HISD Comprehensive Magnet 
Program Review 
Final Report January 6, 2011 
 
 
 
 

Respectfully Submitted, 
 
Magnet Schools of America, Inc. 
 
Dr.  Robert Brooks, Executive Director 
Doreen Marvin, Project Site Manager 
 

 
INTRODUCTION:

Magnet Schools of America (MSA) prepared a Request for Proposal on August 12, 2010

to complete a Comprehensive Review of the Magnet Program System for the Houston

Independent School District (HISD). A contract was awarded to Magnet Schools of America

(MSA) on October 7, 2010. Notification of MSA’s successful bid occurred in early September

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

MSA’s Executive Director regarding process, Phase I and Phase II requirements, reporting

timelines, and dates for document reviews, community forums, and Magnet school site visits. A

project site manager and twelve MSA expert consultants in Magnet school education,

administration, curriculum and instruction, evaluation, teaching and learning, budget, and higher

education were hired on contract by MSA to participate in the review. Each consultant was

“vetted” and prepared by MSA prior to the onsite reviews and again once onsite. During the

school-site visits, de-briefing meetings occurred each evening by the project manager. This final

report and its findings and recommendations, submitted on January 6, 2011 (original due date

December 17, 2010, but pushed ahead to provide for new and emerging data from HISD related

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.

1 
 
OVERVIEW OF MAGNET SCHOOLS

What are Magnet Schools?

Magnet schools are elementary and secondary theme-based public schools of choice.

Magnet schools plan and develop programs using local, state, and federal funds, specifically the

federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). Other federal grants associated with

Magnet Schools are Title I, Voluntary Public School Choice, Advanced Placement, and Smaller

Learning Community grants. MSAP supports LEAs to develop new and/or to significantly

revise existing Magnet schools. The goal is to provide students with a valuable educational and

personal experience, prepare them to function in a diverse society, and assist districts to

eliminate, reduce or prevent long-standing patterns of racial isolation. Magnet schools serve as

models for school improvement and “turnaround schools” for students in low-performing

schools, and provide students an opportunity to succeed academically while learning in a racially

diverse environment.

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.

2 
 
What are the Tenets of Magnet Schools?

• Magnet schools improve diversity and help reduce minority group isolation.

• Magnet schools enhance the conventional school curriculum, thereby offering additional

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 embody five essential elements1 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 K‐8 Magnets, 2008; Giving Parents 
Options—Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice & Supplemental Education 
Services Under NCLB. 

3 
 
schools and a requirement for districts seeking federal funds under the Magnet Schools

Assistance Program (MSAP). HISD’s online survey of parents (October 2010) found that

diversity is a significant value for many parents. The results further reflected that many

respondents think meeting the goal of improving diversity is important. The pie chart below

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

4 
 
Brown Academy participate in the School Arts Support Initiative, which has brought about

increased student attendance and higher test scores -- GothamSchools.org (New York). In a

November 2007 study by Dale Ballou, Vanderbilt University, reported that for at least some

students in some places, Magnet schools have a positive effect on academic achievement.

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 to

strategies 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 school’s theme. Each school should demonstrate effective engagement of partners that

support the instructional theme. For example, business partners might become deliverers of

professional development and a source for developing innovative curriculum and extra-value

standards. Many Magnet schools demonstrate effective partnerships with parents for fundraising,

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 school’s 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.
5 
 
 • Positive and increased parent and community involvement with staff.

• Positive student achievement that is based on state and national tests such as SAT, ACT,

and Stanford. Achievement should also reflect “standardized indicators” for the theme

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 21st

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 1970’s and 80’s as a means for

desegregation and reducing minority group isolation (MGI) in public schools. During that time

schools applied to the Board of Education for Magnet status following principal, teacher, parent,

and community planning and advocacy. Thirty-four (34) Magnet schools were established. The

process of developing Magnet schools continued and was formal as schools had to meet certain

benchmarks to receive Magnet status to receive financial support from the district general fund.
6 
 
Given the resource allocations for Magnet schools in the original history of Magnet school

development, there was an incentive for schools to develop into Magnet schools to seek the

funding. This is especially true when one looks at how schools are funded with dollar

allocations following students including transportation for eligible students. As the costs

associated with funding Magnet schools escalated over time, allocations became less consistent

and were non-formula based (and allocations have remained in place with little or no oversight

or accountability by the district—HISD 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 non

equitable system of Magnet funding. A detail report of Magnet school funding for 2010-2011 is

included in the “HISD Magnet Program Data & Demographics Chart.” MSA found no evidence

that schools receiving Magnet funds are serving more students or providing a higher- value

education than those schools receiving no Magnet funding. The comprehensive review reveals

that some schools were approved by the Board without following a consistent process. Some of

these schools were awarded some small amount of funding and transportation, but some schools

were approved with no funding and no transportation. Within at least the past three years, there

has been a moratorium on the addition of new Magnet schools. The importance of the culture

of school choice (Magnet schools being one of the options) along with the pressures of the

economics of funding schools and the challenges associated with maintaining 113 Magnet

schools, led the district to this comprehensive review of its Magnet school system.

GENERAL FINDINGS

This comprehensive review and the recent award of a U.S. Department of Education

Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grant make a case for change. The document

7 
 
review, data analysis, and site visits revealed that currently there is not a comprehensive or

cohesive System of Magnet Schools in HISD. In our opinion, there appears to be 113 individual

Magnet systems. Based on all of the document and data reviews, surveys, interviews, meetings,

and school-site visits, the following are general findings of the district’s Magnet program:

• 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 HISD’s newly funded (September 2010)

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

8 
 
effective Magnet school system discussed above (beginning on page 3) and also included in the

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 Budget

Allocation Analysis.

Scope of Work for Phase I:

9 
 
 • Evaluate the District’s Vision and Governance of Magnet Programs including a review

and analysis of purpose and goals; Magnet standards; and each school’s ability to

house/sustain a viable Magnet program.

• Analyze the public’s vision of Magnet programs by reviewing parent, community, and

student input regarding the Magnet system; this review, was conducted in collaboration

with HISD, by observing community focus groups organized and facilitated by HISD

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

10 
 
district, and instructional theme and feeder implications of the school as part of the System of

Magnets within HISD. Furthermore MSA reviewed and consulted the following:

• 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 School
Choice Programs, (2004); Giving Parents Options—Strategies 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.

• HISD’s MSAP grant proposal (awarded 2010).

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

Purpose: To assess the Public Vision of HISD’s Magnet Programs (1) by observing and

reviewing parent, community, and student input regarding the Magnet system from community

focus groups organized and facilitated by HISD staff and (2) by reviewing and analyzing

information collected through an HISD’s online survey.

