University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Policy of Privilege: A Case Study on the Role of Policy on Segregated Enrollment
Patterns in Washington State's Highly Rated Public Magnet Schools

Jonathan C. Shearer

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Jonathan C. Shearer, 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jonathan C. Shearer certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Alexa Allman
Christina M. Kishimoto, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze segregated enrollment taking place in Western
Washington magnet schools, the highest rated schools in Washington State, according to popular
school rating platforms. Developed as a qualitative case study, the research focused first on
analyzing the degree of segregated enrollment in six sampled magnet schools and then examined
policy-related documents to identify trends and patterns to understand why such enrollment
disproportionality may be occurring. In addition, the study included interviews of two principals
from the sampled magnet schools to gain insight into their perceptions and experiences as key
influencers. The results revealed segregated enrollment is substantial with respect to race,
income, and educational programming, specifically English language learners and students
qualifying for special education services. Primary source, public-facing documents showed
enrollment policies generally favoring colorblind, neutral access to magnet schools despite
expressed commitments to equitable policies and practices. These findings are consistent with
literature identifying neoliberal, colorblind ideologies allowing for opportunity hoarding from
those privileged over those historically disadvantaged. In addition, documents uncovered
patterns of exclusionary gatekeeping in the enrollment process. Through an examination of
principals’ experiences, the study found principals were aware of their enrollment
disproportionality when compared against district averages. However, principals discussed
perceptions of limited power to affect their enrollment policies as well as influential external
forces maintaining the status quo.

v
Dedication
To my wife, Janis, and my three children, Jayden, Julianna, and Jillian, for the endless amount of
love, support, encouragement, and laughter you showered me with throughout this journey.
Thank you. I am forever grateful for your support. You are my everything!

vi
Acknowledgments
I am deeply appreciative of the leadership of USC Rossier and the faculty who impacted
my growth as an educational leader. Dr. Christina Kishimoto, my committee chair, deserves
tremendous praise for her ongoing support, deeply thoughtful feedback, and patience shown to
me throughout the dissertation process. I am also grateful to Dr. David Cash and Dr. Alexa
Allman, as part of dissertation committee, for the wise perspective each of you shared throughout
the review process. USC Rossier is full of passionate faculty and staff whose support has been
unwavering the past 3 years—thank you! I am also deeply indebted to the knowledge and skill
development gained from your years of expertise. Thank you and Fight On!
I am also grateful for the numerous collaborative relationships forged over the course of
the EdL program with my USC colleagues. Together in our coursework, we rallied each other in
developing creative strategies to address education’s most persistent challenges. I deeply
appreciate your commitment to our fellow Trojans and me. Not only was our work together
genuinely meaningful but many times full of humor and fun! Thank you and Fight On!
I also wish to acknowledge the educators and colleagues with whom I have not only
worked during this USC journey but throughout my career who directly or indirectly supported
me on this path of professional learning. Your influence has meant the world to me. It has
inspired me in innumerable ways that continue to fuel my passion in support of our teachers and
fellow leaders who are positioned to affect positively the learning and lives of our most precious
resource—the children in our communities. Thank you for all your support and inspiration!
Finally, to my extended family who seemed to inquire every time we spoke when would I
be done with this process—thank you for your persistent interest, occasional chiding, and, in all
seriousness, your support and encouragement. To those who constantly offered to help or
vii
function as my editor, particularly my mother, Catherine Stensen, thank you. Go family! Go
team!

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................ 5
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study .................................................................................... 6
Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
K–12 School Segregation ............................................................................................................... 8
Privilege ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Case Study Methodology .............................................................................................................. 21
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 22
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 26
Sample and Population ................................................................................................................. 29
Instrumentation and Data Collection ............................................................................................ 31
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 33
ix
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 35
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 38
Selected Magnet Schools .............................................................................................................. 38
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Results for Research Question 1 ................................................................................................... 40
Results for Research Question 2 ................................................................................................... 44
Results for Research Question 3 ................................................................................................... 60
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications .............................................................. 67
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 68
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 68
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 69
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 70
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................................... 76
Recommendations for Research ................................................................................................... 79
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 81
References ..................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix A: Interview Recruitment Letter .................................................................................. 99
Appendix B: Interview Cover Sheet ........................................................................................... 101
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 103

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Sampled Western Washington Magnet Schools’ 2022 Reviews From Popular
School Rating Platforms ............................................................................................................... 30
Table 2: 2021–2022 Sampled Western Washington Magnet School Enrollment
Demographics and District Aggregated Demographics ............................................................... 41
Table 3: Documents Collected and Analyzed ............................................................................... 46
Table 4: Magnet School Enrollment Requirements as Potential Barriers for Families ................ 50

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 25
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, in their ruling, Brown v. Board of Education, declared
racial segregation in schools as unconstitutional. Decades later, however, schools in the United
States remain segregated. In its June 2022 report to the U.S. House of Representatives’
Committee on Education and Labor, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found,
despite a significant increase in the diversification of the U.S. student population from school
years 2009–2010 to 2019–2020, more than one third of students attended a school where 75% or
more of enrolled students were of a single race. The report found high degrees of segregation
remain prevalent across school types, regions, and communities.
Why is this a problem? Data and research studies have shed light on the deleterious
consequences related to school segregation (Darling-Hammond, 2007; García, 2020; Hanushek
et al., 2009). Examples include depressed educational outcomes for Black students in the form of
standardized test scores and widened performance gaps between Black and White students.
Another consequence of school segregation is reflected in resource distribution inequities, such
as lower per pupil funding in segregated schools, larger class sizes, less experienced teachers,
and lower teacher retention rates (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ellen et al., 2002; Hanushek et al.,
2009; Howard, 2010; Lleras, 2008; Reardon & Owens, 2014).
What continues to cause school segregation decades following Brown v. Board? The
literature has pointed to multiple causes, including school district secessions and school
attendance zoning; White flight; private schools; and longstanding residential segregation
propped up by federal, state, and local agencies (Clotfelter, 2004; Frankel & Volij, 2011;
Frankenberg & Taylor, 2017; Kotok et al., 2017; Macartney & Singleton, 2018; Orfield &
Frankenberg, 2014; Rosiek & Kinslow, 2015; Rothstein, 2014; Steil et al., 2015).
2

A chief outcome of sustained or resegregated schools not only centers on those
negatively affected but also, conversely, those who perceive a benefit. Those with affluence,
access, power, and information from a parental standpoint continue to perceive a positive
outcome for their children when they can exercise such power, whether they know it may be
harming others directly or indirectly. Kozol’s (1991) seminal Savage Inequalities broadcasted
public education’s deeply rooted resource disparities and where such inequalities, and
conversely, privileges, exist. Years later, Strange (2017), a popular blogger, captured the
sentiment of privilege:
I want to stop and think about that for a moment, because it’s still a core belief for many
people. We collectively agree that majority white schools are “better” than majority-
minority schools. We understand when a black student wants to attend a white school, but
it’s almost unthinkable that a white student attend a school in which he or she is a
minority. (para. 18)
Background of the Problem
In Western Washington, a particularly stark degree of racial segregation has existed in
magnet or choice schools (referred to hereafter as magnet schools). Magnet schools are optional
schools for families within a public school district that provide alternatives to a student’s zoned
school. They often have thematic educational programming distinguishing them from zoned or
neighborhood schools, such as language immersion performing arts, advanced learning, career
and technical education, or science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Further,
magnet schools require families to apply, often including lotteries when applications exceed
enrollment targets. In some cases, magnet schools may require students to audition or pass
entrance assessments prior to acceptance.
3

Magnet Schools of America (2021), representing over 4,300 schools that enroll more than
3.5 million students, promises to support “equity and access for every child” as its Equity Pillar,
the first of its five pillars or tenets. Magnet schools were founded in the 1970s from this premise
to “further racial and socioeconomic diversity” (Jacobs, 2020, 06:03) through theme-based
schools in promotion of students’ individualized learning interests. Following Morgan v.
Kerrigan (1975), when magnet schools were accepted by federal courts as a method to
desegregate schools, popularity in magnet schools rose dramatically (Smrekar & Goldring,
1999). Subsequent court cases have leveraged magnet schools as potential remedies in
segregated districts. Most notably is Connecticut’s Sheff v. O’Neill (1996), which has held
magnet schools as a viable tool for desegregation over multiple iterations starting in 1996.
Conceptually, magnet schools stem from two broader educational goals. The first is
humanism, the notion that education serves to develop a full sense of humanity, both individually
and collectively (del Carmen Salazar, 2013). The second broad educational goal centers on the
private or marketplace good (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2004). School choice naturally provides
for individualized needs either the parent or student determines is ideal for the student’s
education. Accounting for these goals is important when analyzing the impact magnet school
programming has on student enrollment (i.e., de facto segregated enrollment). Ultimately,
although magnet schools may fulfill broader educational goals of humanism and private good, it
may come at the cost of segregation despite the promise of diversity and equity reflected in the
vision of Magnet Schools of America.
A case study was warranted to examine factors associated with enrollment
disproportionality or segregation, occurring at prominent, highly rated magnet schools in
4

Western Washington. In particular, analyzing policies at a local district level may provide an
understanding of segregated enrollment outcomes.
Statement of the Problem
Segregated enrollment outcomes in magnet schools are occurring today, nearly 70 years
following Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). Multiple Western Washington magnet
schools have extensive degrees of disproportionality on the lines of race, socioeconomic status,
and program designations of English language learner (ELL) and special education. The problem
is occurring in multiple magnet schools and school districts, particularly those ranked highly by
popular school-ranking platforms, such as Niche (“2022 Best School Districts in Washington,”
2022), Public School Review (“Top Ranked Public Schools in Washington,” 2022), and U.S.
News and World Report (“2022 Best U.S. High Schools,” 2022). In addition, the
problematization of Western Washington magnet school disproportionality has been raised in
public arenas. For example, the Bellevue School District (2021) identified its magnet schools
needing improvement with respect to increasing access to marginalized demographics in its
District Procedure 0130P, first adopted in January 2020. In addition, The Seattle Times’s
reporting on enrollment policy reform in the Highline School District’s magnet schools also
illuminated longstanding demographic misrepresentation (Cornwell, 2016). Although varied
attempts at policy reform have been put forth by some districts, segregated enrollment remains
prevalent.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to isolate the language of local district policy, its public-
facing enrollment procedures, and other accompanying primary documents to examine the
effects they may be having on segregated enrollment outcomes. This study compared local
5

policy language in multiple school districts, along with magnet school enrollment demographics
and principals’ perceptions and experiences, to understand why disproportional or segregated
enrollment may be occurring. Such patterns may also reflect contradictions with state and federal
law and therefore are also worth close examination.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. To what degree do prominent public magnet schools in Washington State reflect
enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the districts' subgroup
enrollment demographics?
2. What local district policy factors may be attributing to inequitable enrollment
outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
3. What are the experiences and perceptions of Western Washington magnet school
principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where segregated outcomes
remain persistent?
Significance of the Study
In this research study, distributive justice theory was applied as a critical lens through
which to analyze patterned demographic imbalances. The study revealed critical policy
implications related to magnet schools that result in patterned disproportionality or segregation.
In addition, the research study examined the experiences and perspectives of two principals of
Western Washington magnet schools that are highly rated and experiencing segregated
enrollment compared to the district’s aggregate enrollment demographic percentages. Principal
perspectives were used to examine degrees of awareness of the problem and perceived levels of
influence over enrollment policies and demographics.
6

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This research study was limited to K–12 districts using the choice option of magnet
schools and their enrollment demographics, including racial, socioeconomic, and program
designations for students within the schools. It also involved the study and interview of two
magnet school principals, thereby further limiting generalizability.
Delimitations of the study were limited to magnet schools in Western Washington, and,
in a manner consistent with purposeful sampling, the study was situated in a localized context of
schools and districts where the phenomenon of enrollment segregation has been occurring.
Definitions of Terms
There are key terms used throughout this study that may hold different meanings for
individuals. In this section are definitions for the terms used in the study.
• Brown v. Board of Education: The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka, found separate but equal school facilities were fundamentally
unequal and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).
• Case study: A case study is a qualitative research methodology purposed with
describing one or more cases on how a phenomenon may be occurring (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017).
• Colorblind ideology: Often referred to as colorblindness, colorblind ideology refers to
the belief that race does not and should not matter, leading to race-neutral policies
and practices as well as the minimization or discounting of racism’s continual
existence due to various perspectives or beliefs (Bonilla-Silva, 2009; Gillborn, 2014).
7

• Magnet schools are choice schools open to students regardless of neighborhood
boundary or zip code where the school focuses on an individually themed curricula
(Magnet Schools of America, 2022).
• Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology originating in the late 20th
century, which heavily influenced education reform through its emphasis on
individualistic, deregulated, and free-market principles some argued would lead to
higher quality and more efficient schools (Diem & Hackman, 2018; Harvey, 2005).
• Privilege refers to advantages or benefits accrued over time due to racial, social, or
socioeconomic status, or other aspects of identity that afford greater access and
opportunity (e.g., education, job opportunities; McIntosh, 1989).
• Segregation refers to the separation and regrouping of people based on race, income,
or other characteristics in various contexts, including education, housing, and work
(Rothstein, 2017).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 overviews the study on magnet
schools, its relationship to historical segregation in public schools, and the issue of segregation in
magnet schools in Western Washington. Chapter 2 provides a literature review on key aspects
related to the study, the prevalence of segregation in public schools today, historical ties among
magnet schools and segregation, relevant case law on choice schools, and policy implications for
enrollment in school choice or magnet schools. Chapter 3 details the methodology selected and
includes purposeful sampling and selection, qualitative data collection, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 reports on the findings. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for policymakers. References and appendices conclude the study.
8

