 768

Lessenger (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 93,258

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 905

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 391

Longfellow (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 115,277

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 711

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 288

Ludington Magnet (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 53,632 53,632 53,632 53,632 53,632 53,632

Capacity --- --- --- --- 693 702 702 702 702 702

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 383 538 634 601 616 613

Ludington Magnet (at Langston Hughes/Taft MS) (1963)

Square feet 95,591 95,591 95,591 95,591 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 693 693 693 693 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 379 446 448 511 --- --- --- --- --- ---

McNair (1927)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 133,603 133,603 133,603

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,160 1,160 1,160

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 442 737 370

Miller (1919)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 116,050

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 898

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 461

Munger (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 115,691

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,153

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 521

Nolan (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 112,432

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,112

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 470

Phoenix (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 112,628

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 921

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 388

Robinson (1977)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 128,000 128,000 128,000

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 995 995 1,096

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 316 347 394

Ruddiman (1922)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 93,521

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 742

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 295

Scott, Brenda (2003)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 147,620 147,620 147,620 147,620

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,098 1,098 1,098 1,098

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 469 517 696 895

Taft (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 95,591 95,591 95,591 95,591

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 851 851 851 851

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 359 414 600 466

179



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

High SchoolsBarsamian Preparatory Alternative (1968)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 22,200 22,200 22,200 22,200 22,200

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 195 195 195 195 195

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 53 47 67 83 85

Boykin Alternative (1908)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 64,502 64,502 64,502 64,502

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 198 198 198 198

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 72 91 90 68

Breithaupt Career and Tech (1981)

Square feet 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361 150,361

Capacity 616 616 616 616 616 792 792 792 792 792

Enrollment 12 12 14 20 6 3 2 1 11 4

Carson, Ben Academy (at Crockett CTC) (1980)

Square feet 95,691 95,691 95,691 95,691 N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 594 594 594 594 N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 440 420 356 219 121 --- --- --- --- ---

Cass Tech (2004)

Square feet 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484 402,484

Capacity 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286

Enrollment 2,235 2,260 2,304 2,287 2,188 2,139 2,174 2,078 2,139 2,118

Central (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 213,974 213,974 213,974 213,974 213,974 213,974

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,699 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,505

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 820 1,047 874 905 1,229 1,025

Chadsey (New 7-12 Learning Opportunity at) (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 163,842 163,842 163,842

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,346 1,346 1,346

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 967 1,079 730

Cleveland (New 7-12 Learning Opportunity at) (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 102,352 102,352 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,078 1,078 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 692 733 ---

Cody (1947)

Square feet 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752 286,752

Capacity 677 677 677 677 677 2,108 2,108 2,108 2,108 2,108

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 340 642 823 1,082 1,255 1,387

Cody - Academy of Critical Thinkers (1947)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 387 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 204 178 98 --- --- ---

Cody - Detroit Institute of Technology (1947)

Square feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- ---

Capacity 376 376 376 376 376 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 236 240 307 340 256 201 76 --- --- ---

Cody - Medicine & Community Health Academy (1947)


Capacity 259 259 259 259 259 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 433 402 427 453 307 234 94 --- --- ---

Cody - Academy of Public Leadership (1947)


Capacity 208 208 208 208 208 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 357 329 348 367 276 211 84 --- --- ---

Cody 9th Grade Academy at Ruddiman (1922)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 93,521 93,521 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 742 742 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 389 510 ---

180



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Communication & Media Arts (1992)

Square feet 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450 79,450

Capacity 763 763 763 763 763 720 720 720 720 720

Enrollment 619 591 608 516 528 504 473 516 511 515

Cooley (1927)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 206,795 206,795 206,795 206,795

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,238 2,238 2,238 2,238

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,049 1,155 1,476 1,254

Crockett Career and Tech (1980)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 95,691 95,691 95,691 95,691 95,691 95,691

Capacity --- --- --- --- 550 594 594 594 594 594

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 1 2 2 3 2 4

Crockett HS (at Burroughs) (1925)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 129,592 129,592 129,592 129,592 129,592 129,592

Capacity --- --- --- --- 837 837 837 837 837 837

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 565 675 877 862 789 810

Crosman Alternative (1911)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 77,049

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 378

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 289

Crosman Alternative (at Hutchins) (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 138,056 138,056 138,056 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,341 1,341 1,341 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 229 252 309 ---

DABO (Program) (2004)

Square feet --- --- --- --- N/A --- N/A N/A N/A N/A

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A --- N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 208 --- 191 129 --- 284

Davis Aerospace (1968)

Square feet --- --- --- 66,600 66,600 66,600 66,600 66,600 66,600 66,600

Capacity --- --- --- 595 595 559 559 559 559 559

Enrollment --- --- --- 196 189 201 201 203 212 247

Davis Aerospace at Golightly (1982)

Square feet 132,668 132,668 132,668 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,071 1,071 1,071 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 247 349 171 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Denby (1929)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 214,510 205,470 205,470 205,470 205,470 205,470

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,737 1,807 1,807 1,807 1,807 1,807

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 1,192 1,120 1,058 1,128 1,559 1,977

Detroit Behavior Institute (Program) (2006)



Enrollment --- --- --- --- 71 --- 54 48 --- 44

Detroit City Alternative HS (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42,972

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 455

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 451

Detroit City Alternative at Longfellow (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 115,277 115,277 115,277 115,277 115,277 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 988 711 711 711 711 ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 229 403 585 584 628 ---

Detroit Collegiate Preparatory HS (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- N/A N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- N/A N/A --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- 116 74 --- --- --- --- ---

Detroit Collegiate Preparatory at Northwestern (1970)

Square feet 354,359 354,359 354,359 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,835 1,835 1,835 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 585 548 620 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Detroit HS of Technology (1929)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 157 178 198 240

181



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Detroit International Academy (2000)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42,800

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 357

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 263

Detroit International Academy (at Northern) (1914)

Square feet 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 318,416 ---

Capacity 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,176 1,176 1,176 1,176 ---

Enrollment 430 450 474 513 544 611 528 513 465 ---

Detroit School of Arts (2004)

Square feet 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634 305,634

Capacity 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296

Enrollment 561 541 541 610 635 712 719 795 870 951

Douglass Academy (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 81,915

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 460

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 262

Douglass Academy (at Murray-Wright) (1965)

Square feet 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 232,817 ---

Capacity 1,302 1,302 1,302 1,302 1,302 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 ---

Enrollment 205 232 244 202 191 280 304 296 324 ---

East English Village Preparatory Academy (2012)

Square feet 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 1,478 1,401 1,545 1,207 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Ferguson Alternative (1930)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 44,434 44,434 44,434 44,434 44,434

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 300 300 300 300 300

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 220 257 284 292 314

Finney (1928)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 257,392 257,392 257,392

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,027 2,027 2,027

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 800 987 1,379

Finney (at McNair) (1927)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 133,603 133,603 133,603 --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,170 1,550 1,550 --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 470 490 554 --- --- ---

Ford HS (1956)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 271,742 270,218 270,218 270,218 270,218 270,218

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,871 1,866 1,866 1,866 1,866 1,866

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 994 1,151 1,133 1,469 1,922 1,642

Franklin-Wright (Program) (2006)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 38

Galilee (Program) (2004)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 84

Golightly Career and Tech (1982)

Square feet --- --- --- 132,668 132,668 132,668 132,668 132,668 132,668 132,668

Capacity --- --- --- 836 836 748 748 748 748 748

Enrollment --- --- --- 46 1 1 1 --- 4 3

Greater Faith (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 303

Higher Ground (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 38

Kettering (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 148,348 148,348 148,348 148,348 148,348 148,348

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,050 1,863 1,863 1,863 1,863 1,863

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 717 822 878 1,067 1,142 1,233

182



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

King HS (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 306,444 306,444 306,444 306,444 306,444

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 2,006 2,006 2,006 2,006 2,006

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 1,385 1,314 1,613 1,921 1,587

King HS (2011)

Square feet 245,413 245,413 245,413 245,413 245,413 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 1,537 1,382 1,525 1,542 1,304 --- --- --- --- ---

Mackenzie (1927)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 223,960

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,076

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,418

Millennium Alternative (1999)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 22,240

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 234

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 211

Mumford (1948)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 240,273 240,273 240,273 240,273 240,273 240,273

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,692 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 1,852

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 1,005 1,265 1,791 2,057 2,135 2,028

Murray-Wright (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 232,817

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,095

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 880

Northern (1914)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 318,416

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,785

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,040

Northwestern (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- 388,059 388,059 388,059 388,059 388,059 388,059 388,059

Capacity --- --- --- 1,557 1,557 2,007 2,007 2,007 2,007 2,007

Enrollment --- --- --- 696 630 814 1,154 1,204 1,575 1,213

Osborn (1956)

Square feet 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884 201,884

Capacity 462 462 462 462 462 1,891 1,891 1,891 1,891 1,891

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 130 402 818 1,305 1,418 1,689

Osborn - Academy of Mathematics (1956)


Capacity 327 327 327 327 327 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 272 315 342 335 253 192 104 --- --- ---

Osborn - College Preparatory Academy (1956)


Capacity 276 276 276 276 276 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 208 221 264 318 286 214 113 --- --- ---

