| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
- Magnet School Analysis
- Feeder School Analysis
- Additional Base-Year Data
- My school district’s application will include an existing school that we propose to convert into a new magnet school. The district’s objective is to reduce minority group isolation at this school. What enrollment data do we need to submit?
- What data do we provide as base year data if there is no enrollment data for the school year before implementation of the magnet program, for example, with a newly constructed school that would open as a magnet school?
- Our application includes a magnet school to be placed in a school that is not minority group isolated. This magnet will seek to attract minority group students from schools in the district with very high minority enrollments. What data must be provided?
- We plan to convert to a school into a magnet school in order to prevent it from becoming minority group isolated-that is, to prevent the school from going over 50 percent in its minority student enrollment. What data needs to be submitted?
1. Magnet School Analysis
District Z has two existing magnet elementary schools. All of the other elementary schools in the district are feeder schools to one or both of the magnet schools. District Z has six feeder schools and a districtwide minority enrollment of 60.0 percent at the elementary school level.
| District Z Base Year Data for Magnet Schools | |||||
| Magnet School (Base Year) |
Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Adams (1999) | 449 | 382 | 85.1% | 67 | 14.9% |
| Edison (1999) | 387 | 306 | 79.1% | 81 | 20.9% |
| District Z Current Year Data for Magnet Schools | |||||
| Magnet School (Base Year) |
Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Adams | 459 | 365 | 79.5% | 94 | 20.5% |
| Edison | 400 | 326 | 81.5% | 74 | 18.5% |
Since becoming a magnet school last year, Adams has decreased in MGI from 85.1 percent to 79.5 percent and the district projects that through operation as a magnet school MGI will continue to be reduced over the next three years. At Edison, the district projects that MGI will be reduced over the next three years through its operation as a magnet even though MGI increased 2.4 percent, from 79.1 percent to 81.5 percent since the school first became a magnet. Because of the increase, this school would be found ineligible unless the increase in MGI in the current year was not caused by the magnet school. This may be shown through data indicating an increase either in minority enrollment districtwide or in the area served by the magnet school.
If District Z's districtwide elementary school enrollment has become more minority isolated due to districtwide demographic changes in the student population and if a magnet or a feeder school's increase in MGI is less than the districtwide increase in MGI, ED will conclude that the school's increase in MGI was not the result of the magnet programs, but due to the overall effect of demographic changes in the district as a whole at the elementary level.
| District Z Base Year Data for Feeder Schools | |||||
| Feeder School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Rose | 389 | 301 | 75.6% | 97 | 24.4% |
| Rocky Mt | 289 | 199 | 68.9% | 90 | 31.1% |
| Wheeler | 239 | 144 | 60.3% | 95 | 39.7% |
| King | 289 | 144 | 49.8% | 145 | 50.2% |
| Tinker | 429 | 173 | 40.3% | 256 | 59.7% |
| Holly | 481 | 122 | 25.4% | 359 | 74.6% |
| District- wide |
2,961 | 1,771 | 59.8% | 1,190 | 40.2% |
| District Z Current Year Data for Feeder Schools | |||||
| Feeder School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Rose | 401 | 278 | 63.9% | 123 | 30.7% |
| Rocky Mt | 291 | 211 | 72.5% | 80 | 27.5% |
| Wheeler | 251 | 153 | 61.0% | 98 | 39.0% |
| King | 277 | 149 | 53.8% | 128 | 46.2% |
| Tinker | 424 | 198 | 46.7% | 226 | 53.3% |
| Holly | 475 | 130 | 27.4% | 345 | 72.6% |
| District- wide |
2,978 | 1,810 | 60.8% | 1,168 | 39.2% |
| District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet Schools | |||||
| Magnet School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Adams | 469 | 349 | 74.4% | 120 | 25.6% |
| Edison | 410 | 312 | 76.1% | 98 | 23.9% |
| District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet Schools | |||||
| Magnet School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Adams | 483 | 331 | 68.5% | 152 | 31.5% |
| Edison | 407 | 289 | 71.0% | 118 | 29.0% |
| District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet Schools | |||||
| Magnet School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Adams | 489 | 307 | 62.8% | 182 | 37.2% |
