Knox County Magnet Schools Evaluation
____   ____   ____   ____   ____   ____

Final Summative Evaluation Report

Findings and Conclusions

Findings and conclusions of the study are presented by research question:
Research Question 5.  How do stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administrators, board members, community leaders) perceive the magnet schools?

Data pertaining to this question were gathered from teacher surveys, hotline callers, parent (magnet, non-magnet) focus groups (magnet and non-magnet student focus groups), and interviews within several stakeholder groups including magnet school principals and facilitators, appropriate current and former central office administrators, a few community leaders, and three Board members.

Teacher Survey Results

A total of 179 teachers from the five magnet schools completed surveys.  Seven additional respondents either failed to identify their positions or left the identification item blank.  Of the 179 respondents, 125 (69.8 %) taught both magnet and non-magnet students, 31 (17.3 %) taught only magnet students, and 23 (12.8 %) taught only non-magnet students.  A copy of the teacher survey is provided in Appendix C.

Respondents were first asked to rate 13 statements about their schools on a five-point Likert scale using a continuum from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.”  Average ratings across all five schools ranged from 4.19 (Site-based decision making is implemented effectively in my school) to 3.14 (Most parents of my students are committed to their child’s program.)  The site-based decision making item received the highest rating in four of the five magnet schools, as well as the highest average rating.  The parent commitment item which received the lowest average rating also received the lowest rating in each of the five schools.  The second highest average rating (4.10) across schools went to the statement “Teachers and administrators share a common mission for magnet program students and for non-magnet students.”  However, ratings by individual school faculties put this statement in second place in only three of the five schools.

When respondents were asked how satisfied they were with their teaching positions, 48.14 percent of all respondents marked “Very Satisfied” and 46.18 percent marked “Satisfied.”  Only 5.66 percent indicated dissatisfaction or strong dissatisfaction.

An open-end question asked teachers what factors influenced their decisions to become involved in the magnet schools.  Patterns of response were similar across schools.  Factors often mentioned by both magnet and non-magnet teachers included opportunity to teach in a diverse urban setting, options available to students, opportunity to make a difference, opportunity to teach in a particular magnet program (math/science, performing arts, technology), and availability of a job.

Another open-end question (question 6 in the survey) asked teachers why a school might want to implement the magnet school program model in their school.  Reasons most often mentioned included diversity of students, curricular and extra-curricular opportunities, and additional resources.  Several teachers indicated that they would not recommend the model currently operational in their schools.

Question 7 on the survey asked teachers how the magnet program(s) in their schools could be improved.  There were a variety of answers, some pertaining explicitly to a particular program.  Recurring themes included more recruitment and more marketing of the programs, more parental involvement, more selectivity of students (higher standards), and more funding.  In a few of the schools, respondents urged more integration of magnet and non-magnet students.

Several teachers in several of the schools encouraged a different approach to the magnet concept.  One respondent summarized this perceived need in the following way:  “This is the worst of both worlds.  If it is going to be a magnet school, they need to focus on the magnet concept.”  However, some survey respondents seemed to want to diminish the magnet concept in that they emphasized lessening distinctions between programs and students.

Finally, survey respondents were given opportunity to provide additional comments.  The following quotes are indicative of the range of comments offered:

Principal and Facilitator Interview Findings

Ten overarching themes emerged from the interviews held with magnet school principals and facilitators:

