Measuring Up



Michigan

TOTAL SCORE:
84 out of 116

Rank: 3 out of 26

See a summary of the state’s charter law.

See additional observations about charters in the state and recommendations to support the growth of high-quality charter schools.

What is the state of charter schools in Michigan?

GROWTH INDICATORS

 

 

Score


1. Public school share
 (2013–14)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter schools

297

8%

 

 


2. Public school student share
 (2013–14)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter school students

136,859

9%

 

 

3. Students by race and ethnicity (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

White

32%

72%

-40%

Black

54%

15%

39%

Hispanic

8%

6%

2%

Asian

3%

3%

0%

Other

3%

4%

-1%

Total minority

68%

28%

40%

 

4. Students in special populations (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

Free and reduced-price lunch status

71%

46%

25%

Special education status

N/A

N/A

N/A

English learner status

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total special student populations

71%

46%

25%

 

5. Schools by geographic distribution (2011–12)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

City

50%

20%

30%

Suburb

30%

34%

-4%

Town

5%

14%

-9%

Rural

15%

33%

-18%

Total nonsuburban

70%

66%

4%

 

6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools (2012–13)

3

weight = 1 | Possible total = 4

 

 

 

Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools

8

   
 

7. New public charter schools opened over the past five years  (2009–14)

9

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2009–10

11

Average Annual Open Rate

8.2%

2010–11

13

2011–12

19

2012–13

32

2013–14

33

Total number

108

 

 

 

 

8. Public charter schools closed over the past five years (2008–13)

12

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2008–09

3

Average Annual Closure Rate

3.3%

2009–10

12

2010–11

3

2011–12

12

2012–13

12

Total number

42

 

 

 

 
 

INNOVATION INDICATORS

 

 

Score

9. Public charter schools reporting use of various innovative practices (2011–12)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

 

 

 

Extended day (30 minutes or more each day compared to traditional public schools)

55

Average

22%

Extended year (10 or more days compared to traditional public schools)

23

Year-round calendar

9

Independent study

21

School-to-work

5

Higher education courses

18

 
 

QUALITY INDICATORS

 

 

Score

10. Additional days of learning in reading (2007–11)

16

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in reading

43

 

 

 

 

11. Additional days of learning in math (2007–11)

16

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in math

43

 

 

 

Items Reported But Not Scored

Startups versus conversions (2012–13)

 

Startups

Conversions

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools

100%

0%

 

 

 

Public charter schools that are independent, associated with a CMO, or associated with an EMO (2010–11)

 

Number

Percentage

 

 

Independent

74

31%

 

 

Charter management organization

18

8%

 

 

Education management organization

149

62%

 

 

 

Charter authorizers (2013–14)

 

Number of authorizers

Number of charter schools

Average number of charters per authorizer

Percentage of the state’s public charters authorized by this type of authorizer

Local education agency

28

54

2

18%

State education agency

Independent charter board

Noneducational government entity

Higher education institution

11

243

22

82%

Nonprofit

 

Virtual public charter schools and students (2012–13)

Number of virtual public charter school students

1,742

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter school student population enrolled
in virtual charter schools

2%

 

 

Number of virtual public charter schools

2

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools that are virtual charter schools

1%

 

 

 

Health of the Movement Summary

Michigan’s public charter school movement ranked #3 out of 26, scoring 84 points out of 116.

Michigan scored relatively well on the following indicators:

  • Eight communities in Michigan had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters in 2012–13.
  • One hundred eight charters opened in Michigan between 2009–10 and 2013–14, an 8.2 percent average annual open rate.
  • Forty-two charters closed in Michigan between 2008–09 and 2012–13, a 3.3 percent average annual closure rate.
  • On average, public charter school students exhibited higher academic growth when compared with traditional public school students between 2007–08 and 2010–11 (43 more days in reading and 43 more days in math).

In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Michigan:

  • Eight percent of the state’s public schools were charters in 2013–14.
  • Nine percent of the state’s public school students were charter students in 2013–14.
  • The state’s public charter schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students when compared with traditional public schools in 2012–13 (40 percentage points more).
  • Public charter schools in Michigan served a significantly higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students when compared with traditional public schools in 2012–13 (25 percentage points more).
  • Seventy percent of the state’s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas in 2011–12 as compared to 66 percent of traditional public schools.
  • An average of 22 percent of the state’s public charter schools reported using one of the six innovative practices that we tracked in 2011–12.
  • One hundred percent of the state’s public charter schools were startups during 2012–13.
  • In 2010–11, 31 percent of the public charter schools in Michigan were independently managed, 8 percent were associated with a nonprofit charter management organization, and 62 percent were associated with a for-profit educational management organization.
  • As of 2013–14, 11 higher education institutions had authorized 243 public charter schools (82 percent of the state’s total number of public charters), and 28 local school districts, intermediate school districts, and educational service agencies had authorized 54 public charter schools (18 percent).
  • There were two virtual public charter schools in Michigan in 2012–13, serving 1,742 students (2 percent of the state’s public charter school population).

Recommendations

While Michigan’s law is ranked #18, the state of its movement is ranked #3. It has likely achieved these results due, in part, to the fact that the state has an active Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers that has adopted a common set of comprehensive oversight and accountability standards that are not always required by the state’s public charter school law.

Notwithstanding the several positive aspects of the state’s movement, we acknowledge recent reports that have highlighted challenges in the state, most notably Making School Choice Work by the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE). This report found that many parents in Detroit face barriers that limit their ability to choose a school for their child, including inadequate information, lack of convenient transportation, and uneven school quality. These issues crossed the district and charter sectors.

We encourage Michigan to enact policies to increase the impact of the success that is happening in the state, including ensuring equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities and increasing operational autonomy of charters. We also encourage the state to tackle the challenges raised by CRPE by addressing the information and transportation challenges in Detroit (and other communities where they exist), prohibiting schools facing closures from switching authorizers to stay open, preventing operators with poorly performing schools from opening more charters, and holding authorizers accountable.