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to synthesize the body of knowledge and research
associated with the role of school policy in segregated enrollment outcomes in magnet schools in
Western Washington. This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section centers on K–12
school segregation, beginning with a review of segregation following Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) to establish historical context, including court rulings related to desegregation.
A closer examination of segregation will include isolating the literature on magnet schools and
segregation. The second section examines the concept of privilege, including its permeation
within the social, political, and economic systems in the United States and, by extension, K–12
education. The literature review then will delve into how privilege manifests in choice policy and
magnet schools through colorblindness, neoliberalism, or free-market ideologies as well as
opportunity hoarding. The third section contains a review of the literature on case study
methodology as related to the appropriate application in this study. The fourth section examines
the theoretical framework of Rawls’s (1971) distributive justice theory. Finally, the fifth section
details the conceptual framework used in this study. Together, this review on broad-based
education policy, specific choice policy, and appropriate methodologies will support a
substantive understanding of the existing literature surrounding the study’s key topics.
K–12 School Segregation
Today, decades following Brown v. Board of Education, segregation in schools continues
to be pervasive and is reflective of racial and socioeconomic divisions as well as White privilege.
In its June 2022 report to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and
Labor, the U.S. GAO reported, despite a significant increase in the diversification of the U.S.
student population from school years 2009–2010 to 2019–2020, more than one third of students
9

attended a school where 75% or more of enrolled students were of a single race. The report
found high degrees of segregation were prevalent across school types, regions, and communities.
The 2022 GAO report, along with ample existing research, outlined the multidimensional
cause of segregation in K–12 schools (Clotfelter, 2004; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014; Reardon
& Owens, 2014; Rothstein, 2019; Samad, 2009; U.S. GAO, 2022). Causes included deeply
rooted residential segregation stemming from historically discriminatory practices backed by
federal, state, and local legislation. Despite the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on housing
discrimination based on race, state-enacted legislation today is reinforcing racially isolated
communities (U.S. GAO, 2022). White flight also has been a contributing factor where White
families self-segregate by avoiding racially mixed schools, choosing private and choice schools
to avoid more poor, diverse schools or moving to the suburbs for the same reasons (Clotfelter,
2004; Reardon & Owens, 2014). The increase in White families’ restrained interracial contact
includes not only avoiding racially mixed schools but also Whites self-segregating through
extracurricular school activities. Finally, persistent segregation and a retreat away from
concerted efforts to desegregate schools can be attributed to court rulings starting in the 1990s
(Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014). The court’s historically evolving role is examined more closely
in the following section.
Prior to examining the evolution of court cases post-Brown, which will help to frame why
magnet schools in Western Washington and elsewhere remain largely segregated, it is important
to review the deleterious effects of segregation on educational outcomes that were detailed in
Chapter 1. In summary, segregated schools have been shown to lead to lower test scores for
students of color and increases in performance gaps between Black and White students.
Detrimental inequities of segregated schools also have included reduced access to resources, less
10

experienced teachers, and lower teacher retention rates. Integration, on the other hand, has many
benefits. Clotfelter (2004), for example, noted the increase in academic achievement as well as
self-esteem, interracial group relations, employment, and college attainment.
The importance of whether students are racially and economically integrated in schools is
well substantiated and serves as motivation to examine the history of court rulings surrounding
the issue. More specifically, a focus on desegregation, choice options, and magnet schools is
particularly illuminating post-Brown due to how choice schooling was leveraged as well as how
subsequent decades of rulings reflected shifts in influence. Initially, choice options were
presented as viable pathways to satisfy desegregation orders. However, the Supreme Court’s
deference to lower courts for years following Brown allowed for varied degrees of interpretation
and implementation (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2013). For instance, in many southern states,
limited choice, or freedom of choice, was provided to Black students to allow them to transfer to
White schools. However, by 1964, a decade following Brown, 98% of Black students remained
in all-Black schools (Orfield, 1969).
The courts’ increased control and influence over desegregation became more substantive
in 1968 with Green v. School Board of New Kent County. Originating in Virginia, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled freedom of choice plans were not adequate for integration after mounting
evidence that choice plans did little to disrupt patterns of segregation, noting choice plans had
burdened children and their parents with a responsibility to desegregate when the actual
responsibility fell on the school district. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
(1971) was another case stemming from a southern state, North Carolina. At the time the case
arose, 14,000 Black students attended schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) that
were 99%–100% Black in student population. The U.S. Supreme Court exerted its authority due
11

to CMS’s lack of progress desegregating its schools, granting district courts broad powers in
remedying sustained patterns of segregation. These powers included district courts’ authority to
evaluate required desegregation plans for their effectiveness; the use of ratios and quotas as
legitimate solutions; the ability to scrutinize predominantly Black schools closely; the authority
over noncontiguous attendance zones; and, for busing, the dismantling of strict guidelines that
limited desegregation. It is noteworthy that CMS’s primary remedy to satisfy desegregation
orders came in the form of mandatory busing (Godwin et al., 2006). However, over time,
community support for mandatory busing waned, and, in 1992, CMS implemented a new student
assignment policy, reducing mandatory busing and creating a managed choice program in the
form of magnet schools, with one third of CMS schools being magnet schools with quotas for
Black and White student enrollment.
Magnet schools as a desegregation remedy rose to prominence following Milliken v.
Bradley (1974). In Milliken, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, rejected a lower court’s
requirement that Detroit, Michigan public schools adopt a desegregation plan involving 85
neighboring school districts. The decision released suburban schools from a sense of
responsibility of segregation patterns in metropolitan areas. It also provided an easy alternative
for White families fleeing desegregation mandates in urban centers. In addition, the U.S.
Supreme Court stressed the importance of local control over the operation of schools, a trend that
continued in subsequent rulings. Following Milliken, many large cities, including Milwaukee,
Cincinnati, and Buffalo, turned to magnet schools as a primary desegregation strategy to
incentivize White families to remain in urban districts (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2013).
Following Milliken, the late 1970s saw an increased resistance to forced busing and
housing programs in support of desegregation, aided by policies of the Nixon Administration and
12

the retirement of four U.S. Supreme Court justices (Rippa, 1997; Webb, 2006). Magnet schools,
as a representation of voluntary school choice, grew in popularity. More broadly, however, the
pattern of court decisions moving away from desegregation grew (e.g., Board of Education of
Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell (1991) and Freeman v. Pitts (1992)). Nevertheless,
magnet schools’ involvement in desegregation efforts continued—but with degrees of
complexity due to the courts’ involvement. In Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), the U.S. Supreme
Court overturned a district court order for Kansas City to create inter-district magnet schools as a
remedy to segregation. The U.S. Supreme Court urged the lower court to afford district local
control rather than exerting inter-district responsibility for Kansas City’s patterned segregation.
Missouri beared added significance in that it was not only indicative of the court’s reduced
commitment to desegregation seen in the late 1970s through early 1990s, but it also marked a
shift in magnet schools’ goals away from desegregation.
A Connecticut Supreme Court case, Sheff v. O’Neill (1996), is an especially noteworthy
case with long-standing implications for desegregation and magnet schools. Originally filed in
1989, the state Supreme Court ultimately ruled Hartford’s schools and its surrounding suburbs
were in violation of the state constitution due to racially and economically segregated schools in
Hartford compared with its suburbs’ more White, higher income schools (Legal Defense Fund,
2022). Initial remedies included voluntary integration reform via magnet schools as part of an
inter-district transfer program, called Open Choice, between Hartford and its surrounding
suburban schools. Sheff-related integration programs continued with revised stipulations and
settlements in 2008 and 2013, which included, for example, building additional magnet schools
and increasing the number of Hartford students eligible for transfer to suburban schools. A 2018
lawsuit was filed to dismantle the integration settlement and goals under Sheff but was ultimately
13

dismissed. Finally, an updated agreement was reached in 2022 that included over 1,000 new
magnet school enrollment seats and provided additional funding for magnet schools and Open
Choice inter-district transfer students, financial incentives to suburban districts for increasing
their number of Open Choice students from Hartford, an updated lottery assignment system to
ensure socioeconomically diverse magnet schools, revised accountability for schools not meeting
diversity goals, and improved transparency and accessibility of information for families. Today
Sheff serves as a unique model on the use of magnet schools as well as how magnets have and
can continue to evolve to meet integration goals.
In the most recent example of the courts’ movement away from the heavy-handed
oversight of desegregation, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
(2007), or PICS, threatened to undo racial integration in schools. In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme
Court found the Seattle School District’s use of a racial tiebreaker for open enrollment
unconstitutional. The district had used race to maintain racial diversity in its school assignment
policy. However, the Supreme Court found the tiebreaker targeted demographic goals rather than
those reflecting an educational benefit derived from racial diversity. Integration efforts could
continue to center on socioeconomic and other factors without facing the legal challenges as its
policies based on race had. Other factors might include sibling preference and school capacity as
well as multiple student characteristics, such as academic success, race, and geography (Siegel-
Hawley & Frankenberg, 2011). For example, the 2022 settlement under Sheff stayed clear of
race-based integration via its student assignment protocols and focused instead on
socioeconomics (i.e., family income). At the time of PICS, multifactor student assignment plans
were already in use elsewhere, most notably in California’s Bay Area, with San Francisco
Unified School District adopting a 6-factor diversity index in 2001, and Berkeley Unified School
14

District updating an older model to a multifactor diversity code for student assignments in 2004
(Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, 2011).
In sum, the courts’ involvement in desegregation post-Brown has been complicated.
Although initially seeking to restore authority and degrees of direct oversight of integration plans
in response to slow progress in some states, later it would lessen its role to promote local control.
Choice school elements, including magnet schools used as a tool for integration, were cited
regularly or incorporated into the decades-long legal evolution. Moreover, whether on a federal
or state level, such as Sheff, magnet schools played a significant role over this period. Finally, the
unique impact of PICS is especially noteworthy in shifting how schools began to redefine
diversity and integration that continues today (e.g., 2022 updated Sheff agreement). Together, the
history of legal cases and supporting literature, which serve to interpret the legal history as well
as the broader causes and effects of segregation in the United States, reveal the degrees of
entrenched inequities. Although much of the literature has analyzed the origins, evolution, and
sustained disparities, additional analysis is warranted to understand the other side of segregation:
those who do not experience the negative outcomes associated with segregation because of
racial, economic, and educational advantages.
Privilege
Just as the legal and historical underpinnings of desegregation loom large over education
in the United States, its broader foundation lies with the concept of privilege and how certain
groups and individuals benefit at the expense of others. The United States has a long history of
settler and exploitation colonialism, which has engendered numerous social and relational strains
perpetuated by conscious and subconscious ideals of power and superiority, acculturation and
assimilation, and prosperity and civilization. An examination of race as a social construct, for
15

example, would yield ample evidence that for centuries societies have rationalized the treatment
of others, particularly the mistreatment of those deemed different than those holding power.
North America was thrust into the historical spotlight by three competing settler colonizers—the
British, the French, and the Spanish—each of which espoused domination and expansion over
Native peoples’ lands for political power and material wealth, justifying dispossession,
subjugation, enslavement, and exploitation as ordained rights of racial, intellectual, religious, and
political superiority (Coates et al., 2017; Glenn, 2014; Graves, 2001; Mills, 1997). This
sociological phenomenon, evidenced throughout history and including overtly race-based
policies (e.g., slavery, Indian Removal Act, Naturalization Act, Black Codes, Jim Crow laws)
informs how privilege is understood and how certain groups retain benefits or advantages over
others.
The literature on the concept of privilege is wide ranging given the numerous ways in
which the subject is qualified. For this study and literature review, privilege is examined through
a social construct lens, specifically in the power duality represented in opportunities, materials,
and goods held by some groups and not by others. First, while acknowledging the historical
context that overt efforts to conquer and colonize others have been an historical reality in the
United States, what remains today are socially constructed and reified relationships of unequal
power. The literature referred to the power duality as majority and minority, oppressor and
oppressed, advantaged and disadvantaged, and privileged and marginalized (Goodman, 2001).
McIntosh (1989) characterized these privileges as unearned advantages accrued over time by
dominant racial status. In the United States, the dominant race has historically been White
Caucasians, stemming from Spanish, French, and English White settler colonies (Glenn, 2014).
McIntosh characterized this advantage, irrespective of its historical basis, as “White privilege.”
16

The ubiquity and systemic nature of White privilege is found in numerous aspects of life.
In the housing and mortgage sector, lending practices have long favored White affluent
borrowers to the extent of substantiated practices of discrimination against minority borrowers,
particularly Black and Latino, resulting in U.S. Justice Department investigations and multi-
million-dollar settlements (Peralta, 2011). In law enforcement, the New York Police
Department’s (NYPD) 40-year stop-and-frisk policy resulted in millions of people of color being
stopped disproportionately compared to Whites, despite evidence that the percentage of Whites
stopped had more drugs and illegal contraband over New Yorkers of color, all of which resulted
in federal court ruling in 2013 that the NYPD was racially discriminating against and
systemically violating the civil rights of Blacks and Latinos over Whites (Ferrandino, 2015). In
the area of environmental protection and exposure to pollutants and hazards, the EPA, in over
1,000 cases, has been found to levy fines and penalties against industries in White population
areas 500% higher for polluters than in areas of minority populations (Bullard, 1999). In the job
market, studies and meta-analyses have shown racial discrimination in hiring is persistent and
remains high over time (Quillian et al., 2017). Finally, in health care, differential treatment
favoring Whites has extensive documentation, including Whites being more likely to receive
better surgical treatment (e.g., for lung cancer), transplants, pharmacological therapy, and
recommendations for standard catheterization (Feagin & Bennefield, 2014). Whites also receive
better quality pain management, more recommendations for mammography screening, influenza
immunization for older patients, and recommendations for smoking cessation programs.
Together, these examples of disproportional advantage across sectors in U.S. society reveal
patterns of troubling inequities and injustices occurring at a racial level.
17

