houston isd magnet school audit final report jan. 6, 2011

8/8/2019 Houston ISD magnet school audit final report Jan. 6, 2011

1/79

HISD Comprehensive Magnet Program ReviewFinal Report January 6, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

Magnet Schools of America, Inc.

Dr. Robert Brooks, Executive Director Doreen Marvin, Project Site Manager


2/79

1

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 MSAs successful bid occurred in early September

and discussions were held with the Assistant Superintendent for the Office of School Choice and

MSAs 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

to budgets, school configurations, and school building capacities) reflects Phase I

(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

October 15, 2010, and posted on the HISD website.


3/79

2

OVERVIEW OF MAGNET SCHOOLS

What are Magnet Schools?

Magnet schools are elem entary 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.

What are the Benefits of Magnet Schools?

Research has shown specific benefits in Magnet schools which include improved

academic achievement; diverse student enrollments; innovative curriculum; specialized teaching

staff; higher attendance and graduation rates; and lower drop-out rates. Magnet schools boast

more parental and community involvement, more personalization through theme-based

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.


4/79

3

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

opportunities for developing and maintaining students interest in school.

Magnet schools improve academic achievement.

Magnet schools employ specialized teaching staff.

Magnet schools produce higher attendance rates and graduation rates, and lower drop-out

rates.

Magnet schools boast more parental and community involvement, more personalization

through theme-based 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.

What are the Essential Elements (or Pillars) of Magnet Schools?

Magnet schools em body five essential elements 1 for an effective Magnet school system.

Magnet Schools of America benchmarks Magnet schools against these five essential elements:

1. Diversity of the Student Population.

Magnet schools should be reflective of the overall population of the community.

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 K8 Magnets, 2008; Giving Parents OptionsStrategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice & Supplemental Education Services Under NCLB.


5/79

4

schools and a requirement for districts seeking federal funds under the Magnet Schools

Assistance Program (MSAP). HISDs 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

illustrates how respondents felt about diversity.

2. Unique and Innovative Curriculum .

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

and school choice.

3. Improved Student Achievement (Academic Excellence).

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


6/79

5

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.

4. Professional Development/Specialized Teaching Staff (Supporting the Magnet

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 tostrategies that bring diverse student groups together in common areas are critical to the success

of all Magnet programs.

Dynamic Partnerships (Parent and Community Involvement).

Best practices show that effective Magnet schools work to develop partnerships that align

with the schools 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,

advising, decision-making, and overall school support.

What are Common Features of Successful Magnet Schools?

MSA, through research, school visits, and interviews, has identified the following as

reflective of a schools success:

A unique and innovative theme-based program.

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.


7/79

6

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

being studied (e.g., CTE certifications, etc).

Positive school climate and culture indicators such as discipline, suspension rates, and

participation in extra- and co-curricular activities.

Increased parent and community satisfaction with program options and Magnet

curriculum.

Increased ability for programs to attract students and grow.

BACKGROUND OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

HISD has a strong culture of neighborhood schools and district wide school choice. This

culture is evident in district practices of open enrollment, variety of transfer options,

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 21 st

century education, economics, and communities.

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 1970s and 80s 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.


8/79

7

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

or accountability by the districtHISD Adopted Budget, 2010-2011). Furthermore, some

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 nonequitable 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


9/79

8

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 districts Magnet program:

Lack of consistency across Magnet schools in the district.

Lack of feeder pattern articulation of programs in the district.

Randomness of decision-making regarding funding, instructional themes, and feeder

patterns.

Inefficient use of funds and inequity of funding.

Lack of transparency of access to Magnet schools.

Lack of monitoring and oversight of beliefs and values.

Lack of minimal enrollment standards for numbers of non-zoned students enrolled in a

Magnet school.

Lack of a five-year plan to keep Magnet instructional themes relevant. Barriers to access through geographic locations of Magnets and screening of applicants.

Principal transfer agreements for entrance outside the application process.

Lack of diversity across Magnet schools.

Lack of Board Policy governing school choice.

Recommendations to bring a system of Magnets to HISD are based on rectifying the

above issues, bringing best practices to all the Magnet schools and the district, and basing those

practices that parallel the goals and requirements of HISDs newly funded (September 2010)

Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grant. This includes five essential elements for an


10/79

9

effective Magnet school system discussed above (beginning on page 3) and also included in the

2006 HISD PEER review report.

PROGRAM DESIGN AND PROCESS

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;

Higher Education; Community Involvement/Focus Groups; Teacher Training and Professional

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

Questionnaire; Magnet School Classroom Visitation and Reporting; Magnet Parent

Questionnaire; Magnet Student Questionnaire; Magnet School Walk-Through Observation

Analysis; Magnet Student Transportation Matrix; Magnet Recommendation Summary of

Findings, Commendations, and Recommendations; Magnet School Site Evaluation

Documentation; Magnet School Comparative School Rubric; and Magnet School BudgetAllocation Analysis.