Osborn - Evergreen Academy of Design (1956)


Capacity 298 298 298 298 298 N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment 248 273 269 290 242 177 89 --- --- ---

Pershing (1929)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 249,694 249,694 249,694 249,694 249,694 249,694

Capacity --- --- --- --- 2,207 2,274 2,274 2,274 2,274 2,274

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 806 932 1,077 1,219 1,432 1,713

Randolph Career and Tech (1982)

Square feet 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883 122,883

Capacity 660 660 660 660 660 704 704 704 704 704

Enrollment 1 214 4 22 7 9 11 6 6 6

A. Philip Randolph Technical HS (1982)

Square feet NA N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity NA N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- 49 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Redford (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 318,259

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,787

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,116

183



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Renaissance (2005)

Square feet 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523 295,523

Capacity 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169

Enrollment 1,130 1,154 1,156 1,123 1,114 1,097 1,031 1,043 1,033 1,038

Riverside Preparatory Academy (Program) (2004)



Enrollment --- --- --- --- 131 --- 93 94 --- 144

Shield of Faith (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 138

Southeastern (1914)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 264,527 264,527 264,527 264,527 264,527 264,527

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,722 2,911 2,911 2,911 2,911 2,911

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 1,154 1,420 1,962 2,297 2,487 2,375

Southeastern 9th Grade Academy (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 114,234 114,234 114,234 114,234 114,234 114,234

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Southshore Education Center (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 46

Southwestern (1915)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 198,050 198,050 198,050 198,050 198,050 198,050

Capacity --- --- --- --- 1,106 1,646 1,646 1,646 1,646 1,646

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 583 785 805 633 754 712

Strather & Associates (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 39

Tredeco (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 29

Trombly (at Vincent) (1905)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 52,475 52,475 52,475 52,475

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 429 429 429 429

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 331 240 281 273

Trombly (at Kettering HS) (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- N/A --- --- --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 163 --- --- --- ---

Uplift Incorporated (Program) (2006)


Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 48

West Side Alternative (at Wingert) (1906)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 42,240 42,240 42,240 42,240

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 414 414 414 414

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 608 553 595 507

West Side Academy (at Westside Multicultural) (2002)

Square feet 71,283 71,283 71,283 71,283 71,283 71,283 --- --- --- ---

Capacity 419 419 419 419 419 597 --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 450 521 535 522 516 494 --- --- --- ---

Western International (1937)

Square feet 299,630 299,630 299,630 299,630 299,630 214,412 214,412 214,412 214,412 214,412

Capacity 2,367 2,367 2,367 2,367 2,367 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862

Enrollment 1,588 1,424 1,528 1,457 1,243 1,477 1,681 1,677 1,626 1,443

184



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Special Education CentersBanks-Williamson, Diann Special Education Center (2013)

Square feet 21,165 21,165 21,165 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 108 108 108 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 80 96 98 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Cooley North (1972)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 114,229 114,229 114,229 114,229

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- 181 181 181 181

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 121 148 165 165

Detroit School for the Deaf (1970)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 61,152 61,152 61,152 61,152 61,152 61,152

Capacity --- --- --- --- 140 91 91 91 91 91

Enrollment --- --- --- --- 47 49 55 34 40 46

Detroit Transition Center East (1924)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 86,400 86,400 86,400 86,400 86,400

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 372 372 372 372 372

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 260 266 256 262 271

Detroit Transition Center West (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 58,223 58,223 58,223 58,223 58,223

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- 290 290 290 290 290

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- 174 175 171 164 161

Drew Transion Center (1970)

Square feet 139,000 139,000 139,000 139,000 139,000 --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity 500 500 500 500 500 --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment 535 546 546 583 467 --- --- --- --- ---

Early Intervention (Program) (N/A)

Square feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment 283 116 0 114 458 --- 109 93 100 100

Field, Moses Center (1964)

Square feet 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742 53,742

Capacity 293 293 293 293 293 180 180 180 180 180

Enrollment 120 106 108 125 131 163 171 166 168 161

Keidan Special Education Center (1963)

Square feet 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 83,850 77,550

Capacity 492 492 492 492 492 382 382 382 382 382

Enrollment 240 265 266 168 170 156 187 210 256 267

Kettering West (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- 101,515 101,515 101,515 101,515 101,515 101,515 101,515

Capacity --- --- --- 341 341 221 221 221 221 221

Enrollment --- --- --- 107 213 204 233 220 244 224

McKinney Day Treatment (1964)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 48,092 48,092

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 100 100

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 74 69

McKinney Day Treatment at Crosman (1920)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A --- ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A --- ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- 64 54 --- ---

Turning Point Academy (1929)

Square feet 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 52,768 ---

Capacity 249 249 249 249 249 150 150 150 150 ---

Enrollment 60 73 80 92 87 89 38 45 40 ---

White, J. Special Education Center (2005)

Square feet 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739 97,739

Capacity 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330

Enrollment 201 215 221 190 237 267 269 290 315 307

TOTAL - Instructional Total - Square Feet (2)

10,058,310 10,058,310 10,058,310 10,417,179 13,733,531 14,551,311 16,451,982 18,555,276 18,599,053 20,951,794 Total - Capacity (3)

79,639 79,639 79,612 81,568 109,882 119,322 137,342 155,834 155,934 181,104 Total - Enrollment (PK-12) (4)

49,566 49,546 52,362 52,981 69,927 76,459 87,758 97,356 108,103 119,902

185



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Noninstructional SitesAHCC Museum (1926)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 8,606 8,606 8,606 8,606


Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A

Central Distribution Center (N/A)

Square feet 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578 316,578


Enrollment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Children's Museum (1929)

Square feet 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928 29,928



Detroit School for the Deaf (1970)

Square feet 61,152 61,152 61,152 61,152 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- --- --- ---

Eastside Bus Terminal (1940)

Square feet 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784 44,784



Eastside Maintenance Hub (1939)

Square feet 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451 27,451



Fisher Building (1928)

Square feet 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068 172,068



Golightly Horticulture (1982)

Square feet 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600



Grant (Office of Public Safety) (2004)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3,822 3,822 ---

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A ---

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A ---

Harris Professional Development (1963)

Square feet --- --- --- 30,608 30,608 30,608 30,608 30,608 30,608 30,608

Capacity --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Kahn Building (1931)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 87,886 87,886 87,886 87,886 87,886

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lawton Building (1909)

Square feet 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922 31,922



Longfellow Annex (1916)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 48,674 48,674 48,674 48,674 48,674



Lothrup Landing (1985)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 2,693 2,693 2,693 2,693 2,693



186



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

Military Science (1965)

Square feet --- --- --- --- 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400

Capacity --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

McNichols Attendance (1959)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13,377 13,377

Capacity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A

Enrollment --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N/A N/A

New Center One (1989)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800



Northeast Service Center (at Fleming) (1962)

Square feet 58,690 58,690 58,690 58,690 58,690 58,690 --- --- --- ---

Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- ---

Enrollment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- ---

Northern Annex (Office of Public Safety HQ) (1950)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 23,662 23,662 23,662 23,662



Office of Adult Education East (at Richard) (1928)

Square feet 43,664 43,664 43,664 43,664 43,664 43,664 43,664 --- --- ---

Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- ---

Enrollment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- --- ---

Office of Adult Education West (at Crary) (1938)

Square feet 48,742 48,742 48,742 48,742 48,742 48,742 --- --- --- ---



Professional Development at Northwestern

Square feet 33,700 33,700 33,700 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Capacity N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Enrollment N/A N/A N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Public Safety Command Center/HQ (2011)

Square feet 28,400 28,400 28,400 28,400 28,400 28,400 --- --- --- ---



Puritan Attendance (1960)

Square feet --- --- --- --- --- --- 12,549 12,549 12,549 12,549



Speech & Hearing Clinic

Square feet 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 --- ---

Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- ---

Enrollment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A --- ---

Support Services Bldg A (1929)

Square feet 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000 169,000



Support Services Bldg B (1921)

Square feet 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000



Support Services Bldg C (1929)

Square feet 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000



Westside Bus Terminal (1939)

Square feet 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735 41,735



Westside Maintenance Hub (1950)

Square feet 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470 34,470



187



School 2015 (1) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006


Fiscal Year

TOTAL - Non-Instructional Total - Square Feet (2)

1,221,284 1,221,284 1,221,284 1,218,192 1,162,440 1,360,493 1,269,478 1,229,636 1,237,613 1,233,791 Total - Capacity (3)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Total - Enrollment (PK-12) (4)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

GRAND TOTALTotal - Square Feet (2)

11,279,594 11,279,594 11,279,594 11,635,371 14,895,971 15,911,804 17,721,460 19,784,912 19,836,666 22,185,585 Total - Capacity (3)

79,639 79,639 79,612 81,568 109,882 119,322 137,342 155,834 155,934 181,104 Total - Enrollment (PK-12) (4)

49,566 49,546 52,362 52,981 69,927 76,459 87,758 97,356 108,103 119,902

*** Enrollment previously reported 49,721 52,442

Notes:

(4) The enrollment reflects the actual pre-audit number of PK-12 and Special Education students (based on FTEs) resulting from the Official Count Day process. The 2015 enrollment reflects projected enrollment.