The literature on privilege reflecting a racialized social structure benefitting Whites stated
the dominance is so engrained or institutionalized in U.S. society that it represents assumed
degrees of what is considered normative, or typical and objective (Halley et al., 2011). Further,
its hegemony of norms and practices has become institutionalized to the point of invisibility to
Whites and people of color and to the degree that it is rarely challenged despite it clearly
benefitting Whites while disadvantaging people of color (Doane, 2003; Feagin, 2009; Jackman,
1994).
Colorblind Ideology
An examination of the literature on privilege, Whiteness and White privilege, and
normative advantages inherent in racialized social structures must also account for colorblind
ideology. Despite overwhelming evidence of racialized privileges, the absence of
acknowledgment of the continual existence of racism, also known as racial realism (Bell, 1992),
is pervasive. Instead, White people too often either avoid or ignore the realities, reflecting White
fragility (DiAngelo, 2018), or contend race is not a factor in society. For example, they may
argue cultural factors are at the center of societal inequalities (Bonilla-Silva, 2009; Leonardo,
2007, A. E. Lewis, 2004). Colorblindness, the resulting ideology, often manifests as race neutral
and has a significant influence on education policy (Bonilla-Silva, 2009; Gillborn, 2014).
Colorblind ideology is explained through Bonilla-Silva’s (2009) four frames: (a) abstract
liberalism, (b) naturalization, (c) cultural racism, and (d) minimization of race. Abstract
liberalism involves opposition to practical equity-based policies (e.g., affirmative action) out of
argument against supposed preferential treatment and for meritocracy. Naturalization is the
suggestion that racial phenomena are the result of natural consequences, such as segregation
being explained as the gravitation toward likeness. Cultural racism is the argument that
18

disproportionality and inequality in employment, housing, and education are not the results of
longstanding bias and discrimination but of cultural preferences and tendencies (e.g., lack of
interest or motivation). Minimization of racism frames discrimination as something from the past
and not affecting the life chances of people of color.
When racially based privileges are minimized or discounted through colorblindness, the
disadvantage for others is maginified. Racial dysconsciousness, for example, emerges as a
prevalent force for individuals and institutions adopting colorblind perspectives and policies
(Diem & Hackman, 2018; King, 1991). Compared with critical consciousness, dysconciousness
reflects an impaired or distorted perspective on race, such as an inability to accept evidence-
based constructs of racial realism. Such dispositions may lead to the acceptance of assumptions
or myths associated with Whiteness and White privilege, reifying the normative nature of
racialized privileged. This may be especially impactful for policymakers who may perceive they
are unable to disrupt inequitable policies and practices. In addition, other forces have further
hindered reform. One such force for examination via the literature is neoliberalism and the
market-based school choice era.
Neoliberalism
Education reform in the later part of the 20th century was influenced heavily by
neoliberalism, characterized by individualistic, deregulated, and free-market ideologies believed
to lead to higher quality and more efficient schools (Diem & Hackman, 2018; Harvey, 2005). As
the educational marketplace guided reform in a manner consistent with hegemonic, privileged
majority (i.e., White dominant), it failed to deviate from its dysconscious evolution of reform
(Gillborn, 2005), leaving intact race-neutral, colorblind policies.
19

The literature has framed school choice policy, and magnet schools specifically, as
byproducts of White privilege, colorblindness, and neoliberalism. Magnet schools, as noted
previously, were developed and employed to help school districts with desegregation efforts,
which were expanded later as part of federal aid provided for magnet schools (Frankenberg &
Le, 2009). Importantly, when desegregation lost momentum, magnet school racial isolation
increased (Christenson et al., 2003). The rise of free-market neoliberalism displaced school
choice as an agent for desegregation. Instead, colorblind school choice ideology—including
magnet schools, though not exclusively (e.g., charter schools, vouchers, open-enrollment
policies—promoted competition, testing, and outcomes over equitable access (Diem &
Hackman, 2018; Wells, 2014).
Opportunity Hoarding
Finally, opportunity hoarding is a prominent phenomenon associated with the
manifestations of privilege in choice and magnet school policy. Opportunity hoarding stems
from increased middle-class parent involvement, which studies have shown to have a positive
impact on individual student outcomes (Dearing et al., 2004; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002;
Sheldon, 2003). The improved outcomes associated with parental involvement include grades,
standardized assessment scores, homework completion, attendance, as well as attitudes and
expectations (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2009). Worried their children may be excluded from
opportunities that could contribute to their achievement, opportunity hoarding reflects an
increased degree of involvement from middle-class parents to ensure desirable academic
outcomes (Lareau, 2002; Lyken-Segosebe & Hinz, 2015). Representations of increased
involvement include boosting parent–teacher association budgets and volunteering at school as
well as the use of social capital to secure additional resources for the school (Posey, 2012).
20

Opportunity hoarding comes in multiple forms. In education, first, within-school
opportunity hoarding is associated with social class stratification, tracking, and unequal access,
particularly at the expense of lower income students (Brantlinger et al., 1996; Lyken-Segosebe &
Hinz, 2015). Lyken-Segosebe and Hinz (2015) argued both rational choice theory and Olson’s
(1965) byproduct theory best explain hoarding behavior by middle-class parents, their
justification for supporting tracking and the self-interest guiding their actions, seeking the
attainment of their preferences at the least cost. Tracking’s deleterious effects are particularly
noteworthy with opportunity hoarding causing widening achievement gaps, which reinforce
social inequality (Gamoran, 2009). Moreover, within-school hoarding results in the tracking of
teachers with extant literature revealing the most qualified and experienced teachers are assigned
to high-track classes (Kaufman & Rosenbaum, 1992; Wheelock, 1992).
A second type of hoarding, labeled between–school opportunity hoarding, accounts for
school choice and magnet schools. Between–school opportunity hoarding involves middle-class
parents exercising their advantage to gain access to school choice options, including charter,
magnet, and private schools, through decisions to reside in the school’s attendance zone (Levin,
2009). Residential concentration has the effect of driving up housing costs, which disadvantages
low-income families. In addition, choice schools, such as magnets, are attractive to White
middle-class families not only for the perceived advantage of the choice option, reflecting a
marketplace competition with improved outcomes, but also because they prefer to enroll in a
school where students are the same race and where there are few low-income students (Lacireno-
Paquet & Brantley, 2012; Smrekar, 2019). Beyond the decision to live in a more desired
attendance zone to attain an enrollment advantage, privileged parents often leverage other means.
Information gathering and sharing, the ability to navigate complex application processes, and
21

even relationships with influential individuals who can assist admissions (e.g., administrators)
are all documented advantages garnered via opportunity hoarding at the expense of those without
such hegemonic privilege (Lyken-Segosebe & Hinz, 2015).
Case Study Methodology
The case study approach in qualitative research is a widely used methodology to develop
a deeper understanding of a unit for analysis, allowing researchers to investigate complex issues
in their natural context (Creswell, 2020; Elman et al., 2016; Maxwell, 2013; Saldaña et al.,
2011). The origins of case study can be traced back to Aristotle, Herodotus, and others from
antiquity, with its more modern conception arising from ethnographic studies in the early 20th
century (Adelman, 2015; Elman et al., 2016). As a research methodology, however, case study is
said to have originated from Mill’s A System of Logic, first published in 1843, later becoming the
subject of intense debate among sociologists in the first half of the 20th century with attempts to
improve on its methodology in the second half of the 20th century (Adelman, 2015; Elman et al.,
2016).
Use of case study in education research is extensive and includes multiple noteworthy
studies over past decades. Examples include the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, a case study
on the long-term benefits of quality preschool programs for low-income children that began in
1962 (Schweinhart, 2000). The 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity Study, colloquially
known as the Coleman Report, used case studies of school integration as part of its large-scale
study stemming from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assess equal educational opportunities
(Coleman et al., 1966). Later, in the 1980s and 1990s, the Effective Schools Research, which
aimed to identify characteristics of successful schools, was developed through case study
methodology (Taylor, 2002). More recently, case studies have been used to examine the
22

effectiveness of online learning models employed during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sumartono
et al., 2021; Vittorini & Galassi, 2021; Zhao et al., 2021).
Theoretical Framework
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) described the application of theoretical frameworks as
foundational to research studies. Frameworks provide theoretical perspectives used to inform the
audience of the position being taken relative to the research design. Rawls’s (1971) conception
of distributive justice theory was selected for the study to develop an informed understanding of
the patterns of enrollment segregation in magnet schools, specifically in Western Washington,
and to aid in the examination of data collected in support of a coherent and meaningful study.
The history of philosophy associated with the concept of justice is rich, extending not
only to ancient philosophers (e.g., Plato, Aristotle) but beyond philosophers to theologians (e.g.,
Augustine) and authors (e.g., Cervantes; Jasso et al., 2016). As multiple theories of justice
emerged and were debated in social science over the past 200 years, Rawls’s (1971) A Theory of
Justice represented a unique turning point with respect to distributive justice (Gilead, 2019) with
the chief aim to answer the question, “What is a just society?” Rawls’s emphasis on the
allocation or distribution of resources in society has had key applications to education (Ben-
Shahar, 2015; Gilead, 2019), particularly surrounding issues of inequity. Rawls’s veil of
ignorance, a heuristic device used to assess ideas for fairness, reflects the notion that only with
unbiased positions (i.e., ignorance) will fairness and equality occur. Rawls delved further,
explaining the social values of liberty, opportunity (e.g., education), and wealth should be
distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone’s benefit. In essence, the
argument, through the difference principle, is for an equitable distribution of resources and
opportunity. Therefore, in the case of education, this represents the moral obligation to provide
23

equitable educational opportunity for those who are at a disadvantage compared to those with
more power and privilege.
The literature also has compelled researchers and practitioners to recognize educational
systems and institutions are complex. For distributive justice to be realized as it relates to
equitable educational access, alternative approaches may be necessary. Examples include
indirectly attempting to promote justice by reducing unpredictability, limiting the reliance on the
discretion of individual decision makers, and incorporating increased measures of accountability
(Gilead, 2019; Molander et al., 2012; C. E. Schneider, 1995).
Conceptual Framework
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) described a conceptual framework as being built from a
theoretical framework for the purpose of mapping the key concepts and variables investigated in
a research study. Produced in either narrative or graphic form, the conceptual framework
illustrates the connections and relationships between the study’s central components. Figure 1
presents the conceptual framework of this qualitative case study. It highlights the interactions
between key concepts of privilege, magnet enrollment policies and accompanying documents,
principals’ experiences, and segregated enrollment outcomes. Interrelationships among these
concepts are illustrated while the theoretical framework of distributive justice theory is isolated
at the center of framework.
Privilege is a central concept for the framework and research study. As discussed
previously, privilege and its related forms (e.g., Whiteness, colorblind ideology, opportunity
hoarding) represent an overarching construct permeating the systems and outcomes associated
with enrollment policies and segregated outcomes. For enrollment policies and their
accompanying documents identified in the study—including but not limited to enrollment
24

procedures, information session publications, equity policies, and published reports—the
relationship between these documents and privilege is reciprocal in nature, illustrated by the two-
way arrow, signifying the dynamic relationship between both constructs as detailed in Chapters 4
and 5. Similarly, a reciprocal relationship is illustrated between privilege and the experiences of
magnet school principals where, despite voiced interest in diversifying enrollment, principals in
the study described a status quo of little-to-no progress, thus serving to bolster and sustain the
aspects of privilege associated with their enrollment policy and process. Detailed analysis is
provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Magnet enrollment policy and principals’ experience are central elements of examination
in the study and are located graphically in the middle of the conceptual framework. Given the
natural relationship between school principals and policies governing much of their decision-
making authority, two-way arrows connect both elements. In addition, magnet enrollment policy
and principals’ experience represent key areas of influence for diversity, equity, and enrollment
integration in magnet schools. Chapters 4’s results and Chapter 5’s discussion highlight the
consequences of inaction, illustrated at the bottom of the conceptual framework as segregated
enrollment outcomes. This symbolizes the idea that privilege, when left unchecked by those with
the potential to intercede on behalf of those less advantaged, will come to rest as a foundation for
perpetual inequity.
Finally, as noted previously, distributive justice theory is highlighted on the conceptual
framework. Distributive justice theory, a basis for equity reform to deconstruct and reimagine
policies and influences supporting those with privilege, remains central in the framework but
unconnected from other key elements. Ideals of equity, which Chapter 4 highlights, are present
in each magnet school district and yet have not resulted in integration.
25

