Magnet Schools and Integration

Integration Through Magnet Schools

Dan Eisler

Introduction:

Magnet schools emerged as one of several tactics employed by

the United States education system to achieve integration in

response to racial tensions during the civil rights era. This

paper will attempt to answer if, and to what extent this goal was

accomplished, and how magnet school policies today continue to

address issues of race and discrimination. To do this it is

first necessary to explore the conditions and demands that led to

the development and implementation of policies that promoted

magnet schools. This paper will attempt to establish that this

was in response to a demand for desegregation. After an

introduction to the historical context, we can understand what

led policymakers to choose magnet schools, over other means to

achieving integration. In doing so, I plan to develop an

argument as to the values policymakers were ascribing to when

crafting legislation. The next focus of this paper will be on

those specific court cases and legislation that promoted the

growth of magnet schools. After first identifying what the

policies were intended to do, the next step will be to compare

the impact that policy has had on the integration of classrooms

through the development of magnet schools. The focus will be on

implemented policy, and the discrepancies between the policies’

intentions and their outcomes. I will then discuss whether the

development of these magnets has successfully addressed the

demand to integrate, pulling from both sides of the issue. To

illustrate the impact that these policies have had in real

communities, I will include a review of some existing magnets.

These will be useful to help understand what the produced

outcomes of implemented policy have been. Finally, I will compare

magnet schools and charter schools to argue why magnet schools

are a more appropriate tool for accomplishing integration. It is

important to note that I am assuming the continued purpose of

magnet schools is to promote integration. There is no doubt that

academics are still a priority, but I believe that policies

regarding magnet schools have and continue to pertain primarily

to their function as a tool of integration.

History

Despite the passage of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which

declared state laws establishing separate public schools for

black and white students were unconstitutional, desegregation was

“largely token and voluntary throughout the United States” until

1970 (Rossell. 1990, p. 3) The reason for this lack of real

change was the ineffectiveness of policies initially adopted in

response to the legal mandate of Brown v. Board of Education to

integrate schools. Many school districts did nothing, and those

that did enact integration policies adopted choice plans that

were riddled with issues.(Rossell, 1990, p. 4).

These plans looked like change politically, but did very

little to desegregate schools. Northern states implemented

“majority-to-minority” desegregation plans that allowed any child

to transfer to any school in which his or her race was the

minority. (Rossell, 1990, p.4). The result of this was that

disproportionate numbers of black students, up to 25% from a

district, were getting on buses at their own expense to travel to

predominately white schools (Rossell, 1990, p.4). Southern states

some similar varieties of court approved choice plans, including

pupil-placement laws and freedom-of-choice plans (Rossell, 1990,

p.4). Pupil placement plans continued to assign students to

schools based on race, then accept applications for transfers.

The law disallowed the denial of applicant students based on

race, but allowed students to be rejected for a number of other

infractions, varying from overcrowding to bad character (Rossell,

1990, p.5). After these policies were found unconstitutional in

the early 1960’s, school districts adopted freedom-of-choice

plans which required each student to select what school they

wanted to be placed in (Rossell, 1990, p.5). These plans also

failed largely due to lingering racial tensions that discouraged

black students from enrolling in white schools and vice versa. As

a result of these failed policies, despite it being a decade

since the passage of Brown v. Board of Education, almost 94% of

southern black students were still in all-black schools in 1965

(Rossell, 1990, p. 5).

Parents and civil rights groups grew impatient with the slow

pace of integration, and frequency with which districts subverted

the new laws. There was a demand for affirmative action rather

than simply making discrimination illegal, and a response came in

1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. County School Board that

some deregulation plans were ineffective enough as to be

unconstitutional (Rossell, 1990, p.6). The ruling set a precedent

that policies must prove themselves to be effective at

facilitating integration as well as being non-discriminatory

based on race. It then fell to district courts to draft and

implement theses policies.

Enacted Policy

Despite the court’s insistence on results, there was not a

set of specified integration plan characteristics until Swann v.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg in 1971. In its decision, the Supreme Court

outlined acceptable remedies for urban school desegregation as

being “(1) Racial balance; (2) nondiscriminatory one-race

schools; (3) altering of attendance zones, and pairing,

clustering, or grouping of schools; and (4) transportation of

students out of their neighborhood to another school in the

district” (Rossell,1990, p.8). After Swann, integration strategies

typically included a target racial balance, and then used

involuntary school assignment plans to attempt to reach these

goals.