Scope of Work for Phase I:


11/79

10

Evaluate the Districts Vision and Governance of Magnet Programs including a review

and analysis of purpose and goals; Magnet standards; and each schools ability to

house/sustain a viable Magnet program.

Analyze the publics 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

staff; and collecting information through an online survey.

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

Magnet by type and specialty.

Complete the Magnet evaluation examination by proposing a concept for evaluation.

Scope of Work for Phase II:

Review and analyze information provided by the individual Magnet campuses.

Review and analyze student achievement for each Magnet campus.

Conduct a site walk-through of each Magnet campus.

Conduct on-site interview with the leadership of each Magnet campus.

Elements impacting recommendations included: Phase I findings, Phase II observations,

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


12/79

11

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:

HISD A Declaration of Beliefs and Visions, adopted by the Board of Trustees.

HISD Strategic Direction.

U.S. Department of Education publications, Creating and Sustaining Successful K-8 Magnet Schools; Successful Magnet High Schools; Creating Strong District SchoolChoice Programs, (2004); Giving Parents OptionsStrategies for Informing Parents and

Implementing Public School Choice & Supplemental Education Services Under NCLB .

U.S. Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) goals and

best practices. HISDs MSAP grant proposal (awarded 2010).

Summary of Phase I (Attachment D -- Interim Reports)

Purpose: To assess the Public Vision of HISDs 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

information collected through an HISDs online survey.

Process Tasks PurposeCommunityForums (13)attended by 914parents/community

representatives

Onsite observations provided the publics vision,concerns, and inequities in HISDs MagnetPrograms

CommunityOnline Surveyoffered in English,Spanish, andVietnamese from1,191 respondents

Online survey results of the publics vision,concerns, and inequities in HISDs MagnetPrograms.


13/79

12

Date Location/Description Time Attendance

Attended Cards

October 11, 2010 Furr High School 7:00 PM 75 50

October 12, 2010 Revere Middle School 9:30 AM 80 45

October 12, 2010

HISD Central Office:Board MemberAdvisory Committee 11:30 AM

PendingSign-inSheets 14

October 12, 2010 Reagan High School 6:00 PM 75 51October 12, 2010 Yates High School 7:00 PM 35 42October 13, 2010 Chavez High School 6:30 PM 42 35

October 14, 2010

HISD Central Office:

Board MemberAdvisory Committee 11:30 AM 70 60

October 14, 2010

SuperintendentsStudent AdvisoryRound Table 4:30 PM 27 27

October 15, 2010 HISD Central Office 10:00 AM 110 92October 26, 2010 Madison High School 7:00 PM 40 7October 27, 2010 Key Middle School 7:00 PM 60 41October 28, 2010 Bellaire High School 7:00 PM 250 135October 30, 2010 HISD Central Office 9:00 AM 50 30

Total of 13 forums 914 629

Summary of Community Forums, Online Survey Results, and Observations:

Consultants noted several emerging themes from the parent/community forums and the

on-line surveys.

Strong district leadership support of Magnet schools.

Desire for more equitable opportunities to access Magnet schools across the district.

Strong parent and community involvement in Magnet schools.

Excitement and loyalty to the Magnet concept and the Magnet curriculum.

Excitement and loyalty to the long tradition of choice in the district.


14/79

13

Strong desire to support neighborhood schools as the students first choice.

Varying levels in quality of Magnet themes and staff professional development.

Need to develop a process for equitable funding for all Magnets across the district.

Lack of consistency with the implementation of Magnet Guidelines and Standards.

Concerns over the potential changes to the current Magnet system.

Lack of consistency in the entrance criteria for the Magnet programs.

Varying levels of rigor in the educational programs in the Magnet schools.

Lack of equitable access to Magnet programs.

Desire to create a common definition of a successful Magnet school.

Need for clarity of HISDs application process, selection criteria, and student assignment.

Additionally, a student forum (Superintendents 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:

Rigor of the educational process at the Magnets

Entrance criteria for Magnets

Learning through the Magnet themes

Summary of Major Issues as Expressed by Survey Respondents:

Based on the themes that emerged, the major issues noted

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


15/79

14

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

programs is supported by the community. Current lottery processes occur at the

individual schools. Opinions regarding the current lottery processes varied.

Magnet/Vanguard Programs: Continuing the Magnet/Vanguard programs is supported

however, there were multiple thoughts about the acceptance criteria to these programs.

The consultants noted that neighborhood schools have Vanguard programs with the same

acceptance criteria as the district-wide Magnet/Vanguard programs, but these programs

have a centralized lottery process that occurs at the HISD central office. Further, parents

questioned the criteria for Tier I/Tier II acceptance criteria.