Process Tasks Purpose

Community Onsite observations provided the public’s vision,
Forums (13) concerns, and inequities in HISD’s Magnet
attended by 914 Programs
parents/community
representatives
Community Online survey results of the public’s vision,
Online Survey concerns, and inequities in HISD’s Magnet
offered in English, Programs.
Spanish, and
Vietnamese from
1,191 respondents

11 
 
 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

HISD Central Office: Pending
Board Member Sign-in
October 12, 2010 Advisory Committee 11:30 AM Sheets 14
October 12, 2010 Reagan High School 6:00 PM 75 51
October 12, 2010 Yates High School 7:00 PM 35 42
October 13, 2010 Chavez High School 6:30 PM 42 35
HISD Central Office:
Board Member
October 14, 2010 Advisory Committee 11:30 AM 70 60
Superintendent’s
Student Advisory
October 14, 2010 Round Table 4:30 PM 27 27
October 15, 2010 HISD Central Office 10:00 AM 110 92
October 26, 2010 Madison High School 7:00 PM 40 7
October 27, 2010 Key Middle School 7:00 PM 60 41
October 28, 2010 Bellaire High School 7:00 PM 250 135
October 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.

12 
 
 • 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 HISD’s application process, selection criteria, and student assignment.

Additionally, a student forum (Superintendent’s Student Advisory) was held at the HISD

central office with twenty seven (27) students attending; all students completed a feedback card.

The students were forthcoming and interested in the program review. They were excited to be

talking about their schools and were thankful for the opportunity to participate. Issues raised

included:

ƒ Rigor of the educational process at the Magnets

ƒ Entrance criteria for Magnets

ƒ 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

13 
 
 consistent and transparent. Many community members would like the guidelines,

processes, and reasons for decision making to be consistent, simple, and widely

published.

• Funding of Programs: There were strong concerns about the lack of equity in the funding

of Magnet programs across the district. Many community members would like to see

specific funding formulas assigned to the allocations of money and resources to the

Magnet programs.

• Arts Magnet Schools: Retaining the current acceptance practices for the Arts Magnet

schools is important for the community. This practice includes auditions at the middle

and high school levels. Open enrollment at the elementary level for Arts Magnet

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
14 
 
 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 HISD’s

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 program’s theme-based program and

its compliance with current Magnet procedural guidelines. The review included site visits to

each Magnet school (walk-through), staff interviews, school binder reviews, and data analysis of

documents from Phase I. Each site visit was one-half day. The following table provides a

summary of the process tasks employed and purpose of each:

15 
 
 Process Tasks Purpose

Document Review of 113
Magnet School Binders
prepared by each Magnet
school, submitted to the
Office of School Choice
for Magnet Schools of
America’s school site visits
Site Visits to 113 HISD
Magnet Schools – 10/25 to
10/29/10
Protocol: Walk-through at
each Magnet School
Protocol: Interviews with
administration, Magnet
coordinator, and other staff
at each Magnet School
MSA Debriefing Protocol:
Findings, Commendations,
and Recommendations
To prepare each consultant for school site visits
by reviewing prepared materials by each Magnet
school requested by Magnet Schools of America.
The topics for review and reporting included:
School Climate; Program
Descriptions; School Leadership; Marketing &
Recruiting; Budget; Plus-Deltas (what is working,
what needs improvement); and District Support.
To visit on site each Magnet school by a team of
12 MSA experienced consultants—each
consultant followed a prepared schedule
clustering by experience and level—one
consultant per school, five days, up to 2 per day.
To observe teaching and learning at each school
and the integration of the Magnet theme; to assess
the theme’s impact on the instructional process;
and to validate materials and information shared
by each school.
To validate observations, clarify information
from staff input and instructional/theme materials
shared with consultants at each school. To
dialogue with those involved in the school on a
daily basis.
To debrief each evening, the MSA Site Manager
discussed with the MSA consultants their
observations, information collected from the
walk-through and interviews. To prepare the
day’s report for submission to the Project Site
Manager.

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

16 
 
 • Scheduling of students into appropriate Magnet program course sequence

• Availability of activities and resources related to the specialty beyond the core subject

requirements

• Outside involvement and mentoring of Magnet students, if appropriate

• Capstone activities related to specialty curriculum

• Certification, knowledge, training, and experience of Magnet specialty teachers

• Facilities, technology, materials, and/or supplies for the Magnet offerings

• School process for marketing and recruitment

• School process for handling student applications, qualifications, selection, and wait lists

• School process for monitoring student achievement, handling growth plans, and

documenting students who leave the program

General Recommendations:

While exceptional instruction and leadership was observed, not all schools demonstrated

sufficient evidence of the five essential elements of successful Magnet schools to continue to be

classified as a Magnet school. As previously mentioned, MSA based recommendations on the

community forum information, data and document reviews, the geographic location of Magnet

campuses, the current capacity of the Magnet campus, current enrollment statistics, the student

achievement status of the school, current plans for the district and instructional theme, and feeder

implications of the school as part of the System of Magnets within HISD.

The following recommendations create a System of Magnets rooted in best practices,

support a philosophy that all students have gifts and talents and can achieve high standards,

support neighborhood schools, and college and career readiness. All recommendations are

17 
 
integrated in nature and are based on all document and data reviews and Phase I and Phase II

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 family’s first choice and then if a child has a specific

interest or talent they should have opportunities to attend school elsewhere in the district.

Vanguard schools and programs should continue to provide rigor for identified Ggifted and

Talented students, yet not be considered in the Magnet choices due to the lack of theme-based,

focused instruction. The Career Technical (CTE) schools should continue to provide the career

focused educational choices, and not be considered in the Magnet choices. As with all other

schools, Magnets should provide choice(s) for students with specific interests and talents and

offer high quality instruction. This instruction should be theme based and Magnet schools should

demonstrate practices that improve the diversity in Magnet schools by reducing MinorityG

Isolation (MGI). Therefore, we recommend establishing four (4) types of school choice in the

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
18 
 
similar elements were also identified as “pillars” in the 2006 HISD PEER review. Therefore, we

recommend that HISD embrace these essential elements as a part of the fabric and definition of

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 District’s has a 92% minority and an 8% non-minority student body. Progress

toward that overall goal should be made on an annual basis by at least 2% or more per year at an

average. Evaluation of this criterion should be completed annually and should include a rigorous

review of the application pool as well as actual school enrollment data. Should a school not

make its 2% annual growth goal, adjustments should be made in the marketing and recruitment

plan at both the school and the district level to ameliorate the deficit. The MSAP grant has

specific goals and guidelines for reducing MGI. The practices adopted to achieve these goals

should be the foundation for change across the district with regard to reducing MGI. As the

MSAP schools achieve their goals the district will have to look at the overall demographic

picture of HISD and adjust individual school’s diversity goals accordingly. Given the

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

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.
19 
 
4. Professional Development. Best practices show that effective Magnet schools develop

professional development plans to support the theme in Magnet schools. HISD must also

consistently customize professional development for Magnet schools that addresses cultural

proficiency in the classroom and special attention is given to strategies that bring diverse student

groups together in Magnet school common areas as well as classrooms within the school.