1. Principals and facilitators agree that there is a need for the system to commit to finding ways to make the magnet schools attract more out-of-zone students.  They feel that when the magnet schools began, they had strong, unique programs that attracted out-of-zone students.  Now, other schools in the system have many of the same offerings, so many parents are no longer considering the magnet schools as an option
2. In addition to offering more attractive enticements, the system should look at zoning.  Principals and facilitators had a number of ideas about how to go about changing the zones so that the magnet schools would benefit.  Examples included making the magnet schools open enrollment, with all parents applying for their children to attend; expanding the zones for each magnet school to bring in a different demographic or shrinking the zones so that more students who are now in zone would have to apply to come to the magnet schools.
3. There is a strong concern about the need for more parent involvement in the schools.  Several principals and facilitators mentioned that one of the benefits of an open enrollment or small zone program would be that they could require parents to sign a contract committing to volunteering a certain number of hours when they apply for admission, and students whose parents would not agree to volunteer would not be selected for the magnet program
4. Principals and facilitators are concerned about the formula that is used to select out-of-zone magnet students for admission.  The formula in place discriminates unfairly against both in-zone and out-of-zone black students.  In addition, there is concern about the need for students to keep reapplying to attend the magnet program after their initial acceptance.  It is felt that students who begin in the magnet program should be allowed to continue in the magnet program.
5. All principals and facilitators cited the non-academic benefits that children can receive from attending the magnet schools as a primary draw for parents.  The fine and performing arts programs as well as the opportunity to be with those of different ethnicities and learning about the real world were all cited as benefits.  In addition, low pupil/teacher ratios and individualized attention to students are seen as real drawing cards for the magnet schools
6. At the same time, there is a concern among some principals and facilitators about the need for increased academic rigor in the magnet schools.  There is a disconnect between the schools being magnet and at the same time being “failing” schools.  There is a general feeling that the magnet schools emphasizing fine arts need to keep that emphasis, but, at the same time, make sure that the academics piece is of equal quality.
7. It appears that the magnet schools have been left to generally do their own thing as long as the OCR mandate has been met.  We heard often that the schools had adjusted their program from a separate magnet program to one integrated with the rest of the school, primarily in response to in-zone parent concerns.  It appears that little or no central office approval was required before these changes could be made
8. The issue of recruiting and maintaining a quality staff is a concern in all of the magnet schools.   There is some feeling that the suburban schools get the first pick of the best teachers, and the magnet schools get the leftovers.  There is also a feeling that when they do get good teachers, they are sometimes transferred to other schools, often at the last minute.  Several principals mentioned that they have some people on staff that they would prefer not to have.  The possibility of paying the inner city teachers some sort of incentive bonus was mentioned by several administrators as a possible way to help attract and retain excellent teachers.
9. One principal has been in place for one year, three principals have been at their schools for two years, and one principal is in her third year.  All are involved in making changes that they feel will result in an improved school.  They all see the magnet program as part of the school, and all want to keep the magnet programs in their buildings.  As principals, they are focused on the big picture, of which the magnet program is only one piece.  They all are happy with the extra personnel and funds the magnet programs bring to their schools, as well as the students who are different from the average demographic, and their involved parents.
10. Most of the principals and facilitators feel that Project Grad has been an asset to their schools.  They like the extra funds that are provided, the extra personnel, the emphasis on improving achievement in math and science, increased parent interest and enthusiasm, and the scholarships that will help students go on to college who otherwise would not.  Generally, they would like the program to be a little less structured, and they would like to have a little more control over it, but at the same time they understand that a contract has been signed and the program is in place for some time to come.  They feel it is their job to make it work.

Magnet school principals were asked to convene both magnet and non-magnet focus groups at their schools.  Criteria given for selection by the interview team included:

• Invite more parents than excepted group size (some will not attend)

• Target a participant group of 8-10 parents;

• Invite both supportive/positive and non-supportive parents or caregivers.

Focus group meetings were conducted in late January and early February.  Two evaluation team members led each meeting; one of whom led the discussion while the other recorded the interactions.  Nine questions provided the framework for the five magnet parent focus groups (one per school).  Seven questions framed the discussions with non-magnet parents (one focus group per school).  Copies of these question sets are provided in Appendix D.

Focus group meetings were held at times deemed by principals to be best suited to participants’ schedules.  Some meetings took place in morning hours, some during the afternoon, and some in late afternoon/early evening hours (5:30 – 7:00).

A total of 40 magnet parents participated in the five magnet parent focus groups convened.  Numbers of parents in each group varied because not all invitees who had agreed to participate did so.  Participant numbers were:  Austin-East – 6, Beaumont – 7, Green – 6, Sarah Moore Greene – 8, and Vine – 13.

Non-magnet parents participating in the five non-magnet parent focus groups totaled 35.  Again, the numbers in each school’s group were not equal for the reason noted above.  Participant numbers in these groups were:  Austin-East – 7, Beaumont – 6, Green – 10, Sarah Moore Greene – 6, and Vine – 6.

