Task Force on Magnet Schools
Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2005

Task Force on Magnet Schools
Notes for Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2005

Meeting called to order by Sen. Thomas Gaffey, co-chair

- Introductory comments by Sen. Gaffey, Rep. Andrew Fleischmann
- Introductions of the Task Force members: Cheryl Saloom,
- Introductions of the SDE staff: Mark Stapleton, Brian Mahoney, Bill Magnotta, Karen Flanagan, Laura Anastasio

Overview of Magnet Program (Kathy Demsey, DAS)

- Purpose of magnets: racial/ethnic diversity
- Magnet models: Host magnet, RESC-operated magnet, Cooperative arrangement, Manchester Community Technical College (run by CREC)
- Funding: operating grant by state pursuant to statutory formula (which provides the bulk of the funding), tuition from sending school districts, tuition from the parents (only for arts magnets), and a small amount of funding from private sources and federal government.
- Current year: estimated cost of 85 million dollars.
- Funding mechanism: critical issue; supplemental grants have been provided yearly to cover costs that are not covered by the formula.
- Participation from other districts (which will help ensure financial stability)
- Cost of facilities/building new magnets—how many schools do we build? When do we stop? Where should new magnets go?

Q&A:
AF: Chart shows six-fold increase in the number of children attending magnets for the future and a ten-fold increase in costs. Why is there a disparity?

KD: In part from the way the formula works and in part because of the supplementary grants. Since 2002, the magnets are funded at a higher level than before. Before the maximum amount was $5301—the supplemental grants skewed that. Some magnets get more than 5301. Next year the RESC magnets will get an increase from 6250 to 6500. Some regions have many magnets; others have few.

Do we want to direct capital projects to provide equitable distribution of magnets, or do we wait to get an application from a district? (KD: at this time, the districts initiate the application. Some districts cannot find enough participating districts to make the application successful.)

AF: There are inequities in the distribution of magnets.

TH (Sen. Toni Harp): Question regarding accountability—is there outcome or accountability for the magnets. If the state is paying a lot, it should get a lot in return. How effective are these schools in educating our children. How do they perform in comparison to our public schools?

(KD: We do have this information and can provide it to you.)

DM (Rep. Denise Merrill): What is the actual cost per student?

(KD: Prior to awarding the supplemental grants, we did get more detailed information from the magnets. Can be provided to the task force.)

DM: Who sets the tuition costs? Then perhaps we can back up and figure out what is fair for the state to reimburse. How do we project the future?

WM (Bill Magnotta): There are future schools in the pipeline; we estimated the initial enrollment of 20,276 counting the future schools that are expected to open.

TG (Sen. Gaffey): Besides magnets in the pipeline, are others included in the estimates?

WM: Several magnets are approved and under construction (Danbury), one is still looking for a home (Groton/New London). There are also proposals from Bridgeport, Windham and Stamford.

TG: Task force needs to look at these “pipeline” schools: (1) what needs to be done to meet the Sheff order in Hartford? (2) Need agenda item to review the projects. How real are some of these projects? Have they gotten their approvals, a place to build?

AT (Alan Taylor): The future estimate of 20,276 children and an estimated cost of $95 million. If you divide the number of children in, the per pupil cost is very high—are you projecting higher costs?

KD: The amount is based on the sliding scale and several different formulas. There are magnets that have very different operating costs for a number of reasons—extended year, extended day programs may cost more. The state funding varies as well—some magnets get less reimbursement under the sliding scale formula.

Overview of the Funding for Magnets (Bill Magnotta)

TH: Looking at the list of schools, why are there only a few communities—New Haven, Hartford. But Bridgeport, Waterbury have relatively few magnets.

WM: There have been a number of “starts and stops” for many reasons. Boards can be divided as to whether they want to start up a magnet and planning can take a long time. There may not be sufficient number of participating districts. Changes in administrations may put on hold plans for magnets.

DM: Is there information on actual racial/ethnic composition of the magnets? Increasing diversity is the primary goal of the magnets. How are they achieving this goal?

WM: IN the host magnets, it is hard to get to those numbers. Many hosts struggle to reach that level. It depends upon the membership and where the school is in the process. Schools that are just beginning may not have as many students drawn from participating districts.

MS (Mark Stapleton): There are two critical issues on the chart: enrollment capacity versus current enrollment. If a school reaches capacity, there is more revenue available. So the two critical issues are:

(1) How to maximize the enrollment capacity so that the formula is maximized; and
(2) What is a fair and reasonable tuition charged to the districts. RESCs charge a tuition to the sending school districts. Host magnets are able to provide a program with state and local funding without having to charge a tuition to sending districts.

