A reader asked me to describe the differences between charter schools and magnet schools
This is what came to mind.
I welcome readers’ thoughts about other differences.
Magnet schools and charter schools have superficial similarities. They may or may not be selective. Their differences are greater than their similarities.
Magnet schools were initially created by local school boards in the late 1960s and 1970s to promote racial integration. The idea behind them was that a theme like the arts, or the sciences, would attract so many applicants that the school could select a racially diverse student body. Charter schools rarely seek racial integration; many charter schools are one-race, one-ethnicity. The UCLA Civil Rights Project warns that charter schools are more segregated than the districts in which they are located.
Another significant difference is that a magnet school is part of the public school system, the result of a decision by a democratic board to create a school for a special purpose. By contrast, a charter school requires a transfer of public funds to private management; it is a form of privatization.
The magnet school is subject to the same laws, rules and regulations as other public schools; the charter is exempt from most of the laws, rules and regulations applied to public schools.
Magnet schools don’t boast of their higher scores because everyone understands that they have a selection process and do not represent a random representation of all students; charter schools do boast of their higher scores (when they have them) and claim to be “better” than public schools and deserving of more public and private funding.
Magnet schools have the same funding sources as public schools; charter schools have private boards which are able to raise additional funding for them. In some districts, like New York City, charters spend more than public schools.
Another difference is the workforce: where unions are permitted by law, public school teachers are part of a union or collective bargaining unit; this is not true for charters. Nearly 90% of charters do not have unions.
Some charter schools are owned by for-profit corporations; some part of the tax dollars they receive are paid to investors and stock-holders. Some charter schools are nonprofit but pay exorbitant executive salaries and management fees; it is a matter of record that some high-profile charter leaders are paid $300,000-500,000 annually to oversee a small number of (non-profit) charter schools. The charters pay a hefty management fee to those who run them. A well-known charter chain in New York City is paid a management fee of $2,000 per student, all from taxpayer funds. That’s a nice income for a “nonprofit.” One charter in Pennsylvania pays a management fee of $16 million to chief executive officer, whose for-profit company supplies all goods and services to the charter.
No public schools are run by for-profit organizations.
Magnet schools are part of the public system; charters are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations.
Good explanation! Thanks!
As a graduate of a sort-of magnet school in NYC, I can also say that students tend to receive a great education. Charters, on the other hand, drill and kill for test prep. As we saw from the Relay School of Education, charters do not want inspiring teachers as much as they want wardens.
The magnet schools created in the 1960s and 70s also deliver their advertised art/science curriculum. Contrast that to Bloomberg’s public schools which have highfalutin names that bear no resemblance to what goes on inside the building. “The Young Women’s Academy of Fine Art and Literature” (not a real school, but those are the types of names they have), do not have Fine Art or Literature classes and most likely have more than a few young men on their roster.
The schools of education reform, whether they be charters or new public schools, are all marketing. The schools of the 60s, 70s and before were all substance. That to me is the major difference.
And yet there are some that claim charter schools are public schools.
I am not one of them.
Me neither Diane. To me, one of the biggest differences is the accountability. Charter management companies are not accountable to the public and not elected by the public.
Some are. There are start up charters and conversion charters. Conversion charters are public schools.
Once they convert to private management, they are no longer public schools.
They convert to leave the public system.
In Hartford, CT a lawsuit was filed in 1989 on behalf of some Hartford parents because of the racial segregation of the schools in Hartford County. The city schools were overwhelmingly minority and the suburban schools were overwhelmingly white. In 1996, the CT state Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, the court did not set a remedy and left it up to the politicians. There have been many return visits to court. See http://www.sheffmovement.org/aboutsheffvoneill.shtml
So, around the year 2000, the politicians decided to use voluntary integration and build magnet schools. Most magnet schools were built in Hartford and staff was hired to recruit students from the suburbs. The state gives schools about 60% more money per student for each suburban student.
The percentage of minority students in the Hartford schools is larger now than it was in 1989 when the Sheff suit was filed. Also, the percentage of sped, ELL, and high needs students is greater in the Hartford Public Schools than in the magnet schools.