1. When asked what information parents had about the magnet programs before enrolling their children in them and how they received the information, responses varied.  Several parents indicated that they had very little or no information; others were encouraged to enroll their children by school personnel, particularly teachers.  Some had received materials through the schools or central office, although “word of mouth” was mentioned more often.  Several parents had followed the development of the magnet schools through the local media.
2. When asked about their level of knowledge about the magnet program(s) and services within their schools, magnet parents agreed that they know a lot about programs and services.  However, there was also consensus that their solicitation of information is a factor in their knowledge and that the schools (individual schools and system) should communicate better with them and with other parents, community members, et. al.  In one or two groups, parents stressed that communication had improved in the last year or two with changes in school leadership.
3. When asked how much they feel they know now about the magnet programs and services, one theme common in at least two schools was articulated well by a parent who stated that he knew a lot prior to Project Grad, that this program has changed the program for magnet students, and that parents do not know as much as they did previously [about the interaction of the two programs].  Project Grad (PG) was a focal point of discussion in these groups where there were feelings that PG is stifling creativity, changing curriculum focus, and lock stepping instruction for all students, regardless of ability and achievement.
4. Magnet parents were asked (Question 4) to compare the school their child was attending to the one for which he/she was zoned or the non-magnet program in their current school.  Although a few participants stated that they had no grounds for comparison, never having been involved in a non-magnet program or another school, there were a variety of responses to this question, most of them positive.  Words often used by respondents to describe differences in schools or programs were opportunity and diversity (provided by the magnet programs).  Some parents mentioned more resources (e.g., better technology), more hands-on experiences, instilling of more confidence in students, better student/teacher ratios, and teacher care and commitment as characteristics of the magnets.  Several parents mentioned greatly improved reading and language skills and enthusiasm for reading among their children.  Parent concerns about the magnet programs which were expressed most often, but not in all groups, were lack of emphasis on writing in the curriculum and low expectations of teachers.
5. The fifth question posed to magnet parents was “Does the magnet program offer sufficient academic challenge to your child?”  This question generated both positive and negative responses.  That pattern was true across four of the five schools.  Green Magnet parents unanimously agreed that the program provides sufficient academic challenge for their students.  Some of the concerns mentioned by parents in response to this question included a child being allowed to take an easy, fun class rather than an academically demanding one (e.g., guitar rather than Algebra), loss of enrichment activities and program acceleration because of Project Grad (particularly “Success For All” component), and low teacher expectations (some teachers).
6. When asked about magnet program contributions to students and parents’ long range plans and hopes (question 6), responses focused both on plans for next levels within the school system (i.e., middle school, high school) and beyond.  There was consensus within and across the school groups that the magnet school experience would be beneficial to participating students.  Increased confidence, value for diversity, career decisions, academic focus, and peer group relationships were all mentioned.
   
   Concerns raised in response to this question included lack of continuity in magnet curricula/themes from elementary through middle school and high school in easily accessible school settings, need to re-apply for admission each year, lack of academic challenge in some magnet programs (particularly fine arts), and fear of lack of discipline and structure at the single magnet middle school.  (Vine parents did not demonstrate this concern.)  Despite concerns, magnet parents in all magnet schools agreed that they preferred the magnet programs over regular programs, and they all saw their children proceeding to higher education after graduation.
7. The seventh question posed to magnet parent focus groups asked, “Are there things you expected to happen in the magnet program that have not yet occurred?”  Some parents expressed no unmet expectations.  Perceived weaknesses in and recognition of the math and sciences programs, particularly at the middle and high school levels were mentioned several times.  A few parents mentioned encountering unexpected racism toward white children and parents.  A number of parents responded to the question with positive comments about teachers, school climate, and academic progress of their children.
8. When magnet parents were asked about good and bad things they would tell others inquiring about the magnet programs, the list of good things emerging included special after school programs, diversity, teacher commitment, overall school climate, one-on-one attention, the Project Grad scholarship component, variety of program opportunities, extra resources (particularly hardware and software) and academic emphasis (some schools).  The “bad things” list was headed by lack of transportation (a common theme), perceived problems at Vine Middle School, lack of academic emphasis at the middle and high school levels, failure of the math/science programs to live up to expectations, narrowness in the fine arts magnet program (primary emphasis on dance) at the high school level, loss of excellent teachers to other schools, and difficulty in gaining entry to the programs for African-American students.
9. The final question posed to magnet parents asked whether or not they would recommend the magnet program to other parents.  A majority of these focus group participants said they would recommend the programs to other parents.  There was a unanimous “yes” in three school groups.  In the other two school groups, there were a few dissenters and a consensus that parents should consider the needs of their students and their own expectations.

Non-Magnet Parent Focus Group Findings

Parents participating in the non-magnet parent focus groups were asked to respond to seven questions.  Several of these questions were duplicates of the questions asked of magnet parents, but some questions differed because of expected differences in parent experiences.

1. Interviewers first asked non-magnet parents what information they had about the magnet program(s) in their school when their children became eligible to apply and why they chose not to enroll their children in the program(s).  In some school groups, parents indicated that they had much information about the programs; in others, parents indicated that they knew little.  Parent knowledge is clearly related to school leadership.  Parents in several schools stated that they could see little difference between magnet and non-magnet programs, and some indicated that enrollment in the program makes little difference because all students are in the same classes.  In most of the school groups there were parents who stated that they wanted their children in the magnet program but that the acceptance process would not allow it.  Several parents stated that all students in a magnet school ought to have access to magnet programs and services.
2. A second question requested information from group participants about their current knowledge of magnet school programs and services.  A common response was “little or no knowledge” because there are no updates.  Parents with students in both the magnet and non-magnet programs were most knowledgeable, as might be expected.
   