Furthermore, HISD should customize professional development for Magnet school staff that

aligns with the district goals and the Magnet instructional themes.

5. Dynamic Partnerships – including parents. Best practices show that effective Magnet

schools work to develop partnerships that align with the school’s theme. Many of the current

Magnet 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

HISD’s Student Assignment Plan and the Board Policy governing school choice. It should

be planned in the context of the System of Magnets within HISD. Components of the plan

must include funding, the need for the Magnet theme, recruitment strategies, and diversity

20 
 
 goals. It should have input from families to be recruited, staff at the school, and community

stakeholders.

For example, Primary Years Program (PYP), Middle Years Program (MYP), and

Diploma programs are randomly found throughout the district. The district must engage in a

discussion focusing on how new programs in schools are decided, developed and implemented.

Currently there are plans by a number of Magnet schools to add IB to their instructional theme.

It appears as though these plans are school-by-school with little consideration for the strategic

direction of the district, the cost to the district budget, and the right number of programs for the

number of schools and students. While IB programs are rooted in good instructional practice and

offer quality education if implemented with fidelity, HISD should be mindful of over saturating

or under-serving areas of the district. Additionally, there are programs labeled Dual Language,

Foreign Language, and Languages. In some Magnet programs this means a student gets 45

minutes per week of instruction in a language other than English and in some schools it means

immersion in a language other than English 50% of the time. Magnets schools teaching a

language other than English as their theme should learn from each other’s best practices and

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 district’s Magnet

programs, and a process for revising, eliminating, and developing new Magnet school

programs. The Office of School Choice would be responsible for the development of a

process to benchmark schools against these elements every 18 months, completing one-third

of the schools each year. If a school is not achieving the benchmarks, an action plan with
21 
 
 timelines would be required by the school to address the areas that need improvement. Such

areas may include marketing and recruitment to increase student enrollment, theme revisions,

improving student achievement, improving unique partnerships, and professional

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

school’s plan, assist in implementation, and monitor quarterly. The action plan format

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

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 should

establish clear feeder patterns for Magnet and non-Magnet schools/programs, create a

district-wide lottery process, and establish goals for improving diversity in HISD’s Magnet

schools. It is recommended that the goals be realistic (i.e. 2% per year), be based on race-

neutral criteria and therefore, focus on marketing and recruitment strategies. Student

Assignment Plans provide for a process to create additional seats in each Magnet school that

reflect the demographics of HISD’s culturally rich community. Student Assignment Plans

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
22 
 
 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 MSA’s “Magnet Programs Data & Demographic Chart.” MSA

received a clear message from the community during the forums that equity of access to

Magnet schools and a transparent process for access was extremely important. Therefore,

MSA recommends that Principals do not invoke the Principal Agreement Transfers until all

neighborhood and Magnet spaces have been filled and there are no students on a wait list.

6. Develop systemic communication strategies among the Chief School Officers and the

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
23 
 
 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 based

instruction.

10. The System of Magnet Programs should be evaluated every three years with interim reviews

annually (at a minimum 25% of the schools each year). This evaluation should incorporate a

review of feeder patterns, capacity of the schools, enrollment patterns of zoned and non-

zoned students, budget, professional development plans, relevance of the Magnet themes

across the district, and funding appropriations. Additionally, it must also focus on student

achievement, attracting and retaining Magnet students, and overall school effectiveness. If

Magnet school is not showing evidence of success as determined by the above indicators, it

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:

24 
 
 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 district’s financial guidelines. In MSA’s review of

funding, a 2008 document, developed by HISD but never adopted, provides the

essence of this recommendation. This document should be reviewed for its relevancy

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

School Static Staff + Non Salary Allocation + Total

Magnet
Allocation

School-Wide and/or 1 Magnet Program enrollment X $

Dedicated Magnet Coordinator Unique allocation for
program type

School Within a 1 Magnet $

School Coordinator if over
enrollment goal of at
least 100 students at
each grade level.
Less than 100 a half-
time or .5 coordinator
would be assigned
 

25 
 
 

Program Type School Wide or School Within a Rationale

Dedicated School

STEM (includes $10 per student/or a % $20 per student Provision for PD
sciences, over the base resource materials in excess of
technology, allocation per pupil district’s base
math, and expenditure (e.g., 120%) resource allocation,
engineering Title I, Unique PUA
focus) add on.

Fine $10 per student/or a % $20 per student Provision for PD

Arts/Performing over the base resource materials in excess of
Arts allocation per pupil district’s base
expenditure (e.g., 120%) resource allocation,
Title I, Unique PUA
add on.

Specialized $10 per student/or a % $20 per student Provision for PD

themes such as over the base resource materials in excess of
languages, allocation per pupil district’s base
Montessori, IB, expenditure (e.g., 120%) resource allocation,
Micro-Society Title I, Unique PUA
add on.

c. The Office of School Choice must set allocations for each school’s capital

expenditures on a rotation basis serving at least 25% of the schools each year.

d. Budgets at each site need to be reallocated and/or adjusted to address the needs of

schools not meeting academic success or not attracting diverse students to the school.

Budgets need to reflect the number of students served, capacity to expand, and the

instructional theme.

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).

26 
 
 f. A Five year Magnet capital plan should be developed by the Office of School Choice

and the Office of School Choice must be accountable for its implementation.

The following are areas that MSA believes the district should review for future

consideration:

13. Commission a study for the Fine Arts programs in the district. Data gathered from the

community revealed a variety of opinions regarding the Arts focused Magnet schools.

Opinions related to curriculum offerings, staffing, resources, audition criteria, and feeder

patterns were diverse and strongly voiced. There is a public perception that some of the Arts

schools are more desirable than others. School enrollment and demographic data reveal

dramatic differences from school to school. It is recommended that members of the study

committee include (a) faculty, (b) parents, (c) students, (d) administrators, (e) professional

development specialist, (f) curriculum specialists and (g) members of the Houston area Arts

venues, (e.g., post-secondary Arts programs, practitioners, local artists, graphic designers).

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
27 
 
 (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 CTE

The 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.

28 
 
 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 Coordinator’s

performance appraisal in conjunction with the campus principal.

3. Documents and guidelines in the Office of School Choice need to be updated to reflect

current practices. Currently many of the documents are out of date and have not been

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 HISD’s Student Assignment Plan should be added to the
29 
 
 Magnet Guidelines. Documents that govern student placement, such as the

application and any matrix, must be updated to reflect more consistency across the

district.