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

26

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine local school district policy and related primary
source, public-facing documents of highly rated magnet schools in Western Washington as well
as to analyze the experiences of principals of magnet schools in Western Washington where
segregated enrollment outcomes are occurring. By isolating patterns of policy-related language
and experiences of principals where disproportional enrollment demographics are substantial, we
may be better equipped to enact reforms for more inclusive and representative magnet schools.
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. To what degree do prominent public magnet schools in Washington State reflect
enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the districts' subgroup
enrollment demographics?
2. What local district policy factors may be attributing to inequitable enrollment
outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
3. What are the experiences and perceptions of Western Washington magnet school
principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where segregated outcomes
remain persistent?
Primary methodologies of research include quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. A
qualitative research methodology was chosen for the study to understand the unique social life
and human experience (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) inherent in segregated school enrollment
outcomes. A qualitative study allows for identification of a culture-sharing group (i.e., magnet
schools) and examination of how the group develops comparable patterns (Creswell, 2020), such
as disproportional enrollment demographics.
27

The qualitative approach contrasts with generalized quantitative research that centers on
numeric data in analyzing relationships, patterns, and trends (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Although the study incorporated numeric data in the form of student enrollment demographics at
magnet schools, the data collected were used as criteria for sampling and the process of selection
(see Sample and Population section). Consequently, both quantitative and a mixed methods
approach, which embodies elements of quantitative methods (Creswell, 2020), were not
appropriate and were not used in the study.
From the generalized qualitative research methodology, there were multiple ways to
examine local school district policy for magnet school enrollment disproportionality. Often
referred to as qualitative methodologies (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) or genres (Saldaña et al.,
2011), there are numerous forms of inquiry and presentation of a study. Common qualitative
research methodologies include case study, grounded theory, narrative, phenomenology,
ethnography, and discourse analysis (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). I selected case study as an
appropriate qualitative methodology for answering the research questions because it allowed me
to examine how enrollment disproportionality may be occurring in one or more cases (i.e.,
magnet schools). Further, in case study methodology, the study can be extended to multiple cases
for simultaneous examination for comparison and contrast (Creswell, 2020; Saldaña et al., 2011).
The case study genre often supports other methodologies being integrated into it
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Examples include ethnography, grounded theory or
phenomenology, which can be used to refine the research approach further. Given that Research
Question 2 involved the analysis of public-facing documents associated with magnet school
enrollment, the method of documentary analysis was deemed appropriate (Cardno, 2018).
28

The purpose, content, and language of primary source, public-facing documents can
differ extensively, representing distinct genres (Atkinson & Coffey, 2004). K–12 education
policy documents have unique features that must be accounted for, including their basis in the
multidisciplinary field of policy studies (Cardno, 2018). Compared to macroscale policy at a
state or federal level, microlevel K–12 education policy, such as policies and procedures
governing the enrollment of students in magnet schools, necessitates analysis tools to organize
effectively the research aimed at educational problems that may stem from locally articulated
policies. With the application of policy document analysis as a research method, Cardno (2018)
recommended content analysis as a research technique to address three aspects of the policy
through its analysis—context, text, and consequences—which I explore under Data Analysis.
Interviewing principals of magnet schools in Research Question 3 also constitutes a
research method in support of the broader qualitative case study methodology of the study
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). To develop a deep understanding of segregated
enrollment in Western Washington magnet schools, gathering qualitative data in the form of
principal interviews was important. The inclusion of interviews as a unit of data was intentional
to understand how a key influencer (i.e., the principal) experienced enrollment policies and
processes, including their awareness and beliefs (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
In addition to detailing the qualitative methodology as a plan to study segregation in
magnet schools in Western Washington, this chapter includes sections on the sampling used for
the study and criteria for selection. It outlines the instrumentation or methods used to collect data
as well as the operationalization and procedures used in data collection. The chapter concludes
with the planned analysis of data collected, the rationale backing the planned analysis, and a
description of any problems I anticipated with the data analysis.
29

Sample and Population
The focus of the research study centered on characteristics of policy-related language and
the experiences of school principals in cases where magnet school demographics were
substantially disproportional to the aggregate demographics of the school district; therefore,
purposeful sampling was used to capture and illuminate this phenomenon. As opposed to
generalizing empirically from a sample to a population, purposeful sampling aims to draw
insight into a phenomenon of interest (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Magnet School Sampling
Specific to the research study and questions, criteria for selection were based on an
increasingly narrowed set of criteria. First, with respect to Research Question 2, the magnet
schools I selected were required to be public schools from Western Washington. Of the 62
elementary and secondary public magnet schools in Washington State, 44 are in Western
Washington. The criteria also required the samples be school-wide magnets as opposed to
smaller magnet programs within a comprehensive neighborhood or assigned school. A large-
scale, school-wide magnet designation allows for consistency among sampled schools. The
designation also provides for reliability relative to the subsequent criterion of prominence or
distinction each magnet school has held.
Each magnet school purposely sampled for this study qualified as prominent, highly rated
schools. Although multiple rating and ranking organizations exist for K–12 public schools, the
popular school review platforms of Niche (“2022 Best School Districts in Washington,” 2022),
Public School Review (“Top Ranked Public Schools in Washington,” 2022), and U.S. News and
World Report (“2022 Best U.S. High Schools,” 2022) were used for the study. Table 1 includes
each sampled schools’ ratings or rankings.
30

Table 1
Sampled Western Washington Magnet School Reviews From Popular School Rating Platforms
Magnet
school
School
district
Magnet
theme
Niche
grade
Public
School
Review
rating
U.S. News & World
Report ranking
Elementary
MS1 MSD1/2 Gifted, highly
capable
A 10/10 #1 WA Magnet Schools
#1 WA Elem Schools
MS2 MSD1/2 Spanish and
Japanese
immersion
A 10/10 #4 WA Elem Schools
MS3 MSD3/5 Mandarin
immersion
A 10/10 #4 WA Magnet Schools
#133 WA Elem Schools
Secondary
MS4 MSD4 STEM A+ 10/10 #3 WA High Schools
MS5 MSD3/5 International
studies
A+ 10/10 #2 WA High Schools
MS6 MSD6 STEM A+ 10/10 #1 WA High Schools

Note. Grades, ratings, and rankings are from 2022.

The protection of research participants, including sampled magnet schools, school
districts, and principals, was established in accordance with the University of Southern
California’s Internal Review Board. Therefore, pseudonyms were used for magnet schools,
school districts, and magnet school principals interviewed.
Participating Magnet School Principals
To gather meaningful data for the study and maintain principal confidentiality among a
relatively small sampling of magnet schools, I selected two principals to interview. I used
Creswell’s (2020) recommended pragmatic approach so the overall qualitative methodology
yielded a deeper understanding of the problem of segregation in magnet schools and appropriate
solutions could be generated. I identified two criteria for selecting the magnet school principals
31

to interview. First, the principals were required to be current principals of their magnet schools
or a principal within the past calendar year to speak to their experiences with strong degrees of
recollection and accuracy. Second, the principals were required to have a minimum of 3 years’
experience as principal of their magnet school. The rationale for 3 or more years as principal was
to ensure the principals had multiple years of involvement with enrollment policies, practices,
and the resulting disproportional demographics from enrollment policies to share their
experiences with ample detail.
In accordance with the University of Southern California’s Internal Review Board,
formal email communication was sent to appropriate district officials of the two principals
interviewed. Following the request for approval to interview the principals, formal
communication was sent to the principals outlining the purpose of the study and their
participation. Both principals agreed to be interviewed and were interviewed in December 2022.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
In research studies, instruments are used to describe findings and to present content data
for subsequent review (Miles et al., 2014). Consistent with standard qualitative research
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), I was the primary research instrument collecting and analyzing the
data. I also conducted the interpretation of the data, specifically enrollment data, data from
policy-related language associated with enrollment for magnet schools, and data collected from
interviewing magnet school principals.
Each of the three research questions generated unique data collection sources. Related to
Research Question 1, enrollment data for each of the magnet schools sampled were collected
from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction website. Demographic
data were collected for both individual magnet schools and their respective school district,
32

including enrollment demographics disaggregated by race, income (i.e., free/reduced meal), and
program designation, specifically students qualifying as ELLs or for special education services.
Related to Research Question 2, data were collected in the form of primary source,
public-facing documents from each of the six Western Washington magnet schools and their
respective school districts related to enrollment. Given that the central problem and purpose of
the study stemmed from segregated enrollment patterns, documents also were collected related to
diversity, equity, access, and inclusion. Document types varied considerably. They included
school board policies, district procedures, district strategic plans, school improvement plans, and
other published documents, such as newsletters, official reports, webpage content, and
presentation content (e.g., PowerPoint presentation slides). It is important to underscore that the
primary source documents were public facing in nature—in other words, posted on school and
district websites and thus accessible to the public and, in many cases, purposely promoted as
such (e.g., magnet school information night video presentation).
Related to Research Question 3, qualitative data were also gathered in the form of one-
on-one interviews with two Western Washington magnet school principals whose schools were
represented in the study. I refer to the principals interviewed as P1 and P2. I ensured
confidentiality was prioritized in the research process. For both interviews, I used a 13-question,
semistructured protocol with follow-up questions asked at my discretion. Both interviews took
place in December 2022. Interviews lasted approximately 20–30 minutes for both participants
and were conducted online via Microsoft Teams due to my residence in the State of Georgia and
participants’ location in Washington State. I collected and transcribed the data via audio
recording, which is recommended for generating greater detail and thus more substantive data to
analyze (Maxwell, 2013).
33

Data Analysis
An examination of the data collected took place with respect to each of the study’s three
research questions. For Research Question 1, the purposeful sample of prominent magnet schools
is presented in Table 1. Following the collection of each magnet school’s disaggregated
enrollment data from the 2021–2022 school year (see Table 2), enrollment data were compared
against enrollment demographics of the school district of the respective magnet school. Results
presented in Chapter 4 detail the degree of disproportionality in magnet schools compared with
averages in the magnet school’s district.
For Research Question 2, data in the form of policy-related documents were organized
for coding and thematic analysis consistent with researchers using analytic categorizing
strategies (Maxwell, 2013). Collected documents from the six magnet schools and respective
districts were coded, organized, and stored via the software program, NVivo. As expected,
themes, patterns, and questions emerged. I then filtered them through Cardno’s (2018) policy
content analysis exercise. From Cardno’s recommended study of policy from the three aspects of
context, content, and consequences, data analysis included the filtering of policy and procedure
language through each of the three aspects. Through the collection, coding, and theme generating
process, questions were raised related to each of the three aspects, such as: (a) What is revealed
as it relates to policy context, including the identification of contextual or historical factors,
antecedents, or pressures that gave rise to the policy? (b) With respect to policy content or text,
why is the policy structured or framed in a certain way? (c) What are the purposes or values that
underpin the policy? (d) Beyond the words to a more inferential stance, what is said in the policy
and what is not? and finally, (e) In relation to policy consequences, how has the policy been
implemented? Are there challenges to implementation, for example, that relate to people,
34

processes, or structures? Together, the series of analysis categories and accompanying questions
enable a detailed examination of the collection of documents related to the magnet school’s
enrollment policies.
For Research Question 3 and similar to Research Question 2, an inductive process was
designed for the principal interviews to identify emergent themes, patterns, and questions from
the data collected (Maxwell, 2013; Saldaña et al., 2011).
Once completed, I used data coding software from NVivo to categorize, evaluate, and
analyze further the language from the collected policy documents. The use of electronic tools to
code data supported me in efficiently separating and categorizing data into themes (Looney,
2017). Categorization, theme, and pattern generation aided in the development of the study’s
conceptual framework. It also served to address the study’s central research question related to
whether policy language aided in the impedance of integration and served as a tool to maintain or
deepen segregated enrollment in Western Washington magnet schools.
The preliminary data analysis was conducted in the form of downloading the interview
transcript, reviewing the document for any obvious transcription errors, and reading its entirety
for initial impressions and general themes. The next phase involved the use of NVivo software to
code, categorize, and store data from the interview transcripts. Categories emerged that resulted
in themes for discussion in Chapter 5. The themes provided opportunity for reflection and
triangulation when analyzed together with data collected from Research Questions 1 and 2. This
not only aided in the development of the study’s conceptual framework but also gave weight to
the overall findings as well as confidence in the credibility of the findings (Edmonds & Kennedy,
2017).
35

Credibility and Trustworthiness
With the researcher as primary research instrument, questions may surface regarding the
degree of validity in the qualitative research. Historically, numerous terms have been associated
with the concept of validity in qualitative research, including credibility, adequacy, and
authenticity (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). However, the notion of trustworthiness is generally
prescribed to align with validity with practitioner scholarship. More specifically, it is the extent
to which data collection, analysis, and findings presented are verifiable. For this research study,
the ability to collect public-facing policy documents supported an open, transparent examination
of the policy language that may exert influence over enrollment outcomes at the magnet school.
Trustworthiness, therefore, is verifiable through the sampled policies that are posted publicly.
Establishing trustworthiness with respect to the data collection method of interviews is
also critical because it relates to the overall credibility of the study and its findings (Lochmiller
& Lester, 2017). To ensure trustworthiness, I employed three of Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017)
strategies. First, audit trails were established in the form of transcriptions and coded data were
saved electronically. Second, the procedure of triangulation was used to establish evidence
across units of data. Finally, the strategy of engaged time in the field also ensured credibility and
trustworthiness given the amount of time I not only spent in the field but also the extensive
experience I had as a magnet school principal, developing a deep understanding of the issues
challenging magnet schools in Western Washington today.
Although there is a high degree of transparency in the study process, it is nevertheless
important to outline the researcher’s positionality as both researcher and primary research
instrument. As a White male, long-time resident of communities in Western Washington, high
school teacher in the Seattle School District, and principal in the Bellevue School District, I have
36

multiple ties and interests associated with the school districts sampled in the study. Further, the
end of the 2021–2022 school year marked my 8th and final year as principal of Puesta del Sol
Elementary School, a school-wide magnet in the Bellevue School District. Over the course of the
8 years at Puesta del Sol, I developed a strong interest in the history of magnet schools and the
unique issues associated with them. The depth of this positionality also includes numerous
relationships that were developed over time with staff and stakeholders associated with the
magnet school. Finally, my three children were enrolled at Puesta del Sol Elementary. For these
reasons and the potential conflict of interest it might represent, Puesta del Sol has not been
sampled in this study.
Transparency in the study through publicly accessible enrollment data, public-facing
documents, and interviews with principals supports a qualitative case study prioritizing
objectivity. I accounted for both validity and reliability in the design of the research
methodology and included the data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the findings. Along
with the recognition that data collected are readily accessible publicly via state education
websites and local school district policy webpages, the use of a third-party data collation tool in
NVivo served to support validity and reliability.
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach, including analysis of demographic enrollment
data, primary source data, public-facing documents, and qualitative data from interviews. The
data collected from magnet schools and their school districts were analyzed to target the three
research questions: the degree of segregation or disproportionality in prominent magnet schools
in Western Washington, public-facing enrollment policies and related documents that may be
contributing to segregated outcomes, and magnet school principals’ perceptions and experiences
37

related to the policies and related influences leading to segregated enrollment outcomes.
Findings related to these research questions are presented in Chapter 4 along with discussion of
each finding in Chapter 5.