Source: Department of Pupil Population Management, DPS; DPS Capital Projects Group; and, District historical records.

(1) The 2015 results reflect the planned capacity and square footage for the upcoming school year. The enrollment number reflects the projected Fall 2015 FTE count for the upcoming school year. (2) Total gross square footage by school and non-instructional building. Provided by DPSPMT Planning and Programming Department.(3) The capacity results reflect program capacity of the school. The 2006 through 2010 numbers come from the "School Facility Capacity Report" conducted and prepared by DPSPMT Planning and Programming for DPS' Pupil Population Management Department. The 2015 capacity numbers are subject to change based on new grade configurations and how the spaces are programmed and used.

188


Schedule of Major Insurance CoverageFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Insurance Company Policy Insurance

Policy Coverage Policy Number Period Details of Insurance Coverage Premium Agency/Broker

Commercial Property Insurance Lexington Insurance Company

7/1/14 -7/1/15

Coverage protects the physical assets of the District –owned buildings, contents, valuable papers & records. Coverage is provided on an all-risk basis, including electronic data & media, fine arts, earth movement and other sub-limits. (EAA Schools billed $91,638.70 for DPS leased buildings.)

$ 398,611 Aon Risk Services Inc.

Auto Fleet Liability Insurance Citizens Insurance Company

9/1/14 -9/1/15

Liability insurance for Detroit Public Schools owned automobiles, trucks or other motor vehicles designed for public roads.


Student Travel Insurance AIG/Domestic Accident & Health Division

9/1/14 - 9/1/15

Covers participating students and adult supervisors to & from DPS sponsored and supervised field trips . Covers out of state & international trips only.


Underground Storage Tank Liability Insurance

American Intl Specialty Lines Insurance

9/19/14 - 9/19/15

For Eastside Bus Terminal & Westside Bus Terminal underground storage tanks. Third-Party Liability, Corrective Action, and Cleanup Policy.


Surety Bond The Hartford Insurance

10/19/14 - 10/19/15

For Detroit Public Schools Police Department campus police.

$ 188 Aon Risk Services Inc.

Aircraft Hull & Liability Insurance XL Specialty Insurance

11/13/14 - 11/13/15

Liability insurance for Detroit Public Schools owned aircrafts at Davis Aerospace Technical High School at Golightly.


Student Catastrophic Athletic Accident Medical Insurance

Gerber Life Insurance Company

12/01/14 - 12/01/15

Catastrophic Accident Medical for students and coaches involved in interscholastic activities, intramural sports participants, including athletics sport, and non-sport extracurricular activities.


Source: Detroit Public Schools - Office of Risk Management

189


Graduate InformationFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

AdultHigh School

School Year High School Completion GED Graduates

2005-06 6,037 N/A 86 2006-07 6,460 10 97 2007-08 6,184 25 98 2008-09 5,808 49 137 2009-10 5,105 17 1,013 2010-11 4,066 25 1,142 2011-12 3,909 21 674 2012-13 3,006 10 1,057 2013-14 2,587 10 128 2014-15 2,666 15 14

Note: N/A = Not Available

Source: Student Information Services - Detroit Public Schools Office of Adult Education - Detroit Public Schools

190

Detroit Public Schools


Single Audit Act Compliance


Table of Contents

Page

1

4

12

15

17

21

37

Independent Auditors’ Report on the Schedule of Expendituresof Federal Awards

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards

Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control overFinancial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed inAccordance with Government Auditing Standards

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance withRequirements That Could Have a Direct and MaterialEffect on Each Major Program and on Internal Controlover Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133

Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs

Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON THESCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS

November 2, 2015


We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and theaggregate remaining fund information of Detroit Public Schools (the "District"), as of and for the yearended June 30, 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprisethe basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated November 2, 2015, which containedunmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose offorming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements.The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additionalanalysis as required by OMB Circular A-133 and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to theunderlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Theinformation has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financialstatements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such informationdirectly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statementsor to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance withauditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule ofexpenditure of federal awards is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financialstatements as a whole.

1500 W. Big Beaver Rd. 2nd FloorTroy, MI 48084Ph: 248.952.5000Fx: 248.952.5750

1


Schedule of Expenditures of Federal AwardsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Pass CFDA Through Pass-through/

Federal Agency / Cluster / Program Title Number Entity Grantor Number

U.S. Department of AgricultureChild Nutrition Cluster:

National School Breakfast Program:Project number 141970 10.553 MDE 141970Project number 151970 10.553 MDE 151970

National School Lunch Program:Noncash assistance (commodities) -

Entitlement Commodities 10.555 MDE -n/a-Cash assistance:

Project number 141960 10.555 MDE 141960Project number 151960 10.555 MDE 151960

Summer School Food Program:Project number 140900 10.559 MDE 140900Project number 141900 10.559 MDE 141900Project number 150900 10.559 MDE 150900Project number 151900 10.559 MDE 151900

Total Child Nutrition Cluster

Child Care Food Program:Project number 131920 10.558 MDE 141920Project number 132010 10.558 MDE 142010Project number 141920 10.558 MDE 151920Project number 142010 10.558 MDE 152010

Total Child Care Food Program

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program:Project number 140950 10.582 MDE 140950Project number 150950 10.582 MDE 150950

Total Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program

Total U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Labor

Workforce Investment Act Adult Program:WIA Adult Program 17.258 DESC 2013-20WIA Adult Program 17.258 DESC 2015

Total U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Department of Education Adult Basic Education:

Project number 131130 131337 84.002 MDLEG 131130 131337Project number 151120 155337 84.002 MDLEG 151120 155337Project number 151130 151337 84.002 MDLEG 151130 151337

Total Adult Basic Education

4

Approved Accrued Federal Funds/ AccruedAward Prior Years (Unearned) Adjustments Payments (Unearned)

Amount Expenditures Revenue at and In-kind Federal Revenue at (Memo Only) (Memo Only) June 30, 2014 Transfers Received Expenditures June 30, 2015

11,603,741$ 9,994,900$ 898,213$ -$ 2,507,054$ 1,608,841$ -$ 10,414,843 - - - 9,733,218 10,414,843 681,625

1,529,223 - - - 1,529,223 1,529,223 -

23,129,404 20,023,736 1,721,729 - 4,827,397 3,105,668 - 20,332,453 - - - 18,952,366 20,332,453 1,380,087

997,808 - - - 997,808 997,808 - 101,879 - - - 101,879 101,879 - 664,590 - - - - 664,590 664,590 68,291 - - - - 68,291 68,291

2,619,942 - 38,648,945 38,823,596 2,794,593

2,163,996 1,928,579 662,796 - 898,213 235,417 - 172,588 153,036 52,594 - 72,146 19,552 -

1,712,597 - - - 1,330,191 1,712,597 382,406 197,238 - - - 165,478 197,238 31,760

715,390 - 2,466,028 2,164,804 414,166

1,692,366 1,692,366 213,599 - 213,599 - - 2,056,269 - - - 1,911,088 2,056,269 145,181

213,599 - 2,124,687 2,056,269 145,181

3,548,931 - 43,239,660 43,044,669 3,353,940

337,500 - - - - 36,550 36,550 450,000 - - - 351,084 316,422 (34,662)

- - 351,084 352,972 1,888

200,000 14,363 (13,837) 13,837 - - - 5,000 - - - 4,450 4,450 -

60,000 - - - 60,000 60,000 - (13,837) 13,837 64,450 64,450 -

continued...

5





U.S. Department of Education (continued)Title I, Part A Cluster

Title I, Part A: Project number 141520 1314 84.010 MDE 141520 1314 Project number 141530 1314 84.010 MDE 141530 1314 Project number 141700 1314 84.010 MDE 141700 1314 Project number 151530 1415 84.010 MDE 151530 1415 Project number 151700 1415 84.010 MDE 151700 1415

ARRA - Title I, Part A: Project number 101555 1011 84.389 MDE 101555-1011

Total Title I, Part A Cluster

Migrant Education: Project number 131830 1213 (Summer) 84.011 MDE 131830-1213 Project number 141890 1314 84.011 MDE 141890-1314 Project number 1418930 1314 84.011 MDE 141830-1314 Project number 151890 1415 84.011 MDE 151890 1415

Total Migrant Education

Career & Technical Education (Perkins II): Project number 143520 141224 84.048 MDE 143520-141224 Project number 153520 151224 84.048 MDE 153520 151224

Total Career & Technical Education (Perkins II)

21st Century Community Learning Center: Project number 122110 F09020 84.287 MDE 122110 F09020 Project number 122110 D07035 84.287 MDE 122110 D07035 Project number 132110 F09020 84.287 MDE 132110 F09020 Project number 132110 F09022 84.287 MDE 132110 F09022 Project number 142110 H13023 84.287 MDE 142110 H13023 Project number 142110 2110 84.287 MDE 142110 2110 Project number 142110 F09017 84.287 MDE 142110 F09017 Project number 142110 F09022 84.287 MDE 142110 F09022 Project number 142110 G12019 84.287 MDE 142110 G12019 Project number 142110 H13025 84.287 MDE 142110 H13025 Project number 142110 F09020 84.287 MDE 142110 F09020 Project number 152110 G12019 84.287 MDE 152110 G12019 Project number 152110 H13023 84.287 MDE 152110 H13023 Project number 152110 H13024 84.287 MDE 152110 H13024 Project number 152110 H13025 84.287 MDE 152110 H13025