4. Magnet schools’ curriculum and instructional practices should have standards beyond those

of non-Magnet schools based on best practices for the theme of the Magnet school (refer also

to District recommendation #4). This is in alignment with the 2006 Peer Review and the five

(5) essential elements of Magnet schools. These standards and practices must be consistent

across the theme-alike schools. This should be implemented through Magnet Coordinator

meetings and professional development and overseen by the Office of School Choice.

5. The Assistant Superintendent for the Office of School Choice should form an advisory

committee to review and address the recommendations of this program review. The advisory

committee should include a variety of stakeholders, including staff, parents and community

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
30 
 
 least three times throughout the recruitment/application period each year to be able to

make adjustments to the marketing strategies and assure greater diversity in the

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 process

be 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 neighbor’s child

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

were completed, their neighbor’s child was chosen for the same school.” Some

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
31 
 
 capacity and demographic reports it is obvious that the current selection process

based on neighborhood, siblings, and then other students is not fulfilling the mission

to provide a multicultural experience for all students and therefore is not acceptable.

If additional students are going to be added to the five federal Magnet grant schools

and a lottery system is used for that process, the district needs to model that process.

As previously cited, the process should replicate the current centralized Vanguard

lottery process.

Individual Magnet School Campuses:

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

review of the individual schools included a review of materials provided by the school,

interviews with key leadership, staff, and in some cases parents and students, as well as a walk-

through of the school. All components of the Phase II school review were incorporated with the

Phase I requirements (and reports) to create the Final Report and Recommendations. Two

attachments provide Magnet School Data and Demographics (Attachment A) and a summary for

each individual Magnet school. The summary includes findings, commendations, and

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

32 
 
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 other

schools the instructional theme was a separate course(s) with little or no integration or relevance

to the theme. Furthermore, and in these instances, when teachers were asked “why” they had this

type of themed instruction, answers were not readily available. Therefore, that if the above

recommendations associated with (1) commissioning a review of the Arts programs, (2)

engaging in a discussion regarding World Language programs, and (3) creating systemic

communication between the Assistant Superintendent for School Choice and the Chief School

Officers, individually and collectively, are implemented, there will be a natural progression of

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
33 
 
of a strong marketing and recruitment initiative, (4) community perceptions of schools, (5)

degree of parent engagement across the district, (6) inequity of Magnet funding, (7) lack of

diversity goals, and (8) inconsistent professional development of staff. According to nationally

recognized educational scholars (three of whom are Tony Wagner, Richard Lemon, and Robert

Marzano), “dedicated and knowledgeable leadership is critical to improving outcomes for all

students.” We believe this holds true for Magnet schools. MSA recommends professional and

Magnet leadership development for principals and theme-based and ethnic diversity professional

development for the faculty and staff.

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on MSA’s comprehensive review of HISD’s Magnet school system and its Magnet

schools has produced a detailed and documented “Magnet Program Data and Demographic

Chart” for each level to include specific recommendations and corresponding rationale for each

Magnet school. A summary of the “Magnet Data & Demographic Chart” for each Magnet

school visited follows. The complete data on each school are included in Attachment A.

34 
 
ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:

Elementary Current Current Proposed Proposed Recommendati Recommendat

School Program Program Program Program on ion Rationale
Type Type

SWP‐ School Wide Program
SWAS‐ School Within A School
SUS‐ Separate and Unique School
SWVP‐ School Wide Vanguard Program
DWVP‐ District Wide Vanguard Program

Askew SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Bell SWP Physical Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary Development ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation due program
to capacity requirements,
issues school capacity
is at issue.

Berry SWP Environment same Same Improve Diversity is

Elementary al Science diversity in 99/1% and
School student needs to be
enrollment improved by
2% (-+) over
the next 3
years.

Bruce SWP Fine Arts same same Improve Diversity is

Elementary diversity in 99/1% and
School student needs to be
enrollment improved by
2% (-+) over
the next 3
years.

35 
 
Burbank SWAS Physical Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary Development ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria

Burrus SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantly Diversity is

Elementary revise Magnet 99/1% and
School program to a needs to be
School Wide improved by
Program; 2% (-+) over
Improve the next 3
diversity in years. Moving
student to a SWP
enrollment should make
this possible.

Carrillo SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Codwell SWAS Fine Arts SWP Fine Arts Significantly Diversity is

Elementary revise Magnet 100% minority.
School program to a By revising to a
School Wide SWP with a
Program; new theme and
Improve improved
diversity in facility,
student diversity
enrollment; should improve
remove the by 2% each
portable year over the
buildings and next 3 years.
improve the
grounds of the
school;

36 
 
 consider a
revision to a
specialized
program phased
in for all
students

Cornelius SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM Significantly Diversity is

Elementary /Tech revise Magnet 99/1%. By
School program to a revising to a
School Wide SWP STEM,
Program; diversity
Improve should improve
diversity in by 2% each
student year over the
enrollment next 3 years.

Crespo SWP Fine Arts same same Improve School exceeds

Elementary diversity in capacity and
School student diversity is
enrollment 99/1%.
Diversity
recruitment
goal should be
2% each year
over the next 3
years for a Fine
Arts Magnet.

DeZavala SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Dodson SWP Montessori MSAP Montessor MSAP Grant See MSAP

Elementary Grant i K-8 funded diversity goal.
School

Durham SWP Leadership same IB Plans are in IB/PYP will

Elementary place to change provide an
School to IB program improved
program of

37 
 
 rigor and
relevance.

Elrod SWP Math/Science Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary /Tech ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria

Felix Cook SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria

Garden SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantly SWP affords

Villas revise Magnet all students to
Elementary program to a participate in
School School Wide the Fine Arts
Program; program.
Improve School exceeds
diversity in capacity and
student diversity is
enrollment. 97/3%.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
each year over
the next 3
years. As a
SW Fine Arts
program, this
goal should be
achievable.

38 
 
Gregory- SWP Fine Arts same Museum Consider Given the
Lincoln Magnet modifying the proximity of
Elementary School Magnet theme the school
School (K-8) to a Museum location, the
School proposed theme
should be more
attractive to
improving
diversity,
student
performance,
and interest in
theme-based
professional
development.
Diversity goal
of 2% each
year over 3
years should be
established.

Harvard SWP Math/Science same STEM Change theme Adding

Elementary /Tech to STEM to Engineering to
School incorporate the Science,
engineering. Technology,
Improve and Math
diversity in Program is
student more in line
enrollment. with the top
The school is Magnet
pursuing themes. The
IB/PYP and diversity
plans to be should reflect
accredited by more of the
April 2011. district-wide
This will average for
support the elementary
STEM schools.
instructional
theme.

39 
 
Helms SWAS Dual SWP same Significantly SWP affords
Elementary Language revise Magnet all students to
School program to a participate in
School Wide the Dual
Program; Language
Improve program.
diversity in School exceeds
student capacity and
enrollment. diversity is
91/9%.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
each year over
the next 3
years. As a
Dual Language
program, this
goal should be
achievable.