Racially balanced schools were schools whose racial

composition approximated the racial composition of the entire

school district with some allowance for marginal deviation

(Rossell, 1985, p. 218). To achieve this, the majority of

districts adopted busing policies, under which districts would

transport students from one part of the district to another part

of the district to integrate schools. Despite opposition from

effected families, there was a surge in busing between 1970 and

1976. There was evidence that it had positive effects on school

segregation and racial intolerance, but it continued to face

opposition from both white and black families. (Rossell, 1990, p.

10)

In addition to questions about the ethics of busing, when

determining the most effective reassignment of students, models

focused only on the “costs” associated with busing students to a

school in terms of “white flight” (Rossell 1985, p. 218). White

flight is the term given to an observed phenomenon in which white

families begin to leave a community when it reaches a certain

percentage of minorities. Rossell identifies a problem with using

white flight as the primary consideration when evaluating the

effectiveness of integrating a district. “It can estimate how

many students have left, but not the effect of that loss on

interracial contact in the district” (Rossell, 1985, p. 220).

Though white students may leave schools when minority students

are bused in, the net result may still produce more white and

non-white student interaction. With this in mind, Christine

Rossell provides a different framework for thinking about

successful integration. She defines the aims of a school as

ideally being “(A) Raising minority achievement so that the gap

between the races is reduced and eventually eliminated, (B)

Achieving equal status interracial contact and friendships (C)

Increasing minority self-esteem and motivation, and (D) improving

minority life chances”(Rossell, 1985, p. 219).

Magnet school policy intended to address this when first

implemented in 1976, when federal district courts in Buffalo New

York, and Milwaukee approved integration plans that relied

primarily on magnet schools in black neighborhoods in addition to

majority-to-minority transfers in order to desegregate elementary

schools (Rossell, 1990, p. 24). Voluntary integration plans with

magnet schools as a component were emulated in several other

major cities across the U.S, after amendments made to the

Emergency School Assistance Act (ESAA) allocated federal funding

for the creation of magnet schools aimed at desegregation and

integration. (Price & Stern,1987, p.294). This inducement

produced results, by 1982 there were over 130 school districts

running over 1,000 magnet schools across the country for the

express purpose of desegregation (Price & Stern, 1987, p.294 ).

The defining characteristics of these first magnet schools

continue to describe the core characteristics of magnet schools

today: “(1) A distinctive school curriculum organized around a

special theme or method of instruction. (2) Voluntary enrollment

elected by students and their parents. (3) Students are drawn

from many attendance zones” (Price & Stern, 1987, p.292). Having

a distinctive, specialized, or innovative curriculum was intended

to attract white families to black neighborhoods, and prevent

white flight in schools that were receiving an influx of

minorities. Voluntary enrollment meant that students could not be

systematically assigned to schools based on qualifications such

as a race or ability. Finally, by not restricting the student

pool by geographic location, this model attempts to insure that

an imbalance in the racial composition of a district does not

negatively affect the integration of the school.

In 1983 the United States Department of Education

commissioned a study of ESAA funded magnet programs to determine

what had been accomplished,. The study discovered that 40% of the

districts that developed magnet schools experienced positive

results in district wide desegregation (Price & Stern, 1987, p.

295). The researchers defined a successfully integrated school as

one in which there was “equality among students, intergroup

respect, educative use of cultural differences, and inclusiveness

towards all students” (Price & Stern, 1987, p. 297). The study

found that larger districts, districts with economic growth, and

districts that were already multiracial and multiethnic were more

likely to find success with a magnet school, and that magnet

schools were most effective when used in conjunction with other

integration policies (Price & Stern, 1987, p. 295).

And so policy makers began implementing desegregation plans

that relied, at least partially on students choosing to attend

integrated magnet school for their curriculum, rather than giving

students mandatory school assignments. This shift to a choice

model did not produce results as quickly as mandatory

reassignment plans, but over time the voluntary plans produce

greater interracial exposure and, on average, half as much “white

flight” as mandatory plans such as busing (Price & Stern, 1987,

296).