38

Chapter Four: Results
This study’s purpose was to analyze local school district policy, related public-facing
procedures, and supporting documents of highly rated magnet schools in Western Washington to
study what role these rules and documents may have on segregated enrollment outcomes. The
study bears unique significance given the longstanding history of segregation and recent reports
of sustained segregation in K–12 schools in the decades following Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) despite growing diversification in public schools today (U.S. GAO, 2022). This study
examined the enrollment composition of prominent magnet schools in Western Washington
considering their popularity and high ratings, including being at or among the highest rated
public schools, magnet or not, in Washington State. It then analyzed policy-related and equity-
focused (e.g., integration efforts) primary source documents related to magnet schools and
triangulated this data with the experiences and perspectives of two magnet school principals.
Principals’ perspectives were used to examine their awareness of and influence over their
enrollment demographics. Finally, distributive justice theory (Rawls, 1971), the justification for
an equitable distribution of educational opportunity, was applied to understand the extent to
which magnet school enrollment policies and practices favor those with privilege through
neoliberalism and colorblind ideologies.
Selected Magnet Schools
As I noted in Chapter 3, purposeful sampling was used in this qualitative case study to
study the phenomenon of magnet schools of distinction with disproportional enrollment
demographics associated with race, socioeconomic status, and educational programming (i.e.,
special education and English language learner). The criteria for selection narrowed to Western
Washington magnet schools, which consisted of 44 of the 62 total elementary and secondary
39

magnet schools in Washington State. Further criteria considered magnet schools that were
school-wide magnet programs for comparable consistency as well as being highly rated among
popular school review platforms. Niche (“2022 Best School Districts in Washington,” 2022),
Public School Review (“Top Ranked Public Schools in Washington,” 2022), and U.S. News and
World Report (“2022 Best U.S. High Schools,” 2022) were the sources used for this metric.
As noted in Table 1 in Chapter 3, each magnet school selected for the study had high
ratings, including A or A+ grades from Niche (“2022 Best School Districts in Washington,”
2022), Public School Review ratings of 10 out of 10 (“Top Ranked Public Schools in
Washington,” 2022), and Top 5 U.S. News & World Report (“2022 Best U.S. High Schools,”
2022) rankings in either Washington State magnet schools, Washington State
elementary/secondary schools, or both. Although the six selected magnet schools shared
comparably high ratings, they had variations. Identified from four different school districts, three
schools were elementary magnets, and three were secondary. Magnet themes ranged from
language immersion to international studies to STEM to gifted or advanced learning.
Results
Presented in this section are the results from this qualitative case study, organized by
research question. For each research question, I review the research methodology. I present the
results, including themes, and conclude with a discussion of the results as related to relevant
literature and the theoretical framework of distributive justice theory. I present a summary at the
end of the chapter.
The three research questions serve to organize this chapter. The research questions are:
40

1. To what degree do prominent public magnet schools in Washington State reflect
enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the districts' subgroup
enrollment demographics?
2. What local district policy factors may be attributing to inequitable enrollment
outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
3. What are the experiences and perceptions of Western Washington magnet school
principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where segregated outcomes
remain persistent?
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: To what degree do prominent public magnet
schools in Washington State reflect enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the
districts' subgroup enrollment demographics? Although magnet schools were designed originally
to ameliorate inequality as a desegregation tool, the existing research on their application and
impact on diversity are mixed with some studies showing a lack of racial and socioeconomic
diversity in magnet schools (Davis, 2014; Saporito, 2003). An analysis of enrollment
demographics from six highly rated magnet schools in Western Washington revealed substantial
degrees of disproportionality between subgroups in magnets when compared against subgroup
percentages at the district level. I discuss this disproportionality in terms of three themes: broad
patterns of enrollment disproportionality, individualized degrees of enrollment
disproportionality, and anomalies exceeding the district enrollment percentage. Table 2 details
the enrollment data based on demographics that substantiate the findings.

Table 2
2021–2022 Sampled Western Washington Magnet School Enrollment Demographics and District Aggregated Demographics
Magnet school
(MS) and
district (MSD)
Magnet theme Asian Black Latino 2+
races
White ELL Low-
income
SPED
MS1 Gifted, highly
capable
18.3% 5.0% 9.0% 19.9% 47.8% 2.2% 6.6% 9.4%
MSD1/2 12.6% 14.9% 13.4% 12.4% 45.9% 13.1% 34.0% 15.5%

MS2
Spanish and
Japanese
Immersion
6.2% 0.2% 20.5% 23.3% 49.8% 21.8% 4.0% 7.9%
MSD1/2 12.6% 14.9% 13.4% 12.4% 45.9% 13.1% 34.0% 15.5%
MS3 Mandarin
Immersion
71.0% 1.6% 2.0% 18.5% 6.7% 20.0% 6.7% 6.0%
MSD3/5 44.1% 3.5% 13.5% 9.6% 28.9% 15.1% 19.7% 9.5%
MS4 STEM 25.2% 10.6% 13.9% 9.2% 39.9% 3.5% 33.4% 4.2%
MSD4 14.6% 14.8% 39.5% 8.9% 18.1% 31.4% 71.1% 15.6%
MS5 International
Studies
52.5% 1.5% 6.4% 9.0% 30.5% 2.4% 9.0% 4.2%
MSD3/5 44.1% 3.5% 13.6% 9.6% 28.9% 15.1% 19.7% 9.5%
MS6 STEM 68.3% 0.2% 2.9% 4.4% 24.0% 0.5% 1.8% 3.1%
MSD6 36.7% 2.3% 10.7% 8.3% 41.8% 11.6% 9.7% 10.1%

Note. From “Report Card,” by Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, n.d.
(https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/103950).

41
42

Broad Patterns of Enrollment Disproportionality
Although percentages of enrollment demographic percentages varied among the six
studied magnet schools, certain patterns emerged across individual subgroups at all schools. For
instance, with respect to race, in the 2021–2022 school year, no magnet school contained
proportional levels of enrollment of Black students when measured against their district’s overall
percentage. Some magnets were closer to achieving proportionality (e.g., MS4) than others (e.g.,
MS2); however, all maintained disproportionate percentages. Similarly, related to socioeconomic
status, low-income students were substantially underrepresented at all six magnet schools
compared to their respective district-wide percentage. So too were students qualifying for special
education services where, again, each of the six magnet schools shared disproportionate
enrollment percentages against their district averages.
Together, these common areas of enrollment imbalance across all six schools can be
calculated in multiple ways to reflect degrees of disproportionality and thus a lack of diversity.
One compelling calculation centers on ratios, specifically the ratio of students reflective of the
individual demographic at the district level compared to that of their respective magnet school.
For example, when calculated as an average ratio of low-income students at the district level
compared to low-income students at the magnet school, the ratio was 4:1. MS2’s ratio was the
highest at 8:1, meaning there were 8 times more low-income students overall at the district level
(MSD2) than enrolled at MS2. MS4’s low-income enrollment percentage, while still
disproportionate, was lowest among the six schools, reflecting a ratio of 2:1.
Individualized Degrees of Enrollment Disproportionality
Additional patterns emerged when analyzing the magnet schools’ demographics. Latino
students, for example, were underrepresented at five of the six schools in 2021–2022.
43

Heightened levels of disproportionality appeared at MS4 where only 13.9% of the school
population identified as Latino, and 39.5% of the district’s overall population was Latino.
Similarly, very few Latino students were enrolled at MS2, comprising only 2% of the school’s
population, despite the district’s aggregate percentage of Latino students reflecting a substantial
13.9% of the overall population.
A lack of proportional diversity for students qualifying as ELLs was also evident among
multiple magnet schools. Specifically, four of the six magnet schools had disproportionate ELL
demographic percentages, including very few ELLs enrolled at MS6 (0.5%) despite the district’s
ELL percentage representing 11.6% of the overall population. At MS4, despite nearly one third
of the district’s overall percentage of students qualifying as ELLs, only 3.5% of the magnet
school’s population were ELLs. Reframed as the same ratio used in analyzing disproportionality
among low-income students, the number of ELLs in the MS4’s district to the number represented
at magnet school was nearly 10:1.
Anomalies Exceeding District Enrollment Percentage
Not all subgroups were underrepresented at each of the magnet schools during the 2021–
2022 school year. With respect to racial subgroups in each of the magnet schools, White, Asian,
or mixed-race students held enrollment percentages either closely mirroring or exceeding the
district aggregate percentage; however, disproportionality to the extent of reflecting segregated
enrollment manifested in historically marginalized student populations, namely Black and Latino
students, ELLs, students with disabilities, and low-income students.
Of the racial, economic, and ability subgroups reflective of the historical marginalization
of students, anomalies were noted at magnet schools where enrollment percentages exceeded
aggregate district percentages. MS2 had higher percentages of both Latino and ELL students
44

enrolled compared to their greater district average, which may have been due to the school’s
magnet theme of language immersion, specifically Spanish and Japanese, and a district-approved
enrollment procedure that allots 20% of enrollment spaces for first-language Spanish and
Japanese speakers. Similarly, MS3 held a higher percentage of ELL students in 2021–2022
compared with the district aggregate. Like MS2, MS3 is a magnet school whose theme is dual–
language immersion. Per the district enrollment procedure, students who are first-language
speakers of the magnet’s target language represent 50% of school’s enrollment, consequently
increasing their ELL enrollment percentage.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: What local district policy factors may be attributing to
inequitable enrollment outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
The existing research has demonstrated consistency between utilitarian, colorblind enrollment
policies for magnet schools and resulting advantages of access for privileged families exerting
between–school opportunity hoarding (Diem & Hackman, 2018; Lacireno-Paquet & Brantley,
2012; Levin, 2009; Lyken-Segosebe & Hinz, 2015; Smrekar, 2019; Wells, 2014). To address
Research Question 2 in a qualitative research study, which allows for an examination of the
comparable patterns (i.e., disproportional enrollment demographics) of a culture-sharing group
(i.e., Western Washington magnet schools; Creswell, 2020), I selected case study methodology,
which supports the study of multiple cases for the purpose of comparison and contrast (Creswell,
2020; Saldana et al., 2011) as well as integration of additional methodologies, such as
documentary analysis (Cardno, 2018), which is applied in the results detailed later.
Instrumentation of Data Collection
45

The primary instrument of data collection in Research Question 2 included public-facing
documents from the six Western Washington magnet schools and their respective school districts
related to enrollment. Documents also were collected related to diversity, equity, access, and
inclusion. Fifty-six documents were collected and analyzed, including board policies, district
procedures, district strategic plans, and school improvement plans. Related documents, such as
newsletters, webpage content, and presentation content (e.g., PowerPoint presentation slides),
also were collected and analyzed. Table 3 provides an accounting of the documents I collected
and analyzed. As noted in Chapter 3, NVivo data coding software was used for categorization,
theme identification, and pattern generation. Four themes or patterns emerged from the analysis
of the 56 documents related to magnet schools’ enrollment and each school or district’s efforts
toward diversity, equity, access, and inclusion.