Total 21st Century Community Learning Center

6



12,000$ 6,415$ 875$ -$ 6,090$ 5,215$ -$ 145,378,333 100,259,161 17,079,561 - 46,470,313 29,692,569 301,817

315,578 123,167 83,749 - 161,618 77,870 1 109,201,530 - - - 78,175,162 95,566,276 17,391,114

200,587 - - - 136,739 154,147 17,408

1,193,808 - 4,153 (4,153) - - - 17,168,338 (4,153) 124,949,922 125,496,077 17,710,340

8,463 3,288 (506) - (506) - - 22,038 4,564 1,503 - 2,885 1,382 - 3,511 98 98 - - (98) -

13,178 - - - 2,550 - (2,550) 1,095 - 4,929 1,284 (2,550)

2,748,666 2,252,293 517,860 - 566,083 48,223 - 3,000,819 - - - 1,988,507 2,667,633 679,126

517,860 - 2,554,590 2,715,856 679,126

675,000 - (153) - (153) - - 675,000 - (17) - (17) - - 675,000 45,597 (418) - (418) - - 675,000 125,562 (29,849) - (29,849) - - 675,000 418,584 72,855 - 329,270 256,415 - 675,000 332,026 (13,509) - 259,161 272,670 - 675,000 506,802 89,457 - 206,736 117,279 - 675,000 475,535 88,988 - 185,615 96,627 - 675,000 401,003 48,362 - 247,758 199,396 - 675,000 433,218 96,157 - 272,928 176,771 - 675,000 483,367 128,738 (200) 200,747 72,209 - 675,000 - - - 430,212 499,223 69,011 675,000 - - - 498,154 572,748 74,594 675,000 - - - 479,496 565,280 85,784 675,000 - - - 449,353 538,839 89,486

480,611 (200) 3,528,993 3,367,457 318,875

continued...

7





U.S. Department of Education (concluded)Title III Limited English:

Project number 120580 1112 84.365 MDE 120580-1112 Project number 130570 1213 84.365 MDE 130570-1213 Project number 130580 1213 84.365 MDE 130580-1213 Project number 140570 1314 84.365 MDE 140570-1314 Project number 140580 1314 84.365 MDE 140580-1314 Project number 150580 1415 84.365 MDE 150580 1415

Total Title III Limited English

Title II, Part A Teacher Training/ Principal Training:Project number 140520 1314 84.367 MDE 140520-1314Project number 150520 1415 84.367 MDE 150520-1415

Total Title II, Part A Teacher Training/ Principal Training

School Improvement Grant Cluster:Formula School Improvement:

Project number 111760 1112 84.377 MDE 111760-1112 Project number 111760 1213 84.377 MDE 111760-1213 Project number 121760 1213 84.377 MDE 121760-1213 Project number 131761 1415 84.377 MDE 131761-1415

ARRA - School Improvement Grant: Project number 101765 1213 84.388 MDE 101765-1213 Project number 131765 1314 84.388 MDE 131765-1314

Total School Improvement Grant Cluster

Special Education Cluster:Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:

Education of the Handicapped 12/13 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Education of the Handicapped 13/14 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Education of the Handicapped 14/15 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Center Expansion 13/14 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Center Expansion 14/15 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Assistive Technology Training and Information Center Grant - 13/14 84.027 WRESA -n/a- Assistive Technology Training and Information Center Grant - 14/15 84.027 WRESA -n/a-

Preschool Incentive: Preschool Incentive - 12/13 84.173 WRESA -n/a- Preschool Incentive - 13/14 84.173 WRESA -n/a- Preschool Incentive - 14/15 84.173 WRESA -n/a-

Total Special Education Cluster

Total U.S. Department of Education

8



2,762,395$ -$ (53,814)$ -$ (53,814)$ -$ -$ 111,153 72,056 (3,347) - (3,347) - -

2,339,537 790,231 (1,635) - (1,635) - - 88,871 12,875 6,967 - 31,945 24,979 1

1,435,732 620,612 90,022 - 368,265 278,243 - 1,285,849 - - - 603,724 693,252 89,528

38,193 - 945,138 996,474 89,529

30,783,309 13,656,409 650,583 - 3,679,175 3,051,109 22,517 30,833,214 - - - 13,932,044 15,242,800 1,310,756

650,583 - 17,611,219 18,293,909 1,333,273

12,547,658 - (17,972) 17,972 - - -

853,812 661,926 1,845 (1,845) - - - 3,092,253 482,035 (1,845) 1,845 - - - 7,689,873 - - - 1,445,130 2,425,219 980,089

1,466,914 31,247 (626) 626 - - - 6,643,766 4,108,577 548,887 - 2,110,903 1,562,016 -

530,289 18,598 3,556,033 3,987,235 980,089

12,562,119 715,392 1,473,997 - 1,890,502 423,133 6,628 10,504,232 7,886,247 2,314,360 - 4,493,432 2,617,985 438,913 10,717,334 - - - 5,234,881 6,757,541 1,522,660 2,847,964 2,583,563 631,698 - 895,449 264,401 650 3,225,275 - - - 2,182,938 3,225,275 1,042,337

525,000 485,194 278,609 - 318,415 39,806 - 547,512 - - - 375,869 547,512 171,643

497,412 39,791 63,008 - 65,046 - (2,038) 458,163 398,680 111,489 - 157,992 59,483 12,980 542,511 - - - 366,514 449,646 83,132

4,873,161 - 15,981,038 14,384,782 3,276,905

24,246,293 28,082 169,196,312 169,307,524 24,385,587

continued...

9





U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesHead Start Cluster:

Head Start 13/14 93.600 CDI -n/a-

HRRTEP:HRRTEP - 12/13 93.938 WRESA -n/a-HRRTEP - 14/15 93.938 WRESA -n/a-

Total HRRTEP

Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Total Federal Financial Assistance

* Amount represents adjustments to prior year eligible expenditures

See accompanying notes to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards

10



4,800,794$ 4,137,020$ 906,140$ (471,983)$ 434,157$ -$ -$

50,000 - - - 41,470 8,839 (32,631) 50,000 - - - - 33,721 33,721

- - 41,470 42,560 1,090

906,140 (471,983) 475,627 42,560 1,090

28,701,364$ (443,901)$ 213,262,683$ 212,747,725$ 27,742,505$

concluded.

11



1. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

2. RECONCILIATION OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

$ 225,656,250 443,901 (13,352,426) $ 212,747,725

The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the “Schedule”) includes the federal grantactivity of Detroit Public Schools (the "District") under programs of the federal government for the year endedJune 30, 2015. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-ProfitOrganizations . Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the District, it is notintended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position or cash flows of the District.

Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting, which isdescribed in note 1 to the District's financial statements. Such expenditures are recognized following the costprinciples contained in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments,wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amountsshown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amountsreported as expenditures in prior years. Pass-through entity identifying numbers are presented where available.

Cash received is recorded on the cash basis; expenditures are recorded on the modified accrual basis ofaccounting. Revenues are recognized when the qualifying expenditures have been incurred and all grantrequirements have been met.

The following schedule reconciles federal sources reported in the financial statements to the expendituresreported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards:

Expenditures reported in the schedule of expenditures of federal awardsLess: Federal revenue related to qualified bond interest

Federal sources reported in the financial statements

Expenditures are in agreement with amounts reported in the financial statements and the financial reports.The amounts reported on the Grant Auditor Report reconcile with this Schedule.

The Schedule has been arranged to provide information on both actual cash received and the revenuerecognized. Accordingly, the effects of accruals of accounts receivable, unearned revenue and accountspayable items at both the beginning and end of the fiscal year have been reported.

Adjustments to prior year federal expenditures

12



3. PASS-THROUGH AGENCIES

Abbreviation Pass-through Agency NameCDI Community Development Institute Head StartMDE Michigan Department of EducationDESC Detroit Employment Solutions CorporationMDLEG Michigan Department of Labor and Economic GrowthWRESA Wayne County Regional Education Service Area

The District receives certain federal grant as subawards from non-federal entities. Pass-through entities, whereapplicable, have been identified in the Schedule with an abbreviation, defined as follows:

13

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allowmanagement or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, ordetect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or acombination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that amaterial misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected andcorrected on a timely basis. We consider the deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule offindings and questioned costs as item 2015-001, 2015-002, 2015-004, 2015-005 and 2015-006 to bematerial weaknesses.


We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standardsissued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmentalactivities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Detroit Public Schools(the "District"), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2015, and the related notes to the financialstatements, which collectively comprise the District’s basic financial statements, and have issued ourreport thereon dated November 2, 2015.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the District’s internalcontrol over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that areappropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financialstatements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the District’sinternal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the District’sinternal control.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraphand was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknessesor significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist thatwere not identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questionedcosts, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider tobe material weaknesses and another deficiency that we consider to be a significant deficiency.

