Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HISD Comprehensive Magnet
Program Review
Final Report January 6, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
Magnet Schools of America, Inc.
Dr. Robert Brooks, Executive Director
Doreen Marvin, Project Site Manager
INTRODUCTION:
Magnet Schools of America (MSA) prepared a Request for Proposal on August 12, 2010
to complete a Comprehensive Review of the Magnet Program System for the Houston
Independent School District (HISD). A contract was awarded to Magnet Schools of America
(MSA) on October 7, 2010. Notification of MSA’s successful bid occurred in early September
and discussions were held with the Assistant Superintendent for the Office of School Choice and
MSA’s Executive Director regarding process, Phase I and Phase II requirements, reporting
timelines, and dates for document reviews, community forums, and Magnet school site visits. A
project site manager and twelve MSA expert consultants in Magnet school education,
administration, curriculum and instruction, evaluation, teaching and learning, budget, and higher
education were hired on contract by MSA to participate in the review. Each consultant was
“vetted” and prepared by MSA prior to the onsite reviews and again once onsite. During the
school-site visits, de-briefing meetings occurred each evening by the project manager. This final
report and its findings and recommendations, submitted on January 6, 2011 (original due date
December 17, 2010, but pushed ahead to provide for new and emerging data from HISD related
(comprehensive document reviews) including the Peer Committee Report of 2006, and a review
of the Public Vision of Magnet Programs (community forums and online survey). The
requirement for Phase II included a complete review of each Magnet school and site visit to 113
Magnet school campuses. During Phase I and II, interim reports were submitted bi-weekly from
1
OVERVIEW OF MAGNET SCHOOLS
Magnet schools are elementary and secondary theme-based public schools of choice.
Magnet schools plan and develop programs using local, state, and federal funds, specifically the
federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). Other federal grants associated with
Magnet Schools are Title I, Voluntary Public School Choice, Advanced Placement, and Smaller
Learning Community grants. MSAP supports LEAs to develop new and/or to significantly
revise existing Magnet schools. The goal is to provide students with a valuable educational and
personal experience, prepare them to function in a diverse society, and assist districts to
eliminate, reduce or prevent long-standing patterns of racial isolation. Magnet schools serve as
models for school improvement and “turnaround schools” for students in low-performing
schools, and provide students an opportunity to succeed academically while learning in a racially
diverse environment.
Research has shown specific benefits in Magnet schools which include improved
staff; higher attendance and graduation rates; and lower drop-out rates. Magnet schools boast
education, and specialized programs, providing a sense of a safer environment for learning.
Teachers are “highly qualified” through specific theme-based training and professional
development.
2
What are the Tenets of Magnet Schools?
• Magnet schools improve diversity and help reduce minority group isolation.
• Magnet schools enhance the conventional school curriculum, thereby offering additional
• Magnet schools produce higher attendance rates and graduation rates, and lower drop-out
rates.
• Magnet schools boast more parental and community involvement, more personalization
• Teachers are “highly qualified” through specific theme-based training and professional
development.
Magnet schools embody five essential elements1 for an effective Magnet school system.
Magnet Schools of America benchmarks Magnet schools against these five essential elements:
Striving to bring a greater racial balance to all the Magnet schools is a major pillar of all Magnet
1
Adapted from U.S. Department of Education Publications: Creating Successful Magnet School Programs, 2004;
Creating Strong District School Choice Programs, 2004; Creating Successful K‐8 Magnets, 2008; Giving Parents
Options—Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice & Supplemental Education
Services Under NCLB.
3
schools and a requirement for districts seeking federal funds under the Magnet Schools
Assistance Program (MSAP). HISD’s online survey of parents (October 2010) found that
diversity is a significant value for many parents. The results further reflected that many
respondents think meeting the goal of improving diversity is important. The pie chart below
Magnet schools are “theme-based.” Based on several years of school site visits, one finds
students in a school with a specific theme are more engaged in learning in both theme and non-
theme classrooms. The theme is often extended to after school to afford students extended time
in their theme. Principals, Magnet coordinators, and teachers are dedicated to the Magnet theme
Magnet schools boast increases in student achievement, several studies have reported.
At a NYC middle school, the Arts curriculum has helped with academic “turnaround” for
students. Efforts to improve achievement at the struggling Brooklyn middle school are focused
on engaging students in the arts and the artistic process. A federal grant is helping the Ron
4
Brown Academy participate in the School Arts Support Initiative, which has brought about
increased student attendance and higher test scores -- GothamSchools.org (New York). In a
November 2007 study by Dale Ballou, Vanderbilt University, reported that for at least some
students in some places, Magnet schools have a positive effect on academic achievement.
Theme).
Best practices show that effective Magnet schools develop professional development plans
to support the theme in Magnet schools. Customized professional development for Magnet
schools that addresses cultural proficiency in the classroom and give special attention to
strategies that bring diverse student groups together in common areas are critical to the success
Best practices show that effective Magnet schools work to develop partnerships that align
with the school’s theme. Each school should demonstrate effective engagement of partners that
support the instructional theme. For example, business partners might become deliverers of
professional development and a source for developing innovative curriculum and extra-value
standards. Many Magnet schools demonstrate effective partnerships with parents for fundraising,
MSA, through research, school visits, and interviews, has identified the following as
• Ability to attract students toward a particular discipline with expectations for students to
maintain the rigor required by the program or be placed back into a traditional program.