   Some parents expressed a belief that there is more discipline in magnet classes and that those classes are more challenging.
3. Non-magnet parents were asked, “In what ways do you think magnet programs benefit the students who participate in them?”  Responses varied greatly, but included afternoon tutoring programs for low-achieving students, specialized instruction (e.g., performing arts), opportunities to apply what is learned, more challenging homework and classes, and more individual attention.  Some group participants took the opportunity to express concern about lack of communication between teachers and themselves, and some labeling of magnet and non-magnet students.
4. Non-magnet parents were then asked if having the magnet program(s) in their school had benefited their children.  A number of participants responded positively.  They cited opportunity for their children to participate in specialized programs (e.g., performing arts), though not magnet students, more diversity in the student body, and more opportunity for advanced classes.  Some respondents saw little benefit.
5. The fifth question asked focused on parents’ desire to have their children in the magnet programs if they had opportunity.  Many parents expressed strong desire.  Others felt that their children couldn’t “handle” the program, and yet others perceived that it made little difference.
6. When magnet parents were asked if there was a magnet theme/curriculum that they would like to see offered that they thought would be beneficial to their child, respondents at the high school level mentioned several vocational programs such as office education, cosmetology, masonry, culinary arts, a beefed up health sciences program, etc.  Programs emphasizing more reading and language arts were mentioned by several parents as were math/science programs, and programs emphasizing individualized attention (tutoring, one-on-one instruction, etc.)  One or two parents mentioned programs emphasizing “the basics”.
7. The last question posed to non-magnet parents asked if the magnet program(s) in their school had affected their children in any way.  Responses ranged from negative affect such as “child feels she/he is missing out on something” and “non-magnet kids know the difference” too little or no impact to increased interest in school.

School principals were also asked to convene both magnet and non-magnet student focus groups.  Criteria given for selection by the interview team included:

• Select older students (elementary schools) who can articulate their perspectives and experiences,

• Include students representative of different grade levels;

• Include students who will express their perspectives and thoughts (will participate in discussion).

Student focus group meetings were typically held on the same day that parent focus groups met with interviewers.  The same interview team (two persons) conducted the student and parent focus groups.  It should probably be noted, too, that the same interviewers conducted all focus groups in all schools.

A total of 44 students participated in the five magnet student focus groups.  This total included 7 students at Austin-East, 9 students at Beaumont, 10 students at Green, 9 students at Sarah Moore-Greene, and 9 students at Vine Middle School.

The combined non-magnet student focus groups contained 35 participants.  This total included:  Austin-East – 6, Beaumont – 6, Green – 9, Sarah Moore Greene – 7, and Vine – 7.

Magnet students in the three elementary schools were asked four questions, while six questions were posed to non-magnet elementary students.  Magnet students at the middle school level were asked to respond to six questions.  Magnet high school students responded to nine questions, and non-magnet students at both the middle and high school levels were asked six questions.

1. When asked if they liked being in the magnet program, the response was a unanimous “yes” (all students, all three schools).
2. A second question asked elementary magnet students what they liked about being in the program.  While there were a variety of answers, common themes were greater challenge, variety of projects and opportunities, extra help (if needed), perks (e.g., parties, trips, extra technology and materials), program specific factors (e.g., multi-media instruction, science choices such as oceanography and chemistry), and “nice” teachers.
3. Question three to magnet students focused on what they perceived as special about being in the magnet program.  Most of the responses to this question mirrored the responses to question two.  However, a few students voiced concerns about segregation of magnet and non-magnet students and non-magnet students “making fun of” magnet students.
4. The fourth and last question asked of elementary magnet students was about plans to continue in the magnet program in middle school.  Responses differed across schools.  Five (5) of six (6) Beaumont students indicated that they did not want to continue in the magnet program at the middle school level.  The other respondent was not sure what she was going to do.  At Sarah Moore Greene, six (6) of nine (9) group participants planned to continue.  At Green, all group participants expressed a desire to continue, but most were unclear where they wanted to go to middle school.  Some students mentioned Vine; others named other Knox County middle schools.  Green students expressed excitement about visiting the available middle schools on a future field trip.  (This opportunity was not mentioned in other schools.)

Students not planning to continue in the magnet program in middle school offered several reasons, the most common being what they (or their parents) had heard about Vine (violence, lack of discipline, quality of program).  Other reasons given were proximity to another middle school and siblings or friends at another school.

Most participants in the magnet student groups would recommend their programs to other students, but would caution them that they will have to work hard.  All participants indicated a desire to “go to college”, and many had tentatively chosen careers, including cosmetologist, lawyer, doctor, artist, pastor, engineer, veterinarian, police officer, and forensic scientist.  (They credited awareness of possible careers to guest speakers, job shadowing, and career days.)

It should be noted that students at Green Magnet School were aware of the contributions of Project Grad and mentioned them; e.g., scholarships, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, SFA, special trips.