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTINGAND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

November 2, 2015


15

The District’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanyingschedule of findings and questioned costs. The District’s responses were not subjected to the auditingprocedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion onthem.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control andcompliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of theDistrict’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed inaccordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control andcompliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Detroit Public Schools’ Response to Findings

A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is lesssevere than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged withgovernance. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings andquestioned costs as items 2015-003 to be a significant deficiency.

Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the District’s financial statements are freefrom material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct andmaterial effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion oncompliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not expresssuch an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed instances of noncompliance that are required to bereported under Government Auditing Standards and are described in the accompanying schedule offindings and questioned costs as items 2015-002 and 2015-005.

16

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the District’s major federalprograms based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conductedour audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United Statesof America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standardsissued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, LocalGovernments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that weplan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with thetypes of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on amajor federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about theDistrict’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances.

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each majorfederal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the District’scompliance.

Management’s Responsibility

Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, andgrants applicable to its federal programs.

Independent Auditors’ Responsibility

We have audited the compliance of Detroit Public Schools (the "District") with the types of compliancerequirements described in the 2 CFR 200 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and materialeffect on each of the District’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2015. The District’smajor federal programs are identified in the summary of auditors’ results section of the accompanyingschedule of findings and questioned costs.

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMAND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY OMB CIRCULAR A-133

November 2, 2015


Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program


17

Unmodified Opinion on Each of the Other Major Federal Programs

Qualified Opinion on Title II program

Basis for Qualified Opinion on Title II program

Management of the District is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controlover compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning andperforming our audit of compliance, we considered the District’s internal control over compliance withthe types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal programto determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose ofexpressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internalcontrol over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressingan opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express anopinion on the effectiveness of the District’s internal control over compliance.

The results of our auditing procedures disclosed other instances of noncompliance, which are requiredto be reported in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and which are described in the accompanyingschedule of findings and questioned costs as items 2015-008 through 2015-011. Our opinion on eachmajor federal program is not modified with respect to these matters.

Other Matters

The District’s responses to the noncompliance findings identified in our audit are described in theaccompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. The District’s responses were not subjected tothe auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion onthem.

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance

As described in item 2015-007 in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, theDistrict did not comply with the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirement applicable to its Title II,Part A program. Compliance with this requirement is necessary, in our opinion, for the District tocomply with the requirements applicable to that program.

In our opinion, except for the noncompliance described in the Basis for Qualified Opinion paragraph,the District complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that could havea direct and material effect on its Title II, Part A program for the year ended June 30, 2015.

In our opinion, the District complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliancerequirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its other majorfederal programs identified in the summary of auditors’ results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs for the year ended June 30, 2015.

18

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of ourtesting of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements ofOMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in thepreceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control overcompliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, materialweaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. However, as described in theaccompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, we identified certain deficiencies in internalcontrol over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses and other deficiencies that weconsider to be significant deficiencies.

A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination ofdeficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federalprogram that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet importantenough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the deficiencies in internalcontrol over compliance described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs asitems 2015-010 and 2015-011 to be significant deficiencies.

The District’s responses to the internal control over compliance findings identified in our audit aredescribed in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. The District’s responses werenot subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, weexpress no opinion on them.

Purpose of this Report

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control overcompliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing theirassigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliancerequirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control overcompliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance suchthat there is reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirementof a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. We considerthe deficiencies in internal control over compliance described in the accompanying schedule of findingsand questioned costs as items 2015-007 through 2015-009 to be material weaknesses.

19


Schedule of Findings and Questioned CostsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS’ RESULTS

Financial Statements

X yes no

X yes none reported

X yes no

Federal Awards

X yes no

X yes none reported

X yes no

compliance for major programs:

Name of Federal Program or Cluster Opinion

10.553/10.555/10.559 Child Nutrition Cluster Unmodified84.010/84.389 Title I, Part A Cluster Unmodified84.027/84.173 Special Education Cluster Unmodified84.287 21st Century Community Learning Unmodified84.367 Title II, Part A Modified84.377/84.388 School Improvement Grant Cluster Unmodified

yes X no

Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance withCircular A-133, Section 510(a)?

Noncompliance material to financial statementsnoted?

Internal control over major programs:

Material weakness(es) identified?

Significant deficiency(ies) identified?

Type of auditors’ report issued: Unmodified

Internal control over financial reporting:

Material weakness(es) identified?

Significant deficiency(ies) identified?

Identification of major programs/

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $ 3,000,000

Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee?

Type of auditor's report issued on

CFDA Number

21


Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Continued)For the Year Ended June 30, 2015

SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS

2015-001 – Material Audit Adjustments (Repeat)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Other receivables and unavailable rent revenue were understated by approximately $5,500,000.

• Depreciation expense was overstated by approximately $3,094,000.

Finding Type. Material weakness in internal control over financial reporting

Criteria. Management is responsible for maintaining its accounting records in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles ("GAAP").

Condition. During our audit, we identified and proposed adjustments (which were approved and postedby management) that were material, either individually or in the aggregate to the District's financialstatements.

Cause. Existing year-end closing procedures did not detect certain adjustments necessary to properlyrecord year-end balances.

Effect. As a result, the following areas were initially misstated:

Deferred inflows of resources related to the sale of future revenue was understated by approximately$3,720,000.

Accounts payable was overstated by approximately $5,300,000.

Unamortized loss on refunding was overstated by approximately $10,600,000 and unamortized premium was overstated by $19,200,000.

Interest payable on State Aid notes was overstated by approximately $2,647,000.

Interest payable on bonds was understated by approximately $612,000.

Interest payable on Durant bonds was overstated by approximately $701,000.

The chargeback liability related to property taxes was overstated by approximately $1,255,000.

Prepaid expenses was overstated by approximately $190,000.

22



SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS

View of Responsible Officials. Management concurs with the above finding. With the implementation ofPeopleSoft 9.2, there were many distractions with daily ongoing tasks and many of the year-endadjustments occurred after the audit had started. Management will work with staff to strengthen year-end controls in recording the required adjustments and provide training to current staff. With thedownsizing of the central office staff, there have been numerous resignations and retirements in theFinance Section.

Recommendation. We recommend that the District take steps to ensure that all year-end adjustmentsare identified and posted for financial reporting purposes.

23



SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS (CONTINUED)

2015-002 – Budget (Repeat)

1)

View of Responsible Officials. The Office of Management & Budget provides the following response:

The District budgeted a fund deficit in the general fund, which violates Section 141.436 of Public Act 2of 1968. The office of management and budget will take the appropriate steps to produce a balancedbudget. New features and functionality within the new ERP system will enhance OMB’s ability toproperly adopt and maintain a balanced budget throughout the period. The District has reducedgeneral fund expenditures as reflected on the financial statements; but is unable to reduce the deficitdue to the debt service payments. The District is assigned an Emergency Manager and is in constantcommunication with the Michigan Department of Education and the State Treasury Department.

Finding Type. Material noncompliance; Material weakness in internal control over financial reporting

Criteria. The State of Michigan requires governments to adopt budgets for the general fund and allspecial revenue funds. Expenditures may not be incurred in those funds prior to formal authorizationthrough the approval or amendment of the budget. The District is prohibited from adopting a budget or abudget amendment that causes estimated total expenditures to exceed total estimated revenues andavailable fund balance. In addition, the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act prohibits governments fromexpending funds that are not authorized in the approved budget or from budgeting a deficit.

Condition. The District budgeted a fund deficit in the general fund, which violates the Uniform Budgetingand Accounting Act and the State School Aid Act, as well as its approved deficit elimination plan. Inaddition, expenditures exceeded appropriations by significant amounts as disclosed in the notes to thefinancial statements. The District’s current procedure includes a process of budget overrides thatinappropriately allows actual expenditures to exceed budgeted expenditures at the account level.

Cause. This was the result of weaknesses in the controls established and utilized in the financial system.

Effect. The ability to make appropriate budgetary and operational decisions based on budget and actualdata could be inhibited as a result of expenditure overrides.

Recommendation. We recommend that the District modify its policies and procedures to ensure that allbudget adjustments in the financial software are approved by the Emergency Manager. In addition, werecommend the District modify its policies and procedures to ensure that actual expenditures aremonitored to ensure there are no expenditures that exceed approved budgeted amounts.

24




2015-002 – Budget (Repeat)

2) Expenditures exceeded appropriations by significant amounts as disclosed in the notes to the financialstatements. The District’s current procedure includes a process of budget overrides thatinappropriately allows actual expenditures to exceed budgeted expenditures at the account level.Controls over appropriations and expenditures will be strengthened with the implementation of thenew ERP system. Budget development and monitoring will be intergraded within the new system. Inaddition, the District has enhanced the budgetary financial reporting system to properly monitorbudget to actual activity more timely allowing OMB to be pro-active rather than re-active.

25




2015-003 – Property Taxes (repeat)

View of Responsible Officials. We concur with this finding. The District has and will continue toschedule ongoing meetings with the City, County and State to resolve any differences. However, in fiscalyear 2014 there were many changes at the City which prevented the continuation of the meetings.

Finding Type. Significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting

Criteria. The District is responsible for the reconciliation of all general ledger accounts to their properunderlying balances for the purpose of creating a reasonably adjusted trial balance, from which the basicfinancial statements are derived.

