Overview: The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP)

and This Evaluation

For nearly four decades, magnet schools have been an important element
in American public school education, offering innovative programs not
generally available in local schools and providing opportunities for
students to learn in racially diverse environments. The number of school
districts offering magnet schools expanded rapidly during the 1980s:
from 138 districts in 1982 to 230 districts in 1991. The number of
schools offering magnet programs more than doubled during this time from
1,019 to 2,433 schools; the number of students participating in magnet
programs nearly tripled from 441,000 to over 1.2 million.[^1] A number
of studies have credited magnet schools with contributing to school
desegregation.[^2] Several of these studies have credited magnet schools
with improving educational quality.[^3]

Magnet schools have been particularly important in districts that are
trying to desegregate. Congressional support for desegregation first
came in the form of the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) enacted in the
spring of 1972 to "encourage the voluntary reduction, elimination, or
prevention of minority-group isolation,"[^4] and the ESAA was amended in
1976 to authorize grants to support the planning and implementation of
magnet programs in school districts attempting to desegregate. The ESAA
remained in effect until 1981.

Congress resumed support for magnet schools in 1984 with the enactment
of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). MSAP grants are
intended to support magnet schools that are part of an approved
desegregation plan and that are designed to bring students from
different socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds together. Since
1984, MSAP has offered multiple-year grants to school districts through
a competitive process administered by the U.S. Department of Education
(ED). Grants were awarded in 1998 to 57 school districts across the
country, and grants are being awarded again in 2001.

In 1998, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), with The McKenzie
Group serving as subcontractor, was given a contract to evaluate the
MSAP. This is the first report for our evaluation. It describes data
collected from all 57 projects during the 1999--2000 school year and
from applications and progress reports that the projects have submitted
to ED. A second report, in 2001, will report on data collected during
the 2000--01 school year, and a final report, in 2002, will summarize
all of the findings from this evaluation. This overview chapter provides
a brief description of the MSAP, the evaluation design for this study,
and the organization of this report.

**The Magnet Schools Assistance Program**

By law, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program has four purposes: to
support, through financial assistance to eligible LEAs[^5] or consortia
of LEAs:

-   The elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority group
    isolation in elementary and secondary schools with substantial
    portions of minority students

-   The development and implementation of magnet school projects that
    will assist LEAs in achieving systemic reforms and providing all
    students the opportunity to meet challenging State content standards
    and challenging State performance standards

-   The development and design of innovative educational methods and
    practices

-   Courses of instruction within magnet schools that will substantially
    strengthen the knowledge of academic subjects and the grasp of
    tangible and marketable vocational skills of students attending such
    schools[^6]

Districts (LEAs) applying for MSAP grants must describe the ways in
which they plan to support these purposes in their MSAP projects.

The first MSAP grants were for two-year periods, with second-year
funding contingent on an ED review, and grants were awarded in 1985,
1987, 1989, 1991, and 1993. In 1995, the grant period was extended to
three years, to allow districts more time to implement their programs.
During the period from 1985 through 1998, 379 MSAP grants were awarded
to a total of 171 school districts[^7] in 35 states and the District of
Columbia. Figure O-1 presents the number of grants that recipient
districts have received and indicates that 39 percent of the grantees
(67 districts) have received one MSAP grant; 27 percent (47 districts)
have received two MSAP grants; 15 percent (26 districts), three grants;
12 percent (20 districts), four grants; 4 percent (6 districts), five
grants; and 3 percent (5 districts), six grants.[^8] From 1985 to 1998,
more than half of the funded districts received multiple grants, and
just over one third received three to six grants. The average number is
2.2 grants per district.

**Figure O-1**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.781944444444444in"
height="3.6569444444444446in"}**Number of MSAP Grants Received by
District Recipients**

n=171 districts

Source: Department of Education

The MSAP grants for 1998 totaled almost \$96.5 million and ranged in
size from \$350,000 to \$2,856,392. The average amount was \$1,692,982
per district. Awards in 1999 and 2000 were for similar amounts, with
some variation based on grantee plans (e.g., the timing of heavy
equipment purchases or the use of a planning year for some schools in
1998).[^9]

#####  

In each school district receiving MSAP funds, MSAP projects are
developed to support the four purposes in one or more magnet schools.
Figure O-2 below illustrates the relationship between the MSAP program
in the U.S. Department of Education, the districts that receive MSAP
grants, the schools that the MSAP grants support, and other schools in
the MSAP grantee districts. Accordingly, in this report we refer to the
**MSAP** (the U.S. Department of Education source of funding and
assistance), the 57 **districts** receiving MSAP grants in 1998, the
**projects** that the districts developed with MSAP funds, and the
**MSAP schools** and **programs** supported by the projects.