1. The first question posed to middle and high school magnet students requested information about how they learned about the magnet programs.  Several students reported being magnet participants throughout their school experience.  Others mentioned presentations made at their elementary and middle schools, or a school tour.  Friends of parents were mentioned by several students; teachers were mentioned by a few.
2. When asked why they were interested in participating in the magnet program, students’ responses included special interests (e.g., African dance and ballet, arts, culinary arts), smaller class sizes, and individual help.
3. Magnet students at Vine were next asked if they liked being in the magnet program.  All responded positively.
   
   Magnet students at Austin-East were asked instead if their expectations had been met.  Five (5) of seven (7) participants indicated that the program had exceeded their expectations (partly because they didn’t know what to expect).  Students expressing disappointment mentioned deterioration of the orchestra and theater programs, teachers leaving, and a science academy program that never materialized.
4. When asked what they liked about being in the magnet program, Vine magnet students mentioned social mix of students, freedom to choose electives, more electives than other schools, and more related arts.
   
   Austin-East students were asked what they had learned from their magnet experience that they did not expect.  A common theme in responses was learning that so much talent existed (e.g., dance troop).  Other responses included an unexpected range of activities including trips and guest speakers/instructors that provided new learning.
5. The fifth question posed to both middle school and high school magnet students sought their perceptions of what is special about being in the magnet program.  Middle school students mentioned fairness of teachers and availability of more courses at the right level (low, middle, advanced).  High school students mentioned the uniqueness of their program (arts), variety of cultures in the school, more opportunities, and smaller classes.
6. As a last question, middle school students were asked if they planned to continue in the magnet program in high school.  All participants in the middle school group indicated that they would attend Austin-East, but some indicated that they did not understand that they had to attend Austin-East to participate in a magnet program.  One student’s parent did not want him to attend Austin-East because of the school’s test scores.
   
   All students in the middle school group were aware of the Project Grad scholarship component and all indicated intention to continue to postsecondary education.  Career choices mentioned included:  accountant, doctor, surgeon, historical scientist, chef, psychologist, and small business owner.
   
   High school magnet students were asked (question 6) how they thought their magnet school experiences would be helpful to them after completing high school.  One student indicated that he was looking for a degree in dance education and that he had discovered new opportunities after graduation.  Students who entered the magnet program at the high school level like the diversity at Austin-East and feel that it will serve them well in the future.  (Students who had progressed through the magnet schools didn’t know any other culture than diversity.)  Concerns raised by students in this group focused on a perceived lack of academic emphasis in the school.
7. When asked what it has meant to them to be in the magnet program, high school students’ responses included:
   
   
   • pushed,
   • upper level courses,
   • personal teacher attention and smaller classes that changed academic performance,
   • greater exposure to the arts,
   • exposure to a variety of cultures, more real life (hands on) experiences,
   • more independent work.
8. High school students were asked if they would recommend the program to other students.  Most said, “yes”, but qualified their answer suggesting that the program would be good for some students, but not others.  For example, respondents would recommend the program to students interested in the arts, but not to students desiring an extensive science curriculum.  Respondents’ qualified recommendations included the existence of more facilities (the arts), staff with broad experience, and a place to “taste a lot of things.”
   
   A senior student indicated that he would no longer recommend coming to the magnet school because he felt that other schools in the Knox County system are now equivalent in all areas except dance.  Group participants also expressed concerns about transportation.  They conceded that “lots of waiting around” occurs.  Another programmatic concern mentioned was lack of foreign languages other than Spanish and French which are available in all high schools.
9. When asked if they had recommended the magnet program to other students, several students indicated that they had done so.  One respondent had encouraged a friend from the western part of the county to come, and he is happy here.  These students expressed a perceived need for a critical mass of new students to strengthen the programs and make them worth recommending.

The six questions posed to middle and high school non-magnet students were identical.  However, responses varied between groups.

1. The first question asked of non-magnet group participants was, “Are you in any classes with magnet program students?”  At the middle school level, all students agreed that most of their classes included magnet students.  Four members of the high school group were sure that their classes contained magnet students; two respondents were not sure.
2. When asked if they had friends in the magnet program, all middle school group members said, “yes”.  At the high school level, two group members said, “yes”. And four said, “no”.
3. Non-magnet students were asked if they thought that magnet students received special privileges.  Middle school respondents said, “no”, and indicated that they participate with magnet students in special privileges.  High school focus group members also indicated that magnet students do not receive special privileges and that they (non-magnet students) also participate in the performing arts program.
4. Non-magnet students were asked if they felt that they benefited from the magnet program.  Middle school students responded positively, citing their interest in the classes in which they, too, participate.  Within the high school focus group, three students felt that they benefited; others were not sure.  On a positive note, high school respondents cited their exposure to different cultures and disciplines within the arts, but they also cited the fact that magnet students get to dance, and some receive dance scholarships.
5. When asked if they would like to be in the magnet program, all middle school students said, “yes”.  Four participants (all female) in the high school focus groups said, “yes”, but two male students didn’t see any particular value in participation because classes “aren’t that different”.
6. Both groups of non-magnet students were asked if there were additional magnet curricula/themes in which they would like to participate, if offered.  Only one program, cosmetology, was mentioned at the middle school level.  High school respondents indicated that nothing else is needed and that if there are enough students interested in a subject, the principal will establish a class.
   