Condition. The levy amount used in the calculation of property tax revenue does not reconcile to taxablevalues reported to the State of Michigan by Wayne County. In addition, certain payments from the Citywere not supported by detail that allocated amounts by levy resulting in potential misallocation betweenDistrict funds.

Cause. Information provided to the District by local taxing authorities is not sufficient to determinewhether amounts collected and transmitted to the District and amounts reported to the State of Michiganproperly reconcile. In addition, an evaluation of all tax receipts from the City was not performed toensure that the payments received included appropriate reconciliations and support.

Effect. The result of these differences could have a significant impact on the amounts owed to theDistrict by the City and the State.

Recommendation. We recommend that the District coordinate with the State of Michigan, WayneCounty, the City of Detroit, and all applicable local tax increment financing authorities to ensure thatamounts reported to the State and amounts collected and remitted to the District are consistent.

26




2015-004 – Internal Controls over Pension Administration

View of Responsible Officials. The Human Resource and Payroll Departments will work with theTechnology & Administrative Services Department to develop and design a reconciliation that wouldprovide the information recommended by the auditors.


Criteria. Management is responsible for providing complete and accurate payroll data to the planadministrator on a biweekly basis and for updating employees' information on the State Office ofRetirement Services (ORS) website.

Condition. The District implemented GASB Statement No. 68 in the current year, which resulted inadditional audit procedures over pension contributions. On a biweekly basis, the District uploads payrollinformation by employee to the plan administrator who recalculates the employee and employercontributions based on the plan elected by each participant. The payroll module of the District'saccounting software also calculates the total contributions based on actual wages and softwareconfigurations. In all six periods selected for testing, the total employee and employer contributions ascalculated by the payroll module of the general ledger did not agree to the totals uploaded to the planadministrator. In addition, of the twenty-five new employees selected for testing, two had not beensetup on the plan administrator's website.

Cause. The primary cause of this condition is the lack of reconciliation between the general ledgerpayroll data and the information submitted to the plan administrator. The District has indicated that manyof these variances relate to adjustments to previous periods. However, these corrections are not tracked.

Effect. As a result of this condition, the payroll data submitted to the plan administrator did not agree toactual amounts recorded in the District's payroll register. The two employees who were not set up on theplan administrator's website were having amounts deducted from their paychecks for the employeeportion of plan contributions, but were not yet established as plan participants.

Recommendation. We recommend that reconciliations be prepared for each pay period to demonstratethat the ORS submission was complete and accurate. If designed appropriately, this process shouldidentify instances in which an employee has not been established in the plan administrator's records. Acopy of the report submitted to ORS should be retained along with the payroll register and related

27




2015-005 – Late Payment of Required Pension Contributions

View of Responsible Officials. The District has a written agreement with MPSERS and is currently paying$750,000 per month and is working closely with key stakeholders to find a permanent solution.

Finding Type. Material noncompliance; Material weakness in internal control over financial reporting

Criteria. The District is required by statute to contribute the full actuarially determined contributionbilled by the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (“MPSERS”) to fund pension benefits.

Condition. The District has not made the required pension contributions to MPSERS. No employercontributions were made after November 18, 2014, and the balance outstanding as of June 30, 2015 forunpaid contributions amounted to $69,529,234.

Cause. The District is behind on the required pension contributions as a result of the lack of availablecash flow.

Effect. The District has not complied with the contribution requirements of MPSERS. The $69,529,234owed at June 30, 2015 is accrued in the District’s financial statements.

Recommendation. The District should continue to work on a cash flow solution with key stakeholders.

28




2015-006 – Accounting for Capital Assets

•

•

•

•

•


Criteria. Management is responsible for maintaining capital asset records in order to properly account forand record activity related to acquisitions, dispositions, depreciation and impairment.

Condition. The District began using new software in fiscal 2015 to account for capital assets. Severalchallenges were encountered during this ongoing implementation as follows:

View of Responsible Officials. The Finance Department will work with the Technology and AdministrativeServices Department in correcting any potential errors related to the implementation of the new softwareand will be able to review capital asset activity in the system on monthly basis in the future. The Districtwill also evaluate the possibility of outsourcing this function.

Recommendation. The District should continue to identify and correct potential errors related to theimplementation of the new software. In addition, a thorough review of capital asset activity should beconducted on a periodic basis.

Cause. The implementation of the new software continues to be a challenge. In addition, internal controlprocedures, including supervision and review, have not been properly implemented to detect potentialerrors on a timely basis.

Effect. Depreciation expense was initially overstated by $3,094,000. The adjustment was reviewed,approved, and posted by management. In addition, an inordinate amount of time was incurred by theDistrict to implement and correct errors in the system.

Depreciation was calculated incorrectly on many individual assets which resulted in an auditadjustment of approximately $3,094,000.

Assets transferred from the old system to the new system were not assigned the same activity codes.As a result, depreciation expense was not originally allocated to the proper activity.

Differences between the new software and the general ledger were not reconciled.

Prior year capital asset information has been transferred into the new software; howeverimplementation challenges have prevented current year activity from being entered into the newsoftware. As a result, current year additions and deletions are being maintained in Excel.

Detailed records are not maintained for construction in progress. Such detail is not analyzed until theassets are ready to be placed in service and depreciated.

29



SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS

Title II, Part A - $4,735

2015-007 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Documentation (Repeat)

Finding Type. Material noncompliance; Material weakness in internal controls over compliance

Effect. Pay rates used to calculate compensation for one of 60 payroll disbursements selected for testingwas not available. We noted five instances in which the Personnel Activity Report was not prepared andone instance where the grant did not match where the employee was charged. In addition, we noted oneof 98 timesheets tested showed an employee reviewed and approved their own timesheet.

Questioned Costs. Known questioned costs identified during our testing were as follows:

Federal program(s)U.S. Department of Education:

Title II, Part A (CFDA# 84.367); Passed through MDE; All project numbers

Finding Type. Noncompliance; Material weakness in internal controls over compliance


21st Century Learning Grants (CFDA# 84.287); Passed through MDE; All project numbers

Recommendation. We recommend that the District modify its payroll process to ensure that pay rates inthe payroll system agree with approved pay rates included in the personnel files. The District should alsomodify its procedures to ensure that employees are not authorized to approve their own timesheets. Inaddition, the District should update its procedures to ensure that all documentation is maintained tosupport time and effort by employees.

Criteria. Per OMB Circular A-87, the District is required to support payroll charges to federal costobjectives with adequate documentation including semi-annual payroll certifications for employeescharged 100% to a single federal cost objective and with Personnel Activity Reports for those who splittheir time between multiple cost objectives.

Condition. We were unable to verify the pay rate used in calculating a certain employees' compensationbecause the personnel file was not available. Semi-annual certifications and Personnel Activity Reportswere not prepared for bonus payments and one Personnel Activity Report indicated the incorrect grantbeing charged. In addition, we noted that an employee was able to review and approve their owntimesheet.

Cause. This appears to have been caused by a combination of the complex payroll process utilized by theDistrict that can be prone to human error.

21st Century - $88

30



SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS

View of Responsible Officials. Management concurs with the finding. With the implementation ofPeopleSoft 9.2, the timesheets will match the hours recorded in the payroll system. The District's timewas recorded in PeopleSoft since April 2014. The District's Personnel Activity Reports (PARs) andcertifications are monitored by an external auditing firm on a quarterly basis to alert the District of anyissue with the PARs or certifications and to cover policies and procedures as required. Staff has beeninstructed on the policies and procedures that severance pay and payment for unused absence time shouldnot be charged directly to grants. The Controller of Finance will monitor quarterly to be sure staff isadhering to all policies and procedures. The District will modify the Human Resource and Payrollprocesses to ensure the pay rates in the payroll system agrees with approved rates in the personnel files.

31



SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED)

21st Century Learning Grants (CFDA# 84.287); Passed through MDE; All project numbersSchool Improvement Grant (SIG) Cluster (CFDA# 84.377 & 84.388); Passed through MDE; All projectnumbers

Title I, Part A (CFDA# 84.010); Passed through MDE; All project numbers

2015-008 – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment

Cause. The exceptions related to suspension and debarment and approval of requisitions appear to be theresult of inconsistent application of the District's procedures. The three exceptions related to requisitionsbeing unavailable appear to be because the District was unable to retrieve the information from aprevious version of the software. Effect. Three purchase orders were executed without proper verification that the vendor was notsuspended or debarred. Additionally, three requisitions were unavailable to document approval and onerequisition did not have the proper approval from the program department.

Questioned Costs. No costs have been questioned as a result of this finding inasmuch as no disallowedcosts were identified.

U.S. Department of Education:

Criteria. 34 CFR section 80.36 requires that bidding procedures be used to ensure open competition forall contracts in excess of $100,000. MCL 380.1274 lowers the threshold for requiring open competition onsupplies, materials and equipment contracts to $23,126. In addition, per the OMB Circular A-133Compliance Supplement, non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawardsunder covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred or whose principals are suspended ordebarred. “Covered transactions” include those procurement contracts for goods and services awardedunder a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal orexceed $25,000. In addition, part of the District's controls over compliance includes the approval of grant-related requisitions by someone from the program department that is authorized to do so.

