Task Force on Magnet Schools
Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005

The meeting was called to order by Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, co-chair.

Task Force Members present: Sen. Gaffey, Rep. Fleischmann, Dr. Betty Sternberg, Joseph Townsly (on behalf of Dr. Bruce Douglas), Dr. Cheryl Saloom, Cal Heminway, Robert Smalley, Tom Scarice, Rep. David Labriola, Dr. Robert Villanova.

SDE Staff present: Karen Flanagan, Bill Magnotta, Janice Dinnall, Jack Hasegawa, Mark Linabury, and Laura Anastasio.

I. Minutes of the October 18, 2005 meeting were approved.
II. State Department of Education Presentation:
A. Best Practices (B. Magnotta)

1. For those who would like more detailed information concerning what makes certain magnets successful, the Executive Summary of the Magnet School Study is available with the packet of materials for October 18^th.
2. Most effective programs discussed on page six of the Executive Summary.

B. Access/Capacity

1. Four different types of partnerships were discussed.
2. Reasons for not operating at capacity—problems of diversity, tuition payments, compliance with Sheff; some schools are starting up and not yet housed in a new building, making it difficult to attract suburban students.
3. Waitlists: some districts unwilling or unable to make tuition payments for all interested students.

C. Tuition payments

1. Tuition is set by the districts or RESCs running the magnets.
2. Five part-time magnets have parent subsidized tuition in varying degrees.
3. For part-time magnets, districts may only support a specified number of students, and parents are willing to pay a portion of the tuition.
4. Though a commitment to support a student in a magnet school should be a multi-year commitment, this is not a requirement of the law; and some districts may discontinue support year to year. (Raised question: to what extent are school districts encumbering future budgets by making a commitment to support a student in a magnet.

D. Magnet Operating Grants (B. Brewer)

1. Host model vs. RESC model
2. 55% Rule: If one district provides more than 55% of the students, then the magnet grant will be reduced on a sliding scale. If no one district exceeds 55% of the population, the RESC receives $6250.00 per student.
3. If a participating district drops out, the funding can considerably change with the sliding scale funding due to the 55% rule.
4. Host magnets receive a magnet operating grant and ECS. Urban districts get the largest ECS grant.
5. RESC magnets receive a magnet operating grant but no ECS. Such magnets must charge tuition to the participating districts. However, some districts are not willing to pay a high tuition, leading to shortfalls in the budgets that the RESCs cannot make up.
6. Supplemental funding has made up for recent shortfalls for the RESC-operated magnets.
7. Task Force members suggested the need to address this shortfall that often affects the RESC-operated schools.

III. Next meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 2 p.m. in Room 1E of the Legislative Office Building.