Hartford (during the Adamowski reign of terror) became an ALL CHOICE system of schools which is terribly confusing to parents. Children entering Kindergarten and high school must apply to a public school. When accepted they must sign and return a form accepting the placement and then over the summer register at the school. (Unlike suburban parents who just go to the local public school and register their child for kindergarten.) If they know about the magnet school application they can apply to those schools as well. If they know about the technical school application (grade 8 only) they can apply to those schools. There is very little support for parents.
Before Adamowski there were school counselors (guidance counselors) working with grade 8 students and families to help navigate this mind boggling application process. But, Adamowski told principals to cut all positions for schools counselors working with grade 8 students.
The city of Hartford collects applications for the Hartford Public Schools and runs a lottery. (Preference is given for neighborhood schools or if siblings attend a school.) The state collects applications for magnet schools and runs a lottery. (Preference is given to children of staff members or if a sibling attends a school.) Ironically, there is NO LOTTERY for state run (technical and agriscience) schools but rather a selection process using test scores, grades, and attendance.
Unfortunately there are unfair comparisons made between the Hartford Public Schools and the magnet schools. These comparisons have been used by former Hartford Superintendent Adamowski, CT Commissioner of Education Pryor, and present Hartford Superintendent Kishimoto to bring charter schools to Hartford.
Thank you for this informative reply, Charlie Puffers. I agree, Adamowski created a monstrous system that “skims” while masquerading as choice. He is an expert at spin wizardry.
While magnet schools are preferable to Charters, I think that the example of Hartford is teaching us that magnets are inadequate–the whole Sheff settlement is inadequate. Rather than have some special, well-appointed magnet schools which are more difficult for Hartford students to get into than for suburban students, ALL of Hartford’s schools should be exceptional (the Finnish model). Suburban children should be the ones fighting to get in–or even moving into the city, which is the ideal goal of full integration. Instead, no nice facilities can exist for children of color or poor children UNLESS wealthy suburban children benefit to a greater extent.
As a parent, I’ve watched the magnet school model of ‘theming,’ as you describe it, help to create an authentically diverse community of learners while encouraging real student engagement, a culture where it’s ‘cool’ to learn, and great partnership with families — all without any reliance on high-stakes testing screeners (or private management of public funds, for that matter). At Cleveland High School Humanities Magnet in Reseda, the interdisciplinary focus on the Humanities ‘self-selects’ students and families who are drawn to the model, and the school is fully transparent about the serious expectations with families who consider the school before application through LAUSD. Thus, my kid walking away from an open house last year (as an eighth grader), saying “I really want to go to school here” was just about all he was asked to demonstrate in order to qualify for enrollment. True, a somewhat narrow range of highly able learners will flourish in the model and, thus, students with significant learning challenges would probably not fare well or happily, which reduces (in his ‘core’ classes) the range of learners with whom my son is experiencing this great education. That said, the magnet is seated on a much larger LAUSD campus with a variety of smaller learning communities, including a special education program — and for a number of his classes (math, p.e., 2nd language, etc.) he is, importantly, actively part of the larger school population rather than cloistered only among those drawn to the humanities program.
To the point: it is possible through the magnet system, within the boundaries of standard public district policy and funding, to design and support an engaging and inspiring learning environment and education program without submitting students to the lunacy of high-stakes testing, exclusionary admissions practices, and a limited experience in a truly diverse community. My son’s living it, he is better for it as a learner, and we are better for it as a family.
I’d like to second what Chris is saying: At least in my LAUSD experience, a Magnet program is just one of many smaller learning communities on a given campus. Those other programs include special needs students (Resource, Special Day, MR, etc.), as well as EL, honors, and any number of SLC communities.
The LAUSD middle school that I teach at is not a Magnet School, but we do have a HIghly Gifted program that obviously falls into the ‘self-selection’ process. But, in addition to that program, we serve a large/diverse spectrum of special needs kids, English Learners, and a handful of Smaller Learning Academies.