5
• Positive and increased parent and community involvement with staff.
• Positive student achievement that is based on state and national tests such as SAT, ACT,
and Stanford. Achievement should also reflect “standardized indicators” for the theme
• Positive school climate and culture indicators such as discipline, suspension rates, and
• Increased parent and community satisfaction with program options and Magnet
curriculum.
HISD has a strong culture of neighborhood schools and district wide school choice. This
transportation for eligible Magnet students, site-based decision making committees, and the
strong support for neighborhood schools. This culture needs to continue to be valued and
respected. And the current practices (rooted in the past) need to be updated to be reflective of 21st
The open choice culture has its roots in Magnet schools. The history of Magnet schools
in Houston Independent School District (HISD) dates back to the 1970’s and 80’s as a means for
desegregation and reducing minority group isolation (MGI) in public schools. During that time
schools applied to the Board of Education for Magnet status following principal, teacher, parent,
and community planning and advocacy. Thirty-four (34) Magnet schools were established. The
process of developing Magnet schools continued and was formal as schools had to meet certain
benchmarks to receive Magnet status to receive financial support from the district general fund.
6
Given the resource allocations for Magnet schools in the original history of Magnet school
development, there was an incentive for schools to develop into Magnet schools to seek the
funding. This is especially true when one looks at how schools are funded with dollar
allocations following students including transportation for eligible students. As the costs
associated with funding Magnet schools escalated over time, allocations became less consistent
and were non-formula based (and allocations have remained in place with little or no oversight
schools were approved for Magnet status with no or limited funding. And, there were a few
years that Magnet schools operated without any Board approval. This has resulted in a non
equitable system of Magnet funding. A detail report of Magnet school funding for 2010-2011 is
included in the “HISD Magnet Program Data & Demographics Chart.” MSA found no evidence
that schools receiving Magnet funds are serving more students or providing a higher- value
education than those schools receiving no Magnet funding. The comprehensive review reveals
that some schools were approved by the Board without following a consistent process. Some of
these schools were awarded some small amount of funding and transportation, but some schools
were approved with no funding and no transportation. Within at least the past three years, there
has been a moratorium on the addition of new Magnet schools. The importance of the culture
of school choice (Magnet schools being one of the options) along with the pressures of the
economics of funding schools and the challenges associated with maintaining 113 Magnet
schools, led the district to this comprehensive review of its Magnet school system.
GENERAL FINDINGS
This comprehensive review and the recent award of a U.S. Department of Education
Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grant make a case for change. The document
7
review, data analysis, and site visits revealed that currently there is not a comprehensive or
cohesive System of Magnet Schools in HISD. In our opinion, there appears to be 113 individual
Magnet systems. Based on all of the document and data reviews, surveys, interviews, meetings,
and school-site visits, the following are general findings of the district’s Magnet program:
patterns.
Magnet school.
above issues, bringing best practices to all the Magnet schools and the district, and basing those
practices that parallel the goals and requirements of HISD’s newly funded (September 2010)
Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grant. This includes five essential elements for an
8
effective Magnet school system discussed above (beginning on page 3) and also included in the
Magnet Schools of America developed a thorough process for achieving the goals of the
HISD Magnet Program Review Scope of Work. This process included consulting services of
highly experienced Magnet school consultants from diverse backgrounds across the United
States. Experience included: Urban School Administration; Curriculum and Instruction; Magnet
School Development and Administration; Equity and Diversity; Marketing and Recruitment;
Development; State and District Administration; Budget and Financing; and Research and
Evaluation.
All consultants used a variety of MSA developed protocols for document reviews, data
reviews, school information reviews, and school site visits. Protocols included: Project Rubric;
Focus Group Observation and Monitoring Matrix; Magnet School Team Interview and
Documentation; Magnet School Comparative School Rubric; and Magnet School Budget
Allocation Analysis.
9
• Evaluate the District’s Vision and Governance of Magnet Programs including a review
and analysis of purpose and goals; Magnet standards; and each school’s ability to
• Analyze the public’s vision of Magnet programs by reviewing parent, community, and
student input regarding the Magnet system; this review, was conducted in collaboration
with HISD, by observing community focus groups organized and facilitated by HISD
• Analyze current Magnet procedures and practices as outlined in the Magnet Guidelines
for fairness, equity, clarity, and effectiveness and efficiency; reviewing marketing and
recruitment.
• Evaluate central office support including an analysis of its resources and effectiveness.
• Conduct a Magnet funding review of historical and current funding; cost analysis of
the geographic location of Magnet campuses, the current capacity of the Magnet campus, current
enrollment statistics, student achievement status of the school, current and future plans for the
10
district, and instructional theme and feeder implications of the school as part of the System of
Magnets within HISD. Furthermore MSA reviewed and consulted the following:
• U.S. Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) goals and
best practices.
Purpose: To assess the Public Vision of HISD’s Magnet Programs (1) by observing and
reviewing parent, community, and student input regarding the Magnet system from community
focus groups organized and facilitated by HISD staff and (2) by reviewing and analyzing
11
Date Location/Description Time Attendance
Attended Cards
Consultants noted several emerging themes from the parent/community forums and the
on-line surveys.