Magnet Program Acceptance Criteria: Magnet schools have a variety of acceptance

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


16/79

15

it and students should see it as a goal that they work toward by improving their academic

and behavioral performance. Opinions regarding current lottery processes varied.

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)

and the actual demographics of specific Magnet schools.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 HISDs

consideration. The results supported much of what was reported in the HISD 2006 Peer Review

Study.

Summary of Phase II (Attachment D -- Interim Report):

Purpose: To evaluate the quality of each individual programs 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

summary of the process tasks employed and purpose of each:


17/79

16

Process Tasks Purpose

Document Review of 113Magnet School Bindersprepared by each Magnetschool, submitted to theOffice of School Choicefor Magnet Schools of Americas school site visits

To prepare each consultant for school site visitsby reviewing prepared materials by each Magnetschool requested by Magnet Schools of America.The topics for review and reporting included:School Climate; ProgramDescriptions; School Leadership; Marketing &Recruiting; Budget; Plus-Deltas (what is working,what needs improvement); and District Support.

Site Visits to 113 HISDMagnet Schools 10/25 to10/29/10

To visit on site each Magnet school by a team of 12 MSA experienced consultantseachconsultant followed a prepared scheduleclustering by experience and leveloneconsultant per school, five days, up to 2 per day.

Protocol: Walk-through ateach Magnet School

To observe teaching and learning at each schooland the integration of the Magnet theme; to assessthe themes impact on the instructional process;and to validate materials and information sharedby each school.

Protocol: Interviews withadministration, Magnetcoordinator, and other staff at each Magnet School

To validate observations, clarify informationfrom staff input and instructional/theme materialsshared with consultants at each school. Todialogue with those involved in the school on adaily basis.

MSA Debriefing Protocol:Findings, Commendations,and Recommendations

To debrief each evening, the MSA Site Managerdiscussed with the MSA consultants theirobservations, information collected from thewalk-through and interviews. To prepare thedays report for submission to the Project SiteManager.

Based on examination of the Magnet school binders, review of data/documents provided

to MSA by HISD, walk-through observations at each Magnet school, and staff interviews, we

looked for the following areas:

Support of campus leadership for the Magnet program

Role and duties of the Magnet Coordinator

Scope, sequence, and alignment of Magnet curriculum to program specialty


18/79


19/79

18

integrated in nature and are based on all document and data reviews and Phase I and Phase II

processes. Recommendations are focused on four areas:

1. Vision for the District

2. District Governance and Oversight

3. The Office of School Choice

4. Individual Magnet Schools

Vision for the District:

Recognizing that choice and improved student achievement is an important element of

the context for HISD, it is imperative that HISD improve the performance and attraction of all

schools . Neighborhood schools should be a familys 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

district with evident feeder patterns and articulated instructional/career pathways:

Neighborhood, Vanguard, Magnet, and Career and Technical Education.

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


20/79

19

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

its System of Magnets in the Houston Independent School District. Specifically,

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 Districts 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 notmake 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 schools diversity goals accordingly. Given the

anticipated changes, HISD should create a student assignment plan that incorporates the current

choice options and five year diversity goals.

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.


21/79

20

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 schools theme. Many of the currentMagnet schools in HISD have limited evidence of strong community/business partnerships.

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

evidence of parent partnerships was lacking.

District Governance and Oversight:

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

HISDs 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


22/79

21

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 andoffer 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 others best practices and

define the different models consistently

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 districts 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


23/79

22

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,

improving student achievement, improving unique partnerships, and professional

development. The Office of School Choice should be responsible to review and approve the

schools plan, assist in implementation, and monitor quarterly. The action plan format

should align with the schools improvement plan. If progress is not made within one year, the

district should consider removing the Magnet designation.

3. Develop Student Assignment Plan (SAP) Guidelines. SAP Guidelines recognize the strong

belief in open public school choice and strong neighborhood schools. The SAP shouldestablish clear feeder patterns for Magnet and non-Magnet schools/programs, create a

district-wide lottery process, and establish goals for improving diversity in HISDs 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 HISDs culturally rich community. Student Assignment Plans

should be reviewed annually and adjusted according to demographic and socio-economic

changes in the district.

4. Establish Clear Student Enrollment Goals. Goals need to address access to programs,

quality of programs, and effectiveness of programs. MSA recommends the following:

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.

c. At least 25% of the Magnet population should be non-zoned students.

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


24/79

23

transfers within the HISD system. One such way, the Principal Agreement Transfer,

significantly impacts the equity of access to Magnet schools. In a Principal Agreement

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 MSAs 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 allneighborhood 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

Assistant Superintendent for School Choice (e.g., regular electronic communications,

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

Magnet School Guidelines with the Elementary/Secondary School Guidelines.