Figure O-2

Relationships among ED's Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP),
MSAP-funded Districts, and MSAP-supported Schools

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### Evaluation of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program

To determine whether the MSAP is fulfilling its purposes and to provide
information on the uses, successes, and problems associated with federal
funding of magnet schools, AIR began a comprehensive, four-year
evaluation of the MSAP in September 1998. Conducted under the authority
of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, Title VI of the Improving
America's Schools Act (IASA)[^10] and sponsored by ED's Planning and
Evaluation Service, the evaluation focuses on the 57 school districts
that received funding for MSAP projects in 1998 for a three-year grant
cycle.

In applying for MSAP grants, each of the 57 MSAP projects sets
**desegregation objectives** for reducing, eliminating, or preventing
minority group isolation in each their MSAP schools and **achievement
objectives** for strengthening student knowledge and skills in those
schools. This Year 1 report describes the desegregation and achievement
objectives that MSAP projects have set. (Data on the extent to which the
MSAP projects have met their objectives will be included in our Year 2
report.) Our Year 1 report also includes information gathered from the
57 districts' grantee applications and annual reports to ED and the
findings from our Year 1 data collection (in 1999-2000) to provide
district context and to describe the strategies that projects are
implementing to support systemic reform and implement innovative
practices and to help them attain their desegregation and achievement
objectives.

**Evaluation Questions**

Our evaluation is guided by these major evaluation questions:

I.  What are the characteristics of MSAP projects?

II. What are the characteristics of MSAP districts?

III. To what extent are federally funded magnet projects reducing the
     incidence or degree of minority isolation in their programs?

IV. To what extent are federally funded magnet projects promoting
    systemic, standards-based reform?

V.  To what extent do federally funded magnet projects feature
    innovative educational methods and practices that meet identified
    student needs and interests?

VI. To what extent do federally funded magnet projects strengthen
    students' knowledge of academic subjects and skills needed for
    successful careers in the future?

VII. How has the MSAP contributed to the development and implementation
     of magnet projects?

Each of the seven major evaluation questions includes more specific
subquestions, for a total of 52 evaluation questions in all.[^11] This
report is intended as an introduction to the evaluation. It provides
background information on the MSAP program and grantees, and initial
information on the seven evaluation questions. Chapters I and II of the
report address evaluation questions I and II, providing information on
the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of MSAP districts and
schools. The next four chapters concern the four mandated purposes of
the program. Two of these purposes pertain to key program
outcomes---preventing, eliminating, or reducing minority student
isolation, and strengthening student knowledge and skills. In Chapters
III and VI, we describe the objectives MSAP projects have set with
respect to these outcomes. We will report the progress projects have
made in subsequent reports. The remaining program purposes focus on
innovative practices and support for systemic reform---two key
strategies designed to support improved outcomes in terms of minority
student isolation and student knowledge and skills. In Chapters IV and
V, we discuss the status of the MSAP projects and schools with respect
to the implementation of innovative practices and the support of
systemic reform, as of the 1999-2000 school year. Finally in Chapter
VII, we focus on the ways in which the MSAP program office awards grants
and the ways in which MSAP projects provide and receive technical
assistance.

Figure O-3 below summarizes the relationships between the MSAP purposes,
the strategies that projects implement to try to fulfill those purposes,
the evaluation questions, and our evaluation report.

Figure O-3

Purposes and Strategies of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program and
Associated Evaluation Questions and Report Chapters

**Five Studies**

To provide answers to the evaluation questions, we have designed an
evaluation that encompasses five interrelated studies:

-   *Study 1, Profile of All 57 MSAP Projects*---descriptive analyses of
    program context, program characteristics, and enrollment and
    achievement outcomes for all 57 of the MSAP projects funded in 1998

-   *Study 2, Profile of All MSAP-supported Schools*---a focus on the
    292 schools that receive program funds in MSAP-funded districts: the
    school context, program characteristics, and enrollment and
    achievement outcomes

-   *Study 3, In-depth Case Studies*---extensive reviews of eight
    selected MSAP projects to illuminate the aggregate results obtained
    from the national data collection (Studies 1 and 2). Case study
    districts were not drawn at random but rather were selected to
    reflect the variety among the 57 projects (e.g., geographic region,
    size).

-   *Study 4, In-depth Case Studies of MSAP Schools*---detailed reports
    on four MSAP-supported schools in each of the eight Case Study MSAP
    projects, selected to include elementary, middle, and high school
    levels and a variety of program themes. Also included in each
    district are two non-magnet schools that serve students with
    racial-ethnic backgrounds similar to those in the MSAP schools, to
    permit comparisons of school programs in general and student
    achievement in particular.