• Desire for more equitable opportunities to access Magnet schools across the district.
• Excitement and loyalty to the Magnet concept and the Magnet curriculum.
12
• Strong desire to support neighborhood schools as the students’ first choice.
• Need to develop a process for equitable funding for all Magnets across the district.
• Need for clarity of HISD’s application process, selection criteria, and student assignment.
Additionally, a student forum (Superintendent’s Student Advisory) was held at the HISD
central office with twenty seven (27) students attending; all students completed a feedback card.
The students were forthcoming and interested in the program review. They were excited to be
talking about their schools and were thankful for the opportunity to participate. Issues raised
included:
• Equity and access: Concerns regarding acceptance criteria into all Magnet schools were
voiced. It was important to the community that the application and lottery processes be
13
consistent and transparent. Many community members would like the guidelines,
processes, and reasons for decision making to be consistent, simple, and widely
published.
• Funding of Programs: There were strong concerns about the lack of equity in the funding
of Magnet programs across the district. Many community members would like to see
specific funding formulas assigned to the allocations of money and resources to the
Magnet programs.
• Arts Magnet Schools: Retaining the current acceptance practices for the Arts Magnet
schools is important for the community. This practice includes auditions at the middle
and high school levels. Open enrollment at the elementary level for Arts Magnet
however, there were multiple thoughts about the acceptance criteria to these programs.
The consultants noted that neighborhood schools have Vanguard programs with the same
have a centralized lottery process that occurs at the HISD central office. Further, parents
criteria such as attendance, behavior, grades, and in some cases achievement level on
specific testing instruments. Lotteries are school specific. Many constituencies voiced a
desire to have open acceptance. It was expressed that a Magnet school might be the key
to educating and engaging a student with less than stellar attendance, behavior, or grades
concerns. Others expressed that a Magnet school should have a level of “specialness” to
14
it and students should see it as a goal that they work toward by improving their academic
• Diversity of student populations: Striving to bring a greater racial balance to all the
Magnet schools was a value for many of the attendees; however, other attendees said
diversity was not as important to them or they were neutral. In reviewing the online
survey results, it is clear that many respondents thought HISD was meeting the goal of
improving diversity. However, there did not appear to be a strong correlation between
survey respondents who express this opinion (e.g., representing a specific Magnet school)
The parent and community forums with the HISD online survey provided the opportunity
for “voices” of the school community to be heard. The attendance at each of the forums was
sufficiently large enough to provide a wide range of emerging themes and issues for HISD’s
consideration. The results supported much of what was reported in the HISD 2006 Peer Review
Study.
Purpose: To evaluate the quality of each individual program’s theme-based program and
its compliance with current Magnet procedural guidelines. The review included site visits to
each Magnet school (walk-through), staff interviews, school binder reviews, and data analysis of
documents from Phase I. Each site visit was one-half day. The following table provides a
15
Process Tasks Purpose
Document Review of 113 To prepare each consultant for school site visits
Magnet School Binders by reviewing prepared materials by each Magnet
prepared by each Magnet school requested by Magnet Schools of America.
school, submitted to the The topics for review and reporting included:
Office of School Choice School Climate; Program
for Magnet Schools of Descriptions; School Leadership; Marketing &
America’s school site visits Recruiting; Budget; Plus-Deltas (what is working,
what needs improvement); and District Support.
Site Visits to 113 HISD To visit on site each Magnet school by a team of
Magnet Schools – 10/25 to 12 MSA experienced consultants—each
10/29/10 consultant followed a prepared schedule
clustering by experience and level—one
consultant per school, five days, up to 2 per day.
Protocol: Walk-through at To observe teaching and learning at each school
each Magnet School and the integration of the Magnet theme; to assess
the theme’s impact on the instructional process;
and to validate materials and information shared
by each school.
Protocol: Interviews with To validate observations, clarify information
administration, Magnet from staff input and instructional/theme materials
coordinator, and other staff shared with consultants at each school. To
at each Magnet School dialogue with those involved in the school on a
daily basis.
MSA Debriefing Protocol: To debrief each evening, the MSA Site Manager
Findings, Commendations, discussed with the MSA consultants their
and Recommendations observations, information collected from the
walk-through and interviews. To prepare the
day’s report for submission to the Project Site
Manager.
to MSA by HISD, walk-through observations at each Magnet school, and staff interviews, we
16
• Scheduling of students into appropriate Magnet program course sequence
• Availability of activities and resources related to the specialty beyond the core subject
requirements
• School process for handling student applications, qualifications, selection, and wait lists
• School process for monitoring student achievement, handling growth plans, and
General Recommendations:
While exceptional instruction and leadership was observed, not all schools demonstrated
sufficient evidence of the five essential elements of successful Magnet schools to continue to be
community forum information, data and document reviews, the geographic location of Magnet
campuses, the current capacity of the Magnet campus, current enrollment statistics, the student
achievement status of the school, current plans for the district and instructional theme, and feeder
support a philosophy that all students have gifts and talents and can achieve high standards,
support neighborhood schools, and college and career readiness. All recommendations are
17
integrated in nature and are based on all document and data reviews and Phase I and Phase II
the context for HISD, it is imperative that HISD improve the performance and attraction of all
schools. Neighborhood schools should be a family’s first choice and then if a child has a specific
interest or talent they should have opportunities to attend school elsewhere in the district.