Herod SWAS Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Herrera SWP Integrated Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary Technology ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation due program
to capacity requirements,
issues school capacity
is at issue.

40 
 
Horn SWP Academy same Narrow Significantly As a SWP, one
Elementary and define revise Magnet articulated
School one theme program to no theme
or become more than one throughout the
Non- theme for 2011- grade levels is
Magnet 2012 or remove consistent with
the Magnet dedicated
designation. A Magnet
new definition schools. As
of the the program
"Academy" develops,
needs to be recruitment
developed. must be geared
toward
improving the
number/percent
age of minority
students in the
program
through
increased
enrollment--
current
43%/57%
respectively.

Kolter SWAS Foreign SWP same Significantly A Significant

Elementary Languages revise Magnet revision will
School program to a enhance this
School Wide program and
Program; capitalize on
Remove the current
entrance instructional
exam/testing; model for
Improve Foreign
diversity in Languages.
student The school
enrollment exceeds
toward a goal capacity, and
of by recruiting enrollment
more students should be
of color monitored.
(currently
60%/40%

41 
 
 respectively.

Lantrip SWAS Environment SWP same Significantly Marketing the

Elementary al Science revise Magnet program as a
School program to a SWP with a
School Wide revised
Program; curriculum
increase the should increase
student enrollment over
population by the next three
10% for the years to meet
non-zoned the 10%
students. recommendatio
n and improve
diversity by 2%
each year.

Law SWP Math/Science Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary /Tech ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding There is no
due to no opportunity for
opportunity for growth of non-
growth of non zoned students.
zoned students

Lockhart SWP Math/Science same STEM Improve Adding

Elementary /Tech diversity in Engineering to
School student the Science,
enrollment Technology,
and Math
Program is
more in line
with the top
Magnet
themes. The
diversity
should reflect
more of the
district-wide
average for
elementary
schools through
a 2% (-/+) each

42 
 
 year over the
next three
years.

Longfellow SWP Fine Arts same same Develop an on- The Arts
Elementary going program curriculum
School for Professional requires
Development. professional
Monitor development
diversity in on an on-going
student basis for
enrollment to teachers to
maintain the acquire the
district-wide latest skills and
average. techniques in
the Fine Arts.

Lovett SWP Fine Arts same Literature Consider SWP affords

Elementary revising all students to
School instructional participate in
theme to the Literature
Literature. The program.
school School has
currently is available
Literature capacity and
based and this diversity is
instructional 70/30%.
theme could Diversity goal
draw more should be 2%
students since (+/-) each year
Fine Arts over the next 3
programs are years. As a
abundant. SW Literature
program, this
goal should be
achievable.

MacGregor SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation- program
consider requirements.
repurposing
this school
given its
proximity to

43 
 
 downtown and
size of the
school.

Oak Forest SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Parker SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Significantly SWP affords

Elementary revise Magnet all students to
School program to a participate in
School Wide the Fine Arts
Program; program.
Improve School slightly
diversity in exceeds
student capacity and
enrollment diversity is
78%/22%
respectively.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
(+-) each year
over the next 3
years. As a
SW Fine Arts
program, this
goal should be
achievable.

44 
 
Patterson SWP Literature/ same Literature Literature is A Literature-
Elementary Fine Arts recommended based program
School as the main affords all
theme to students to
encompass not participate in
only the arts, an array of
but other integrated
disciplines. curriculum
Increase non instruction and
zoned Magnet resources. Fine
population by Arts is a prime
10%; Improve example.
diversity in School has
student available
enrollment capacity but
diversity of
97/3% should
be improved by
2% (-/+) each
year over the
next 3 years.
As a SWP with
a revised
emphasis, this
goal should be
achievable.

Pleasantville SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

45 
 
Poe SWP Fine Arts Same Same Improve SWP affords
Elementary diversity in all students to
School student participate in
enrollment. the Fine Arts
program.
School has
available
capacity and
diversity is
66/34%.
Diversity goal
should be 2%
(+/-) each year
over the next 3
years. As a
SW Fine Arts
program, this
goal should be
achievable.

Pugh SWP Math/Science same STEM Improve Adding

Elementary /Tech diversity in Engineering to
School student the Science,
enrollment. Technology,
Monitor and Math
building Program is
capacity. more in line
with the top
Magnet
themes. The
diversity
should reflect
more of the
district-wide
average for
elementary
schools through
a 2% (-/+) each
year over the
next three
years.

46 
 
Red SWP Math/Science same STEM Monitor Adding
Elementary /Tech diversity in Engineering to
School student the Science,
enrollment to Technology,
avoid and Math
exceeding the Program is
district-wide more in line
average. with the top
Magnet
themes. The
diversity of
91%/9%
reflects almost
the district-
wide average
for schools. A
goal would be
to improve by
2% (-/+) each
year over the
next three
years.

Rice SUS Technology Dedicated same Rename SUS Name "District-

Elementary Magnet (district wide); wide" is the
(K-8) Improve acceptable
diversity in terminology for
student SUS
enrollment

River Oaks SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Roberts SWP Fine Arts Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet
Elementary ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited

47 
 
 building
capacity to
meet criteria

Roosevelt SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Ross SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM Significantly Adding

Elementary /Tech revise Magnet Engineering to
School program to a the Science,
School Wide Technology,
Program; and Math
Increase non Program is
zoned student more in line
population; with the top
Improve Magnet
diversity. themes. The
diversity
should reflect
more of the
district-wide
average for
elementary
schools through
a 2% (-/+) each
year over the
next three
years.

Rusk SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM Significantly Adding

Elementary /Tech revise Magnet Engineering to
School (K-8) program to a the Science,
School Wide Technology,
STEM Program and Math
and/or, consider Program is
changing theme more in line
to IB/PYP. with the top
Improve Magnet
diversity in themes. IB/
48 
 
 student PYP offers
enrollment with another vehicle
is currently for this school
99% minority. to advance the
academic
curriculum for
all students.
The diversity
should reflect
more of the
district-wide
average for
elementary
schools through
a 2% (-/+) each
year over the
next three
years.

Scroggins SWAS Literature/ Neighborh Non- Remove Currently does

Elementary Fine Arts ood Magnet Magnet not meet
School School designation and Magnet
associated program
Magnet funding requirements
due to limited due to capacity.
building District may
capacity to consider
meet criteria revising to one
instructional
theme and set
recruitment
goals.

Sinclair SWP Communicati same Language Significantly A significant

Elementary ons/Tech Immersion revise Magnet revision will
School program to a enhance this
Language program and
Immersion capitalize on
the current
instructional
model for
language. The
school exceeds
capacity, and
enrollment

49 
 
 should be
monitored.