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 is rigorous. One significant element of a Magnet school is theme-based

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


25/79

24

funding and transportation. They should remain as a choice option in the district with their

current entrance criteria, application process, and lottery selection process.

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 basedinstruction.

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

must be reclassified as a non-Magnet school.

11. Recommendations for Transportation:

a. Access to transportation needs to be communicated consistently in all documents.

b. In reference to Standards for Magnet Programs, Standard 12, there needs to be

clarification for what qualifies a student for transportation.

c. Transportation should continue for Vanguard Schools.

12. Recommendations for Magnet Funding:


26/79

25

a. Magnet funding for Magnet programs being recommended to be reclassified to non

Magnet status must be decreased to 40% in the 2011-2012 school year and 0% in the

2012-2013 school year. If a school is recommended to be reclassified as a

neighborhood school, it should be given time to readjust the budget and staffing to

meet its new goals.

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 districts financial guidelines. In MSAs review of

funding, a 2008 document, developed by HISD but never adopted, provides theessence of this recommendation. This document should be reviewed for its relevancy

and updated for the 2011-2012 funding year. MSA recommends the following:

School Static Staff + Non Salary Allocation + TotalMagnetAllocation

School-Wide and/orDedicated Magnet

1 MagnetCoordinator

Program enrollment XUnique allocation forprogram type

$

School Within aSchool

1 MagnetCoordinator if overenrollment goal of atleast 100 students ateach grade level.Less than 100 a half-time or .5 coordinatorwould be assigned

$


27/79

26

Program Type School Wide orDedicated

School Within aSchool

Rationale

STEM (includessciences,technology,math, andengineeringfocus)

$10 per student/or a %over the base resourceallocation per pupilexpenditure (e.g., 120%)

$20 per student Provision for PDmaterials in excess of districts baseresource allocation,Title I, Unique PUAadd on.

FineArts/PerformingArts


$20 per student Provision for PDmaterials in excess of districts baseresource allocation,Title I, Unique PUA

add on.

Specializedthemes such aslanguages,Montessori, IB,Micro-Society


$20 per student Provision for PDmaterials in excess of districts baseresource allocation,Title I, Unique PUAadd on.

c. The Office of School Choice must set allocations for each schools 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.

e. The allocation of Unique PUA (119 funds) currently allocated to 11 non-attendance

boundary schools needs to be studied. See chart of current schools receiving UPUA

funding in addition to Magnet funding (denoted by *** in the Data Chart).


28/79

27

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 revealdramatic 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).

Parameters of the study should include best practices for:

a. Audition-based entrance criteria at the middle and high school levels.

b. Visual/graphic/performing arts programs.

c. Teaching and learning and Arts integration.

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


29/79

28

(2), parents (2), students (2), professional development specialist (1), curriculum specialist

(1), administrators (2), members of the Houston area business community, and higher

education (4). Parameters of the study should include:

a. Consistent implementation of CTE best practices in magnet programs

b. Relevancy of current career programs. This should align with Department of Labor

statistics and Houston Area Labor Statistics

c. Best practices for CTE teaching strategies, congruency of courses and programs

d. Funding CTE programs

e.

Review of the current accountability structure of CTEThe Office of School Choice:

1. The department needs to be expanded by at least one, optimally two, persons to support the

recommendations in this report and to support the MSAP grant objectives.

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.


30/79

29

b. Task an additional leadership person(s) to assist the Assistant Superintendent for

School Choice to implement and monitor the recommendations, if adopted, of this

report. Review department for staffing efficiencies and consider redistributing

responsibilities and/or creating a new position focused on elementary Magnets with

the current staff person focused on secondary school Magnet programs. This should

be completed by April 1, 2010.

2. Leadership from the Office of School Choice must have input on the Magnet Coordinators

performance appraisal in conjunction with the campus principal.

3.

Documents and guidelines in the Office of School Choice need to be updated to reflectcurrent practices. Currently many of the documents are out of date and have not been

reviewed in the past two years.

a. Positions and job descriptions for the Magnet programs must be updated and

approved by April 1, 2011.

b. The Magnet Coordinator job description needs to be updated to reflect the

responsibilities and time needed to implement all the tasks by April 1, 2011. Include

a sample of a Magnet Coordinators work plan in the Magnet Guidelines to reflect

consistent tasks and timelines to assure greater consistency across the district for

school and system-based tasks.

c. Individual Professional Development Plans of the Magnet Coordinator must be

reviewed and adjusted yearly to reflect their progress in achieving the

recommendations of this Magnet Review report.

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 HISDs Student Assignment Plan should be added to the


31/79

30

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

members, and meet quarterly.