Vanguard schools and programs should continue to provide rigor for identified Ggifted and
Talented students, yet not be considered in the Magnet choices due to the lack of theme-based,
focused instruction. The Career Technical (CTE) schools should continue to provide the career
focused educational choices, and not be considered in the Magnet choices. As with all other
schools, Magnets should provide choice(s) for students with specific interests and talents and
offer high quality instruction. This instruction should be theme based and Magnet schools should
demonstrate practices that improve the diversity in Magnet schools by reducing MinorityG
Isolation (MGI). Therefore, we recommend establishing four (4) types of school choice in the
Restating that successful Magnet schools across the country employ the essential
elements discussed above for an effective Magnet school system, our review also identified that
18
similar elements were also identified as “pillars” in the 2006 HISD PEER review. Therefore, we
recommend that HISD embrace these essential elements as a part of the fabric and definition of
1. Diversity. Best Practices show that effective Magnet schools set and work toward a diversity
goal that reflects the overall population of the school district that it serves. The Houston
Independent District’s has a 92% minority and an 8% non-minority student body. Progress
toward that overall goal should be made on an annual basis by at least 2% or more per year at an
average. Evaluation of this criterion should be completed annually and should include a rigorous
review of the application pool as well as actual school enrollment data. Should a school not
make its 2% annual growth goal, adjustments should be made in the marketing and recruitment
plan at both the school and the district level to ameliorate the deficit. The MSAP grant has
specific goals and guidelines for reducing MGI. The practices adopted to achieve these goals
should be the foundation for change across the district with regard to reducing MGI. As the
MSAP schools achieve their goals the district will have to look at the overall demographic
picture of HISD and adjust individual school’s diversity goals accordingly. Given the
anticipated changes, HISD should create a student assignment plan that incorporates the current
2. Unique Curriculum. A theme based and unique curriculum must be identified and exclusive
course offerings must be developed to deliver the content. These standards should be assessed
throughout the school year just as state and national standards are assessed.
3. Student Achievement. Best practices show that effective Magnet schools work to ensure that
all students who seek to be a part of the Magnet program have access to Magnet classes. HISD
should have academic supports in place to assist students if state standards are not met. Access
to honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses should be ensured for all Magnet students.
19
4. Professional Development. Best practices show that effective Magnet schools develop
professional development plans to support the theme in Magnet schools. HISD must also
consistently customize professional development for Magnet schools that addresses cultural
proficiency in the classroom and special attention is given to strategies that bring diverse student
groups together in Magnet school common areas as well as classrooms within the school.
Furthermore, HISD should customize professional development for Magnet school staff that
aligns with the district goals and the Magnet instructional themes.
5. Dynamic Partnerships – including parents. Best practices show that effective Magnet
schools work to develop partnerships that align with the school’s theme. Many of the current
Each school should demonstrate effective engagement of partners that support the instructional
theme. For example, business partners might become deliverers of professional development
and a source for developing innovative curriculum and extra-value standards. Meaningful
engagement of Magnet parents needs to be more consistent across the district. Many of the
Magnet schools demonstrate effective partnerships with parents for fundraising, advising,
decision-making, and overall school support. But, there are a number of Magnet schools where
1. The process for establishing a new Magnet program should be a coordinated effort between
the district Magnet office and the school. It should be guided by the essential elements of
HISD’s Student Assignment Plan and the Board Policy governing school choice. It should
be planned in the context of the System of Magnets within HISD. Components of the plan
must include funding, the need for the Magnet theme, recruitment strategies, and diversity
20
goals. It should have input from families to be recruited, staff at the school, and community
stakeholders.
For example, Primary Years Program (PYP), Middle Years Program (MYP), and
Diploma programs are randomly found throughout the district. The district must engage in a
discussion focusing on how new programs in schools are decided, developed and implemented.
Currently there are plans by a number of Magnet schools to add IB to their instructional theme.
It appears as though these plans are school-by-school with little consideration for the strategic
direction of the district, the cost to the district budget, and the right number of programs for the
number of schools and students. While IB programs are rooted in good instructional practice and
offer quality education if implemented with fidelity, HISD should be mindful of over saturating
or under-serving areas of the district. Additionally, there are programs labeled Dual Language,
Foreign Language, and Languages. In some Magnet programs this means a student gets 45
minutes per week of instruction in a language other than English and in some schools it means
immersion in a language other than English 50% of the time. Magnets schools teaching a
language other than English as their theme should learn from each other’s best practices and
2. Develop and adopt Board Policy to govern school choice to align with recommendations in
this report and consistent with the 2006 Peer Review Report. Policy (ies) should address the
five essential components of Magnet programs, the development and monitoring of a Student
Assignment Plan, building capacity, Magnet funding, evaluation of the district’s Magnet
programs, and a process for revising, eliminating, and developing new Magnet school
programs. The Office of School Choice would be responsible for the development of a
process to benchmark schools against these elements every 18 months, completing one-third
of the schools each year. If a school is not achieving the benchmarks, an action plan with
21
timelines would be required by the school to address the areas that need improvement. Such
areas may include marketing and recruitment to increase student enrollment, theme revisions,
development. The Office of School Choice should be responsible to review and approve the
school’s plan, assist in implementation, and monitor quarterly. The action plan format
should align with the school’s improvement plan. If progress is not made within one year, the
3. Develop Student Assignment Plan (SAP) Guidelines. SAP Guidelines recognize the strong
belief in open public school choice and strong neighborhood schools. The SAP should
establish clear feeder patterns for Magnet and non-Magnet schools/programs, create a
district-wide lottery process, and establish goals for improving diversity in HISD’s Magnet
schools. It is recommended that the goals be realistic (i.e. 2% per year), be based on race-
neutral criteria and therefore, focus on marketing and recruitment strategies. Student
Assignment Plans provide for a process to create additional seats in each Magnet school that
reflect the demographics of HISD’s culturally rich community. Student Assignment Plans
4. Establish Clear Student Enrollment Goals. Goals need to address access to programs,
a. High School Magnets should have no less than 100 students per grade level.