-   *Study 5, Review of MSAP Guidance and Technical
    Assistance*---examinations of the role of the U.S. Department of
    Education in promoting high quality magnet schools and an assessment
    of the federally supported technical assistance provided to grantees

###### Data Collected in 1999--2000

During 1999--2000, we collected and analyzed data on all 57 projects
through interviews with the MSAP Project Directors, Project Surveys, and
District Data Requests, and we gathered data on the 292 MSAP schools
through Principal Surveys.[^12] As the response rates shown in Table O-1
below indicate, high levels of cooperation were obtained from
respondents. All 57 Project Directors participated in interviews, and
all but one submitted Project Surveys. All but three projects submitted
data on the District Data Request list; however, some districts were
unable to provide all of the data. For the 284 MSAP schools that were
operating in 1999--2000[^13], 267 principals completed Principal
Surveys.

Table O-1

Response Rates for Year 1 Data Collection from 57 MSAP Projects and 284
MSAP Schools

+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+
| ###                                  | **N**   | * |         | **R     |
|                                      |         | * |         | esponse |
| ### Data Collection Instrument       |         | R |         | Rate**  |
|                                      |         | e |         |         |
|                                      |         | s |         |         |
|                                      |         | p |         |         |
|                                      |         | o |         |         |
|                                      |         | n |         |         |
|                                      |         | s |         |         |
|                                      |         | e |         |         |
|                                      |         | s |         |         |
|                                      |         | * |         |         |
|                                      |         | * |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+
| ### MSAP Project Director Interview  | 57      |   | 57      | 100.0%  |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+
| ### Project Survey                   | 57      |   | 56      | 98.2    |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+
| ### District Data Request            | 57      |   | 54      | 94.7    |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+
| ### Principal Survey                 | 284     |   | 267     | 94.0    |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---+---------+---------+

In addition, interviews were conducted with ED staff and relevant
documents (e.g., review documents for 1998 MSAP applications, grantee
budgets) were examined. Site visits were made to eight MSAP projects
selected for in-depth Case Studies, with interviews at the district
level and observations and interviews in four MSAP schools and two
comparison schools in each district.

**What This Report Includes and How It Is Organized**

This report summarizes our 1999--2000 findings for the national sample
of 57 projects (Study 1) and 284 MSAP schools (Study 2), and it provides
the initial results for Study 5 (assessment of ED's supporting role).
Because Case Study visits will be repeated in 2001, when projects are
fully implemented, the Case Studies (Studies 3 and 4) will not be
completed until after those visits.

During preparation of this report, our guiding principle has been to
make the report chapters as succinct as possible, with an emphasis on
key findings and a judicious use of charts and graphs. In a separate
document,[^14] we have included an Appendix for each chapter, with data
tables to support the chapter's charts and graphs. References to the
relevant data tables appear in footnotes to each chapter. The appendices
also include supplemental information, which is referenced in chapter
footnotes. For example, the Appendix--Overview includes a list of all of
the districts awarded MSAP grants over the years, a list of all of the
evaluation's questions, a section on Methodology, and copies of the
instruments that we used during our 1999--2000 data collection.

## Comparison Groups Used in this Report

For information on the MSAP schools to be most meaningful, it is helpful
to know how they compare to other schools. The comparisons used in this
report vary, depending on what is being compared (e.g., demographics,
school practices, student outcomes) and what comparison seems most
appropriate. The following list describes possible comparison groups for
MSAP *schools*, our use of those groups in this report, and their
limitations:

-   *Other schools in the same district.* Non-magnet schools operating
    in the same districts as MSAP schools and serving similar students
    provide one potential basis for comparison. With the exception of
    demographic and socioeconomic data on non-MSAP schools, only limited
    data are available on non-magnet schools in MSAP districts. The
    scope of the study did not permit the extensive data collection that
    would be required to gather data (e.g., on teacher and principal
    characteristics, student achievement data) on comparison schools in
    each of the MSAP districts. Even if that were possible, some MSAP
    districts have only a few schools like the MSAP schools, so
    comparisons might be problematic. We have administered surveys and
    are gathering data on non-magnet comparison schools in our eight
    Case Study districts, but we are gathering such data for only two or
    three schools per district. They will not be representative of
    non-MSAP schools in all of the MSAP districts.

-   *National sample of schools.* Survey data on a nationally
    representative sample of elementary, middle, and high schools
    provide another potential comparison for MSAP schools. Three main
    data sources are available for a national sample of schools: the
    Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Follow-up Survey of
    Schools conducted in 1997-98, and the National Longitudinal Survey
    of Schools (NLSS) conducted in 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. The
    SASS was conducted again in 1999-2000, but the data are not yet
    available. The 1998-99 NLSS is the only one for which data are now
    available, and it includes only Title I schools.[^15] Our surveys
    include some of the items from SASS and NLSS, and we use data from
    those surveys for comparisons when appropriate.

-   *National data on all schools.* Data on the full national population
    of schools provides a third potential comparison group. The Common
    Core of Data (CCD) collected by the U.S. Department of Education's
    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides information
    on all public schools in the United States, and we have utilized
    those data to the extent possible. They are limited, however, in
    that they do not include information on teacher and principal
    characteristics, for example, or on some of the other
    characteristics of schools salient to this evaluation.