| Edison | 409 | 266 | 65.0% | 143 | 35.0% |
| District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Feeder Schools | |||||
| Feeder School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Rose | 400 | 272 | 68.0% | 128 | 32.0% |
| Rocky Mt | 306 | 216 | 70.6% | 90 | 29.4% |
| Wheeler | 250 | 148 | 59.2% | 102 | 40.8% |
| King | 280 | 151 | 53.9% | 129 | 46.1% |
| Tinker | 417 | 232 | 55.6% | 185 | 44.4% |
| Holly | 447 | 170 | 38.0% | 277 | 62.0% |
| District- wide |
2,979 | 1,850 | 62.1% | 1,129 | 37.9% |
| District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Feeder Schools | |||||
| Feeder School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Rose | 396 | 265 | 66.9% | 131 | 33.1% |
| Rocky Mt | 293 | 202 | 68.9% | 91 | 31.1% |
| Wheeler | 259 | 153 | 59.1% | 106 | 40.9% |
| King | 291 | 169 | 58.1% | 122 | 41.9% |
| Tinker | 418 | 242 | 57.9% | 176 | 42.1% |
| Holly | 451 | 216 | 47.9% | 235 | 52.1% |
| District- wide |
2,998 | 1,867 | 62.3% | 1,131 | 37.7% |
| District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Feeder Schools | |||||
| Feeder School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Rose | 400 | 267 | 66.8% | 133 | 33.2% |
| Rocky Mt | 299 | 204 | 68.2% | 95 | 31.8% |
| Wheeler | 262 | 154 | 58.8% | 108 | 41.2% |
| King | 302 | 181 | 59.9% | 121 | 40.1% |
| Tinker | 419 | 244 | 58.2% | 175 | 41.8% |
| Holly | 441 | 227 | 51.5% | 214 | 48.5% |
| District- wide |
3,021 | 1,850 | 61.2% | 1,171 | 38.8% |
However, as with the Edison magnet, if the MGI in a magnet increases above the districtwide increase between the base year and the current year, an applicant must demonstrate that the magnet is not causing the problem. In order to show that the increase in MGI at a particular school is not the result of the operation of a magnet, a district should provide student transfer data on the number of minority and Non-
Minority students who attend the magnet program from the other feeder schools in the district for the current year. If, by subtracting from the magnet enrollment those students who came from other schools, the MGI is higher than the actual MGI for the current year, it can be concluded that the increase in MGI was not caused by the magnet school.
| Current year student transfer data for magnet schools that increase in minority group isolation above the districtwide average | |||||
| Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage | |
| Edison (2000) | 400 | 326 | 81.5% | 74 | 18.5% |
| Students who transferred from feeder schools to Edison in order to attend magnet | 50 | 31 | 19 | ||
| Edison enrollment with transfer students "returned" to feeder schools | 350 | 295 | 84.3% | 55 | 15.7% |
| Current year student transfer data for feeder schools that increase in minority group isolation above the districtwide average | |||||
| Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage | |
| Rocky Mount (2000) | 291 | 211 | 72.5% | 80 | 27.5% |
| Students who transferred to Edison to attend magnet | 10 | 8 | 2 | ||
| Students who transferred to Adams to attend magnet | 6 | 6 | 0 | ||
| Rocky Mount enrollment if transfer students were "returned" | 307 | 225 | 73.3% | 82 | 26.7% |
2. Feeder School Analysis
In District Z, two feeder schools whose MGI was greater than the districtwide average, Rocky Mount and Wheeler, increased in MGI by 3.7 percent and 0.7 percent respectively between the base year and the current year. Since Wheeler's MGI increase of 0.7 percent is less than the districtwide MGI increase of 1.0 percent for the same time period, Wheeler's MGI increase would be considered to be due to the demographic changes in the district and further scrutiny of Wheeler is not required.
Because Rocky Mount, a feeder school to magnet programs at Adams and Edison, increased in MGI over the districtwide average from 68.9 percent to 72.5 percent, this would make both Adams and Edison ineligible unless the district demonstrates that the increase was not because of the magnet programs. The clearest way for an applicant to show this is to provide student transfer data on the number of minority and Non-
Minority students who left Rocky Mount to attend magnet programs at Adams and Edison. (See student transfer data above.) By adding the number of students who transferred to the magnet programs to Rocky Mount's total enrollment, ED can determine whether the increase was due to the magnet program. If it can be demonstrated that without the magnet program, the MGI at the feeder school would be even higher, these magnet schools would be found eligible.