b. Middle School Magnets should have no less than 75 per grade level.
5. Eliminate the current practice of Principal Agreement Transfers as a means for accessing
Magnet programs. Currently there are more than 25 ways parents and principals may use for
22
transfers within the HISD system. One such way, the Principal Agreement Transfer,
Transfer, the principal approves the individual transfer to his/her school. MSA found that
Principal Agreement Transfers have filled up the schools’ capacity and in some instances,
neighborhood and Magnet students are being turned away. A complete list of all Principal
Transfers is included in MSA’s “Magnet Programs Data & Demographic Chart.” MSA
received a clear message from the community during the forums that equity of access to
Magnet schools and a transparent process for access was extremely important. Therefore,
MSA recommends that Principals do not invoke the Principal Agreement Transfers until all
neighborhood and Magnet spaces have been filled and there are no students on a wait list.
6. Develop systemic communication strategies among the Chief School Officers and the
monthly meetings, etc.) The Magnet programs are an essential part of the elementary,
middle, and high school landscape. There must be planned coordination between Magnet
programs and non-Magnet programs beginning with consistency and coordination of the
7. Remove the Magnet classification and associated Magnet Funding from Vanguard Magnet
Programs. The district should review the Unique PUA funding for the eleven schools that
receive such funding and adjust as appropriate (see Magnet Program Data & Demographic
Charts). Vanguard programs and dedicated Magnet schools are a vital part of HISD. Data
and observations reveal that some of the programs and schools are successful and the
instruction; and the HISD Vanguards do not offer a theme based instruction. MSA
recommends that the district wide Vanguard programs continue to receive their Vanguard
23
funding and transportation. They should remain as a choice option in the district with their
8. HISD should review the patterns of student choice of Vanguard programs from elementary to
middle school and from middle to high school. These patterns may reveal data about the
need for an additional Vanguard high school programs or additional Vanguard seats for the
high school level. Currently there is only one dedicated Vanguard High School.
9. All elementary Magnet Programs should phase into school-wide programs by the 2012
school year. This will allow growth of the Magnet programs within schools without
impacting capacity. It will give all children enrolled in the school access to the theme based
instruction.
10. The System of Magnet Programs should be evaluated every three years with interim reviews
annually (at a minimum 25% of the schools each year). This evaluation should incorporate a
review of feeder patterns, capacity of the schools, enrollment patterns of zoned and non-
zoned students, budget, professional development plans, relevance of the Magnet themes
across the district, and funding appropriations. Additionally, it must also focus on student
achievement, attracting and retaining Magnet students, and overall school effectiveness. If
Magnet school is not showing evidence of success as determined by the above indicators, it
Magnet status must be decreased to 40% in the 2011-2012 school year and 0% in the
neighborhood school, it should be given time to readjust the budget and staffing to
b. HISD must develop and approve a “Magnet Allocation Calculation Chart” that
outlines the process of how Magnet funding will be appropriated by type of program
and theme and include in it the district’s financial guidelines. In MSA’s review of
funding, a 2008 document, developed by HISD but never adopted, provides the
essence of this recommendation. This document should be reviewed for its relevancy
and updated for the 2011-2012 funding year. MSA recommends the following:
25
STEM (includes $10 per student/or a % $20 per student Provision for PD
sciences, over the base resource materials in excess of
technology, allocation per pupil district’s base
math, and expenditure (e.g., 120%) resource allocation,
engineering Title I, Unique PUA
focus) add on.
c. The Office of School Choice must set allocations for each school’s capital
expenditures on a rotation basis serving at least 25% of the schools each year.
d. Budgets at each site need to be reallocated and/or adjusted to address the needs of
schools not meeting academic success or not attracting diverse students to the school.
Budgets need to reflect the number of students served, capacity to expand, and the
instructional theme.
boundary schools needs to be studied. See chart of current schools receiving UPUA
26
f. A Five year Magnet capital plan should be developed by the Office of School Choice
and the Office of School Choice must be accountable for its implementation.
The following are areas that MSA believes the district should review for future
consideration:
13. Commission a study for the Fine Arts programs in the district. Data gathered from the
community revealed a variety of opinions regarding the Arts focused Magnet schools.