6. Recommendations for recruitment and student placement

a. The Office of School Choice needs to aggressively study the recruitment practices

based on the number of applications received by under-represented populations

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

needs expressed by the community.

b. Develop effective strategies to reach under-served populations cooperatively with

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


32/79

31

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

applicant pool for each school.

c. It is recommended that all screening of applications with the exception of Vanguard

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 processbe centralized, especially for districts as large as HISD. However, information

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 neighbors child

had not been chosen for a school; then, three weeks after the student assignments

were completed, their neighbors child was chosen for the same school. Some

thought these types of situations were through Principal Agreement Transfers or

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


33/79

32

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.

Individual Magnet School Campuses:

MSA consultants visited each Magnet campus as part of the Phase II requirements. Thereview 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

recommendations. Attachment A, a spreadsheet, provides detailed information regarding

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

(6) school and Magnet budget information.

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


34/79

33

work. MSA consultants saw school staffs who were dedicated to the students academic success.

It was apparent that schools take pride in their work.

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

and oversight by the Office of School Choice.

Consultants also reported inconsistencies from school to school in terms of Magnet

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 otherschools 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

improving these types of inconsistencies by developing strong theme-based integrated programs.

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


35/79

34

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

development for the faculty and staff.

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on MSAs comprehensive review of HISDs 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.


36/79

35

ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:

ElementarySchool

CurrentProgramType

CurrentProgram

ProposedProgramType

ProposedProgram

Recommendation

Recommendation Rationale

AskewElementarySchool

SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnet

funding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SWis notconsidered aMagnet

program bydefinition.

BellElementarySchool

SWP PhysicalDevelopment

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation dueto capacityissues

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirements,school capacityis at issue.

BerryElementarySchool

SWP Environmental Science

same Same Improvediversity instudentenrollment

Diversity is99/1% andneeds to beimproved by2% (-+) overthe next 3years.

BruceElementary

School

SWP Fine Arts same same Improvediversity in

studentenrollment

Diversity is99/1% and

needs to beimproved by2% (-+) overthe next 3years.

SWP School Wide Program SWAS School Within A School

SUS Separate and Unique School SWVP School Wide Vanguard Program DWVP District Wide Vanguard Program


37/79

36

BurbankElementarySchool

SWAS PhysicalDevelopment

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet funding

due to limitedbuildingcapacity tomeet criteria

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirements.

BurrusElementarySchool

SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;Improve

diversity instudentenrollment

Diversity is99/1% andneeds to beimproved by2% (-+) overthe next 3

years. Movingto a SWPshould makethis possible.

CarrilloElementarySchool


RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnetfunding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SWis notconsidered aMagnetprogram bydefinition.

CodwellElementarySchool

SWAS Fine Arts SWP Fine Arts Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;Improvediversity instudentenrollment;remove theportablebuildings andimprove thegrounds of theschool;

Diversity is100% minority.By revising to aSWP with anew theme andimprovedfacility,diversityshould improveby 2% eachyear over thenext 3 years.


38/79

37

consider arevision to aspecializedprogram phasedin for all

students

CorneliusElementarySchool

SWAS Math/Science /Tech

SWP STEM Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;Improvediversity instudentenrollment

Diversity is99/1%. Byrevising to aSWP STEM,diversityshould improveby 2% eachyear over thenext 3 years.

CrespoElementarySchool

SWP Fine Arts same same Improvediversity instudentenrollment

School exceedscapacity anddiversity is99/1%.Diversityrecruitmentgoal should be2% each yearover the next 3years for a FineArts Magnet.

DeZavalaElementarySchool




DodsonElementarySchool

SWP Montessori MSAPGrant

Montessori K-8

MSAP Grantfunded

See MSAPdiversity goal.

DurhamElementarySchool

SWP Leadership same IB Plans are inplace to changeto IB program

IB/PYP willprovide animprovedprogram of


39/79

38

rigor andrelevance.

ElrodElementarySchool

SWP Math/Science /Tech

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to limitedbuildingcapacity tomeet criteria


Felix CookElementarySchool

SWP Fine Arts NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to limitedbuildingcapacity tomeet criteria


GardenVillas

ElementarySchool

SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnet

program to aSchool WideProgram;Improvediversity instudentenrollment.

SWP affordsall students to

participate inthe Fine Artsprogram.School exceedscapacity anddiversity is97/3%.Diversity goalshould be 2%each year overthe next 3years. As aSW Fine Artsprogram, thisgoal should beachievable.


40/79

39

Gregory-LincolnElementarySchool (K-8)

SWP Fine Arts same MuseumMagnetSchool

Considermodifying theMagnet themeto a MuseumSchool

Given theproximity of the schoollocation, theproposed theme

should be moreattractive toimprovingdiversity,studentperformance,and interest intheme-basedprofessionaldevelopment.Diversity goalof 2% eachyear over 3years should beestablished.