Magnet schools experienced a boom in popularity with funding

increasing under Clinton to over 100 million dollars (Siegel-

Hawley, & Frankenberg 2012, p. 6). A study in 1995 then indicated

that magnet schools, in addition to integrating students, were

producing higher rates of student achievement than public high

school, private or catholic schools (Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg,

2012, p. 8) It appeared, however, that these accomplishments may

have required deprioritizing integration. A study the following

year indicated that only 42% of new magnet programs were

operating under obvious desegregation guidelines, compared to 60%

reported in 1983 (Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p. 8).

This came after many districts had been given “unitary

status” indicating that they had achieved the racial balance in

their district mandated by the courts, and was relieved of

mandatory desegregation strictures (Smrekar, C., & Goldring,

2010). These schools were then forbidden from using strategies

they had used under previous desegregation plans to insure racial

balance, like holding separate admissions lotteries based on race

(Smrekar, C., & Goldring, 2010). Schools then faced the

difficulty of maintaining a racial balance, without using race as

primary criteria for admission. The Bush administration

exacerbated this difficulty by holding magnet schools applying

for funding to a strict standard of race-neutral means of

reducing or eliminating racial isolation (Siegel-Hawley &

Frankenberg, 2012, p. 8). Challenges to these policies culminated

in 2007 with Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS) v. Seattle School District

No. 1 and Crystal D. Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, which

explicitly limited the use of race in student assignment and

school choice plans in “unitary” districts (Smrekar, C., &

Goldring, 2010).

Most recently, the Obama administration has granted

“unitary” districts receiving federal funding more flexibility in

how they comply with the Parent Involved ruling. (Siegel-Hawley &

Frankenberg, 2012, p. 9). In the case ruling justice Kennedy

offered a number of acceptable mechanisms for achieving the aims

of racial integration to inform future policy. His suggestions

bear some resemblance to those characteristics and aims of a

magnet school listed previously by Price and Rossell. “1)

Devising student attendance zones to encompass racially

defined/segregated neighborhoods; 2) Building new schools in

racially mixed neighborhoods or in areas that straddle racially

identifiable neighborhoods; and 3) developing special or unique

programs” (Smrekar, C., & Goldring, 2010).

Implementation and Critique

One issue that arose immediately was the implementation of a

model of magnet school called a partial-site magnet. Implementing

a full-site magnet requires first having a building to fill with

students, which either requires building a new school, or closing

an existing school and emptying it of it’s students. Unlike a

full-site magnet that constitutes an entire school, partial-site

magnet programs exist as an “enclave” within a larger regular

school (West,1994,p.2569). The comparatively low cost of

implementation, coupled with the excitement around school choice

as an alternatives to involuntary integration policies made

partial magnets an incredibly attractive plan. “Nearly every

court-ordered desegregation plan since the early 1980’s has

resulted in the creation of several partial-site magnet schools

and only one, two, or often no full-site magnet schools”(West,

1994, p. 2571).

The problem with this model, as Kimberly West argues, is

that although partial-site magnet programs are successful at

attracting white students to schools in black neighborhoods, they

are also particularly prone to segregating students within the

school building (West, 1994, p.2566) The white transfer students

are isolated to the magnet program, and rarely take classes with

non-transfer minority students in the general classes (West,

1994,p.2567). West concedes that research on in class segregation

is sparse, but insists that the evidence is present, and the lack

of literature is a result of lack of research, not an absence of

segregation. She points to one example of an academically

successful magnet school in Dade County, Florida. “The building

was desegregated - 52% black, 38% white, and 10% Hispanic - but

in regular classrooms outside of the magnet program, 75% of the

fifth and sixth graders were black, and 95% of the

kindergarteners were black”(West, 1994, p. 2575).

