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.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
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 Wisconsin many are. They are authorized as instrumentality charter schools, run under the authorization of the local school board, and their governing board is limited in power. Milwaukee is a different ball game with “2r” charters, but I like the Wisconsin model with local control through the school boards for instrumentality charters. All the employees are employees of the district.
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 (https://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/05/how-charter-schools-divide-communities/) and here (https://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?
What is the difference between a for-profit charter school and a private school? Do for-profit charter school still get public funding? What is the tax status of a for-profit charter? Thanks!
Private schools do not ask for or get public funding, unless the legislate passes a voucher program.
For-profit charter schools are funded with taxpayer dollars, which may be used to pay investors.
I would imagine for profit charter schools are taxed as any for profit firm.
I live i Citrus County, Florida and we have a charter school run by the school district. It is open to any high school student. It is called the Academy of Environmental Science and it is also heavily involved in Marine Science…as it is literally over sea grasses and tidal areas of Kings’ Bay. The teachers are part of the Citrus County School District, covered under the same contract, have the same superintendent, and some spend the whole day at the Academy and some students spend part of the day there. Apparently we have the best of all worlds! Our county has over 60 percent of the students on free and reduced price lunches…so it is not a wealthy district. Some students get their diplomas from both there and the IB program at LeCanto High School..
Thank you for your candor in describing the differences between charter and magnet schools. This was the most worthwhile and informative description I’ve found online. I heard you speak in Lawrence, Kansas, a few years ago and was very appreciative of your unique perspective, broad knowledge, thought-provoking insights, willingness to change your positions when beliefs you held turned out to be erroneous, and passionate advocacy for public schools. It was one of the most astute understandings of public schools on a national level that I had heard in a long time. Thank you for your efforts to expand understanding of the crucial role public schools play in our society.
Interesting
Hi, could y ou please clarify – it is my understanding that schools are not allowed to select their student body accodrding to demographic variables, yet you describe that the magnet schools “select a racially diverse student body”. How does this work? Also, don’t charter schools enroll by lottery? How does that enable segregation?
Gefen,
Schools do select by demographic variables to achieve racial balance.
Charter schools enroll by lottery but choose the students they want and exclude those they don’t want. Charter schools are more segregated than public schools. In the South, they are whiter, in the North and Midwest, they are almost completely all-black or all-black and Hispanic. Read the research from the UCLA Civil Rights Project.
Hi Ms. Ravitch,
I really enjoyed your blog on this subject. I am writing a paper and would like to be able to quote your blog with your permission.
Do you have a ‘sources’ section, so I can check out some of the sources for this excellent synopsis?
Thank you
Dahlia
This article does a disservice to charter schools that are run by educational foundations or even school districts or municipalities. Look into Indian River Charter High School in Vero Beach, Florida. It is run by a non-profit educational foundation based in the community. It is not a “private school” but a public school. It is just not run by the county school board. It democratizes quality education by providing a high bar for entry regardless of race or class and it’s tuition-free. All facilities were built and are maintained by the non-profit foundation and the board meetings are public meetings.
Yes, too many charters have been allowed to proliferate without proper oversight or for the benefit of for-profit corporate interests. However, the trouble with traditional public schools (and public universities as well) is that we refuse to call them out as the monopolies they are. Charters need to be held to a higher standard of transparency than what we are seeing now, but let’s also be responsible and recognize that many charters are performing a public service by forcing districts to streamline, introduce innovative programs and clean out unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. In some cases, charter schools ARE doing a better job but in other cases there is absolutely no evidence that they do anything except siphon resources without delivering a better product.
Garbonzo, as you know, Florida is overrun by charter scams, fly-by-night entrepreneurs, for-profits, charters that never open after collecting start-up funds, and charter chains connected to key legislators. Charters dominate the list of low-performing schools in the state. I hope you can lead a campaign to clean up this predatory sector.
Sadly, Florida legislators decided in their ‘wisdom’ to require 50% of the school funding for capital improvements MUST go to charter schools to remodel or actualy build buildings during this last session. Our district is one of the poorest in the state, and we have need of major capital funding for things like AC, building replacement, roofs.. Our legislator are paid big bucks (and some of them actually own charter school corporations) by lobbyists to keep charter schools, which are mostly bad news, in the ‘money’. Oddly enough, as one of the poorest districts in the state, we also have a ‘charter’ school, run by a board other than the school board, but teachers are from the district, and students are bussed there daily for their part time classes…and this school has won international rankings. It is Academy for Environment Science…and the buildings are not part of the school system. The students earn their diplomas from both their home high school and the Academy. BUT..like Indian River, these are few and far between.
My children were caught in the Court ordered desegregation in Indianapolis in the 70’s and one of mine went to a Montessori Public School. They developed a variety of types of public schools and the children could stay in the neighborhood schools or apply for a magnet school (yes, at that point race was the ‘key’ in placement), but much of it worked well. I taught for many years, and see that magnet schools, properly done, and certain ‘community charter schools’ that are actually part of the public schools work pretty well. Charter schools, far too often are scams and use non-certified teachers, pay lower salaries, and do NOT have to meet the same state standards for ‘testing’ (which is another boondoggle) as the public schools.
Great article