Opinions related to curriculum offerings, staffing, resources, audition criteria, and feeder
patterns were diverse and strongly voiced. There is a public perception that some of the Arts
schools are more desirable than others. School enrollment and demographic data reveal
dramatic differences from school to school. It is recommended that members of the study
committee include (a) faculty, (b) parents, (c) students, (d) administrators, (e) professional
development specialist, (f) curriculum specialists and (g) members of the Houston area Arts
venues, (e.g., post-secondary Arts programs, practitioners, local artists, graphic designers).
d. Authentic assessments.
14. Commission a study for Career Technical Education programs in the district. Data
gathered from the community and school visits revealed a need for strengthened CTE
programs. The CTE courses appear to be inconsistently offered at the Magnet high schools
and a minimal number of schools have a CTE focus. It appears that with HISD and the
federal focus on college and career readiness, that a rearranging of the CTE offerings should
be reviewed. It is recommended that members of the study committee include current faculty
27
(2), parents (2), students (2), professional development specialist (1), curriculum specialist
(1), administrators (2), members of the Houston area business community, and higher
b. Relevancy of current career programs. This should align with Department of Labor
c. Best practices for CTE teaching strategies, congruency of courses and programs
1. The department needs to be expanded by at least one, optimally two, persons to support the
a. The project director and other positions for the MSAP grant year one should be in
place by January 1, 2011. Duties related to the MSAP grant should not be assigned to
current staff responsibilities. This position will be critical if the outcomes of the
MSAP grant and the recommendations of this program review are to be met (e.g., the
five programs in the grant should be “beacons” for the district and community,
leading the way for all Magnet programs) and the Magnet programs strengthened
enough to draw families back from private and charter schools, and home school
options. The recommendation is that the person selected has an understanding of the
vision and guiding principles of the Magnet schools and experience in curriculum,
theme integration, marketing and recruiting, parent and community involvement, and
developing partnerships.
28
b. Task an additional leadership person(s) to assist the Assistant Superintendent for
the current staff person focused on secondary school Magnet programs. This should
2. Leadership from the Office of School Choice must have input on the Magnet Coordinator’s
3. Documents and guidelines in the Office of School Choice need to be updated to reflect
current practices. Currently many of the documents are out of date and have not been
a. Positions and job descriptions for the Magnet programs must be updated and
responsibilities and time needed to implement all the tasks by April 1, 2011. Include
consistent tasks and timelines to assure greater consistency across the district for
d. All Magnet guidelines, documents, standards, and processes must be updated by July
1, 2011, approved by September 2011, and then consistently applied across the
district. A full copy of HISD’s Student Assignment Plan should be added to the
29
Magnet Guidelines. Documents that govern student placement, such as the
application and any matrix, must be updated to reflect more consistency across the
district.
4. Magnet schools’ curriculum and instructional practices should have standards beyond those
of non-Magnet schools based on best practices for the theme of the Magnet school (refer also
to District recommendation #4). This is in alignment with the 2006 Peer Review and the five
(5) essential elements of Magnet schools. These standards and practices must be consistent
across the theme-alike schools. This should be implemented through Magnet Coordinator
meetings and professional development and overseen by the Office of School Choice.
5. The Assistant Superintendent for the Office of School Choice should form an advisory
committee to review and address the recommendations of this program review. The advisory
committee should include a variety of stakeholders, including staff, parents and community
a. The Office of School Choice needs to aggressively study the recruitment practices
during each recruitment period. Enrollment goals which are reflective of the districts
demographics need to be set and monitored. This information can be used to assist in
the development of effective strategies to reach under-served students and meet the
Magnet Coordinators and the Office of School Choice. While implementation of the
strategies should occur primarily at the campus level, monitoring and data analysis
should occur through the Office of School Choice. This analysis should be done at
30
least three times throughout the recruitment/application period each year to be able to
make adjustments to the marketing strategies and assure greater diversity in the
and Arts Schools at the secondary level be ceased for the 2012-2013 school year. This
will allow a random lottery to determine Magnet seat placement, give transparency to
the application process, and allow more equitable access for students.
d. Replicate the current centralized lottery process used for the Vanguard program for
all Magnet programs. Best practices across the country indicate that a lottery process
gathered from the community did not yield a consensus regarding lottery. Some
schools and communities stated that the lottery should remain at the school level and
some were passionate about the lottery being more transparent and being at the
district level. The community members who voiced an opinion about transparency
stated that they experienced situations where “their child and their neighbor’s child
had not been chosen for a school; then, three weeks after the student assignments
were completed, their neighbor’s child was chosen for the same school.” Some
“some other funny business.” The processes need to be accountable and transparent.
To that end the management of the lottery must be moved to the district office to
review applications and determine placement. This will allow for greater
transparency to the Magnet application process and build trust with the community.
e. In order to maintain the integrity of the entire Magnet program, the district needs to
model the selection criteria outlined in the MSAP grant. As evidenced by building
31
capacity and demographic reports it is obvious that the current selection process
based on neighborhood, siblings, and then other students is not fulfilling the mission
to provide a multicultural experience for all students and therefore is not acceptable.
If additional students are going to be added to the five federal Magnet grant schools
and a lottery system is used for that process, the district needs to model that process.
As previously cited, the process should replicate the current centralized Vanguard
lottery process.