Condition. There were three items out of 107 items selected for testing for which the District did notproperly document that it verified vendors for suspension and debarment before procuring good andservices. The District was unable to provide requisitions for three of 60 items tested and documentationof proper approval for one out of 60 transactions tested.


Federal program(s)

Title II, Part A (CFDA# 84.367); Passed through MDE; All project numbersChild Nutrition Cluster (CFDA# 10.553, 10.555 and 10.559); Passed through MDE; All projectnumbers

32




View of Responsible Officials. The District is in the process of reviewing and updating policies andprocedures that will assure the Procurement and Logistic staff have verified vendors are not suspended ordebarred prior to entering into an agreement. The PeopleSoft system is set-up to automatically routegrant purchases to the State and Federal Program Department. We will monitor this process to be sure it is working as designed.

Recommendation. We recommend that the District consistently apply procedures to verify vendors arenot suspended or debarred before entering into a covered transaction and ensure that all requisitions aremaintained and approved by grant program personnel before a purchase order is created.

33




2015-009 – Cash Management


Federal program(s)This finding relates to all CFDA and project numbers on the SEFA with the exception of CFDA numbers10.553, 10.555, 10.558, 10.559 and 10.582.

View of Responsible Officials. The District concurs with this finding. There is presently an agreement inplace with the Office of Retirement and the District is working with the state and other stakeholders toquickly resolve this issue. However, the District has requested a written waiver of this finding from theMichigan Department of Education.

Condition. During fiscal 2015, the District incurred $80,549,948 of pension expenditures of which$27,416,719 was charged to federal programs. As a result of cash flow limitations, pension paymentstotaled only $19,133,654 during the year. During fiscal 2015, the District also requested and receivedfederal reimbursement for the entire $27,416,719 in advance of meeting the allowable cost criteria thatexpenditures are paid before being reimbursed.

Cause. The District does not have an effective monitoring system in place to ensure that pensionexpenditures have been paid prior to requesting federal reimbursement. Effect. The District was reimbursed for pension expenditures in advance of meeting the allowable costcriteria. In October 2015, the Michigan Department of Education, in conjunction with federal grantors,granted a verbal waiver to retroactively approve the $27,416,719 federal reimbursement of pensionexpenditures, despite the requirement that expenditures be paid before reimbursement is requested. TheDistrict is still obligated to make the required pension payments to the Michigan Public School EmployeesRetirement System.

Questioned Costs. As a result of the waiver, no costs have been questioned.

Recommendation. The District should implement procedures to ensure that federal reimbursementrequests include only costs that have been incurred and paid, unless a waiver has been granted inadvance.

Criteria. Federal allowable cost and cash management criteria require that expenditures be paid beforefederal reimbursement is requested.

34




Title II, Part A - $1,640

View of Responsible Officials. Management concurs with this finding. Procedures will be modified toensure expenditures are for actual costs incurred and that there is appropriate documentation.

Criteria. According to OMB Circular A-87, expenditures should be for actual costs that are adequatelydocumented.

Condition. There were three out of 109 items selected for testing for which the District did not properlydocument expenditures for payments by providing receipts for travel and credit card expenses.

2015-010 – Adequate Voucher Documentation (Repeat)

Finding Type. Noncompliance; Significant deficiency in internal controls over compliance

Federal program(s)

Cause. Management has not implemented adequate internal controls to ensure that disbursementscharged to federal grant programs are adequately documented. Effect. As a result of this condition, the District was reimbursed for expenditures that were notadequately documented.


Recommendation. We recommend the District modify its procedures to ensure that expenditures chargedto federal programs are adequately documented.

U.S. Department of Education:21st Century Learning Grants (CFDA# 84.287); Passed through MDE; All project numbersTitle II, Part A (CFDA# 84.367); Passed through MDE; All project numbers

35


Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Concluded)For the Year Ended June 30, 2015

SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONCLUDED)

21st Century - $97,431

Recommendation. The District should implement procedures to ensure that final expenditure reports aremade for costs that have already been paid.

View of Responsible Officials. Management concurs with this finding. Procedures will be modified toensure expenditures are for actual costs incurred and that there is appropriate documentation.

Criteria. The District is required to obligate and liquidate costs within the period indicated by the grantoragency. The 2014 21st Century program period ended August 29, 2014 and the liquidation period wasthrough November 29, 2014.

Condition. During our testing, we noted that $97,431 of costs were not liquidated until two weeks afterthe end of the period of availability indicated by the grantor.

Cause. Procedures in place were not effective to ensure compliance with this requirement. Effect. The District incurred costs of $97,431 during the period of availability, but were not liquidatedwithin the period required by the grantor.


2015-011 – Period of Availability – Improper Reimbursement Request

Finding Type. Noncompliance; Significant deficiency in internal controls over compliance


21st Century Learning Grants (CFDA# 84.287); Passed through MDE; Project number 142110 2110

36


Summary Schedule of Prior Audit FindingsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Finding 2014-SA-01 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Payroll DocumentationTitle I, Part A Cluster (CFDA# 84.010 & 84.389); Special Education Cluster (CFDA# 84.027 & 84.173);Career & Technical Education (CFDA# 84.048); 21st Century earning Education (CFDA# 84.287); Title II,Part A (CFDA# 84.367); School Improvement Grant (SIG) Cluster (CFDA# 84.377 & 84.388); Head Start(CFDA# 93.600)

The pay rate used in calculating certain employees' compensation did not agree to documentation inpersonnel files. Semi-annual certifications and Personnel Activity Reports did not match the time splitsthat were charged to the grants, and manual timesheets did not match what was recorded as hoursworked in the system. Certain semi-annual certifications and Personnel Activity Reports were not preparedfor the charges in question or were prepared for incorrect funding sources. In addition, the Districtcharged severance pay and payments for unused absence time as direct costs to federal programs ratherthan as allocated indirect costs.

This finding was not adequately resolved. See finding 2015-002 in the current year Schedule of Findingsand Questioned Costs.

Finding 2014-FS-03 – Property Taxes

The levy amount used in the calculation of property tax revenue does not reconcile to taxable valuesreported to the State of Michigan by Wayne County. In addition, certain payments from the City were notsupported by detail that allocated amounts by levy resulting in potential misallocation between Districtfunds.


Finding 2014-FS-01 – Material Audit Adjustment (Repeat)

During our audit, we identified and proposed adjustments (which were approved and posted bymanagement) that were material, either individually or in the aggregate to the District's financialstatements.


Finding 2014-FS-02 – Budget (Repeat)

The District budgeted a fund deficit in the general fund, which violates the Uniform Budgeting andAccounting Act and the State School Aid Act, as well as its approved deficit elimination plan. In addition,expenditures exceeded appropriations by significant amounts as disclosed in the notes to the financialstatements. The District’s current procedure includes a process of budget overrides that inappropriatelyallows actual expenditures to exceed budgeted expenditures at the account level.

37


Summary Schedule of Prior Audit FindingsFor the Year Ended June 30, 2015

2014-SA-04 – Adequate Voucher Documentation

This finding was adequately resolved.

Head Start Cluster (CFDA# 93.600)

The District charged expenditures for payments made to individual schools for purchases of items to beused in classrooms that were not adequately documented.

Head Start Cluster (CFDA# 93.600)


2014-SA-03 – Cash ManagementTitle I, Part A Cluster (CFDA# 84.010 & 84.389); Special Education Cluster (CFDA# 84.027 & 84.173);Career & Technical Education (CFDA# 84.048); Title II, Part A (CFDA# 84.367); School Improvement Grant(SIG) Cluster (CFDA# 84.377 & 84.388); Head Start (CFDA# 93.600)

The District was requesting reimbursement for payroll accruals for 26 pay employees prior to the paymentof the related expenditures.



2014-SA-02 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – In-kind Contributions (Repeat)

The District charged building supplies to the 2013-14 Regular Head Start program based on a projected persquare foot rate plus paper supplies; however, the District was unable to support that actual costs hadbeen incurred. Also, there were five instances in which support could not be provided, five instances inwhich the supporting documentation did not support the amounts charged and two instances in which thedocumentation was not properly reviewed and approved.

38

Rehmann Robson

1500 W. Big Beaver Rd. 2nd Floor Troy, MI 48084 Ph: 248.952.5000 Fx: 248.952.5750 rehmann.com

CPAs & Consultants Wealth Advisors Corporate Investigators

Rehmann is an independent member of Nexia International.

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE

November 2, 2015 Emergency Manager Detroit Public Schools Detroit, Michigan We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Detroit Public Schools (the “District”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2015, and have issued our report thereon dated November 2, 2015. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit. Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit As communicated in our engagement letter dated August 5, 2014, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express opinions about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities. Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the District’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the Detroit Public Schools solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. We also considered internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the District’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit. Also, in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, we examined, on a test basis, evidence about the District’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the 2 CFR 200 Compliance Supplement applicable to each of its major federal programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the District’s compliance with those requirements. While our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion, it does not provide a legal determination on the District’s compliance with those requirements. We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.