   When asked about plans for high school, most middle school students wanted to attend Austin-East.  One student wanted to attend Bearden, and another was not sure.
   
   Most high school focus group members wanted to attend college.  Career choices include pediatrician, nurse, actor, dance, electrician, and electrical engineer.
   
   All members of the high school focus group were aware of their involvement in Project Grad and liked the possibility of a Project Grad scholarship.

Since relatively few parents and community members had opportunity to participate in focus groups, the evaluation team established a telephone hotline which was manned Mondays through Thursdays from 3:00 to 7:00 P.M. for a period of three weeks in February.  Magnet school principals and facilitators were asked to publicize the hotline number and the days and hours of availability.  The hotline was also mentioned in an article in the Knoxville News Sentinel and posted on several websites.  A form was created on which the telephone interviewer could record callers’ comments and responses to follow-up questions posed by the interviewer.  In many cases, the proposed follow-up questions were not applicable to the callers’ comments, so the preponderance of information collected from callers consisted of the comments they specifically called to share.  A copy of the “Hotline Protocol” form is provided in Appendix E.  As the reviewer of the form will notice, demographic information collected from a caller included designation of the school or schools with which he/she was affiliated, and identification of son or daughter  (in the case of parents) as either a magnet or non-magnet student.

A total of 49 callers took advantage of the hotline.  The context for their comments demonstrated the following distribution of school affiliations and other perspectives.  Austin-East – 1; Beaumont – 22; Green – 6; Sarah Moore Greene – 2; Vine – 3; multiple schools (Green – Vine – Austin-East) – 1; non-magnet parents and others with no children in magnet schools – 11; former magnet parents – 3.

Comments of hotline callers can be divided into two clusters:  commendations and concerns.  The essence of comments offered in these two clusters is presented below with identification of callers’ school affiliations.  It should be remembered that some schools were represented by only one or two callers (Austin-East, Sarah Moore Greene), and that no school except Beaumont was represented by more than six callers.  Further, a number of callers offered both commendations and concerns.

Concerns

Elaboration of some representative caller comments may be useful to the reader.  Statements below are expanded summaries of comments, not necessarily direct quotes:

• The magnet school program does not have a vision, and there is a lack of accountability.

• The program initially had very high quality, but it now lacks academic/intellectual stimulation, and students are no longer engaged.

• Teacher attrition has decimated the ranks of qualified teachers, and new hires are lacking in training for the magnet program.

• Gifted students are not given materials appropriate for their needs.

• The magnet student body is somewhat diverse, but students would benefit from more diversity.

• There is systematic lack of communication.

• Children have been subjected to rude behavior from teachers, racist comments from other children, inappropriate language from teachers, and violence in the school.

• History class did not have text for entire year.

• Behavior of students and teachers in some classrooms is unacceptable.

• Requests for magnet program locations away from inner city (several callers).

• There are misspelled words on school communication board (outside school) which remain for weeks.

Commendations

• After school programs mixing magnet and non-magnet students add to the value of the experience for children.

• Very happy with intellectual nurturing.

• Quality of program greatly appreciated (several callers).

Improvements and additions callers would like to see included more foreign languages; emphasis on literature, philosophy, the humanities; focus on social skills (including ballroom dancing), a gifted program, emphasis on sports/athletic activity, increased teacher training, and more use of parent volunteers.

Comments From Callers With No Direct Connection to the Magnet Schools

As previously mentioned, 11 persons not directly connected to the current magnet schools or programs called the hotline.  The most dominant theme in these calls was a desire to have magnet programs located in other parts of the county (5 callers) to make them more accessible.  One of these callers urged a downtown location and suggested the TVA buildings.  Two callers simply wanted to express concern that too much money is being spent on too few students.  The other callers in this group suggested additional magnet curricula/themes that would be of interest to them – language immersion and Montessori.

Callers representing parents of former magnet students all commented positively on the quality of the cultural experience for their children, but two stressed that there was not enough diversity.  One parent who had removed his/her child from the magnet program cited distance and transportation issues and the fact that the student had access to curricula and services equal to the magnet program in the school to which he/she was zoned.

Another former magnet parent commented that her student has been removed from the magnet program and returned to the neighborhood school because of program inadequacy/quality.  She will consider re-enrolling in the magnet program, if it is returned to the original high standards.