T. H. Rogers SUS Vanguard Dedicated Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary DWVP Magnet Magnet is not
School (K-8) designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Travis SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Elementary Magnet Magnet is not
School designation and considered a
Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Twain SWP Literature/ Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary Fine Arts ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
Magnet requirements
funding; retain due to capacity
IB/PYP and enrollment.
program as a
neighborhood
choice.

Valley West SWAS Math/Science Neighborh Non- Remove Non-existent

Elementary /Tech ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program.
Magnet funding Students should
due to non- not be charged
operational a fee to be in
program during the Magnet
the school day. program.

Wainwright SWAS Math/Science Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

Elementary /Tech ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
School School designation and program
associated requirements.
Magnet funding
due to limited

50 
 
 building
capacity to
meet criteria

Wesley SWP Math/Science same Pre- Designate as a As a SWP, an

Elementary /Tech engineerin Pre engineering articulated Pre-
School g Magnet and a engineering
feeder school to strand would
Williams; better serve the
Improve community. As
diversity in the program
student develops,
enrollment recruitment
must be geared
toward
improving the
current
diversity of
99/1% (-/+) by
2% each year
over the next
three years.

West SWP Math/Science Neighborh Non- Remove Does not meet

University /Tech ood Magnet Magnet Magnet
Elementary School designation and program
School Magnet funding requirements
due to capacity
and enrollment.

Whidby SWP Health MSAP Health MSAP funded See MSAP

Elementary Science Science diversity goal.
School

William SWP Dual Same Dual Retain current School exceeds

Wharton K- Language Language program; do not capacity and
8 Dual add additional diversity is at
Language instructional 92/8%. As
Academy themes; Dual Language
Improve is a popular
diversity in program, a goal
student of 2% (-/+)
enrollment should be set
for a more
balanced
student
51 
 
 population.

Windsor SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Village Magnet Magnet is not
Elementary designation and considered a
School Magnet Magnet
funding; Retain program by
Vanguard definition.
status and
transportation

Woodrow SWP Montessori Same Same Improve School is 70/30

Wilson diversity in and exceeds
Montessori student capacity. New
enrollment students
entering at the
break grades
and
replacement
students
provide the
opportunity to
improve the
diversity
toward the
district-wide
average for
elementary
schools.

52 
 
MIDDLE SCHOOL MAGNET SCHOOL SUMMARIES:

Middle Current Current Propose Proposed Recommend Recommenda

School Program Program d Program ation tion
Type
SWP‐ School Wide Program
SWAS‐ School Within A School
Program Rationale
SUS‐ Separate and Unique School
SWVP‐ School Wide Vanguard Program
Type
DWVP‐ District Wide Vanguard Program

Attucks SWAS Math/ SWP Non- Remove By

Middle Science Magnet Magnet developing a
School designation school-wide
and accelerated
associated program in
Magnet the content
funding due areas through
to the Apollo the Apollo
program. support
program,
students are
more likely to
be focused
and perform
at a higher
level.

Burbank SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

53 
 
Clifton SWAS Math/ SWP STEM Significantly An expansion
Middle Science revise of the current
School Magnet theme to
school to a include
STEM Engineering
Magnet and
school; Technology
Monitor will bring the
diversity in program in
student line with the
enrollment to top Magnet
improve on themes.
the district- Increasing the
wide pool of non-
average. minority
students
should assist
in improving
the school's
diversity.

Contempor SUS Alternative School Non- Remove Does not meet

ary closure Magnet Magnet Magnet
Learning designation program
Center and Magnet requirements.
Middle funding
School

54 
 
Deady SWAS Communica SWP Communi Significantly As the current
Middle tions cations revise theme is
School with Magnet to limited, the
revision incorporate recommendati
Journalism on to expand
and writing. with emphasis
Improve on Journalism
diversity in (writing)
school should offer
enrollment. students more
opportunities
to explore the
entire field of
Communicati
ons.
Changing to a
SWP and
implementing
aggressive
recruiting,
diversity
should
improve.
Goal is 2% (-
/+).

Dowling SWAS Fine Arts SWP Non- Remove By

Middle Magnet Magnet developing a
School designation school-wide
and accelerated
associated program in
Magnet the content
funding due areas through
to the Apollo the Apollo
program. support
program,
students are
more likely to
be focused
and perform
at a higher

55 
 
 level.

Fleming SWAS Fine Arts same same Improve The school is

Middle diversity in 100%
School student minority and
enrollment to under-
reduce enrolled.
minority Through
group aggressive
isolation. marketing and
recruiting,
increasing the
pool of non-
minority
students
should assist
in reducing
MGI by 2%
each year.

Fondren SWAS Math/ MSAP IB Magnet Same

Middle Science Schools
School Assistance
Program
(MSAP).

Gregory- SWAS Fine Arts SWP Museum Significantly Museum

Lincoln revise Studies is a
Middle Magnet to a very popular
School school wide theme for
(K-8) Museum students and
Studies parents. The
Magnet theme should
boost
enrollment
and improve
diversity as
well.

56 
 
Hamilton SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW
Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

Hartman SWAS Math/ SWP STEM Significantly An expansion

Middle Science revise of the current
School Magnet theme to
school to a include
STEM Engineering
Magnet and
school; Technology
Improve will bring the
diversity in program in
student line with the
enrollment; top Magnet
become a themes.
feeder school Increasing the
to Chavez. pool of non-
minority
students
should assist
in improving
the school's
diversity.

Hogg SWAS Math/ same Language Significantly SWP affords

Middle Science revise all students to
School Magnet participate in
program to a the Dual
dual Language
language to program.
articulate School has
with Helms capacity and
to develop a diversity of
strong feeder 97/3% should
57 
 
 program. be (-/+) 2%
each year over
the next 3
years. As a
Dual
Language
program,
articulated
with Helms
ES, this goal
should be
achievable
and a strong
feeder pattern
established.

Holland SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

Jackson SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

Johnston SWAS Fine Arts same same Monitor Monitor

Middle diversity in enrollments to
School student ensure all
enrollment, students are
58 
 
 particularly adequately
non-zone. prepared in
Continue to the Academic
monitor and Fine Arts
neighborhoo curriculum.
d, Non-zone,
and Magnet
enrollments
do not
exceed
building
capacity

Key Middle SWAS Foreign SWP Non- Remove By

School Languages Magnet Magnet developing a
designation school-wide
and accelerated
associated program in
Magnet the content
funding due areas through
to the Apollo the Apollo
program. support
program,
students are
more likely to
be focused
and perform
at a higher
level.

Lanier SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Middle Magnet Magnet is not
School designation considered a
and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

59 
 
Long SWVP Vanguard SWP 6-12 Significantly See district
Middle Medical revise to 6- plans in
School Technolog 12 Magnet development
y for a 6-12
articulated
program.