A couple of factors, however, have been identified in both

partial and full-site magnets, which can negatively affect

integration efforts. One is the use of highly competitive

admittance criteria, which can create a culture of elitism and

exclusion. The best students go to the most competitive schools,

while the rest get shuffled into the remaining schools. These

students are disproportionately lower class minority students as

indicated by a study conducted in 1985 by the Advocates for

Children which documented far worse acceptance rates to selective

magnet schools for children from minority neighborhoods (Price &

Stern, 1987, p. 301). Not only do selective schools

systematically marginalize minority populations, but selective

schools were not any more likely to be of high quality than

schools that selected students using the lottery method (Price &

Stern, 1987, p.300). Rather than selective admissions criteria,

the paper suggests that the most equitable way to go about

assigning students in a magnet school system is to select

applicants by lottery. A second issue is insuring that a magnet

system has an effective information system to present true

opportunities to all students (Price & Stern, 1987, p. 315). If

there is not a proactive effort on behalf of the district to

provide schools with information to pass on to students, the

system will privilege those families with the social capital to

learn about and take advantage of different choice opportunities.

As more districts are being designated as unitary, and

relieved of their court-mandated desegregation plans, school

choice has become less restrictive and more criticism has arisen

of the school choice model in general. Advocates of the school

choice model assert that the majority of students will select

schools based on their academic quality, rather than the race or

class composition of their student body. Taking this to be true,

the argument is that if schools are allowed to compete for

students across the district, students will flock to more

effective schools, incentivizing other schools to improve and

innovate. In theory, all schools will step up their performance,

and students’ choices will distribute them evenly between the

available options.

A particularly salient criticism of this argument is that

“white and wealthier students will take steps to maintain their

social status by distancing themselves from groups they perceive

to be of lower standing” (Saporito, 2003, p. 182) In an attempt

to explore the validity of this claim, Salvatore Saporito

conducted a large-scale study on all eighth graders in the

Philadelphia public school system. The study looked at the

magnet school applications, acceptances, and attendances of

nearly eleven thousand students from eighth to ninth grade. The

students decisions were then analyzed on a large scale, taking

into account a myriad of factors that would effect school choice

including student’s race, poverty, and test scores as well as the

demographics and crime statistics of schools and surrounding

neighborhoods.

The study first finds that both racially and economically

advantaged families are more likely than their disadvantaged

counterparts to leave schools with higher rates of poverty and

non-white children (Saporito, 2000, p.192). The study further

demonstrates that the application rate of non-poor white students

increased when the number of non-white students increased, even

when the economic composition was held constant (Saporito, 2000,

p. 191). This is in contrast to findings that non-white students

application rates actually declined when the number of non-white

students in the district increased and economic composition was

held constant (Saporito, 2000, p. 191). “When I hold student and

school characteristics constant (i.e. student test scores,

student poverty rates, and school quality factors), I still find

race-based avoidance patterns among white families” (Saporito,

2003, p.198). Saporito concludes that there is no empirical

support for arguments that unfettered school choice policies will

reduce segregation by race and class. Rather, he claims that the

strong preferences of white families to be in predominantly white

schools results in increased segregation (Saporito, 2000, p. 199)

Outcomes and Feedback

Despite opposition to school choice, magnet schools continue

to be a very popular option. In 2008-09, federal data from the

National Center for Education Statistics indicated that more than

2.5 million students enrolled in magnet schools across the nation

(SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p. 9). In a study of a sample

of Magnet schools in 2012 respondents reportedly enrolled twice

as many black students, and nearly 10% more Hispanic students

than public schools (SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 201, 2p. 10).

This diversity corresponded with consistent demand for

enrollment; magnet schools reporting increasing levels of racial

diversity over a ten-year period were associated with the highest

levels of parental demand (SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p.

13). There was also an indication of a surge in inter-district

magnet enrollment in response to school segregation between

different school districts, rather than in a single district

(SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p.15).

Considerations for future policy in response to these

outcomes should include the development of outreach to

communities lacking access to mainstream social and informational

networks, provision of free transportation, the development of

specific diversity goals, and the use of non-competitive

admissions criteria like open enrollment, lotteries or interviews

(SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p. 17) These suggestions

closely mirror those characteristics of a magnet school listed

earlier by Price and Stern. These authors provide an example of

a magnet school system that effectively takes these

considerations into account.