Some applicants may find that they are unable to provide the type of student transfer data referred to above. In some cases, these applicants may be able to present demographic or other statistical data and information that would satisfy the requirements of the statute and regulations. This demographic data must persuasively demonstrate that the operation of a proposed magnet school would reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group isolation in the applicant's magnet schools and would not result in an increase of MGI at one of the applicant's feeder schools above the districtwide Per-
centage for minority students at the same grade levels as those served in the magnet school. (34 CFR §280.20(g)). For example, an applicant might include data provided to it by a local social service agency about the numbers and concentration of families in a recent influx of immigrants into the neighborhood or attendance zone of the feeder school.
3. Additional Base-Year Data
If an applicant believes that comparing a magnet program's current-year enrollment data with its base year enrollment data (i.e., data from the year prior to the year each school became a magnet or a feeder) is misleading due to significant changes that have occurred in attendance zones or other factors affecting the magnet school or in the closing and combining of other schools with the magnet school, additional and more recent enrollment data for an alternative to the base year may be submitted along with a justification for its submission.
TOP4. My school district’s application will include an existing school that we propose to convert into a new magnet school. The district’s objective is to reduce minority group isolation at this school. What enrollment data do we need to submit?
District X will convert Williams, an existing elementary school, to a new elementary magnet program. Currently, Williams has a minority enrollment of 94.67 percent. The district projects that the magnet program will reduce minority group isolation at Williams to 89 percent in the first year of the project. The projection of enrollment should be based upon reasonable assumptions and should clearly state the basis for these assumptions, e.g., parent or student interest surveys, or other objective indicators, such as waiting lists for other magnet schools in the district.
| District X Current Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Hill (Magnet) | 450 | 426 | 94.7% | 24 | 5.3% |
| Shaw (Feeder) | 398 | 179 | 44.9% | 219 | 55.1% |
| Smith (Feeder) | 477 | 186 | 39.0% | 291 | 61.0% |
| District- wide |
4,704 | 2,598 | 55.2% | 2,106 | 44.8% |
| District X Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Hill (Magnet) | 450 | 400 | 89.0% | 50 | 11.0% |
| Shaw (Feeder) | 404 | 195 | 48.3% | 209 | 51.7% |
| Smith (Feeder) | 471 | 191 | 40.5% | 280 | 59.5% |
| District- wide |
4,712 | 2,622 | 55.6% | 2,090 | 44.4% |
| District X Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Hill (Magnet) | 500 | 415 | 83.0% | 85 | 17.0% |
| Shaw (Feeder) | 406 | 203 | 50.0% | 203 | 50.0% |
| Smith (Feeder) | 482 | 205 | 42.5% | 277 | 57.5% |
| District- wide |
4,794 | 2,683 | 55.9% | 2,111 | 44.1% |
| District X Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Hill (Magnet) | 600 | 450 | 75.0% | 150 | 25.0% |
| Shaw (Feeder) | 410 | 215 | 52.4% | 195 | 47.6% |
| Smith (Feeder) | 477 | 229 | 48.0% | 248 | 52.0% |
| District- wide |
4,815 | 2,690 | 55.9% | 2,125 | 44.1% |
5. What data do we provide as base year data if there is no enrollment data for the school year before implementation of the magnet program, for example, with a newly constructed school that would open as a magnet school?
District Y will construct a new school, Ashe, and open its magnet program at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. There is no pre-existing school, and consequently, it appears that no enrollment data are readily available to use as a comparison. However, the district estimates that if the proposed magnet school had opened as a "neighborhood school," without a magnet program designed to attract students from outside the "neighborhood" or attendance zone, it would have a minority enrollment of 67 percent. This estimate was based on national census tract data, supplemented by more current data on the neighborhood provided by the local county government. The district further reasonably anticipates, based on surveys and other indicators, that when the new school opens as a magnet school in 2002, it will have a minority enrollment of 58 percent.
