Font size:
The report discusses at length the varying facets of Michigan’s laws, regulations and practices pertaining to charter schools, with particular focus on charter school authorizers. But the report is inconsistent in how it describes some of these matters, making a few comments appear to contradict information provided elsewhere in the report.
This is particular true when the report discusses the different levels of oversight used for public charter schools. For instance, in one section describing the laws that authorizers must obey, calling them “oversight expectations,” it mentions several specific legal requirements of authorizers. It also explains how MDE can revoke an authorizer’s charter with a school.[18] A similar description is provided of “state government oversight of charter schools” that explains all the laws charter schools must obey.[19] While these are accurate depictions of public oversight of charter schools, language elsewhere in the report gives the impression that there are few, if any, legal requirements of charter schools or their authorizers.
For example, the report claims elsewhere that “state law is largely silent on oversight of charter school authorizers.”[20] What constitutes “largely silent” can be debated, but it seems inconsistent with the fact that there’s an entire section of Michigan statute devoted to charter authorizers, which the report itself describes in detail.[21]
Further, the report explains that the state superintendent is empowered by statute to suspend authorizers he or she believes is not providing appropriate oversight.[22] It also describes how MDE officials review each contract authorizers enter into “to ensure that all statutory requirements are met.”[23] It calls this accountability “negligible” and says “neither the state superintendent nor other state officials have significant oversight powers over authorizers.”[24]
In other places, the report gives the reader the impression that charter schools operate without any public oversight. It calls inadequate “leaving oversight responsibilities to charter authorizers without public oversight.”[25] It calls into question whether charter schools are following the law because they are “without public oversight.”[26] It claims “the law does not provide oversight of [authorizers’] actions.”[27]
Some of this inconsistency could be the result of an overly simplified, shorthand depiction. Perhaps the report expects the reader to know that “without public oversight” actually means “without sufficient public oversight.” Either way, these constructions risk misleading readers and are a flaw of the paper.
[18] “Improving Oversight of Michigan Charter Schools and Their Authorizers,” (Citizens Research Council of Michigan, Feb. 2020), 30, https://perma.cc/9DHA-3DFB.
[19] Ibid., 21.
[20] Ibid., 43.
[21] MCL § 380.507.
[22] “Improving Oversight of Michigan Charter Schools and Their Authorizers,” (Citizens Research Council of Michigan, Feb. 2020), 30, https://perma.cc/9DHA-3DFB.
[23] Ibid., 49.
[24] Ibid., v, 42.
[25] Ibid., vi.
[26] Ibid., xii.
[27] Ibid., 43..