For *district* comparisons, data are available from the CCD (just
described) and from a study by the Urban Institute.[^16] Problems arise,
however, in identifying the types of districts to use as the basis of
comparison for MSAP districts; for example, on the basis of size of
district, urbanicity, or other factors. Overall, MSAP districts are
larger than other school districts in the United States, so we have used
large districts as the basis for comparison in some instances. As
discussed in Chapter II, the 57 projects include small districts as
well; hence comparisons to large districts have some limitations. For
other district comparisons, we have also used national comparison data
from NCES for 1997-98, the most recent available.[^17] In all cases, we
have endeavored to use the most appropriate comparison group for the
data being presented, and we have identified the comparison groups
cited.

**Organization of the Report**

In general, the content of this report is organized according to the
seven major evaluation questions; for example, Chapter I addresses
evaluation question 1, Characteristics of MSAP Projects.[^18] Chapters
I-VII each conclude with sections on What We Have Learned, summarizing
our findings, and What We Hope to Learn, indicating further information
needed. Chapter VIII (the last) provides a brief preview of future
activities and reports for this evaluation. A glossary and bibliography
are provided at the end of the report.

[^1]: Steel, L., and R. Levine. *Educational Innovation in Multiracial
    Contexts: The Growth of Magnet Schools in American Education.*
    Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994.

[^2]: See for example, Archbald, D. *Magnet Schools, Voluntary
    Desegregation, and Public Choice Theory: Limits and Possibilities in
    a Big City School System*. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Madison:
    University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1988; Blank, R. "Analyzing
    Education Effects of Magnet Schools Using Local District Data."
    *Sociological Practice Review* 1 (1990), 40--41; Rossell, C.M. *The
    Carrot or the Stick for Desegregation Policy: Magnet Schools or
    Forced Busing?* Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; Steel,
    L., and M.S. Eaton. *Reducing, Eliminating, and Preventing Minority
    Isolation in American Schools: The Impact of the Magnet Schools
    Assistance Program.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
    1996; and Witte, J., and D. Walsh. "A Systematic Test of the
    Effective Schools Model." *Educational Evaluation and Policy
    Analysis 12* 2 (1990), 188--212.

[^3]: See for example, Yu, C.M., and W. Taylor, with E. Goldring, C.
    Smrekar, and D. Piche. *Difficult Choices: Do Magnet Schools Serve
    Children in Need?* Washington, DC: Citizens' Commission on Civil
    Rights, 1997.

[^4]: P.L. 92--318, Title VII, Sec. 701-720, June 23, 1972.

[^5]: LEAs are *local education agencies---*public school districts or
    education centers serving students in some or all of grades K-12.
    This definition and others are included in the Glossary at the end
    of this volume.

[^6]: 20 U.S.C. 7202

[^7]: In a few cases, the grantee is a consortium of school districts.

[^8]: For a complete list of the districts and the years of their
    awards, see Table A-O-1 in the Overview Appendix.

[^9]: Additional information about funding and budgets is included in
    Chapter VII.

[^10]: 20 U.S.C. 7212

[^11]: For a complete list of the evaluation questions, see Table A-O-2
    in the Overview Appendix.

[^12]: For more information, see the Methodology section and the
    1999--2000 evaluation instruments in the Appendix- Overview.

[^13]: Although 292 schools are included in the MSAP projects funded in
    1998, eight had a planning year and therefore were not yet open in
    1999--2000.

[^14]: DuBois, P. et al. (2001). *Evaluation of the Magnet School
    Assistance Program, 1998 Grantees: Year 1 Interim Report
    Appendices.*

[^15]: Later samples included a small number of non-Title I schools,
    making national estimates available.

[^16]: Turnbull, B., Hannaway, J., and McKay, S. *Local Implementation
    Study: District Survey Results*. Washington, DC: Planning and
    Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education, 1999, 77-78.

[^17]: National Center for Education Statistics. *Characteristics of the
    100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary Districts in the United
    States: 1997-98.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
    1999.

[^18]: In some cases, evaluation questions within one of the seven major
    evaluation questions seemed to fit more logically in a chapter
    concerning a different major evaluation question. For example, under
    evaluation question I, "What are the characteristics of MSAP
    projects?" is the question "In addition to MSAP grants, what other
    sources of support are available to and accessed by MSAP projects
    and schools?" We examine the support question in Chapter VII because
    it is related to evaluation question VII's questions about how MSAP
    projects spend their funds. The list of evaluation questions in the
    Overview Appendix (Table A-O-2) identifies the sections of this
    report in which each evaluation question is addressed. If a question
    is not yet addressed, the list indicates the future report in which
    it will be included.