Measuring Up



Michigan

TOTAL SCORE:
85 out of 132

Rank: 3 out of 18

See a summary of the state’s charter law.

See additional observations about charters in the state.

What is the state of charter schools in Michigan?

GROWTH INDICATORS

 

 

Score


1. Public school share
 (2014–15)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter schools

307

8%

 

 


2. Public school student share
 (2014–15)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter school students

138,949

9%

 

 

3. Students by race and ethnicity (2013–14)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

White

33%

72%

-39%

Black

53%

15%

38%

Hispanic

8%

6%

2%

Asian

3%

3%

0%

Other

3%

4%

-1%

Total minority

67%

28%

39%

 

4. Students in special populations (2013–14)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

Free and reduced-price lunch status

72%

46%

26%

Special education status

N/A

N/A

N/A

English learner status

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total special student populations

72%

46%

26%

 

5. Schools by geographic distribution (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

City

52%

20%

32%

Suburb

32%

36%

-4%

Town

4%

14%

-10%

Rural

12%

30%

-18%

Total nonsuburban

68%

64%

4%

 

6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools (2014–15)

3

weight = 1 | Possible total = 4

 

 

 

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

9

   
 

7. New public charter schools opened over the past five years  (2010–15)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2010–11

13

Average Annual Open Rate

7.4%

2011–12

19

2012–13

32

2013–14

33

2014–15

17

Total number

114

 

 

 

8. Public charter schools closed over the past five years (2009–14)

12

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2009–10

12

Average Annual Closure Rate

3.2%

2010–11

4

2011–12

12

2012–13

12

2013–14

7

Total number

47

 

 

 
 

INNOVATION INDICATORS

 

 

Score

9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

 

 

 

No Excuses

5%

Total

31%

STEM

3%

Arts

4%

Classical

0.3%

Purposely diverse

0%

Single sex

1%

International/Foreign language

4%

Montessori/Waldorf

9%

Dropout/Expulsion recovery

7%

Military

0%

Vocational training

1%

Public policy/Citizenship

0.3%

 

QUALITY INDICATORS

 

 

Score

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

12

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in reading

43

 

 

 

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

12

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in math

43

 

 

 

12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system (2012–14)

12

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 2012-13

2013-14

Difference

Green

9%

1%

-8%

Lime

0%

18%

18%

Total

9%

19%

10%

 

13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system (2012–14)

0

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 2012-13

2013-14

Difference

Orange

7%

14%

-7%

Red

17%

22%

-5%

Total

24%

36%

-12%

 

Items Reported But Not Scored

Startups versus conversions (2014–15)

 

Startups

Conversions

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools

99.7%

.3%

 

 

 

Charter authorizers (2014–15)

 

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

1

21

21

95

Independent charter board

Noneducational government entity

Higher education institution

12

253

21

82%

Nonprofit

 

Virtual public charter schools and students (2013–14)

Number of virtual public charter school students

2,031

 

 

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

1%

 

 

Number of virtual public charter schools

7

 

 

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

2%

 

 

 

Health of the Movement Summary

Michigan’s charter public school movement ranked #3 out of 18, scoring 85 points out of 132.

Michigan scored relatively well on the following indicators:

  • In 2014-15, nine communities in Michigan had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters.
  • Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, 47 charters closed in Michigan, a 3.2 percent average annual closure rate.
  • Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (43 more days in reading and 43 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students.
  • The percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state’s accountability system increased by 10 percentage points between 2012-13 and 2013-14 (from 9 percent to 19 percent).

Michigan scored relatively low on the following indicator:

  • Between 2012-13 and 2013-14, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state’s accountability system increased by 12 percentage points (from 24 percent to 36 percent).

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

  • In 2014-15, 8 percent of the state’s public schools were charters.
  • In 2014-15, 9 percent of the state’s public school students were charter students.
  • In 2013-14, the state’s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (39 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools.
  • In 2013-14, charter public schools in Michigan served a significantly higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (26 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools.
  • In 2012-13, 68 percent of the state’s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 64 percent of traditional public schools.
  • Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 114 charters opened in Michigan, a 7.4 percent average annual open rate.
  • In 2012-13, 31 percent of the state’s charter public schools were special-focus schools.
  • During 2014-15, 99.7 percent of the state’s charter public schools were start-ups and .3 percent were conversions.
  • As of 2014-15, 12 higher education institutions had authorized 253 charter public 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 charter public schools (18 percent).
  • In 2013-14, seven full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Michigan, serving 2,031 students (1 percent of the state’s charter public school population).

 

concluding thoughts

  • Michigan has a relatively good charter law. In addition, the state has an active Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers (MCCSA) that has adopted a common set of comprehensive oversight and accountability standards that are not always required by the state’s charter school law. The combination of a good law and an active MCCSA has significantly contributed to the health of the state’s movement.
  • In Michigan, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option.
  • Michigan’s charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as especially demonstrated in CREDO’s National Charter School Study 2013.
  • However, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state’s accountability system increased by 12 percentage points between 2012-13 and 2013-14. Therefore, we encourage the state to prohibit schools facing closures from switching authorizers to stay open, prevent operators with poorly performing schools from opening more charters, and improve authorizer accountability (including through the broader use of authorizer standards that have been developed in the state).