Parent activist Karen Wolfe reported that public magnet schools far outperformed privtately managed charter on the recent state tests.
The report released by Cortines said:
““While overall results indicate that independent charter schools scored higher on these tests than traditional LAUSD schools, it also highlights the stellar performance of our magnet schools, which out-performed charter schools at all grade levels,” Cortines wrote.
“In English Language Arts, 65% of magnets scored higher than the state average compared with 34% of independent charters. On the Math assessment, 56% of magnets scored higher than the state average, more than twice what the charters scored.
“This report proves what many public education advocates have always known: the diversity of our public schools is an asset, not something to avoid.
“Charter school parents often choose charters because class sizes are smaller and the school community is similar to their own. But this report turns that choice on its head.
“The performance of our magnets demonstrates how academic innovation can serve minority students and those from underserved communities who are seeking a nontraditional education. While the primary function of our magnets is to ensure ethnic diversity at schools districtwide, the 198 magnet programs and schools also provide a community of learning for students at all economic levels.” Cortines said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Just to make sure I completely understand: Magnet schools in LAUSD are not for the academically strong or gifted? They are not accelerated programs?
I am only familiar with magnet schools for gifted students or students who have very high test scores.
LikeLike
There are many different types of magnet schools. Some are highly selective, and others may be based on special interests such as the arts, sciences, etc.
I grew up in Philadelphia where my brother and I both attended what was then called non-district public schools that were the selective type. That was many years ago. Now they are called magnets.
LikeLike
But they require application and navigation, whch are also one of the reasons charters may appear to do better than traditional public schools, by skimming off motivated students?
Great that magnets are successful but if what they prove is that changing your student mix affects your outcomes they haven’t proved much at all.
LikeLike
I think we have begun to reflexively dismiss the “choice” aspect because it’s been co-opted by those who use choice to deregulate, re-segregate and privatize. But we should not be shying away from declaring the benefits of choice when it is distinct from all those things. My son attends the magnet at our neighborhood school. He wanted to go to our neighborhood school and we looked into which program was best for him. I’m aware of and have experienced plenty of conflict that can result from a campus that has magnet and nonmagnet programs. It takes a very clear intention by administration, teachers and parents to continue to see the school as a whole. We put HUGE effort into that at both my middle and high school.
I hear what people are saying about the self-selection; magnets are intended to do that. But it’s quite different than the kind of selection charters do. There is tons of good research on magnets. Like here from Magnet Schools of America website (I couldn’t get the link to post earlier): “Magnet schools are based on the premise that all students do not learn in the same ways, that if we find a unifying theme or a different organizational structure for students of similar interest, those students will learn more in all areas. In other words, if a magnet school voluntarily attracts students and teachers, it will succeed because, more than for any other reason, those in attendance want to be there.”
We need to create more programs for children who need or desire greater engagement. I am not saying magnets are the end all be all, but for students and parents who do want an alternative, they are far better for society–and for the survival of our school district–than choosing a charter.
LikeLike
Karen,
It seems you are pro choice for magnets, but not for charters. I think this is only a tenable position if you are looking at it from the perspective of adults employed by the schools and not if you look at it from the perspective of children or parents.
And you are right that self-selection for magnets and charters are different, but I think you have it backwards. The effort needed to get into a magnet school is almost always way more than the effort to get into a charter. That certainly seems like the case in LA. And, as I pointed out, many of these magnet schools have strict admission requirements, which charters cannot and do not have.
The same arguments with which you advocate for more magnets work for more charters. We should be supporting more great schools that are well suited to the students that are in them regardless of whether they are magnet or charter.
I understand that you think charters exist to privatize, but I think that is simply not true. Visit charters, talk to those who work in them, talk to parents, students, etc. and privatization has nothing to do with it. It may be the motivation of some who support them, but it isn’t their reason for existence.
LikeLike
John,
I disagree.
Removing students and dollars from the public school system and handing them to private entities is privatization.
Whenever charters are sued, their defense is that they are private corporations, not public schools. They convinced me.