HarvardElementarySchool


same STEM Change themeto STEM toincorporateengineering.Improve

diversity instudentenrollment.The school ispursuingIB/PYP andplans to beaccredited byApril 2011.This willsupport the

STEMinstructionaltheme.

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and Math

Program ismore in linewith the topMagnetthemes. Thediversityshould reflectmore of thedistrict-wideaverage forelementary

schools.


41/79

40

HelmsElementarySchool

SWAS DualLanguage

SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;

Improvediversity instudentenrollment.

SWP affordsall students toparticipate inthe DualLanguage

program.School exceedscapacity anddiversity is91/9%.Diversity goalshould be 2%each year overthe next 3years. As aDual Languageprogram, thisgoal should beachievable.

HerodElementarySchool

SWAS Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnetfunding; RetainVanguard

status andtransportation


HerreraElementarySchool

SWP IntegratedTechnology

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation dueto capacityissues

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirements,school capacityis at issue.


42/79

41

HornElementarySchool

SWP Academy same Narrowand defineone themeor becomeNon-

Magnet

Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to nomore than onetheme for 2011-

2012 or removethe Magnetdesignation. Anew definitionof the"Academy"needs to bedeveloped.

As a SWP, onearticulatedthemethroughout thegrade levels is

consistent withdedicatedMagnetschools. Asthe programdevelops,recruitmentmust be gearedtowardimproving thenumber/percentage of minoritystudents in theprogramthroughincreasedenrollment--current43%/57%respectively.

KolterElementarySchool

SWAS ForeignLanguages SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;Removeentranceexam/testing;Improvediversity instudent

enrollmenttoward a goalof by recruitingmore studentsof color(currently60%/40%

A Significantrevision willenhance thisprogram andcapitalize onthe currentinstructionalmodel forForeignLanguages.The school

exceedscapacity, andenrollmentshould bemonitored.


43/79

42

respectively.

LantripElementarySchool

SWAS Environmental Science

SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to a

School WideProgram;increase thestudentpopulation by10% for thenon-zonedstudents.

Marketing theprogram as aSWP with a

revisedcurriculumshould increaseenrollment overthe next threeyears to meetthe 10%recommendation and improvediversity by 2%each year.

LawElementarySchool


NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to noopportunity forgrowth of nonzoned students

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirements.There is noopportunity forgrowth of non-zoned students.

LockhartElementarySchool


same STEM Improvediversity instudentenrollment

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and MathProgram ismore in linewith the topMagnetthemes. Thediversityshould reflectmore of thedistrict-wideaverage forelementaryschools througha 2% (-/+) each


44/79

43

year over thenext threeyears.

Longfellow

ElementarySchool

SWP Fine Arts same same Develop an on-

going programfor ProfessionalDevelopment.Monitordiversity instudentenrollment tomaintain thedistrict-wideaverage.

The Arts

curriculumrequiresprofessionaldevelopmenton an on-goingbasis forteachers toacquire thelatest skills andtechniques inthe Fine Arts.

LovettElementarySchool

SWP Fine Arts same Literature Considerrevisinginstructionaltheme toLiterature. Theschoolcurrently isLiteraturebased and thisinstructionaltheme coulddraw morestudents sinceFine Artsprograms areabundant.

SWP affordsall students toparticipate inthe Literatureprogram.School hasavailablecapacity anddiversity is70/30%.Diversity goalshould be 2%(+/-) each yearover the next 3years. As aSW Literatureprogram, thisgoal should beachievable.

MacGregorElementarySchool


Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation-considerrepurposingthis schoolgiven itsproximity to



45/79

44

downtown andsize of theschool.

Oak Forest

ElementarySchool

SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-

Magnet

Remove

Magnetdesignation andMagnetfunding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SW

is notconsidered aMagnetprogram bydefinition.

ParkerElementarySchool

SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to a

School WideProgram;Improvediversity instudentenrollment

SWP affordsall students toparticipate in

the Fine Artsprogram.School slightlyexceedscapacity anddiversity is78%/22%respectively.Diversity goalshould be 2%(+-) each yearover the next 3years. As aSW Fine Artsprogram, thisgoal should beachievable.


46/79

45

PattersonElementarySchool

SWP Literature/ Fine Arts

same Literature Literature isrecommendedas the maintheme toencompass not

only the arts,but otherdisciplines.Increase nonzoned Magnetpopulation by10%; Improvediversity instudentenrollment

A Literature-based programaffords allstudents toparticipate in

an array of integratedcurriculuminstruction andresources. FineArts is a primeexample.School hasavailablecapacity butdiversity of 97/3% shouldbe improved by2% (-/+) eachyear over thenext 3 years.As a SWP witha revisedemphasis, thisgoal should beachievable.

PleasantvilleElementarySchool





47/79

46

PoeElementarySchool

SWP Fine Arts Same Same Improvediversity instudentenrollment.