TG: Breakdown of the enrollment from one district. 80%/20%. What is the cut-off for the RESC-operated magnets?

WM: For schools that opened before July 1, 2005, there must be an 80/20 proportion. However, for schools that open after July 1, 2005, there must be a 75/25 proportion.

TG: What happens if the level of participation wanes from the sending school districts and forces the host to put more host-town kids in the magnet? Is there a penalty?

WM: We avoid it and encourage other districts outside the member districts to send students. But if a tuition is required, then there is a problem because most non-member districts do not want to pay tuition. If the home district won’t pay the tuition, the child cannot attend. (This may be an issue that the task force wants to address!).
Regular Educational Expenditure per pupil.
Schools at the top of the list are new schools. Others near the top have extended day/extended year programs that cost more. Schools near the bottom of the chart are part-time magnets, so they might operate at a lower expenditure.
Funding of the magnets:
The formula up to this year was capped the amount per pupil at 90% of the foundation. This has changed to a sliding scale. Once a district goes over a certain percentage of the school’s enrollment, the per pupil amount is reduced.

AF What is the projected enrollment?

WM: The amount is based upon the enrollment in the magnet as of October 1^st of the grant year.
With a district that sends a high % of students to the magnet, for example, 75% of the students coming from one district, the magnet would get only 1757 per pupil for those students. Now the amount is boosted to $3000 per pupil. For the other students coming from other districts, the grant would be at the maximum.

DM: Rationale for the 55% cut off?

WM: Not sure. Many of the city magnets were 50/50. If the home district skews the numbers by placing more of its children there, then they will get less funding.

TG: Agenda. Timetable for future meetings. Tuesday afternoons on a bi-weekly schedule.
The agenda items that have been mentioned in this meeting are:

- Outcome/Accountability (magnets vs. public schools); which magnets are successful under NCLB?
- Tuition mechanism: how does it function?
- Capital projects: funding of buildings; what projects are in the pipeline?
- Sheff v. O’Neill: what needs to be done to meet the court order? How do we do it?
- Issue of accessibility and capacity for magnets: should all children have a right to attend a magnet?
- Ethnic/racial breakdown: how are we meeting this goal?
- Part-time vs. full-time magnets
- Transportation
- Total funding: revenue sources available to the districts; financial data
- Administrative structures: how much money goes to administering the programs and how much to educating children?

Next meeting will not be on the Jewish New Year. Task force members will be contacted to set up the time and date of the next meeting.

The meeting was called to order by Co-Chairperson, Sen. Thomas Gaffey.

Introductory comments by Sen. Gaffey and Co-Chairperson, Representative Andrew Fleischmann.

Task Force Members present: Dr. Betty Sternberg, Allan Taylor, Sen. Gaffey, Rep. Fleischmann, Sen. Toni Harp, Rep. Denise Merrill, Kathy Demsey, Dr. Bruce Douglas, Dr. Cheryl Saloom, Cal Heminway, Robert Smalley, Tom Scarice, Robert Villanova, and Mark Wilde (on behalf of Rep. David Labriola).

SDE Staff present: Mark Stapleton, Brian Mahoney, Karen Flanagan, Bill Magnotta, and Laura Anastasio.

I. Kathy Demsey provided an overview of the magnet school program in Connecticut, including the purpose of the magnets, magnet models, and future estimates for magnet participation and costs. Q & A followed.
II. Bill Magnotta provided an overview of the funding mechanism and the expenditure data for the magnet schools. Q & A followed.

III. Sen. Gaffey provided a list of future agenda items that committee members raised during the discussions:

A. Outcome/accountability for the magnets. How are our magnets doing in comparison to our public schools, particularly under the accountability standards in the No Child Left Behind Act? Which magnets are the most successful and why?
B. The tuition mechanism—how does it function?
C. Capital projects/funding of new magnet school buildings. What projects are in the pipeline and at what stage?
D. Sheff v. O’Neill—what needs to be done to meet the court order? How do we do it?
E. Accessibility/parental choice and capacity for magnets. Should all children have right to attend a magnet?
F. Ethnic/racial breakdown in the magnets. How are the magnets achieving this goal?
G. Part-time versus full-time magnets.
H. Transportation.
I. Total funding: revenue sources available to districts, financial data.
J. Expenditure data, including administrative structures. How much money goes to administering the programs and how much to educating children?

IV. Sen. Gaffey discussed the timetable for future meetings. The committee will meet on a bi-weekly basis on Tuesday afternoons. However, there will be no meeting on Tuesday, October 4^th, which is Rosh Hashanah. The committee members will be informed of the date and agenda for the next meeting.