M. C. SWAS Math/ SWP Technolog Significantly Implementing

Williams Science y and revise this
Middle Engineeri Magnet recommended
School ng program to a plan will
school wide enhance the
technology academic
and curriculum
engineering and provide
Magnet as a for an
feeder to articulated
Washington; strand from
invest in the middle to high
school's school.
technology; Moving to a
ensure high school-wide
value added program will
standards; allow the
improve school to
diversity in recruit more
school non-minority
enrollment. students to
improve the
diversity
toward the
district-wide
average.

Marshall SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Improve School is

Middle diversity in 97%/3%
School student diverse.
enrollment. Recruitment
must be
geared toward
improving the
current
60 
 
 diversity (-/+)
by 2% each
year over the
next three
years.

Patrick SWAS Fine Arts Neighbor Non- Remove Does not meet
Henry hood Magnet Magnet Magnet
Middle School designation program
School and definition.
associated
Magnet
funding due
to limited
building
capacity to
meet criteria

Pershing SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Monitor School is

Middle diversity in 82%/18%
School student diverse with
enrollment, 98% non-zone
particularly students.
non-zone.
Continue to
monitor
neighborhoo
d, Non-zone,
and Magnet
enrollments
do not
exceed
building
capacity

Pin Oak SWAS Languages same same Improve School is

Middle diversity in 62%/38%
School student diverse.
enrollment; Recruitment
eliminate must be
entrance geared toward
testing- improving the
61 
 
 policy current
diversity (+/-)
by 2% each
year over the
next three
years.

Revere SWAS Math/ SWP STEM Expand An expansion

Middle Science theme to a of the current
School STEM theme to
initiative; include
Improve Engineering
diversity in and
student Technology
enrollment. will bring the
program in
line with the
top Magnet
themes.
Increasing the
pool of non-
minority
students
should assist
in improving
the school's
diversity.
School is only
at 68%
utilization.

Rice SUS Technology Dedicate same Improve The school is

Middle d Magnet diversity in 97% minority
School student and under
(K-8) enrollment. enrolled.
Through
aggressive
marketing and
recruiting,
increasing the
pool of non-
minority
62 
 
 students
should assist
in reducing
MGI by 2%
each year.

Ryan SWVP Vanguard SWP Non- Remove By

Middle Magnet Magnet developing a
School designation school-wide
and accelerated
associated program in
Magnet the content
funding due areas through
to the Apollo the Apollo
program. support
program,
students are
more likely to
be focused
and perform
at a higher
level.

Sharpstown SWAS Leadership SWP Internatio Significantly Plans are

MS nal revise the already in
Studies theme to place to
become The become a 6-
School for 12 school in
International combinations
Studies with The High
grades 6-12. School for
International
Studies
currently
housed at
Sharpstown
MS.

Stevenson SWAS Math/ SWP STEM Monitor An expansion

Middle Science school of the current
School enrollment theme to
and Improve include
63 
 
 diversity in Engineering
student and
enrollment to Technology
reduce will bring the
minority program in
group line with the
isolation. top Magnet
themes.
Increasing the
pool of non-
zoned should
assist in
improving the
school's
diversity.
School
exceeds
capacity.

T. H. SUS Vanguard Dedicate Non- Remove Vanguard SW

Rogers d DWVP Magnet Magnet is not
Middle designation considered a
School and Magnet Magnet
(K-8) funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportatio
n

64 
 
Welch SWAS Fine Arts SWP Health Significantly With low
Middle and revise enrollment
School Physical Magnet and high
Fitness program to a minority
Health and group
Physical isolation of
Fitness 99%/1%
program; respectively,
improve developing a
diversity in new initiative
school and
enrollment. aggressive
recruiting
should create
interest and
improve
diversity.
Goal is 2% (-
/+) each year.

HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET SUMMARIES:

High Current Current Propose Proposed Recommendat Recommen

School Program Program d Program ion dation
Type Progra Rationale
m Type
SWAS‐ School Within A School
SUS‐ Separate and Unique 
S h l

Austin SWAS Teaching Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High professions hood/CT Magnet Magnet meet
School E designation Magnet
and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to low
low interest student
(only 8% of interest.
students
65 
 
 enrolled select
the Magnet
program) to
meet criteria.

Barbara SUS Careers Dedicate same Promote CTE As a CTE

Jordan d Magnet and individual School with
High programs. popular
School for Improve offerings,
Careers diversity in recruitment
student needs to be
enrollment; aggressive
increase for
program increased
enrollment and enrollment
community to be
partnerships. achieved.
Commission a Develop
study to review stronger
the CTE partnerships
program. and
business/ind
ustry
involvement
. Diversity
should
reflect the
district-wide
average at a
minimum.

Bellaire SWAS World Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High Languages hood Magnet Magnet meet
School designation Magnet
and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
building building
capacity to capacity.
meet criteria.

66 
 
Carnegie SUS Vanguard Dedicate Non- Remove Vanguard
Vanguard d Magnet Magnet SW is not
High Vanguar designation considered a
School d and Magnet Magnet
funding; program by
Retain definition.
Vanguard
status and
transportation

Chavez SWAS Environmen Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High tal Science hood Magnet Magnet meet
School School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
building building
capacity to capacity.
meet criteria.

Contempor SUS Alternative repurpos Non- Remove Does not

ary e Magnet Magnet meet
Learning designation Magnet
Center and associated program
High Magnet requirement
School funding due to s due to
low enrollment theme and
at school. unique
curriculum
theme.

Davis High SWAS Hotel Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

School Restaurant hood Magnet Magnet meet
Mgmt School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
limited building
building capacity and
capacity and low student
low interest interest.
(only 12% of
67 
 
 students
enrolled select
the Magnet
program) to
meet criteria.

Furr High SWAS Technology/ Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

School Fine Arts hood Magnet Magnet meet
School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding. s due to
building
capacity and
low student
interest
(only about
10% of
students
select the
Magnet
program) to
meet
criteria. If
current T-
buildings
are
operational,
survey the
community
to determine
if there is
interest and
need for a
Magnet
program.

High SUS Law/ Dedicate same Improve Diversity

School for Criminal d Magnet diversity in should
Law Justice student reflect the
Enforceme enrollment. district-wide
nt and average at a
68 
 
Criminal minimum.
Justice

High SUS Performing/ Dedicate same Improve Diversity

School for Visual Arts d Magnet diversity in should
Performing student reflect the
and Visual enrollment. district-wide
Arts average at a
minimum.

Kashmere SWAS Music/ Fine SWP Non- Remove By

High Arts Magnet Magnet developing
School designation a school-
and associated wide
Magnet accelerated
funding due to program in
the Apollo the content
program. areas
through the
Apollo
support
program,
students are
more likely
to be
focused and
perform at a
higher level.

Lamar SWAS Business Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High Administrati hood/CT Magnet Magnet meet
School on E designation Magnet
and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
building limited
capacity to building
meet criteria. capacity.