Community School District Four in Harlem, host to a model

magnet school system of junior high schools. Every school in the

district is unzoned, meaning they accept students from anywhere

in the district, as recommended by both Price and Stern, and

SiegelHawley and Frankenberg. Most schools have special themes

or unique philosophies to attract students, and the district

makes a conscious decision to develop programs to accommodate

students’ individual needs and keep the number of enrolled

students down. All of this is accomplished in a school district

that is not wealthy and has a large population of minority

students. None of the schools in the district have extensive

admissions criteria, and do not screen applicants by geographic

location. Finally, every magnet school has a system of checks in

place to ensure that all students are aware of the options

available to them, and that they make an informed choice about

their future. “Students are selected by the receiving school

directors, who hand-select based mainly on the sending schools’

appraisals of who would do well in a particular

program...Directors actually meet together to divide up the

entering class. Generally, students are accepted into one of

their top three choices” (Price & Stern, 1987, p. 312).

Allison Roda and Amy Wells offer a competing example of what

can happen when a diverse school system is left to its own

devices. They describe another district in New York City,

however this one took a colorblind stance when it came to student

assignment policies, meaning they did not promote policies that

would purposefully create diverse schools such as public

information systems or expanded attendance zones (Roda & Wells,

2013, p. 271). As a result, almost all of the district’s white

elementary school students were enrolled in 6 out of 18 schools

(Roda & Wells ,2013, p.271) In the remaining 12 schools the

demographics ranged from 80-100% black and/or Latino (Roda &

Wells ,2013, p. 271). Not only were the demographics skewed, but

the programs were as well. The only three schools with gifted

and talented (G&T) programs were among those six schools attended

by a relatively high percentage of white students. To attempt to

answer why this unequal appropriation of students existed, Roda

and Wells conducted interviews with the parents of 57 students in

district. Despite the apparent segregation in the district, when

asked speci cally if they wanted their children to attend afi

diverse school, a full 80% of the white parents interviewed said

yes (Roda & Wells, 2013, 277). Because there are very few

racially balanced schools in the district, however, parents of

white students are typically forced into a choice between a

predominantly low-income black and Latino school, or the

exclusive homogeneous G&T schools (Roda & Wells, 2013, 278). In

this situation, white parents almost always chose the school

where their child would not be the minority.

In sum, the primary differences between the magnet schools

looked at in the two examples above were the use of

nondiscriminatory admissions criteria, the use of attendance

boundaries and the existence of a support system to promote

informed choice. The effective magnet school system exhibited

all of these things, while the ineffective system had none. This

would suggest that these factors are of some considerable

influence on the racial balance of a district, regardless of the

critiques of the choice model discussed previously.

Policy Alternatives

In recent years, charter schools have assumed the spotlight

of public choice options. Although charter school, only account

for about 2% of total students nationwide, they have been growing

steadily in numbers over the past few years (Sugarman, 2103, p.

4). This has corresponded with federal funding being made

available in 1996, and then increasing to over double that of

magnet schools by 2010 (SiegelHawley & Frankenberg, 2012, p. 6).

There are a few major differences in terms of design between

magnet and charter schools. Both typically have a special

curricular emphasis, accept students from across one or multiple

districts, and generally operate in the public school sector. The

major difference, however, is the populations that each model

serves.

Compared to regular public schools, both charter and magnet

programs enrolled a larger share of black and Latino students

(Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, Issue brief no. 6). Between the

two, however, twice as many magnet students attend majority non-

white schools than charter students. White students in charter

schools also experience considerably less exposure to low income

students than magnets or public schools (Siegel-Hawley &

Frankenberg). In general magnet school students are more likely

to enroll in racially and socioeconomically diverse environments

than charter school students (Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg).

This difference is the possible result of the fact that

fundamentally, charter schools have not been implemented with

intentions of promoting integration. The implication of this is

that while magnet schools funding is still often tied to

desegregation plans, and racial balance, charter schools do not

have these restrictions. The result has been the racial and

economic imbalance described above. This supports the further

discussion that when school districts do not implement proactive

legislation, and instead leave integration to be managed by the

market, schools have a tendency to segregate (Saporito, 2013,

p.198 ). In sum, charter schools should not be considered an

alternative to magnet schools due to their lack of integration as

a primary consideration.