We have provided our findings regarding internal control over financial reporting and compliance noted during our audit in a separate letter to you dated November 2, 2015. In addition, we noted certain other matters which are included in Attachment A to this letter. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously communicated to you in our engagement letter and in our meeting about planning matters on June 19, 2015. Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm has complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. Qualitative Aspects of the District’s Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms of our engagement letter, we will advise management about the appropriateness of accounting policies and their application. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the District is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 18 to the financial statements, the District changed accounting policies related to accounting for pension plans by adopting Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB Statement) No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions. The cumulative effect of the accounting change as of the beginning of the year is reported in the Statement of Activities. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Significant Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.

The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements were:

Management’s estimate of the useful lives of depreciable capital assets

Management’s estimate of impairment of capital assets

Management’s estimate of the accrued compensated absences

Management’s estimate of legal reserves

Management’s estimate of property tax revenue and related accounts

Management’s estimate of reserves for workers’ compensation, general liability, and health

insurance

Management’s estimate of the net other postemployment benefit obligation for the Termination Incentive Program

We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates and determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole and in relation to the applicable opinion units. In addition, the financial statements include a net pension liability and other pension-related amounts, which are dependent on estimates made by the plan. These estimates are based on historical trends and industry standards, but are not within the control of management. Financial Statement Disclosures Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements relate to:

The disclosure of Funding Uncertainties in Note 15 to the financial statements

Significant Difficulties Encountered During the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit other than certain required audit schedules were not received in a timely manner. Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures. The material misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management are described in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs issued in connection with the Single Audit. The schedule of adjustments passed is included with management’s written representations in Attachment C to this letter, and summarizes uncorrected financial statement misstatements whose effects in the current and prior periods, as determined by management, are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the District’s financial statements or the auditors’ report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Representations Requested from Management We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in Attachment C to this letter. Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters. Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues In the normal course of our professional association with the District, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the District’s auditors. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements Our responsibility for the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary information in relation to the financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole. We made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. Upcoming Changes in Accounting Standards Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are continually changing in order to promote the usability and enhance the applicability of information included in external financial reporting. While it would not be practical to include an in-depth discussion of every upcoming change in professional standards, Attachment B to this letter contains a brief overview of recent pronouncements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and their related effective dates. Management is responsible for reviewing these standards, determining their applicability, and implementing them in future accounting periods. This information is intended solely for the use of the Emergency Manager and management of Detroit Public Schools and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Very truly yours,


Attachment A - Comments and RecommendationsFor the June 30, 2015 Audit

During our audit, we became aware of certain other matters that are opportunities for strengtheninginternal control and/or improving operating efficiency. This memorandum summarizes our comments andrecommendations regarding those matters. Our consideration of the District's internal control overfinancial reporting is described in our report, dated November 2, 2015, issued in accordance withGovernment Auditing Standards. This memorandum does not affect that report or our report datedNovember 2, 2015, on the financial statements of Detroit Public Schools .

Other Matters

Cash Receipts - Supporting Documentation

For certain school bank accounts, proper supporting documentation related to cash receipts and cashdisbursements was not prepared or maintained, and cash receipts were not deposited timely as required bythe District's policies. The District should continue to train assigned staff and ensure that supportingdocumentation is properly prepared and cash receipts are deposited timely.

Accounts Payable - Reconciling Items

Bonded Construction Funds

During testing of expenditures related to bond construction, 2 out of a selection of 10 purchase orders didnot have the proper approval as purchase order action request supporting documentation could not belocated. Out of a selection of 15 voucher selections, 2 vouchers did not have the proper approval as thepayment application cover sheet supporting documentation could not be located. The District should ensurethat proper supporting documentation and approvals are obtained for purchases and disbursements.

The reconciliation for accounts payable includes certain adjustments related to debit balances that arecarried over from prior years. The District should review the accounts payable balance and reconcilingitems to ensure that they are properly stated.

Termination Incentive Plan (TIP)

The prepaid TIP calculation included incorrect wages for two employees. The District should should reviewthe calculation and related balances to ensure that they are properly calculated.

A1


Attachment B – Upcoming Changes in Accounting Standards / Regulations

GASB 72 Fair Value Measurement and ApplicationEffective 06/15/2016 (your FY 2016)

GASB 73 Pensions and Related Assets Not Within the Scope of GASB 68Effective 06/15/2016 (your FY 2016)

GASB 74 Postemployment Benefit Plans Other than Pension PlansEffective 06/15/2017 (your FY 2017)

GASB 75 Postemployment Benefits Other than PensionsEffective 06/15/2018 (your FY 2018)

GASB 76 The Hierarchy of GAAP for State and Local GovernmentsEffective 06/15/2016 (your FY 2016)

For the June 30, 2015 Audit

This standard addresses accounting and financial reporting for pensions that were not covered by GASBStatement No. 68, because the plan assets are not held in trust. Essentially, it applies the same treatmentas GASB 68, but reflects the total pension liability and plan assets separately, rather than a net pensionliability. We do not expect this standard to have any significant effect on the District.

This standard requires the calculation of a net other postemployment benefit (OPEB) liability based on anactuarial valuation of retiree healthcare and similar benefits administered by an OPEB trust. It mirrors thenew accounting and financial reporting requirements of GASB 67 for pension plans.

This standard builds on the requirements of GASB 74 by requiring employers that provide otherpostemployment benefits (OPEB) to recognize a net OPEB liability on their statements of net position. Itmirrors the new accounting and financial reporting requirements of GASB 68 for pension benefits.

This standard defines "fair value" as the price that would be received to sell an asset in an orderlytransaction between market participants (an "exit price"). Fair value measurement is currently appliedprincipally to investments, which GASB 72 does not change. However, it does introduce specific methods formeasuring fair value when a market price is not readily available, and establishes a 3-level hierarchy of fairvalue that is disclosed in the footnotes, based on the presence or absence of observable market inputs.

The following pronouncements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) have been releasedrecently and may be applicable to the District in the near future. We encourage management to review thefollowing information and determine which standard(s) may be applicable to the District. For the completetext of these and other GASB standards, visit www.gasb.org and click on the “Standards & Guidance” tab. Ifyou have questions regarding the applicability, timing, or implementation approach for any of thesestandards, please contact your audit team.

This standard clarifies the source of "generally accepted accounting principles" (GAAP) for governments.Authoritative sources of GAAP now include (1) GASB pronouncements, (2) GASB implementation guides, and(3) AICPA literature specifically cleared by the GASB. This standard does not change existing GAAP.

B1


Attachment B – Upcoming Changes in Accounting Standards / RegulationsFor the June 30, 2015 Audit

GASB 77 Tax Abatement DisclosuresEffective 12/15/2016 (your FY 2017)

2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance for Federal AwardsCost Principles Effective 12/26/2014; Single Audit Requirements Effective 12/26/2015 (your FY 2016)

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has consolidated seven separate circulars (includingadministrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements) into a single federal regulation. Thenew Uniform Guidance covers all aspects of federal grants from pre-award through the single audit. Whilemuch of the guidance was simply reorganized and recodified, there were also several substantive changesto the single audit thresholds. A single audit will now only be required if total expenditures of federalawards exceed $750,000 (up from $500,000). The OMB also made revisions to the list of compliancerequirements tested in a single audit.

In addition, the Uniform Guidance now explicitly requires grant recipients to have sound internal controls(which should be consistent with the COSO framework), and documented procedures for grantadministration. Written procedures are required for payments (cash draws), procurement (includingconflicts of interest), allowability of costs, compensation, and travel costs. Rehmann is available to assistgrant recipients in developing/documenting these policies and procedures in compliance with the new

This standard requires governments to disclose certain information about tax abatement agreements madeto foster economic development or otherwise benefit the government or its citizens. Required disclosuresinclude a brief description of the arrangement, the gross dollar amount of taxes abated in the currentperiod, and any additional commitments made by the government as part of the agreement.

B2


Attachment C – Management Representations

The following pages contain the written representations that we requested from management.


C1


Schedule of Adjustments Passed (SOAP)

Effect of Passed Adjustment - Over(Under)Statement

Beginning Expenses/Assets Liabilities Equity Revenues Expenditures

General fund

-$ (1,453,000)$ 1,548,000$ (95,000)$ -$

- 1,340,000 - - 1,340,000

Total general fund -$ (113,000)$ 1,548,000$ (95,000)$ 1,340,000$

Food Service Fund

-$ -$ (419,000)$ 419,000$ -$

Governmental activities

-$ (113,000)$ 1,129,000$ 324,000$ 1,340,000$

Total governmental activities -$ (113,000)$ 1,129,000$ 324,000$ 1,340,000$

Cumulative effect of items noted above

In accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, we have prepared the following schedule of proposed auditadjustments, which we believe are immaterial both individually and in the aggregate. We are providing this schedule toboth management and those charged with governance to receive their assurance that they agree that the amounts listedbelow are not material to the financial statements, either individually or in the aggregate, and do not need to berecorded.


Revenue and unearned revenue are understated for the Crown Tower transaction that occurred in fiscal 2014 (easement and assignment of existing leases).

Liabilities and expenses are overstated due to unreconciled accruals.

Revenue for the fiscal year 2015 was overstated by an amount that should have been reported as revenue in fiscal 2014.