46

Table 3
Documents Collected and Analyzed
Document type # Documents collected by district of magnet school
MSD1/2 MSD3/5 MSD4 MSD6
Board document 0 0 0 3
Board policy 1 2 2 2
District procedure 1 2 2 2
District strategic plan 1 1 1 1
Newsletter 6 0 0 0
Other communication 0 2 0 0
Poster 0 0 0 1
Presentation slides 0 2 1 0
Procedure-related document 0 1 1 0
Report 2 0 0 0
School improvement plan 2 2 1 1
Video 0 0 0 2
Webpage 2 2 1 6

Magnet School Enrollment Policies Favoring Neutrality With Some Exceptions
For the first two themes generated from Research Question 2, Cardno’s (2018) policy
content analysis exercise was applied to assist me in examining the documents collected. The
first theme stemmed from the enrollment policies and procedures of the six magnet schools,
which were all located centrally on their respective school district’s website. Filtering the
language of the documents through Cardno’s first of three analyses—policy purpose analysis—
47

the purpose of the published enrollment policies to provide clarity of structure and organization
for each district’s multifaceted student assignment process, including how students transfer to or
enroll in the magnet school option, was consistently evident across each district.
For Cardno’s (2018) second analysis—policy construction analysis—how each district’s
magnet school enrollment policy was constructed and formatted varied. MSD1/2’s enrollment
policies and procedures for magnet schools were in a large 61-page procedure document on
student assignment. MSD3/5 separated its procedure for its magnet schools, including MS3 and
MS5, from its general student assignment policy and procedure. MSD4 was similar to MSD1/2
in that governing processes for magnet school enrollment were housed in the broader student
assignment procedure; however, it was 10 pages in length by comparison. Finally, MSD6 had the
shortest construction of policy and procedure with three pages dedicated to its processes,
although this also included enrollment procedures associated with non-magnet-school alterative
learning programs. In addition to the common and varied degrees of construction among the
district’s enrollment procedures, only MSD3/5’s procedure document did not contain state legal
references on its procedure, although their separate but accompanying policy document provided
legal references.
Irrespective of the length of the policies and procedures, the presentations of the
documents were dense and high-order vocabulary rich in both outline and written paragraph
formats. Each contained significant amounts of jargon, both legal and educational in nature, with
only MSD1/2 providing additional guidance through a brief (i.e., three terms only) definitions
section and a section called Tips for Readers.
Related to diversity, equity, access, and inclusion, the content and meaning of the
enrollment policies and procedures was largely uniform across the school districts. Eligibility for
48

enrollment could be characterized as “free to all,” with very few restrictions (e.g., in-district
residency), thus promoting a utilitarian, equality-based model of access. Exceptions from this
neutrality, however, were noteworthy. MSD1/2, for example, provided multiple school
assignment pathways for its highly capable programs, including which students were eligible to
attend MS1 versus other highly capable pathway schools in the district. MSD1/2 also held up to
20% of its enrollment in MS2 for first-language speakers of Spanish and Japanese, which, as
noted previously, may have resulted in an increase in their Latino and ELL demographic
percentages. Similarly, MSD3/5 and its MS3 held up to 50% of its enrollment spaces for students
whose first language was consistent with the target language of the magnet school’s dual-
language model. Finally, MSD4 and its MS4 contained a unique provision in that it held only
51% of its enrollment spaces for in-district residents with the remaining spaces provided to
students at an adjacent school district, due to both districts bordering business and economic
infrastructure associated with the magnet school’s theme, as well as a specified number of spaces
held for students residing outside of both named districts.
The third and final analysis from Cardno’s policy content analysis exercise—practice
implementation and impact—is an especially important aspect of the enrollment policy
examination of the six magnet schools. Given that one of the primary impacts of each district’s
policies and procedures on magnet school enrollment is significant demographic
disproportionality, largely disadvantaging Black and Latino students, low-income families,
students with disabilities, and ELLs, critical questions arise about the extent to which complex,
technical, and jargon-laden, public-facing documents purposed to provide clarity and consistency
may be contributing to segregated outcomes, either intentionally or unintentionally. Would more
succinct, comprehensible, and family-friendly language constructions assist families in
49

navigating the magnet school enrollment process? Would such constructions lead to more
equitable outcomes in the form of greater racial, socioeconomic, and educational programming
diversity in magnet schools? Although plausible, on the other hand, if left ignored, the impact of
these constructions may continue to favor the privileged—those families able to navigate the
heavy legal-language constructions effectively. Further, through the lens of distributive justice,
the generally utilitarian treatment of public-facing magnet school enrollment policies may be
attributing to the injustice of segregated enrollment outcomes. This is explored further in the
Discussion section of Chapter 5.
Exclusionary Gatekeeping in Magnet School Enrollment Processes
One particularly worrisome theme generated from analyzing policies, procedures, and
related communications associated with magnet school enrollment was the accumulation of
gatekeeping impediments facing families considering applying for highly rated magnet schools.
These requirements serve as barriers for many families, particularly low-income and historically
marginalized families. Table 4 outlines the number of steps or process points for families
considering enrolling their student in the magnet school.

50

Table 4
Magnet School Enrollment Requirements as Potential Barriers for Families
X signifies requirement for enrollment
Potential barrier MSD1/2 MSD3/5 MSD4 MSD6
Additional meetings prior to start X
Additional proof of residency requirements X
Additional success criteria required X
Application includes required essay X
At grade level expectation in math X
Early application submission deadline X X X X
Email as notification X X X X
Expectation of parent engagement X
Late/incomplete applications disqualified X X X
Limited language translation services X X X X
Message signaling exclusion X
One week to accept placement offer X X
Online application only X X X X
Professional dress expectation X
Required commitment interviews X
Testing/screening requirement X X
Transportation as family responsibility X X

I noted three significant consistencies during the data collection and analysis process,
which each of the six magnet schools and four respective districts shared. The first was an early
application and enrollment timeline. Regardless of the magnet school, families were required to
51

engage in the process of applying to enroll their student in January of the school year prior to
their student’s 1st year of attendance. Given that low-income families experience residential
instability and are 50% more likely to have moved in the past year (Koball & Jiang, 2018), an
early application requirement presents a substantial barrier to many families, especially those
that are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The second barrier each magnet school and their respective district shared was the
required use of internet-based processing tools. Whether it was the formal application for the
magnet school or notification following acceptance, families were asked to have internet access
and an email account. This adversely and disproportionately affects low-income families, 43% of
whom report they do not have home broadband services and 41% of whom report they do not
have a laptop or desktop computer (Vogels, 2021). Even if the magnet schools allow families to
complete the online application process inside the school, these additional steps and
requirements may deter families from completing the magnet school application process.
Finally, each magnet school and district provided limited language translation services
for families seeking to apply. Each district had high degrees of language diversity among their
student populations, ranging from 89 different languages spoken in MSD4 to 162 languages
spoken in MSD1/2. Although these ranges represent an overall high degree of language
diversity, translation services were significantly confined. For example, all four districts had
standard Google language translation options on their websites; however, options narrowed when
attempting to access additional information (e.g., information videos). MSD1/2 provided a 4-
minute video in six different languages on the district’s general school choice process. MS1 and
MS2 provided longer, more in-depth video tours but only in English. To apply, families were
required to access their individual student information system account, which did not have any
52

language options for accessing other than English. In MSD3/5, MS3 provided an enrollment
information video in both English and the target language of the school’s dual-language model.
Applying, however, was limited to an English-only online application form. MS5 provided an
information video on the school in English only and application submission options in English
and Spanish. In MSD4, MS4 provided a posted PowerPoint presentation in English on the
magnet school’s program and application process. To apply, the district provided language
translation options in Spanish, Somali, and Vietnamese. Lastly in MSD6, MS6 provided an
information video in English only but no discernable language translation options when
attempting to apply.
Published requirements for enrollment eligibility among individual magnet schools and
their respective districts also varied. MSD3/5’s enrollment procedures for magnet schools MS3
and MS5, for example, outlined multiple requirements, particularly with respect to the timeline
for applying, accepting, and enrolling. MS4 provided other noteworthy requirements via public-
facing documents. In its posted PowerPoint presentation slides for families considering whether
to apply, MS4 went beyond what the other magnet schools expected and communicated. Along
with numerous details related to the application and enrollment process, MS4 added students
would be required to submit a written essay as part of their application. Students also were
required to attend commitment interviews following the lottery process, attend onboarding
events in the spring and summer prior to the start of school, and adhere to what was called a
professional dress standard. Moreover, students were expected to be on grade level with respect
to mathematics, with a stated requirement that they take Algebra 1 as 1st-year students. MS4’s
exceptional requirements extended to parents as well, for example, asking them to submit utility
bills as proof of residency, develop transportation plans for their student, and attend the
53

commitment interview with their student. Together, these requirements reflect considerable
barriers for many families. Such obligations are placed on the most diverse population of
families in the four magnet school districts studied where, for example, 71% of MSD4 students
are low income. Combined, the extensive enrollment requirements suggest a prohibitive,
gatekeeping process favoring advantaged families able to navigate the requirements more than
others, suggesting an increased level of systemic inequity. Curiously, MS4 underscores its
barrier-laden application process by communicating in its information session presentation, “Our
program isn’t for everyone!” This public statement was noted in Table 4 as Message Signaling
Exclusion.
At this juncture of the results analysis, it is appropriate to pause for an accounting of the
methodology employed in the study. MS4’s construction of the enrollment process, along with
the similarities and differences noted from other magnet schools, reveals both key findings and
limitations associated with the data collection methods. For example, the method of documentary
analysis of primary, public-facing sources establishes the highest level of communicative
transparency with the school community and prospective enrollees. The content and how it is
formatted and presented to the public may send intended or unintended signals of inclusion,
inviting families to apply or, as in the case of MS4, convey the opposite. However, there are
disadvantages associated with the methodology, including the inability to probe for further and
deeper meaning, intent, and awareness of impact. An additional limitation includes the
preclusion of developing a longitudinal understanding of the evolution of enrollment processes
and procedures. The limitations or disadvantages of the documentary analysis methodology are,
to a degree, mitigated by the insights and perspectives gathered from magnet school principals
via Research Question 3.
54

It is important to juxtapose the application and enrollment requirements with what a
typical newly enrolling family would be required to complete if attending a nonmagnet district
school. By comparison, a new family would locate the closest school to their home and complete
paperwork with staff at the school’s front office. In some districts, the front office staff may
direct the family to a specific district office to complete enrollment. Families typically are asked
to provide proof of residency but have multiple options to choose from in doing so. Ultimately,
the process is expeditious to the extent that the student can begin their attendance the very next
school day.
The magnet school information, application, and enrollment process wholistically
represent a neutral, colorblind system of gatekeeping, to which the theoretical framework of
distributive justice becomes appropriate to apply. At first look, when Rawls’s (1971) conception
of justice, which is intent on resolving fairness for all, is applied to this neutral, equality-centric
magnet school enrollment process, it may appear to reflect an equal distribution of goods (i.e.,
access to desirable magnet schools). However, when we consider the glaring socioeconomic
disparities associated with, if not directly attributing to, substantial segregated enrollment
outcomes, distributive justice theory helps in evaluating the conflicts that create inequities in the
application and enrollment system. Neutral enrollment policies may work in largely homogenous
conditions; however, magnet schools were created to resolve enrollment inequities in a manner
that fundamentally assumes a redistribution of advantage must be provided to those most
historically disadvantaged. In the case of Western Washington magnet schools, those advantaged
with internet access, stable housing, and the social capital to identify their own supports to
maneuver through complex procedural requirements to gain entry are privileged further when
55

they can navigate additional procedural requirements like those of MS4. Additional discussion
and application of distributive justice theory is provided in Chapter 5.
Organizational Investment in Equity-Centered Policy and Procedures
As noted previously, the documentary analysis was extended to additional primary,
public-facing source documents involving diversity, equity, access, and inclusion. A significant
quantity of documents, 25 in total, were identified and coded using NVivo software. A synthesis
of the themes reveals two primary findings. The first centers on each magnet school district
having both equity policies and formal accompanying district procedures. For that reason, it is
appropriate to again employ Cardno’s (2018) policy content analysis exercise.
Beginning with Cardno’s (2018) first point of analysis—policy purpose analysis—it is
evident from each of the four policies on equity that there is considerable value in articulating the
district’s stance on equity, specifically racial equity, which is named in each policy. In addition,
there are equity-based activities explicitly named, such as “disrupting systemic racism,” seeking
to “interrupt inequitable outcomes,” “ensuring materials and instruction are culturally relevant,”
seeking to “be a leader in being an anti-racist organization,” ensuring “disciplinary actions are
undertaken without bias and/or disproportionality,” and eliminating “the racial predictability and
disproportionality in all aspects of education.” It is not clear though whether internal or external
forces have influenced the articulation and adoption of the policy and to what extent those more
recent policy revisions will be followed by procedural updates to the application process of
magnet schools in the near future. For example, only MSD3/5’s equity policy contains legal
references refering to state-level legal code associated with equal educational opportunity, sexual
equality, and discrimination prohibition. It is highly probable that, due to when equity language
was added to policies—MSD1/2 in 2020, MSD3/5 in 2019, MSD4 in 2019, and MSD6 in
56

2022—that national events of racial injustice and unrest (e.g., Black Lives Matter, death of
George Floyd, rise of White nationalism) may have compelled districts to clarify their position
on equity (M. M. Lewis et al., 2023; Ray, 2022).
Cardno’s (2018) second of three analyses—policy construction analysis—prompts an
examination of the language, formatting, and other constructions associated with the policy. In
the case of the magnet school district’s articulation of its equity policy, common aspects include
an intent to use the rhetorical device of pathos toward educational justice to influence or justify
its adoption. Following a definition of the concept of equity that the district holds, each district
sets forth lofty, if not aspirational, commitments such as those noted previously. The format for
each is conventional in nature, including paragraphs to articulate connected ideas supporting, for
example, how the policy aligns with the mission and vision of the district. They also include
outline and bulleted formatting to delineate between commitments, actions, evaluative elements,
and accountability or reporting measures. However, the length and depth of the districts’ policies
varied. MSD6 had the shortest articulated policy at 288 words, and MSD3/5 had the longest at
2,278 words.
Cardno’s (2018) third and final analysis—practice implementation and impact—was
particularly useful in examining the breadth and depth of each district’s voiced commitment to
and actions surrounding equity. This application of the policy content analysis exercise led to the
revelation of the second primary finding: Through its formalized procedures, each district
developed several tools and strategies in support of their equity policy. For MSD1/2, such
strategies included the creation of an office dedicated to Black male achievement with a district-
wide Black male student council, development of a racial equity analysis tool with an
accompanying facilitators guide, and a dedicated gifted student advisory charged with
57

“addressing the segregated system currently in place” in advanced learning in the district.
Further, MSD1/2 also implemented a quarterly enrollment and equity newsletter, though only
once over a 2-year period were magnet schools discussed. MSD3/5 developed an analysis and
decision-making tool to evaluate decisions associated with its equity policy and procedure. They
also created an equity advisory team of various community stakeholders, including students.
Similarly, MSD4 developed its own tool for decision making with the expressed purpose to
“reduce inequities, including disproportionality in student outcomes.” MSD6, whose equity
policy was adopted most recently among the four districts (in 2022) had little in terms of
concrete tools or strategies. Perhaps due to the relative infancy of its policy adoption, MSD6,
compared to the other districts, presented numerous public-facing documents associated with
equity, including a district communication to the community on its “why” for a professional
learning plan centered on racial equity; a presentation posted from the superintendent on equity;
a poster on a training for dismantling racism planned across district and school departments; and
two board-level standalone communications, one a resolution on antiracism and the other an
official proclamation on equitable and inclusive environments.
When applied to the magnet schools and districts, Cardno’s (2018) practice
implementation and impact analysis indicated each district was aware of issues of equity and the
need to organize resources to address them. Each district had dedicated a number of public-
facing policies, procedures, and supporting documents to suggest diversity, equity, access, and
inclusion matter in their organization. However, what remains less clear in many cases is the
relationship between district equity policies and their magnet schools. The final theme associated
with Research Question 2 addresses this in more detail.