Note that in this example, since the school will not open until the second year of the project (the 2002-2003 school year), data are needed only for the current year and each of the two years of the project during which the magnet at Ashe will be implemented.
| District Y Current Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Ashe (Magnet) | 600 | 400 | 66.7 | 200 | 33.3 |
| Mason (Feeder) | 298 | 101 | 33.9% | 197 | 66.1% |
| Vine (Feeder) | 324 | 111 | 34.2% | 213 | 65.8% |
| District- wide |
2,511 | 1,339 | 53.3% | 1,172 | 46.7% |
| District Y Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Ashe (Magnet) | 600 | 348 | 58.0% | 252 | 42.0% |
| Mason (Feeder) | 290 | 133 | 45.8% | 157 | 54.2% |
| Vine (Feeder) | 332 | 144 | 43.4% | 188 | 56.6% |
| District- wide |
2,559 | 1,352 | 52.8% | 1,207 | 47.2% |
| District Y Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Ashe (Magnet) | 600 | 300 | 50.0% | 300 | 50.0% |
| Mason (Feeder) | 300 | 145 | 48.3% | 155 | 52.7% |
| Vine (Feeder) | 336 | 170 | 50.6% | 166 | 49.4% |
| District- wide |
2,604 | 1,383 | 56.2% | 1,221 | 43.8% |
6. Our application includes a magnet school to be placed in a school that is not minority group isolated. This magnet will seek to attract minority group students from schools in the district with very high minority enrollments. What data must be provided?
Most often, applicants apply for MSAP funding to reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group isolation at a magnet school. However, some applicants have established magnet programs at schools that are not minority-isolated for the purpose of reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority isolation at one or more targeted feeder schools. The data requirements and analysis for this type of magnet program are the same as described for "Existing Magnet Schools." In this example, MGI is being reduced in each of the targeted feeder schools.
| Base Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Grant (Magnet) | 505 | 62 | 12.3% | 443 | 87.7% |
| North (Feeder) | 449 | 347 | 77.3% | 102 | 22.7% |
| Lewis (Feeder) | 404 | 355 | 87.9% | 49 | 12.1% |
| Clark (Feeder) | 471 | 459 | 97.5% | 12 | 2.5% |
| District- wide |
1,829 | 1,223 | 66.9% | 606 | 33.1% |
| Current Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Grant (Magnet) | 520 | 105 | 20.2% | 415 | 79.8% |
| North (Feeder) | 453 | 338 | 74.6% | 115 | 25.4% |
| Lewis (Feeder) | 398 | 335 | 84.1% | 63 | 15.9% |
| Clark (Feeder) | 477 | 443 | 92.9% | 34 | 7.1% |
| District- wide |
1,848 | 1,221 | 66.1% | 627 | 33.9% |
| Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools | |||||
| School | Total En- rollment |
Minority Number |
Minority Per- centage |
Non- Minority Number |
Non- Minority Per- centage |
| Ashe (Magnet) | 600 | 300 | 50.0% | 300 | 50.0% |
| Mason (Feeder) | 300 | 145 | 48.3% | 155 | 52.7% |
| Vine (Feeder) | 336 | 170 | 50.6% | 166 | 49.4% |
| District- wide |
2,604 | 1,383 | 56.2% | 1,221 | 43.8% |
7. We plan to convert to a school into a magnet school in order to prevent it from becoming minority group isolated-that is, to prevent the school from going over 50 percent in its minority student enrollment. What data needs to be submitted?
An applicant that applies for MSAP funding for the purposes of preventing minority isolation must demonstrate that without the intervention of the magnet program, the magnet school or targeted feeder school will become minority-isolated within the project period. Generally this may be documented by showing a trend in the enrollment data for the proposed school. For example, if a neighborhood school currently has a 45 percent minority enrollment and, for the last three years, minority enrollment has increased an average of three percent each year (36 percent, 39 percent, and 42 percent), it is reasonable to expect that, in three years, the school would exceed 50 percent thereby becoming minority-isolated during the project period without the intervention of a magnet. The applicant in this example should submit this enrollment data in its application.
TOP| | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| |
||||||||