MSA consultants visited each Magnet campus as part of the Phase II requirements. The
review of the individual schools included a review of materials provided by the school,
interviews with key leadership, staff, and in some cases parents and students, as well as a walk-
through of the school. All components of the Phase II school review were incorporated with the
Phase I requirements (and reports) to create the Final Report and Recommendations. Two
attachments provide Magnet School Data and Demographics (Attachment A) and a summary for
each individual Magnet school. The summary includes findings, commendations, and
individual schools for each level. A summary of the information includes: (1) program types
and themes, (2) recommendations and a rationale for the recommendations, (3) enrollment and
demographic data, (4) building capacity information, (5) principal transfer agreement data, and
The individual school reviews revealed some common elements across the district
deserving of recognition. MSA consultants noted that the school leadership, Magnet
coordinators, teachers, and support staff were accommodating, engaged, and dedicated to their
32
work. MSA consultants saw school staffs who were dedicated to the students’ academic success.
However, the MSA consultants also observed varied instructional practices and
curriculum support systems across the district. Since there are no adopted Magnet Standards,
inconsistency exists across the system. While Magnet Guidelines exist, they require updating
operations and implementation, especially with the Fine Arts and Language Magnet schools. At
some schools the instructional theme was completely integrated in the daily instruction. At other
schools the instructional theme was a separate course(s) with little or no integration or relevance
to the theme. Furthermore, and in these instances, when teachers were asked “why” they had this
type of themed instruction, answers were not readily available. Therefore, that if the above
recommendations associated with (1) commissioning a review of the Arts programs, (2)
engaging in a discussion regarding World Language programs, and (3) creating systemic
communication between the Assistant Superintendent for School Choice and the Chief School
Officers, individually and collectively, are implemented, there will be a natural progression of
In a few schools, larger issues emerged. These included conflict over future program
growth by principals and the staff, complete non-engagement in the comprehensive review by
the principal, and the assignment of principals and/or Magnet coordinators lacking an interest or
passion for the theme and “Beliefs of Magnet Schools” which embody the five (5) essential
elements of a “successful” Magnet School. During the interviews with principals, Magnet
coordinators, parents and students, several themes also emerged as concerns. These included:
(1) inconsistencies of duties of Magnet coordinators, (2) principal transfer agreements, (3) lack
33
of a strong marketing and recruitment initiative, (4) community perceptions of schools, (5)
degree of parent engagement across the district, (6) inequity of Magnet funding, (7) lack of
diversity goals, and (8) inconsistent professional development of staff. According to nationally
recognized educational scholars (three of whom are Tony Wagner, Richard Lemon, and Robert
Marzano), “dedicated and knowledgeable leadership is critical to improving outcomes for all
students.” We believe this holds true for Magnet schools. MSA recommends professional and
Magnet leadership development for principals and theme-based and ethnic diversity professional
Based on MSA’s comprehensive review of HISD’s Magnet school system and its Magnet
schools has produced a detailed and documented “Magnet Program Data and Demographic
Chart” for each level to include specific recommendations and corresponding rationale for each
Magnet school. A summary of the “Magnet Data & Demographic Chart” for each Magnet
school visited follows. The complete data on each school are included in Attachment A.
34
ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:
SWP‐ School Wide Program
SWAS‐ School Within A School
SUS‐ Separate and Unique School
SWVP‐ School Wide Vanguard Program
DWVP‐ District Wide Vanguard Program
35
Burbank SWAS Physical Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary Development ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria
36
consider a
revision to a
specialized
program phased
in for all
students
37
rigor and
relevance.
Felix Cook SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria
38
Gregory- SWP Fine Arts same Museum Consider Given the
Lincoln Magnet modifying the proximity of
Elementary School Magnet theme the school
School (K-8) to a Museum location, the
School proposed theme
should be more
attractive to
improving
diversity,
student
performance,
and interest in
theme-based
professional
development.
Diversity goal
of 2% each
year over 3
years should be
established.
39
Helms SWAS Dual SWP same Significantly SWP affords
Elementary Language revise Magnet all students to
School program to a participate in
School Wide the Dual
Program; Language
Improve program.
diversity in School exceeds
student capacity and
enrollment. diversity is
91/9%.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
each year over
the next 3
years. As a
Dual Language
program, this
goal should be
achievable.
40
Horn SWP Academy same Narrow Significantly As a SWP, one
Elementary and define revise Magnet articulated
School one theme program to no theme
or become more than one throughout the
Non- theme for 2011- grade levels is
Magnet 2012 or remove consistent with
the Magnet dedicated
designation. A Magnet
new definition schools. As
of the the program
"Academy" develops,
needs to be recruitment
developed. must be geared
toward
improving the
number/percent
age of minority
students in the
program
through
increased
enrollment--
current
43%/57%
respectively.
41
respectively.
42
year over the
next three
years.
Longfellow SWP Fine Arts same same Develop an on- The Arts
Elementary going program curriculum
School for Professional requires
Development. professional
Monitor development
diversity in on an on-going
student basis for
enrollment to teachers to
maintain the acquire the
district-wide latest skills and
average. techniques in
the Fine Arts.
MacGregor SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation- program
consider requirements.
repurposing
this school
given its
proximity to
43
downtown and
size of the
school.