SWP affordsall students toparticipate inthe Fine Artsprogram.

School hasavailablecapacity anddiversity is66/34%.Diversity goalshould be 2%(+/-) each yearover the next 3years. As aSW Fine Artsprogram, thisgoal should beachievable.

PughElementarySchool


same STEM Improvediversity instudentenrollment.Monitorbuilding

capacity.

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and MathProgram is

more in linewith the topMagnetthemes. Thediversityshould reflectmore of thedistrict-wideaverage forelementaryschools through

a 2% (-/+) eachyear over thenext threeyears.


48/79

47

RedElementarySchool


same STEM Monitordiversity instudentenrollment toavoid

exceeding thedistrict-wideaverage.

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and Math

Program ismore in linewith the topMagnetthemes. Thediversity of 91%/9%reflects almostthe district-wide averagefor schools. Agoal would beto improve by2% (-/+) eachyear over thenext threeyears.

RiceElementary(K-8)

SUS Technology DedicatedMagnet

same Rename SUS(district wide);Improve

diversity instudentenrollment

Name "District-wide" is theacceptable

terminology forSUS

River OaksElementarySchool


RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnetfunding; RetainVanguardstatus and

transportation


RobertsElementarySchool


Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to limited



49/79

48

buildingcapacity tomeet criteria

RooseveltElementarySchool




RossElementarySchool


SWP STEM Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideProgram;Increase nonzoned studentpopulation;Improvediversity.

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and MathProgram ismore in linewith the topMagnetthemes. Thediversityshould reflectmore of the

district-wideaverage forelementaryschools througha 2% (-/+) eachyear over thenext threeyears.

RuskElementarySchool (K-8)


SWP STEM Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aSchool WideSTEM Programand/or, considerchanging themeto IB/PYP.Improvediversity in

AddingEngineering tothe Science,Technology,and MathProgram ismore in linewith the topMagnetthemes. IB/


50/79

49

studentenrollment withis currently99% minority.

PYP offersanother vehiclefor this schoolto advance theacademic

curriculum forall students.The diversityshould reflectmore of thedistrict-wideaverage forelementaryschools througha 2% (-/+) eachyear over thenext threeyears.

ScrogginsElementarySchool

SWAS Literature/ Fine Arts

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to limitedbuilding

capacity tomeet criteria

Currently doesnot meetMagnetprogramrequirementsdue to capacity.District may

considerrevising to oneinstructionaltheme and setrecruitmentgoals.

SinclairElementarySchool

SWP Communications/Tech

same LanguageImmersion

Significantlyrevise Magnetprogram to aLanguage

Immersion

A significantrevision willenhance thisprogram and

capitalize onthe currentinstructionalmodel forlanguage. Theschool exceedscapacity, andenrollment


51/79

50

should bemonitored.

T. H. RogersElementary

School (K-8)

SUS Vanguard DedicatedDWVP

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnet

designation andMagnetfunding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SWis not

considered aMagnetprogram bydefinition.

TravisElementarySchool


RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnet

funding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SWis notconsidered aMagnet

program bydefinition.

TwainElementarySchool

SWP Literature/ Fine Arts

NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnetfunding; retainIB/PYP

program as aneighborhoodchoice.

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirementsdue to capacityand enrollment.

Valley WestElementarySchool


NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnet fundingdue to non-operationalprogram duringthe school day.

Non-existentMagnetprogram.Students shouldnot be chargeda fee to be inthe Magnetprogram.

WainwrightElementarySchool


NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andassociatedMagnet fundingdue to limited



52/79

51

buildingcapacity tomeet criteria

Wesley

ElementarySchool

SWP Math/Science

/Tech

same Pre-

engineering

Designate as a

Pre engineeringMagnet and afeeder school toWilliams;Improvediversity instudentenrollment

As a SWP, an

articulated Pre-engineeringstrand wouldbetter serve thecommunity. Asthe programdevelops,recruitmentmust be gearedtowardimproving the

currentdiversity of 99/1% (-/+) by2% each yearover the nextthree years.

WestUniversityElementarySchool


NeighborhoodSchool

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation andMagnet funding

Does not meetMagnetprogramrequirementsdue to capacityand enrollment.

WhidbyElementarySchool

SWP HealthScience

MSAP HealthScience

MSAP funded See MSAPdiversity goal.

WilliamWharton K-8 DualLanguageAcademy

SWP DualLanguage

Same DualLanguage

Retain currentprogram; do notadd additionalinstructionalthemes;Improvediversity instudentenrollment

School exceedscapacity anddiversity is at92/8%. AsDual Languageis a popularprogram, a goalof 2% (-/+)should be setfor a morebalancedstudent


53/79

52

population.

WindsorVillageElementary

School


RemoveMagnetdesignation and

Magnetfunding; RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation

Vanguard SWis notconsidered a

Magnetprogram bydefinition.