69 
 
Lee High SWAS Modern SWP Non- Remove By
School Humanities Magnet Magnet developing
designation a school-
and associated wide
Magnet accelerated
funding due to program in
the Apollo the content
program. areas
through the
Apollo
support
program,
students are
more likely
to be
focused and
perform at a
higher level.

Madison SWAS Meteorolog Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High y/Space hood Magnet Magnet meet
School Science School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding. s due to
limited
building
capacity,
low
enrollment
in Magnet
program
(less than
4%), and
diversity to
meet
criteria.

70 
 
Michael E. SUS Health Dedicate same Improve Diversity
DeBakey Professions d Magnet diversity in should
High student reflect the
School for enrollment; district-wide
Health assess average at a
Profess professional minimum.
development See
needs to ensure comment in
training is Col. M.
theme-based.

Milby High SWAS Science Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

School Institute hood Magnet Magnet meet
School designation Magnet
w/CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding. s due to low
enrollment
(slightly less
than 12%)
and
diversity of
99%
minority.
Since space
is available,
the district
may want to
consider a
new theme
to attract a
diverse
student
population.

Reagan SWAS Technology Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High hood Magnet Magnet meet
School school designation Magnet
w/CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
limited limited
71 
 
 building building
capacity to capacity.
meet criteria. However,
However, this since this is
program is of an
high interest to extremely
over 29% of popular
students; program,
therefore, the the district
district may should
consider explore
limiting the options to
number of continue the
Principal program.
Agreement
transfers in
order to open
up spaces for
Magnet
students and
thus address
building
capacity.

Scarboroug SWAS Arch/Graphi Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

h High c Design hood Magnet Magnet meet
School School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding. s due to low
enrollment/l
ow interest.

Sharpstown SWAS Leadership SWP Non- Remove By

High Academy Magnet Magnet developing
School designation a school-
and associated wide
Magnet accelerated
funding due to program in
the Apollo the content
program. areas
through the
72 
 
 Apollo
support
program,
students are
more likely
to be
focused and
perform at a
higher level.

Sterling SWAS Aviation Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High Sciences hood Magnet Magnet meet
School School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to lack
low student of student
interest/enroll interest.
ment. May
consider
creating a
future
Magnet
program.

Waltrip SWAS Research/Te same same Improve Diversity

High chnology diversity, should
School student reflect the
enrollment, district-wide
and student average at a
achievement. minimum.
Since this There are
school draws a concerns
large number about
of non-zoned building
students, and capacity.
the school is The theme
CTE focused and location
further review of the
is warranted. school
This school draws non-
should be part zoned
73 
 
 of the CTE students.
review study.

Washington SWAS Engineering SWP Technolog Significantly This new

High y and revise Magnet initiative
School Engineerin to a school- should
g wide attract new
technology and students to
engineering the school
school. and improve
diversity in
student
enrollment.
Diversity
should
reflect the
district-wide
average at a
minimum.

Westbury SWAS Fine Arts Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High Coalition hood Magnet Magnet meet
School (FACES) School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s. If current
building T-buildings
capacity to are
meet criteria. operational,
However, if survey the
current T- community
buildings are to determine
operational, a if there is
revised Magnet interest and
program could need for a
be Magnet
74 
 
 implemented. program.

Westside SWAS Technology Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High hood/CT Magnet Magnet meet
School E designation Magnet
and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding due to s due to
building limited
capacity to building
meet criteria. capacity.

Wheatley SWAS Technology Neighbor Non- Remove Does not

High hood Magnet Magnet meet
School School designation Magnet
w/ CTE and associated program
Magnet requirement
funding. s due to
limited
building
capacity,
enrollment,
and
diversity to
meet
criteria.

75 
 
Worthing SWAS Math/Sci/ same Medical Significantly This new
High Tech Sciences revise Magnet initiative
School program to a should
Medical attract new
Sciences students to
Magnet the school
program; and improve
Improve diversity in
diversity in student
student enrollment.
enrollment. Diversity
should
reflect the
district-wide
average at a
minimum.

Yates High SWAS Communica same Communic Significantly Without

School tions ations/ revise Magnet revisions
Journalism program to and
include articulation
journalism and with Deady
writing; MS, remove
partner with Magnet
Deady Middle designation
School as a and Magnet
feeder. funding.
Diversity
should
reflect the
district-wide
average at a
minimum.

76 
 
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF MAGNET

SCHOOLS: 

• Review and adopt Board of Education Magnet Policies and Guidelines that govern school

choice, student assignment, and lottery for “acceptable standard practices.”

• Reduce the total number of Magnet schools across the district by 55 or 47%.

• Reduce Magnet funding to 40% for 2011-2011; eliminating funding thereafter.

• Streamline and articulate Magnet themes, K-12.

• Convert all elementary Magnet programs in to School Wide Programs.

• Continue the audition-based criteria for Arts Magnets at the secondary level.

• Continue entrance criteria for Vanguard Programs and transportation.

• Eliminate all other test and screening entrance criteria (e.g., Foreign Language).

• Eliminate Magnet funding for Vanguard Programs; however, retain transportation.

• Eliminate Principal Transfer Agreements as an acceptable entrance procedure to a

Magnet school.

• Replicate and use the existing district Vanguard Program lottery process and for the

Magnet programs at the district level.

• Update the existing Magnet School Guidelines, secure Board approval, and ensure

implementation by establishing an accountability system.

• Update the existing Magnet School Standards and secure Board approval.

• Update Magnet Coordinator job description and develop an Individual Professional

Development Plan.

• Expand the Office of School Choice.

• Develop a Magnet Program Budget Allocation process.

77 
 
 • Establish a communication system among the Office of School Choice, Chief School

Officers, Principals and Coordinators of Magnet schools.

• Hold on-going parent and community forums and online opportunities for parents to

provide feedback to the Office of School Choice.

• Develop an aggressive Marketing and Recruiting Program with the goals of increasing

student enrollments of non-zone students and improving diversity in Magnet schools.

• Provide professional development and leadership training for Principals, Magnet

Coordinators and teachers.

The recommendations included in this comprehensive review are designed to support all

dimensions of a System of Magnets. The recommendations address policy, procedures, and

practice. There are recommendations for the function of Magnet schools/programs, the structure

of the System of Magnets, and processes associated with Magnets. HISD should incorporate the

recommendations over 2 fiscal/school years and align the changes with the action steps of the

MSAP grant award.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

MSA would like to recognize and thank the HISD staff for their contributions and

expertise in assisting Magnet Schools of America’s work toward the improvement and

advancement of HISD’s System of Magnet Schools.

Attachments:

A. Magnet Program Data & Demographics Charts by Level

B. Individual Magnet School Summaries by Level
C. Maps depicting Magnet school locations in the district by Level
D. Phase I and Phase II Interim reports

78