The differences in design and success among magnet school

systems suggest that if a magnet program is ineffective, an

appropriate alternative may be different model of magnet school,

for instance replacing a partial-site magnet with a full-site

magnet. Districts looking to develop more effective magnet

systems should look to other similar districts that have already

gone through the process to get a sense of how they can more

successfully integrate students. Limited admittance criteria and

open enrollment to all students in the district are two common

factors of successful magnet school which Price and Stern

identify. They suggest a magnet system model in which every

school is a magnet school with these characteristics (Price &

Stern, 1987, p. 318) The reasoning being that if every student

makes a choice about what school they wish to attend, no school

becomes a “school of last resort” to be overburdened with the

difficult children of the district. Although this is more of a

radical concept that could only be accomplished with serious

political inertia, it has been shown to be successful where it

exists such as the Community School District 4 in Harlem.

Finally, if the answer to facilitating integration is going

to be choice, we have to make sure that each student is actually

being given a real choice. Requiring school applications to be

signed off on by multiple authority figures, as in the example

provided by Price and Stern, seems like an affective change that

could be accomplished with legislation. Simply requiring a few

points of contact between the student, the parents, and the

school administration is a good place to start making sure the

student is adequately informed about the available options. The

evidence is there that magnet schools are a powerful tool in

accomplishing integration. My concern is that as we move further

away from their origins in the civil rights movement, the

emphasis on integration will fade, as it did in the example Roda

and Wells provide. This cannot be allowed to happen, there are

still too many factors working against working-class minority

families to leave integration up to a free market system. The

responsibility then falls on legislators to do their part to make

sure that every magnet school embodies those components that have

been shown to successfully combat segregation.

ReferencesArcia, E. (2006). Comparison of the Enrollment Percentages of Magnet and Non-Magnet

Schools in a Large Urban School District. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 14(33), 1-12. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ806067.pdf

Price, J. R., & Stern, J. R. (1987). Magnet Schools as a Strategy

for Integration and School

Reform. Yale Law and Policy Review, 5(2), 291-321. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239246?

seq=1&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102790132663&

Roda, A., & Wells, A. S. (2013). School Choice Policies and

Racial Segregation: Where White

Parents’ Good Intentions, Anxiety, and Privilege Collide.

American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261-293. Retrieved October

17, 2013, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668753?

seq=0&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102790132663

Rossell, C. H. (1985). Estimating the Net Benefit of School

Desegregation Reassignments.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 217-227. doi:

10.2307/1163846

Rossell, C. H. (1990). What's Attractive About Magnet Schools? In

The carrot or the stick for

school desegregation policy: Magnet schools or forced busing (pp. 111-

144). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Saporito, S. (2003). Private Choices, Public Consequences: Magnet

School Choice and

Segregation by Race and Poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181-

203. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.181

Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, (2012, February). Reviving magnet

schools:

strengthening a successful choice option (Rep.). Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/reviving-magnet-schools-strengthening-a-successful-choice-option/MSAPbrief-02-02-12.pdf

Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, E. (n.d.). Magnet school student

outcomes: What the

research says (Issue brief No. 6). Retrieved from http://prrac.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo6.pdf

Smrekar, C., & Goldring, E. (2010). Rethinking Magnet School Policies and Practices. The Long

Civil Rights Movement. Retrieved from https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/voice/works/w/rethinking-magnet-school-policies-and-practices/s/1

Sugarman, S. D. (2013). The Promise of School Choice for

Improving the Education of Low-

Income Minority Children. Berkeley Journal of African-American Law and

Policy, 6(2), 1-5., from

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1055&context=bjalp&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F

%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fas_ylo%3D2013%26q%3Dmagnet

%2Bschools%2Band%2Bintegration%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt

%3D0%2C22#search=%22magnet%20schools%20integration%22

West, K. C. (1994). A Desegregation Tool That Backfired: Magnet

Schools and Classroom

Segregation. The Yale Law Journal Company, 103(8), 2567-

2592. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/797056?seq=1&uid=2&uid=4&sid=

21102790132663

https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/voice/works/w/rethinking-magnet-

school

policies-and-practices/s/1