INSTITUTE ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY IEE BRIEF ISSN 1059 2776 Number 22 / December 1998 THE EFFECTS OF for students with high, average, and explained by a difference in academic CAREER MAGNET low reading scores. ability. Since there are seemingly obvi- We used the school district’s ous reasons—among them, the career SCHOOLS method of assigning students by lottery focus and the integration of academics Robert L. Crain, Anna Allen, as the basis for our study. Thus, the with career preparation—that career Judith Warren Little, Debora Sullivan, students were randomly assigned to magnets should be more successful Robert Thaler, Denise Quigley, different treatments, and we took out- than comprehensive schools at holding and Gail Zellman come measures after the students students and graduating them, these received the treatment. In all of our findings are surprising. This Brief is a distillation of a research, we studied only those stu- We pose the following possible report on a major research study com- dents who were admitted by lottery to explanations for these findings. A fun- paring graduates of career magnet pro- career magnet high schools and gradu- damental problem with career magnet grams to graduates of comprehensive ated from them, comparing them to lot- high schools is the conflict between high schools in a large metropolitan tery-losing applicants to the same providing students with the best educa- area. The career magnet programs we schools who had graduated from com- tion and providing employers with qual- studied are located either within regular prehensive high schools. The students ified workers. Ironically, schools are comprehensive high schools or com- had chosen the same program, were in forced to set higher standards to satisfy bined with other magnet programs to the same reading ability groups, and their commitments to prepare students fill up an entire building. Many of our were matched in terms of income. for employment—in some cases, in conclusions are based on comparisons Although not a perfect experiment, we entry-level jobs—than they would if of a large number of students who had consider the study as being based on they were providing education only been randomly assigned—through a an experimental model. This is the good enough for graduation and appli- lottery admission process—either to largest study ever done of an educa- cation for admission to college. Since magnet programs or to comprehensive tional program using random assign- some students cannot meet the stan- high schools. ment. dards, the higher standards lead to a Drawing on school records on lower graduation rate. The relative pay- over 9,000 students who attended 59 Graduation and Dropout Rates offs to the high school are clear: dissat- programs, the researchers interviewed Many of the career magnet pro- isfied employers can harm the program 110 students who had applied to four grams that we studied had lower grad- by not taking interns or by criticizing different career magnet high schools, uation rates than the comprehensive the school among their colleagues. But comparing lottery winners to those who schools. Only 26 percent of the lottery when a college rejects a student, it lost the lottery and graduated from a winners graduated high school at the doesn’t hold the program responsible; comprehensive high school. Two fur- end of the fourth year; 31 percent of the college simply concludes that this is ther studies—four-hour interviews with the lottery losers graduated after four one of the program’s weaker students. 30 of the graduates and a lengthy inter- years. The comparisons are the same Further, some career magnets set view with an additional 14 career mag- when we look at dropouts. At the end quotas for the program’s junior year. To net graduates— explored the lives and of the third year of high school, 7 per- select students who can meet the high- high school experiences of the respon- cent of the lottery winners had dropped er demands, career magnets often drop dents in an attempt to discover the rea- out of school, compared to 6 percent all but a small proportion of students sons for the successes and failures of of the lottery losers. After the fourth from the program. One business pro- the career magnet high schools. year of high school, 14 percent of the gram we visited ranked its second-year The selection process and the lottery winners had dropped out; 11 students and kept only the thirty high- study design. In this metropolitan area, percent of the lottery losers had est-ranked students; the rest became every middle school student in the area dropped out. members of the comprehensive school. is required to fill out an application for Based on our research, compre- In other career magnets, the lower- high school, using a form that makes hensive schools are graduating four ranked students remained in the pro- applying to a magnet school as easy as students for every three that career gram but did not get into internships or possible. Each career magnet program magnates graduate. The career mag- advanced classes. Over half of the pro- can admit only one-sixth of its students nets’ lower graduation rate and higher grams we visited used some variation from those with above-grade-level dropout rate are both of considerable of this process. reading scores, and another one-sixth policy importance and are statistically In some programs, the dropped from those with below-grade-level significant. Our research reveals that students continued in high school either reading scores. Finally, half the stu- the lottery winners were not academi- by being in the magnet program in dents have to be admitted by lottery, cally inferior to the lottery losers, so the name only while taking the same cours- and separate lotteries are conducted lower graduation rate cannot be 1 es as the comprehensive school stu- tarial classes. The improvement in outside of school. In lengthy interviews dents, or by being provided an alternate attendance on the standardized tests with 14 career magnet graduates about set of courses in a “safety net” program. suggests that part of the impact of their high school experiences, and sub- Some program administrators said that computers is motivational rather than sequent interviews with school person- they were required to return the simply cognitive. Students who can nel, we found that 6 of the 14 students dropped students to their neighborhood master computers may be more confi- had experienced a high school educa- school. Others, instead of dropping dent about their abilities to deal with tion that roughly matched the magnet weak students, modified the program to mathematics. Or it may simply be that school theoretical model; the experi- accommodate them. For example, one the pleasure of working with computers ence of the other 8 students did not. magnet retained its weak students but lessens the drudgery of academic We call these “good-fit” and “poor-fit” assigned them to in-house internships— classes. cases. clerical work within the school—instead Job placement programs. Our Career focus. With a few excep- of sending them out to work. data indicate that programs that took tions, the academic transcripts of all 14 students into the workplace and pre- graduates reveal strong sequences of The Academic Effects of Career pared them for jobs immediately after program-related classes. However, the Magnets graduation had negative effects on aca- ways in which the two groups of gradu- The career magnet graduates that demic performance. There is little in the ates perceived and experienced their we studied did not have higher or lower culture of such programs that leads program classes differed tremendously. reading scores than the comprehensive either the staff or the students to press While the good-fit graduates spoke high school graduates. Nor did they for higher levels of academic achieve- clearly about the specialized curriculum have higher or lower absenteeism. ment. Indeed, a commitment to placing and a sequence of related coursework However, they did have slightly lower a student in employment after gradua- in their programs, the poor-fit gradu- math scores. Proponents of school-to- tion seems to lead to a de-emphasis on ates were generally unable to see any work will be disappointed by these academic performance. This may be meaningful focus in their curriculum or results, since they have argued that the result of competition for the studen- to remember a sequence of courses in adding a career focus should enhance t’s time. To reach the level of perfor- which they built a recognizable body of academics by increasing student moti- mance required by employers, the knowledge and skills in a particular vation. Advocates of choice will also be school must invest more time training occupational area. disappointed since they expected the students to meet those performance Curricular integration. All 14 expe- schools to perform better simply standards, leaving less time for acade- rienced a curricular “disconnect” because the free market should have mics. Several other attempts at between academic and occupational weeded out the weaker programs. On employment focus—such as having coursework. Virtually none of these the other hand, advocates of school guest speakers from industry, or using graduates recalled encountering the reform can be reassured that the career mentors—show neither positive nor kind of curriculum integration envi- magnets were able to introduce their negative academic effects. Although sioned by the advocates of vocational career focus and all its attendant work there are presumably strong non-cogni- reform. The academic teachers with on adolescent development without tive benefits attached to internship pro- whom we spoke valued the motivation test scores declining.