58

Magnet School Segregation Largely Absent From School and District Equity Work
Although each of the four magnet school districts demonstrated degrees of interest and
investment in advancing equity in their school district, examination of public-facing documents
at the school and district level revealed little with respect to magnet school enrollment inequities.
Of the 56 primary sources identified and analyzed, only five documents spoke to equity and
enrollment issues associated with magnet schools. MSD1/2 published three such documents, one
being a section in a quarterly report from its demographer acknowledging the district’s option
schools, which include magnet schools, have disproportionate demographics. The report added
that they planned to have a team conduct further analyses. The second from MSD1/2, published
in Fall 2021, the same period of time as the demographer’s newsletter, outlined regional
differences occurring between neighborhood school demographics and option schools. MS2 was
named in the report as having fewer White students and more multiracial and Latino students
than the surrounding neighborhood schools. The report, however, did not address MS2’s
substantially disproportionate enrollment with Black, low-income, and special education
students, nor did it provide any analysis between the language-based theme design and the
school’s demographics. MSD1/2’s other acknowledgment of disproportionality involved MS1,
which again is a magnet school for qualifying highly capable or gifted students. The document,
which is the board policy on highly capable services, calls out historically inequities associated
with access for “low-income” and “historically underserved” students, authorizing the
superintendent to “prioritize equitable identification” for services and to “[eliminate] racial
disproportionality in all facets of highly capable students.” Such statements derived from the
documentary analysis reflect promise for more targeted actions to desegregate magnet schools;
however, the three documents were collected amid 19 total documents from MSD1/2 with no
59

discernable plans outlined or detailed to address disproportionality. Further, neither the district’s
strategic plan nor MS1 and MS2’s school improvement plans addressed access inequities, even
though each school’s improvement plan provides a section on the school’s racial, socioeconomic,
and program ability demographics.
Of the 17 documents related to magnet school enrollment, as well as diversity, equity,
access and inclusion, MSD3/5 had one document acknowledging magnet school inequities. In its
equity procedure, the district articulated, as a planned long-term outcome of equity work, the
“number of students from marginalized groups who are participating in district choice programs
will increase.” It added a commitment that “all students have equitable access to all District
programs including but not limited to all District choice schools.” These would include MS3 and
MS5. Like MSD1/2 and its respective magnet schools, MSD3/5’s strategic plan did not address
remedying access inequities nor did MS3 and MS5’s school improvement plans despite detailing
their enrollment demographics, a state requirement for annual school improvement plans.
Finally, of 17 documents collected from MSD6, one public-facing document
acknowledged disproportionality in its magnet schools. In MSD6’s enrollment procedure,
magnet schools are required to “strive for diversity in the student body,” directing them to
include “communication and outreach efforts” purposed to “promote their programs to a diverse
demographic of students in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, ability, and socioeconomic status.”
Like MSD1/2 and MSD3/5, and their respective magnet schools, MSD6 and MS6 did not
communicate plans to increase diversity in its magnet school via the district strategic plan or
school improvement plan. For MSD4 and MS4, it is striking that no evidence was found among
public-facing documents of commitments to or attempts underway to diversify MS4 segregated
enrollment.
60

Taken together among the six magnet schools and four districts, it is unclear whether the
absence of work to remedy enrollment disproportionality is due to a specific cause or competing
influence. However, what is clear in summary of the findings of Research Question 2 is that it
does not appear to be a priority, at least not one being made known to the community via public-
facing documents. The insights and perspectives of two magnet school principals in Research
Question 3 provide crucial insight into the challenge of actualizing desegregated enrollment.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: What are the experiences and perceptions of Western
Washington magnet school principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where
segregated outcomes remain persistent? Ample research has indicated principals have substantial
influence on outcomes associated with their schools (Crawford & Arnold, 2017; Garza et al.,
2014; Gerhart et al., 2011; Grissom et al., 2021; Khalifa et al., 2016; Mansfield & Jean-Marie,
2015). I conducted interviews with two of the six magnet school principals selected in the study.
The principals, referred to individually as P1 and P2, were asked questions (see Appendix C)
related to the enrollment demographic outcome of their magnet school in comparison to the
district’s overall demographic percentages. I asked them to provide their perspective on the
degree of influence they had as a magnet school principal on enrollment policy, procedures, or
related practices. In addition, I asked the principals to describe what work, if any, had taken
place over the past 1–2 years to remedy enrollment disproportionality in each of the categories
reflecting inequities. Finally, I asked the principals to share any additional experience or
perspectives they had on enrollment demographics, policies, and procedures at their magnet
school. As with Research Question 2, I employed NVivo data coding software in an inductive
61

approach to capture themes and patterns generated from the interview transcripts. Three major
themes or patterns emerged from the interview analysis.
Principals Demonstrating Awareness of Disproportional Enrollment Demographics
The two principals provided both summary and detailed information on their school’s
enrollment demographics, although I did not ask them to provide such data from memory. P1
had immediate knowledge of their demographics detailed to the percentage number; however, P1
did not have the district’s aggregate memorized or close enough to access and provide a
comparison perspective. P1 appeared to have a generalized understanding of the district’s
enrollment demographics and could answer related questions without difficulty. P2, however,
had both percentages in a document and compared the magnet school demographics to those of
the district with ease.
Both principals communicated that their magnet schools had degrees of diversity, some
mirroring the districts percentages but not with respect to Black and Latino students. Both
principals acknowledged the significant disparities in low-income student enrollment in their
magnet schools. P1 stated, “We are lower. We usually trend lower than the district and I don't
recall the district average right now, but ours will be around [percentage].” P2 explained, “So
that’s where you begin to see more of a discrepancy. The district is at [percentage] and we’re at
[percentage].”
With respect to ELL students, both principals provided important perspectives on the
nuanced history of their programs. Without revealing detail to the extent of compromising
confidentiality, one principal aligned the school’s increased degree of proportionality with the
magnet school’s thematic nature. The other principal, on the other hand, explained the magnet
school historically had not been able to serve all students with programmatic needs, such as ELL
62

students. In fact, according to the principal, “When the school was first founded, they didn’t
allow ELL students in.” The principal later explained this was due to the school’s overall small
enrollment. Likewise, with respect to special education, the same principal shared, “This is
another area where historically the school did not allow special education students, and it wasn’t
a part of the [magnet school’s] programming.” The principal added, “The last decade, the
[school’s equity team] has pushed back against that and has worked to make us some kind of full
inclusion school.”
It is important to acknowledge the limited scope of the interview with both magnet school
principals given the advanced approval of questions and the principals’ agreement to participate
based on the questions submitted to them. Consequently, questions and interview responses
relating to broader topics like diversity were restricted to focusing on the principals’ awareness
of their schools’ varying degrees of racial, socioeconomic, and educational programming
diversity; what work or communication had taken place related to diversifying enrollment; and
what additional experiences or perspectives they could share related to the topic. Principals were
not asked about their personal or professional views on diversity, including its value toward the
school’s learning environment.
Limited Perceived Power to Influence Enrollment Policies and Procedures
Interview responses related to both the process of enrollment and the type of influence
principals had revealed limitations. For example, P1 described the influence on enrollment policy
and procedure as “centralized” by the district’s student placement office. P1 explained the
principal could analyze initial enrollment results, including those related to race, low-income
status, and geographic location in the district. However, P1 expressed, “Whether or not they do
63

something with it, is now beyond my influence.” P1 added, “So the school’s only role is to
advertise the program.”
P2 had similar perspectives on the principal’s limited degree of influence on enrollment
policy and procedure, calling it “top-down dictated.” P2 recounted the history of the lottery
selection process and detailed the pressure, distrust, and worries of favoritism from the
community:
The lotteries were run at the school and people would come and they would look with
binoculars so that they could see the balls coming out of the thing, and they're
questioning if it was rigged. There has always been a lot of pressure on who gets in and
who doesn't get in. And so I think because of that, the district took it over and said we'll
run this and we'll do it in such a way as to limit any causes of favoritism.
P2 also described a central office that exerted tight controls over the enrollment process.
P2 shared an account of the school equity team’s interest to increase enrollment diversity to
“ensure [they] were more reflective of the overall district population and the pushback against
that [from central office] was, ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’” The principal added, “I think
there’s opportunities to at least subtly influence some things.” P2 then described an example of
when P2 persuaded the central office to grant an appeal permitting a student to re-enroll in the
magnet school after the student initially withdrew to enroll in the student’s assigned
neighborhood school.
Influential External Forces
Both magnet school principals identified multiple external influences that made it
difficult to pursue diversification. P1 described a time when an external consultant was called in
64

to conduct a review of magnet schools, including the issue of enrollment disproportionality. P1
explained:
I know that pre-COVID we were supposed to have a chance to revamp or to rethink our
enrollment policy, but that work was put on pause. . . . We’re starting to talk about this
and starting to reimagine what enrollment could look like. But then COVID happened.
And I don't know if it's picked up or if it's going to pick up anymore. I don't know, but I
haven't heard since then.
The principal also explored the notion that some families, particularly those reflecting
historically disadvantaged groups, may simply prefer to not apply to the magnet school. P1
asked, “Are we not reaching them or is this program not of interest to them?” P1 added, “And
that's what I don't know, because we haven't done that level of outreach or survey, right? I don't
want to presume that all the Black families out there who can come to [the magnet school] want
to.” P1 recognized the need for integrated enrollment, stating, “I feel like there is a need to
diversify just because if you don't diversify, you can very quickly see that it is a little bubble. It's
not really a functioning reality of the society in general.” However, given the influential nature
of family interest, P1 questioned how the magnet program should be advertised. P1 stated, “The
question now is how much outreach do we do? And also, what kind of outreach is right? Is it to
all races? Is it just to targeted races?”
Similarly, P2 voiced concerns associated with those influencing the enrollment of magnet
school. Referring to the school’s equity team, P2 described attempts to affect policy against
external forces as, “My team just basically feels, yeah, we’ve tried that. We’re not going to try
that again.” P2 questioned whether this was the sentiment of the equity team upon hearing from
65

the school community, the district, or what the district believed “the community and/or the board
would support.”
Summary
The inductive documentary analysis coupled with principal interviews illuminated
multiple themes associated with the study and related research questions. Results stemming from
each research question reveal the complex, multifaceted nature of understanding and confronting
historical inequities like segregation in choice magnet schools. Magnet schools in the United
States and in Western Washington are not monolithic. They have unique contexts,
characteristics, and distinctive histories, such as MS5 being founded on the segregational concept
of excluding ELL and special education students due to resource limitations.
Together, however, considering the research questions, the six Western Washington
magnet schools have multiple concerning commonalities. Each school shares its notoriety and
prominence in the face of highly disproportional enrollment demographics, raising concerns of
privilege and creaming those with advantage. Some magnet schools have accomplished pockets
of proportionality but remain segregated in other longstanding demographic categories (e.g.,
Black, low-income, and special education students). Further, although magnet schools have been
identified as part of a district’s espoused interest in increasing diversity and actualizing equity,
progress appears to be largely absent. This raises questions about each district’s commitment to
equity and what strategies or tools (e.g., equity metrics) districts are willing to employ to show
demonstrable progress.
The lack of representative access also raises questions about accountability at various
levels of leadership and influence, which includes magnet school principals in the study. Even
though the principals interviewed expressed a perception of disempowerment and limited ability
66

to influence enrollment outcomes, studies have indicated principals have considerable influence
(Crawford & Arnold, 2017; Garza et al., 2014; Gerhart et al., 2011; Grissom et al., 2021; Khalifa
et al., 2016; Mansfield & Jean-Marie, 2015), suggesting magnet school principals can exercise
more influence than their perceived limitations. Therefore, what fair or legitimate expectations
can be placed on principals of segregated schools when, for example, in the case of P2, interest is
evident from a school-based equity team to address the lack of enrollment diversity but is not
well received from central office? Similarly, in the case of P1, what can be reasonably expected
from a magnet school principal who recognizes inequity and observes that initial steps to address
it (e.g., discussions with an outside consultant) are stalled in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic? Further analysis on these challenges, as well as the imperative of identifying
opportunities and demonstrating progress, are explored in Chapter 5.