All of these students converge in PE and electives (such as my art classes). I take great pride in the fact that my classroom is one of the places where these students come together to learn from each other and broaden their perspectives. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from the segregation seen at some charter schools.
LAUSD operates at a very impressive scale. That single school district educates half again as many students as my entire state and the this single school district’s budget is 32% higher than total spending on k-12 education in my state. It is that scale that makes this sort of thing possible within the boundaries of standard public district policy and funding.
States like mine need to find ways to educate students with individualized learning plans when there are only a handful in each school district.
I like to call charters “semi-private schools funded with public money”, or sometimes, “semi-public” schools. Here in Philadelphia, where we have many charters, teachers and principals in the regular public schools see over and over how the rules are different for charters: charters can “close enrollment” at a certain point in the year, public schools must take new or returning students all year long, charters often (usually) take very few special education or English language learner students, charters often “counsel out” students who refuse to adhere to the rules–this process is very easy for them compared to the legal process regular public schools must follow. Here in Philadelphia, charters that have taken over neighborhood public schools for “turn around” are allowed to cap class sizes at a lower number than the regular public schools are! This is great for them, but is one of the many things that give them an advantage over true public schools. The list can go on and on, but until we have a level playing field, there can be no accurate comparisons of results.
Many of the differences you cite are matters of public policy. Charters could be more heavily regulated, could be restricted to non-profits only, could be controlled by local school boards, etc, if the state and local governments required it. Changing these aspects of charter schools only requires a change in legislation.
A more fundamental issue with charter schools, as has been discussed here (http://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/05/how-charter-schools-divide-communities/) and here (http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/16/charters-stopped-here/) on this blog, is that charter schools damage communities because of their limiting admissions to only some members of the community and damage schools because they skim off the highest performing students and those students whose parents are the most concerned with education. In this important dimension, magnet schools and charter schools have the same impact on the community and the community’s zoned schools.
Thanks for sharing in a most understandable way the differences between charter and magnet schools.
Hmmm…very interesting!
Looking forward to hearing your opinion of whitherspoon’s detracking reform. I do hope it is for real.
Burris from my iPad
THANK YOU for clearly distinguishing magnet schools and charter schools. Too often, we find that people think they are synonymous.
What I would like to “debunk,” is the idea that they all have selective criteria. While that was common practice in the past. Today, most employ a lottery process which are not necessarily based on academic ability, but rather, interest alone.
While there are significant differences between charter and magnet schools, they are not necessarily in competition with one another. Charters, like magnet schools, add value to the communities they serve, albeit with different objectives.
The research on magnet schools is quite clear: They close the achievement gap, reduce discipline, increase attendance and graduation rates, give parents a reliable choice, and reinvigorate communities. Magnet schools serve as an ideal turnaround model that builds on students natural interest, curiosity and drive to learn.
They’re not just for desegregation purposes anymore. That said, they value and promote diversity, which is an essential ingredient to learning 21st century skills like critical thinking, complex problem solving, cross-cultural communication, evaluating multiple perspectives, and empathy to name a few.
As a way to respond to the interests of parents and businesses, School Boards are looking at magnet schools as a way to increase enrollment, improve academic achievement, and offer theme based programs that prepare student for college and careers. Magnet schools also allow school boards to work cooperatively with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders, and build on the community assets available to them while being innovative and sharing what is being learned in these “incubators of innovation.”
See also: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/reviving-magnet-schools-strengthening-a-successful-choice-option/MSAPbrief-02-02-12.pdf
I think the essential characteristic of a charter school idea is meaningful parental choice in schools. Magnet schools, if they differentiate themselves from the zoned schools in the district and each other, provide that same meaningful parental choice.
I thank you for addressing this important issues but as a board member of Magent Schools of America, I want you to know that many, many magnet schools are based on a random computer lottery and do represent all students. This is true especiallly in large urban areas.
That sounds like the same admission system used for charter schools in New York. Do parents have to apply to enter the lottery for these magnet schools?