LikeLike
Karen: ” I think we have begun to reflexively dismiss the “choice” aspect because it’s been co-opted by those who use choice to deregulate, re-segregate and privatize.” You make a very important distinction here. My son also attended a magnet public school which included a longer school year and day. While this school was selective, he also got to choose a major (medicine, business, graphic arts , culinary arts, computer science) These opportunities were not available to him at the local high school, and the school was more diverse than his home school which I preferred.
LikeLike
retired teacher – there was a year during which my two children were “statistically insignificant” racially speaking because they were two of the very few white children in their middle school magnet.
During the severe austerity years of our previous superintendent, Eli Broad’s implementor in chief, the arts were decimated in most schools. Almost the only way to have sequential arts instruction within a public school was to enroll in an arts magnet, which is what we did.
LikeLike
My kids attended a public alternative school (same thing) that does not select on test scores nor encourages self-selection through policy. It is a public school run by veteran teachers who are given more freedom to teach. The waiting list is very long and colleges flock to the school knowing the program. Standardized tests play no role in the mission of the school other than to appease the state legislature. The one major difference is the students and parents want to be there and support both teachers and school. Attendance is expected and good behavior is a given. There are no locks on the lockers. The general school tends to not have that interest or atmosphere. Heaven forbid teachers ever be respected in the general public. That is a significant factor.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but magnet schools are designed to accept applicants in a way that fosters the growth of integration, whereas charters inadvertently increase segregation. I work at a magnet, LAUSD and UTLA supported, and we have a more diverse student population than the residential school with which we share a campus. It’s, to me, a better kind of choice.
LikeLike
I regret using the word ‘inadvertently’ above and I regret not thanking Karen for her work publicizing this important piece of news. And now I regret referring to test scores as important — hee hee — what a situation Eli Broad and Wall St. have wrought!
LikeLike
It looks like about 1/4 of them are for Gifted/High Ability or Highly Gifted and have strict, very high admission requirements.
I think it’s great that the magnets are doing well. Hope they replicate them.
LikeLike
The question is if the general population also sees 1/4 of the students Gifted. Gifted today is a very loose term.
LikeLike
I am willing to bet that David Coleman was considered “gifted” in his day.
But it’s worth noting that “Gift” is the German word for poison, which for some of these folks is actually more apt, because some have a truly toxic superiority complex.
Results (I think) from years and years of having everyone (parents, teachers, friends, etc) tell them they are geniuses and or/ more talented than everyone else.
There might be a very small fraction of kids who are truly ‘gifted” (innate talent like that of a Mozart), but I’d bet that for the vast majority who are classified as such, it has far more to do with the opportunities that were provided to them AND with how much their parents complained to get them into the gifted program.
LikeLike
It’s not a loose term for these schools. 85 or better average for a start. That might not seem that high, but in a city where lots of kids miss 30-40 days of school a year, it’s got to have a substantial impact.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see these schools, but it’s not appropriate to compare the scores of selective schools to non-selective ones.
LikeLike
Many students are identified as gifted at such an early age that the label wears off by the time they hit third grade, a time at which the cohort has caught up. They are not gifted, just early developers.
I have seen the label in such cases weight the student down. So used to seeing themselves as gifted, they simply quit academically, expecting to get by without any work. Soon they are not gifted or even proficient, just lazy and below average.
LikeLike
John…when my son was in elementary school in LAUSD almost four decades ago, gifted students as a defined group were those who tested at 130 and above on the Stanford Benet.
As time went on, and GATE programs were developed, these were the students in GATE.
And then there were the ‘highly gifted’ whose scores were at 150 or above, with this same test. There were only two schools in the city which had programs for the highly gifted and the competition for a spot was fierce. Many of these children were only in 1st and 2nd graders when tested, and many were in the 180 – 200, and off the charts range. The teachers had a very challenging time keeping up with them, and it was a major gift to be an educator and observe how well these public school kids taught each other.
It was also the time that the John Birch Society wanted to take over all our public schools, much as Eli Broad is trying to do today. But the Birchers wanted to implement a reactionary political viewpoint, whereas today’s privatizers want to inflict and impose a free marketplace for investors. Both groups goal was killing the unions.
Many of these gifted kids in the 60s and 70s did qualify for and attend the new concept of ‘magnet schools’ which were in part set up to encourage diversity (in the era of Lyndon Johnson and civil rights laws) for the children from all areas of LA. Bussing was a new concept and was both idealized and battered. Now LAUSD magnets are as Karen Wolfe has described.