Two leaders from the African-American community, with historical knowledge of and involvement in the magnet school initiative were interviewed.  The perspectives offered by these individuals included the following points of interest:

Comments From Community Leaders

1. Early concerns of parents in the African-American community included a concern that their children would not be able to participate in these school-within-a-school programs and that out-of-zone white students/families would “take over”.  Some of those concerns are still heard, but not to the same extent.
2. One concern heard is that there hasn’t been an African-American valedictorian at Austin-East for a long time.
3. Parents in the African-American community are pleased with renovations that have taken place at Austin-East, that  they are not able to separate the regular program from the magnet program, and that course offerings have been expanded.
4. Not enough education of parents and community took place as programs were developed, and there is still a great need for education and communication.
5. There is some concern among parents about lack of vertical continuity in programs.
6. Improvements suggested by these two interviewees included:

• Clearly define magnet,

• Provide more communication and education in the school communities.  Suggested strategies were meetings in which participants are asked to give input; e.g., “We are in Year 11 of the magnet programs.  We want to get your thoughts on ……tell us what you are hearing and seeing.”

• Continue to work to make the magnet programs a more integral part of the schools.

• Find ways to admit more students from the local communities into the schools.

• Promote the magnet programs in ways that aren’t intimidating to parents.

Five current or former central office administrators with historical and operational knowledge of the magnet schools were interviewed.  Purposes of these interviews included gathering of information about a) initiation of the magnet programs, b) programmatic changes over time, c) allocation of resources, d) current planning, and e) perceived strengths, needs, and problems in the magnet school initiative at this time.  The director of Project Grad was also interviewed, and his perspectives have been included in this section.

Because of their varying histories and responsibilities in regard to the magnet schools and programs, each central office interviewee provided important and often unique information and perspective.  Of most utility at this point in the report are the common themes and concerns expressed by the group.

1. When asked if the magnet schools had met their objectives, the common answer was “yes and no.”  The interviewees perceived that the magnet schools have achieved OCR requirements, but not their potential as magnet schools.
2. There was common concern that the magnet programs have devolved rather than evolved over time, that what may have been unique at inception is no longer unique.
3. All interviewees agreed that the magnet schools have not been well-marketed (promoted) in recent years.
4. Lack of continuity/articulation in magnet themes/curricula from elementary to middle to high school were cited as a concern by several interviewees.  Several factors leading to this lack of continuity were identified by those who had been involved in the initiation of the magnet programs.
5. Need to re-examine school zones or consider open zoning was mentioned by several interviewees, who felt that current zoning restrictions are a problem.
6. Implementation of new or additional magnet curricula were identified as a need by several interviewees.  Foreign language, leadership, communication, and a museum magnet such as that implemented in the Hamilton County (TN) Schools were mentioned, as well as a high school linked to the University of Tennessee.  (A University High School had been a part of initial magnet plans, but was scrapped for several reasons.)
7. Relationship between Project Grad and magnet programs is perceived to be good; it is seen as a partnership with the partners addressing different needs, but supporting each other.  Project Grad’s goal is to support whatever partner schools are doing and enhance student achievement simultaneously (Project Grad Director).
8. When asked about future design and structure of magnet programs, all interviewees in this group expressed a preference for full school (rather than school-within-a-school) magnets.  Several respondents suggested that the magnet school initiative would probably not ever be successful in achieving its potential without this restructuring.

Findings From Board Member Interviews

Since the Knox County Board of Education would ultimately be responsible for reviewing this report and acting upon it, the evaluation team did not make a concerted effort to interview all Board members.  However, Board members were asked if they wished to be interviewed.  Three Board members requested interviews.  One of those members, Mr. Sam Anderson, had already been identified as a “must interview” by the evaluation team because of his historical knowledge of and involvement in the development of the magnet schools.  The protocol (standard questions) for these interviews is provided in Appendix F.

After identifying interviewees’ involvement with the magnet schools over their 10-year existence (first question), interviewers asked each one, if he/she felt that the magnet schools had achieved their intent.  All agreed that these schools had addressed the issues required in the OCR agreement, but concerns were expressed with regard to operational issues and achievement of broader goals and vision for a magnet program.  Among the operational issues mentioned were need for greater diversity and integration in the student body, low enrollments in facilities capable of housing more students, lack of thematic/curricular continuity from elementary through high school, narrowness of performing arts programs (emphasis primarily on dance), inability of out-of-zone African-American students to enter the programs, perceived lack of central office commitment to the programs, and cost effectiveness.  A question posed in one way or another by all three Board members was, “Can we get rid of racial quotas or modify them?”

When asked about their own expectations for the magnet schools, it is fair to say that all three interviewees expressed expectations that have not been met.  Several of those expectations are either directly or indirectly identified in the summarized responses to the previous questions.  Others will be identified in the interviewee comments discussed in relationship to other questions, summarized in the following paragraphs.