WoodrowWilsonMontessori

SWP Montessori Same Same Improvediversity instudentenrollment

School is 70/30and exceedscapacity. Newstudentsentering at the

break gradesandreplacementstudentsprovide theopportunity toimprove thediversitytoward thedistrict-wideaverage forelementaryschools.


54/79

53

MIDDLE SCHOOL MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:

MiddleSchool

CurrentProgram

Type

CurrentProgram

Proposed

ProgramType

ProposedProgram

Recommendation

Recommendation

Rationale

AttucksMiddleSchool

SWAS Math/ Science

SWP Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignationandassociatedMagnetfunding dueto the Apolloprogram.

Bydeveloping aschool-wideacceleratedprogram inthe contentareas throughthe Apollosupportprogram,students aremore likely tobe focusedand performat a higher

level.BurbankMiddleSchool


RemoveMagnetdesignationand Magnetfunding;RetainVanguardstatus and

transportation


SWP School Wide Program

SWAS School Within A School SUS Separate and Unique School

SWVP School Wide Vanguard Program DWVP District Wide Vanguard Program


55/79

54

CliftonMiddleSchool

SWAS Math/ Science

SWP STEM SignificantlyreviseMagnetschool to aSTEMMagnetschool;Monitordiversity instudentenrollment toimprove onthe district-wide

average.

An expansionof the currenttheme toincludeEngineeringandTechnologywill bring theprogram inline with thetop Magnetthemes.Increasing thepool of non-

minoritystudentsshould assistin improvingthe school'sdiversity.

ContemporaryLearning

CenterMiddleSchool

SUS Alternative Schoolclosure

Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignation

and Magnetfunding

Does not meetMagnetprogram

requirements.


56/79

55

DeadyMiddleSchool

SWAS Communications

SWP Communicationswithrevision

SignificantlyreviseMagnet toincorporateJournalismand writing.Improvediversity inschoolenrollment.

As the currenttheme islimited, therecommendation to expandwith emphasison Journalism(writing)should offerstudents moreopportunitiesto explore theentire field of Communicati

ons.Changing to aSWP andimplementingaggressiverecruiting,diversityshouldimprove.Goal is 2% (-

/+).

DowlingMiddleSchool

SWAS Fine Arts SWP Non-Magnet

RemoveMagnetdesignationandassociatedMagnetfunding dueto the Apolloprogram.

Bydeveloping aschool-wideacceleratedprogram inthe contentareas throughthe Apollosupportprogram,students aremore likely tobe focusedand performat a higher


57/79

56

level.

FlemingMiddleSchool

SWAS Fine Arts same same Improvediversity instudent

enrollment toreduceminoritygroupisolation.

The school is100%minority and

under-enrolled.Throughaggressivemarketing andrecruiting,increasing thepool of non-minoritystudentsshould assistin reducingMGI by 2%each year.

FondrenMiddleSchool

SWAS Math/ Science

MSAP IB MagnetSchoolsAssistanceProgram(MSAP).

Same

Gregory-LincolnMiddleSchool(K-8)

SWAS Fine Arts SWP Museum SignificantlyreviseMagnet to aschool wideMuseumStudiesMagnet

MuseumStudies is avery populartheme forstudents andparents. Thetheme shouldboost

enrollmentand improvediversity aswell.


58/79

57

HamiltonMiddleSchool


RemoveMagnetdesignationand Magnetfunding;RetainVanguardstatus andtransportation


HartmanMiddleSchool

SWAS Math/ Science

SWP STEM SignificantlyreviseMagnetschool to aSTEMMagnetschool;Improvediversity instudentenrollment;become afeeder school

to Chavez.

An expansionof the currenttheme toincludeEngineeringandTechnologywill bring theprogram inline with thetop Magnetthemes.Increasing the

pool of non-minoritystudentsshould assistin improvingthe school'sdiversity.

HoggMiddle

School

SWAS Math/ Science

same Language Significantlyrevise

Magnetprogram to aduallanguage toarticulatewith Helmsto develop astrong feeder

SWP affordsall students to

participate inthe DualLanguageprogram.School hascapacity anddiversity of 97/3% should


59/79

58

program. be (-/+) 2%each year overthe next 3years. As aDualLanguageprogram,articulatedwith HelmsES, this goalshould beachievableand a strongfeeder pattern

established.HollandMiddleSchool


RemoveMagnetdesignationand Magnetfunding;RetainVanguardstatus and

transportation


JacksonMiddleSchool


RemoveMagnetdesignationand Magnetfunding;RetainVanguard

status andtransportation


JohnstonMiddleSchool

SWAS Fine Arts same same Monitordiversity instudentenrollment,

Monitorenrollments toensure allstudents are


60/79

59