LikeLike
Gifted around here is a label from a test given in early elementary for tracking. If parents complain hard enough, their child becomes gifted. One of my own kids was never labeled “gifted” but rather ASD. Yet he does calculus quotient rule differentiation in his head with a chain rule or two thrown in. We haven’t tried integration, yet. So gifted more often means not “those” kids.
But that does not include the truly gifted which I have taught and enjoy interacting with. There is a definite difference.
LikeLike
I appreciate the news and the long and excellent service of Ray Cortines. I encourage Superintendent Cortines and the rest of us to take the next step, and adopt a new metric! We are caught in a trap of our own making every time we choose to use standardized test scores to compare public schools with charters.
Let’s use other descriptors and not engage with the standardized testing instruments that are doing so much harm to our schools. We can reject these tools and get people thinking about other ways to describe school success.
I’m sure that in five minutes each of us could make a spectacular list of what we want to see that could be measured or described without distorting the real work of the school. Here’s my five-minute list:
We can measure attendance and graduation rates, adequate funding that allows for good and stable staffing levels that include experienced teachers with stable pensions, reasonable class size, and a physical environment that is in good repair.
We can also look at such positive aspects as student and family access to all of the following:
– participation in school governance – sports – the arts – teaching languages other than English – a staffed and up-to-date library – access to technology for all at school and in their homes – participation in community service programs, including restorative justice programs – opportunities for students to travel to participate in activities beyond their school community
Also services offered by the school, such as medical care and counselling, and factors that we know promote mutual respect and equity–such as integration based on SES, home languages and cultures. Offering these services across the board, rather than just in communities with TItle I funding, will build support and understanding of the value of these services.
We can stop measuring schools with high stakes tests and turning schools and public space over to charters, while condemning and closing our public schools. Instead let’s work together to switch to positive ways to describe schools so we can meet the needs of our children and our communities.
Please share your lists!
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly! This report, though, is significant because it shows that, even by the charter loving privatizers’ own metrics, public schools perform better.
LikeLike
Here here!
LikeLike
“This report proves…”
“Proof by Test Score”
“Proof by Test Score”
All the rage
“Truth” that “Best”
Is Testing Sage
LikeLike
“Proof by Test”
Is all the rage
“Truth” that “Best”
Is Testing Sage
LikeLike
My son went to the first Humanities high school, a magnet school, where all tests were essays, and you didn’t know which of the interdisciplinary teacher team would be grading (Art, history, English, or philosophy). It was an excellent program, but to get into a magnet school you had to acquire “points” based on previous attendance at an LAUSD school and where that was, siblings that attended, etc. I have a friend who applied every year for any magnet and because she had an only child who began in a private school never got into one even though she applied for many years before giving up. One could say that Charters are simply a natural progression.
LikeLike
Yes, when their own web site refers to it as the “infamous magnet school point system”, you can only imagine what it’s like. It seems like people have to develop strategies for how to gain admittance. Not something low SES families are likely to be successful at..
LikeLike
I agree, in some respects magnet schools were the gateway to the school choice fad.
I many parents enter lotteries for desirable magnets and charters and will not consider their neighborhood school.
Just like charters, the original goal of magnet schools was never realized.
However, I do think comparing charter and magnet schools in a given area is a good comparison, because both schools are choice schools which require a certain level of parental involvement below
LikeLike
changemaker, the “infamous point system” favors children who are attending LAUSD public schools. So a private school student trying to get into a magnet will always be at a disadvantage. That’s another difference between magnets and charters and I think it’s a good one.
LikeLike
Magnets in Los Angeles were a way to support integration. Many schools, such as the campus housing the magnet referred to by Karen Wolfe, have also developed programs that are schools-within-schools. Los Angeles Unified covers quite large distances so choosing a program is also about choosing transportation. Magnets provide transportation. Other programs do not. And considering traffic, it can be difficult time-wise to participate in a school of “choice,” even a charter of choice.
LikeLike
Do the LA magnets close the achievement gap? Are the schools within schools integrated?