Board members were next asked, “What understanding and perceptions of the magnet school concept exist within the community?”  In response to this question, lack of knowledge about and understanding of the magnet programs because of a lack of marketing and systematic communication was mentioned, as were student and parent concern about attending Vine Middle School, and Austin-East High School because of safety/security issues, and parent desire for different or additional magnet themes/curricula; e.g., Montessori, International Baccalaureate, Language Immersion.  Concerns about the “scripted approach” used in Project Grad were also mentioned, along with a concern that the magnets aren’t working because, “My kids aren’t reaping the benefits even though we live in the community.”

When asked how the magnet schools can be improved, a number of suggestions were offered by Board interviewees.  The list below incorporates all suggestions made by interviewees, not a consensus of the three respondents:

• limit the number of magnet themes;

• expand the number of themes (more options);

• enhance the quality of the programs;

• open the programs to let in more black and white students (rezoning or open zoning mentioned);

• make it convenient for students to go (transportation and location);

• broaden the performing arts program at Austin-East;

• make Vine and Green K-8 schools;

• make changes in transfer policy;

• employ paid parent coordinators at every school;

• require parental service (e.g.; 18 hours as in Hamilton County);

• establish uniform dress codes;

• give teachers access to the buildings on weekends;

• make better use of technology available in the school system; e.g., distance course offerings;

• create a technology high school;

• decrease the number of elementary magnets;

• locate magnets at some other places in the county (perhaps more than one school with the same theme(s);

• consider multi-age grouping; e.g., K-1, 2-3, etc.

• find a way to decrease discipline problems in magnets and other schools;

• market the magnet schools better,

• base quotas (if quotas are needed) on socio-economic status rather than race.

Board interviewees were asked to articulate their visions for magnet schools five years from now.  Their responses to this question mirrored some of the concerns and suggestions previously expressed.  One individual named three components:  limited themes, higher quality, more open enrollment and transfer.  A second reiterated the need for a technology high school and more magnets of more types at locations around the county.  The third interviewee expressed a desire for dropping zone lines and establishing a no transfer policy and suggested that perhaps the magnet concept should be scrapped.

Drawing generalizations from survey, interview, and focus group findings is not an easy task because of the variety of stakeholder groups included in the data collection; i.e., teachers, students (magnet and non-magnet), principals, magnet program facilitators, parents (magnet and non-magnet), hotline callers, Board members, community representatives, and central office administrators.  More than 400 individuals were participants in this phase of the data collection process.  However, some perceived strengths, concerns, and suggestions emerge across groups.

1. Commonly perceived strengths of the magnet schools as they currently exist are opportunity for students to experience diversity, enhanced programmatic opportunities, greater academic challenges for participating students, and availability of additional resources.
2. The vast majority of parents and students (magnet and non-magnet) interviewed like and support the magnet programs with which they are familiar, although some parents (also some teachers) identify tensions between the dual existence of the neighborhood school and magnet concepts.
3. The vast majority of teachers surveyed are satisfied with their teaching positions.
4. In several magnet schools, parents and students perceive little difference between the magnet and ongoing programs.
5. Parents and educators perceive the existence of Project Grad in the magnet schools to be an asset, although there is some concern among parents and educators in a few schools regarding perceived instructional and curricular rigidity.
6. Common concerns across all adult stakeholder groups are lack of recruitment for and marketing of the magnet programs and lack of communication with key stakeholder groups (parents, community, educators and other schools within the Knox County system).
7. Many elementary parents and students have concern about enrolling in the magnet middle school.  This concern includes perceived lack of discipline, violence, and quality of programs.  Parents and students currently participating in the middle school program do not share these concerns.
   
   NOTE:  Some concerns may be alleviated by the recent State Department of Education report which removes Vine Middle from the list of high priority schools.
8. There is consensus across adult stakeholder groups that the quality of the magnet programs needs to be improved.  Greater academic rigor (higher standards), greater uniqueness, and inclusion of more or different themes were identified.
9. There is consensus across adult stakeholder groups that the magnet programs need to attract more out-of-zone students and admit more in-zone students.
10. Consistent with the previous concern (attract more out-of-zone students, admit more in-zone students) were recommendations from several groups that zoning, enrollment formulas, and application procedures be re-examined and changed.
11. Magnet program articulation (continuity of themes/curricula) from elementary to middle school, to high school is a common concern among magnet parents, educators, and some high school students.
12. Some magnet parents and older students express concern about teacher turnover in the magnet programs, not so much the amount of turnover as the loss of key teachers to other schools within the system.
13. Out-of-zone magnet parents, former parents, and students express concern about transportation to the magnet schools.
14. All educator groups (central office, building administrators, program facilitators, teachers) and individuals in other groups participating in the data collection support transition from school-within-a-school to full school magnet programs