44
Patterson SWP Literature/ same Literature Literature is A Literature-
Elementary Fine Arts recommended based program
School as the main affords all
theme to students to
encompass not participate in
only the arts, an array of
but other integrated
disciplines. curriculum
Increase non instruction and
zoned Magnet resources. Fine
population by Arts is a prime
10%; Improve example.
diversity in School has
student available
enrollment capacity but
diversity of
97/3% should
be improved by
2% (-/+) each
year over the
next 3 years.
As a SWP with
a revised
emphasis, this
goal should be
achievable.
45
Poe SWP Fine Arts Same Same Improve SWP affords
Elementary diversity in all students to
School student participate in
enrollment. the Fine Arts
program.
School has
available
capacity and
diversity is
66/34%.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
(+/-) each year
over the next 3
years. As a
SW Fine Arts
program, this
goal should be
achievable.
46
Red SWP Math/Science same STEM Monitor Adding
Elementary /Tech diversity in Engineering to
School student the Science,
enrollment to Technology,
avoid and Math
exceeding the Program is
district-wide more in line
average. with the top
Magnet
themes. The
diversity of
91%/9%
reflects almost
the district-
wide average
for schools. A
goal would be
to improve by
2% (-/+) each
year over the
next three
years.
Roberts SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
47
building
capacity to
meet criteria
49
should be
monitored.
50
building
capacity to
meet criteria
52
MIDDLE SCHOOL MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:
53
Clifton SWAS Math/ SWP STEM Significantly An expansion
Middle Science revise of the current
School Magnet theme to
school to a include
STEM Engineering
Magnet and
school; Technology
Monitor will bring the
diversity in program in
student line with the
enrollment to top Magnet
improve on themes.
the district- Increasing the
wide pool of non-
average. minority
students
should assist
in improving
the school's
diversity.
54
Deady SWAS Communica SWP Communi Significantly As the current
Middle tions cations revise theme is
School with Magnet to limited, the
revision incorporate recommendati
Journalism on to expand
and writing. with emphasis
Improve on Journalism
diversity in (writing)
school should offer
enrollment. students more
opportunities
to explore the
entire field of
Communicati
ons.
Changing to a
SWP and
implementing
aggressive
recruiting,
diversity
should
improve.
Goal is 2% (-
/+).
55
level.
56
Hamilton SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW
Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n
59
Long SWVP Vanguard SWP 6-12 Significantly See district
Middle Medical revise to 6- plans in
School Technolog 12 Magnet development
y for a 6-12
articulated
program.
Patrick SWAS Fine Arts Neighbor Non- Remove Does not meet
Henry hood Magnet Magnet Magnet
Middle School designation program
School and definition.
associated
Magnet
funding due
to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria
64
Welch SWAS Fine Arts SWP Health Significantly With low
Middle and revise enrollment
School Physical Magnet and high
Fitness program to a minority
Health and group
Physical isolation of
Fitness 99%/1%
program; respectively,
improve developing a
diversity in new initiative
school and
enrollment. aggressive
recruiting
should create
interest and
improve
diversity.
Goal is 2% (-
/+) each year.
66
Carnegie SUS Vanguard Dedicate Non- Remove Vanguard
Vanguard d Magnet Magnet SW is not
High Vanguar designation considered a
School d and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportation
69
Lee High SWAS Modern SWP Non- Remove By
School Humanities Magnet Magnet developing
designation a school-
and associated wide
Magnet accelerated
funding due to program in
the Apollo the content
program. areas
through the
Apollo
support
program,
students are
more likely
to be
focused and
perform at a
higher level.
70
Michael E. SUS Health Dedicate same Improve Diversity
DeBakey Professions d Magnet diversity in should
High student reflect the
School for enrollment; district-wide
Health assess average at a
Profess professional minimum.
development See
needs to ensure comment in
training is Col. M.
theme-based.
75
Worthing SWAS Math/Sci/ same Medical Significantly This new
High Tech Sciences revise Magnet initiative
School program to a should
Medical attract new
Sciences students to
Magnet the school
program; and improve
Improve diversity in
diversity in student
student enrollment.
enrollment. Diversity
should
reflect the
district-wide
average at a
minimum.
76
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF MAGNET
SCHOOLS:
• Review and adopt Board of Education Magnet Policies and Guidelines that govern school
• Reduce the total number of Magnet schools across the district by 55 or 47%.
• Continue the audition-based criteria for Arts Magnets at the secondary level.
• Eliminate all other test and screening entrance criteria (e.g., Foreign Language).
Magnet school.
• Replicate and use the existing district Vanguard Program lottery process and for the
• Update the existing Magnet School Guidelines, secure Board approval, and ensure
• Update the existing Magnet School Standards and secure Board approval.
Development Plan.
77
• Establish a communication system among the Office of School Choice, Chief School
• Hold on-going parent and community forums and online opportunities for parents to
• Develop an aggressive Marketing and Recruiting Program with the goals of increasing
The recommendations included in this comprehensive review are designed to support all
practice. There are recommendations for the function of Magnet schools/programs, the structure
of the System of Magnets, and processes associated with Magnets. HISD should incorporate the
recommendations over 2 fiscal/school years and align the changes with the action steps of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
MSA would like to recognize and thank the HISD staff for their contributions and
expertise in assisting Magnet Schools of America’s work toward the improvement and
Attachments:
78