LikeLike
concerned mom, that’s the whole point of the report. While I would rather focus on opportunity than achievement, the report shows clearly that even by this measure, magnets are doing a better job closing the “achievement gap”. I’d say they’re doing that by focusing on opportunity! Enrollment in magnets is by a complex formula, not a straight lottery, in order to achieve racial balance. This is especially important as our housing choices are leading to more segregation than ever.
LikeLike
I guess I am not seeing it, in pg. 7 and 10 of the report % at or above grade level, for all grades:
ELA:
LA schools
Not economically disadvantage:54%
Economically disadvantaged: 28%
Delta: 26
ELA magnet schools all grade
Not economically disadvantage:69%
Economically disadvantaged: 49%
Delta: 20
Math:
LA schools
Not economically disadvantage:44%
Economically disadvantaged: 20%
Delta: 24
Magnet schools
Not economically disadvantage:59%
Economically disadvantaged: 37%
Delta: 22
I see scores increasing for all students in magnets, but I wouldn’t consider closing the achievement gap by 2-6 points considerable.
I think using the argument that magnets do a better job is not fair to the traditional public schools in the district.
Also, all we are using are test scores, which I thought don’t mean much. For all I know, the magnets are pushing more test prep than the traditional district schools.
LikeLike
When I taught at an LA magnet, a K-8 Visual and Performing Arts magnet, there were no tests or requirements to get in. Neighborhood kids were given entry automatically (some chose not to go because there were no sports or traditional pe classes….we had dance classes….modern and folk), and then remaining spots were given based on a point system based on siblings at the school and diversity….the over-riding factor was that the school’s racial population had to accurately reflect the diversity in the city. As I understood it at the time, the magnets were put in place to draw kids into the inner-city schools. I do not know if things have changed since I left.
LikeLike
One more thing, just for Karen. You know who I am and where I teach. One of the things wrong with the Broad-Cortines-reformer principal we just were able to get removed was his diluting of the magnet program by overly mixing the residential students with the magnet students.
LikeLike
This report is both complex and simple, but Karen Wolfe is absolutely correct in highlighting it.
What makes all these points debatable is when anybody begins parsing different slices while including and/or excluding different factors. This has been the Charter school modus operendi for years.
My sympathies have always lay with the public schools and the Charters have derived enormous benefit from appealing to parents with the word “choice”. The huge financial industry that backs the Charters have played that word for all its worth the way they have used “Civil Rights” to their great advantage.
I would argue they co-opted both words, but they are not entirely wrong because of how the federal government and Beaudry (with John Deasy’s help) have sabotaged public school’s ability to “compete”.
In my public school utopia, there would be plenty of different pedagogical models for parents and their kids to choose which school and instruction fits their needs and sensibilities. This would require plenty of intelligent, directed funding to make each of these schools the best they could be with small classes and lots of resources.
Build on the Magnet School Model already in place and expand it.
Your kid do better in a more free-form, student-centered school? LAUSD should provide that with the staff fully committed to that model.
Your kid functions in a more traditional, structured, top-down directed model, then LAUSD should offer that with teachers and administrators capable of doing it right.
If there is plenty of parent/student demand for a certain type of school, it definitely needs to be replicated. The Board of Ed could serve as the champions for shepherding all these schools and LAUSD could be the paradigm for the nation.
It would also eliminate the need for charters.
It would help make a better argument of inclusion of all classes and races getting the best possible education. Race and class issues are at the heart of much of the argument and the discussion is not particularly honest about how those factors are played. Societal neglect (with the help of people like John Deasy and his backers) have exacerbated the inequality and often it is galling to see how Charters propagate the segregation by their assistance in destroying the public system.
The public school magnet model massively expanded would keep the financial predators at bay for a while. I’m not naive about those entities, though. Those folks are very clever and pay others far more than a humble teacher’s salary to come up with inventive ways to sink their talons in.any system where huge amount of cash is involved. Maybe the municipal governments can finally get these guys to contribute to assisting the public system if they get something out of it as well and that might be the Faustian bargain the public schools have to make for a détente.
But let’s give the public system a fighting chance by not tying their hands with demanding they give students a type of education that parents are obviously fleeing from.
More later.
Much more.
LikeLike
This correlates to what we know – magnet schools attract involved, supportive families – which translates to higher performance. Charters often do this by excluding children.
LikeLike