67

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Today, in public schools in the United States, students experience racial, socioeconomic,
and ability-based segregation despite an overall increase in diversity (U.S. GAO, 2022).
Segregated school enrollment has many harmful effects, including depressed educational
outcomes for historically marginalized students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; García, 2020;
Hanushek et al., 2009) as well as unequal resource distribution to schools experiencing
segregation (e.g., lower per pupil funding), larger class sizes, and less experienced teachers
(Ellen et al., 2002; Hanushek et al., 2009; Howard, 2010; Lleras, 2008; Reardon & Owens,
2014). Decades following the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954),
research has shown myriad influences have impeded efforts to integrate schools more fully
(Clotfelter, 2004; Frankel & Volij, 2011; Frankenberg & Taylor, 2017; Kotok et al., 2017;
Macartney & Singleton, 2018; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014; Rosiek & Kinslow, 2015;
Rothstein, 2014; Steil et al., 2015).
Magnet schools gained notoriety as a remedy to segregation following Milliken v.
Bradley (1974), after which urban school districts, such as Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and Buffalo,
developed desegregation strategies using magnet schools (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2013). Large
urban districts leveraged magnets to incentivize White families to not relocate to suburban
districts. Magnet schools later expanded through federal aid (Frankenberg & Le, 2009) though
became more racially isolated when court-driven desegregation efforts lost momentum
(Christenson et al., 2003). Today, like charter schools, vouchers, and open-enrollment policies,
magnet schools are a manifestation of free-market neoliberalism, eschewing desegregation and
prioritizing a colorblind school choice ideology (Diem & Hackman, 2018; Wells, 2014).
68

In the localized context of Western Washington, many of the highest rated public schools
among popular school review platforms are magnet schools (“2022 Best School Districts in
Washington,” 2022; “2022 Best U.S. High Schools,” 2022; “Top Ranked Public Schools in
Washington,” 2022). When the enrollment demographics of these magnet schools are analyzed,
however, substantial degrees of disproportionality are occurring with respect to race,
socioeconomics, and educational programming (i.e., special education and ELLs), raising
concerns of privilege, access, and inequity along with questions about policies and practices that
may be contributing to the problem.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the policy-related documents of magnet
schools and their respective districts, along with the experiences of magnet school principals who
implement such policies, to illuminate patterns of language and practice resulting in high levels
of enrollment disproportionality. It is critical to understand the roles and influences surrounding
enrollment policies to ensure access and representation in magnet schools is more equitable.
Research Questions
The following research questions served to guide the study:
1. To what degree do prominent public magnet schools in Washington State reflect
enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the districts’ subgroup
enrollment demographics?
2. What local district policy factors may be attributing to inequitable enrollment
outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
69

3. What are the experiences and perceptions of Western Washington magnet school
principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where segregated outcomes
remain persistent?
Methodology
A qualitative case study approach was used for this study. Purposeful sampling was
incorporated to identify six school-wide Western Washington magnets, each of which were
considered highly rated based on three school review platforms: Niche (“2022 Best School
Districts in Washington,” 2022), Public School Review (“Top Ranked Public Schools in
Washington,” 2022), and U.S. News and World Report (“2022 Best U.S. High Schools,” 2022).
Enrollment data for the six schools were collected and analyzed from Washington State’s Office
of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (n.d.) Report Card webpage to determine the extent to
which the magnet school’s enrollment was disproportionate—in terms of race, socioeconomics,
and educational programming—to the aggregate enrollment of the respective district. Data were
then collected in the form of 56 documents related to magnet school enrollment as well as
documents related to equity work taking place at the school or district level. The documents
varied in purpose, from formal enrollment policies to published posters promoting equity;
however, each document was a public-facing, primary source available via the magnet school
and district’s website. I analyzed documents via NVivo data coding software to identify patterns
and themes. Finally, I selected and interviewed two principals from the sampling of six magnet
schools to assess the extent of their awareness and communication of their school’s enrollment
disproportionality as well as what efforts, if any, had been undertaken to address the inequity.
70

Summary of Findings
Findings in this qualitative case study were based on the data collected and analyzed. In
this section, I interpret results of the data and link the findings to the studies outlined in the
literature review.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: To what degree do prominent public magnet schools in
Washington State reflect enrollment disproportionality when analyzed against the districts'
subgroup enrollment demographics?
Broad Patterns of Enrollment Disproportionality
Disproportionality with respect to enrollment was extensive in the six highly rated
magnet schools. In particular, Black students, low-income students, and students qualifying for
special education services all reflected significant underrepresentation when their magnet school
enrollment percentages were compared against the district aggregate, revealing a lack of access,
diversity, and inclusion in the magnet schools to the extent of representing inequitable,
segregated enrollment outcomes consistent with other magnet school studies (Davis, 2014;
Saporito, 2003) as well as the more pervasive lack of integration reported across U.S. schools
today (U.S. GAO, 2022).
Individualized Degrees of Enrollment Disproportionality
Striking patterns of segregation were identified at multiple magnet schools. Latino
students, for example, were substantially underrepresented at five of the six magnet schools
despite, for example, some districts having large percentages of Latino students (e.g., MS4,
MSD4). ELL students also were poorly represented at four of the six schools with alarming
levels identified at MS4 (3.5% compared to 31.4% at the district level) and MS6 (0.5%
71

compared to 11.6% at the district level). Again, lack of equitable access in more individualized
demographic cases is consistent with segregated enrollment in magnet schools and across the
country (Davis, 2014; Saporito, 2003; U.S. GAO, 2022).
Anomalies Exceeding the District Enrollment Percentage
A compelling theme arose in the analysis of magnet school enrollment. Where magnet
school themes of language immersion intersected with specific demographics, representation
from the demographic exceeded the district aggregate. This occurred with MS2 and MS3. In the
case of MS2, the percentage of Latino and ELL students was higher than those at the district
level. I noted similar results at MS3 with respect to Asian and ELL students. Both schools’
magnet themes center on dual-language learning related to each racial demographic and have
enrollment policies prioritizing enrollment for first-language speakers of the target language.
Although some may argue that dual-language magnet themes prioritizing first-language
speakers are a potential solution to magnet school segregation, it is important to draw attention to
the literature that has problematized dual-language programs for their manifestations of
Whiteness, privilege, and inequity. Ample studies have shown dual language magnet programs
in states like California, Utah, and Texas have created a type of enrollment gentrification by
allowing first-language students to comprise a percentage of enrollment but ultimately
structuring policies and designing practices, whether or not with intentionality, to attract and
favor middle-class White families (Burns, 2017; Chávez-Moreno, 2021; Freeman, 1996; Palmer,
2010; Valdes, 1997; Valdez et al., 2016).
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: What local district policy factors may be attributing to
inequitable enrollment outcomes in districts where significant disproportionality is identified?
72

Magnet School Enrollment Policies Favoring Neutrality With Some Exceptions
Application of Cardno’s (2018) policy content analysis exercise on the 56 documents
collected revealed a general sense of racial, socioeconomic, and ability-based neutrality in
magnet school enrollment policies. The utilitarian, equality-centric model of access for families
is consistent with literature on free-market neoliberalism’s influence on colorblind magnet
school choice models like those in Western Washington (Diem & Hackman, 2018; Wells, 2014).
Further, the general emphasis on neutral enrollment access has advantaged those with hegemonic
privilege, largely White middle-class families who exert between–school opportunity hoarding,
which is also consistent with the literature (Lacireno-Paquet & Brantley, 2012; Levin, 2009;
Lyken-Segosebe & Hinz, 2015; Smrekar, 2019).
Exceptions were noted in the findings, such as MSD1/2’s inclusion of multiple school
assignment pathways for its gifted learner or highly capable programs, including students
eligible to attend MS1. Although this was unique compared with the other magnet schools,
MS1’s enrollment contained high levels of disproportionality and underrepresentation, raising
the question as to whether the assignment pathways for magnet schools with a thematic focus on
highly capable learners would be more diverse if they were open to students outside of the
assigned pathway. Beyond MS1, MSD1/2 and MSD3/5 provided enrollment space for first-
language speakers of its dual-language magnet schools. However, as noted previously, such
enrollment provisions, although unique, do not lead automatically to equitable enrollment
outcomes as the literature has indicated (Burns, 2017; Chávez-Moreno, 2021; Freeman, 1996;
Palmer, 2010; Valdes, 1997; Valdez et al., 2016).
73

The application of distributive justice theory assists in the developed understanding that
colorblind, neutral policies are not sufficient in the pursuit of integrated magnet schools. Under
distributive justice theory, Rawls (1971) proposed equal distribution—in this case, educational
opportunity—unless an unequal distribution would benefit those disadvantaged (i.e., equity-
based distribution). This is a central premise to integration in this context. The power and
influence wielded by those with privilege, such as middle-class White families, and anchored in
colorblind ideologies, will continue to result in enrollment disproportionality until enrollment
policies are adopted to support those who historically have been disadvantaged.
Exclusionary Gatekeeping in Magnet School Enrollment Processes
Each of the six magnet schools in the study contained enrollment processes with
additional requirements for interested families that, when accumulated, revealed a barrier-laden
enrollment experience favoring those with the means or social capital to navigate it. Common to
all six magnet schools were gatekeeping impediments such as exceptionally early application
deadlines (i.e., January of the school year prior to enrollment) and use of internet-based
application and processing tools, both of which disadvantage low-income families (Koball &
Jiang, 2018; Vogels, 2021). Additional barriers varied by magnet school but also served as
inequitable impediments to disadvantaged families. Examples included disqualification for late
or incomplete applications, limited time to accept placement (e.g., 1 week), and additional
requirements, such as admissions tests or essays, professional dress, and self-management of
transportation to school. Consequences of these imposed barriers are enrollment demographics
favoring largely advantaged students, not only in Western Washington but also, as researchers
have found, in choice schools elsewhere (M. Schneider & Buckley, 2002; Smrekar & Goldring,
1999; Yettick, 2016).
74

It is with these additional enrollment barriers that Rawls’s (1971) distributive justice
theory can again be applied. For example, instead of rebalancing the distribution of educational
opportunity for those least historically advantaged, the six magnet schools exacerbate the
ingrained inequities associated with neutral enrollment policies. Here, with the addition of
gatekeeping requirements for application and enrollment, the magnet schools are adding more
weight to the scale of educational opportunity in favor of those privileged with the means to
navigate the added requirements successfully. Thus, enrollment segregation remains persistent.
Organizational Investment in Equity-Centered Policy and Procedures
During the documentary collection and analysis, I found each magnet school’s district
had published equity policies as well as accompanying procedures and supporting documents.
The public-facing, primary documents revealed concerted levels of voiced support for equity-
based policies and practices in each district, often framed in both aspirational and procedural
language. These findings are consistent with the increase in equity policy development in school
districts and other organizations in the wake of large-scale events of racial unrest over the past
decade in the United States (e.g., Black Lives Matter, death of George Floyd, rise of White
nationalism; M. M. Lewis et al., 2023; Ray, 2022).
Magnet School Segregation Largely Absent From School and District Equity Work
The collection and analysis of documents revealed little connection between equity
policies or practices and segregated enrollment outcomes associated with magnet schools. I
identified five documents across the four school districts, three of which were from MSD1/2,
including reports acknowledging some degree of enrollment disproportionality at magnet
schools, though noticeably leaving areas of segregated enrollment outcomes unaccounted for.
The other two documents connecting magnet school demographic disproportionality to equity,
75

despite acknowledging the issue, failed to provide any plans or actions to resolve the ongoing
manifestation of inequity. Although the literature is limited on the degree of consistency with
these findings measured against the broader landscape of magnet schools, the gap between
espousing equity in schools and delivering results is far too common (Arundel, 2020; Gutierrez,
2022)
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: What are the experiences and perceptions of Western
Washington magnet school principals charged with implementing enrollment policies where
segregated outcomes remain persistent?
Principals’ Demonstrable Awareness of Disproportional Enrollment Demographics
In this study, interviewed principals reported summary and detailed data on their
respective magnet school’s enrollment demographics. Of the two principals interviewed, P2
arrived at the interview with complete demographic percentages and provided more detail than
P1. Both principals acknowledged varying degrees of disproportionality compared to the district
aggregate and offered current and historical context in explaining the disparities.
Limited Perceived Power to Influence Enrollment Policies and Procedures
Despite studies indicating principals’ substantial influence on educational outcomes for
students (Crawford & Arnold, 2017; Garza et al., 2014; Gerhart et al., 2011; Grissom et al.,
2021; Khalifa et al., 2016; Mansfield & Jean-Marie, 2015), interviews of the two magnet schools
principals revealed perceived limitations or inabilities to influence their magnet school’s
enrollment. Both principals described enrollment policies and practices as centralized or top
down and dictated by district-level officials. P2 noted the school’s equity team had made efforts
to pursue more diverse enrollment but was denied the ability to do so. These findings are
76

consistent with research highlighting principals’ perceived limitations and disempowerment with
respect to dismantling institutionalized inequities (Brooks & Miles, 2006; DeMatthews, 2018;
Frick & Faircloth, 2007; Furman, 2012; Grissom et al., 2021; Jansen, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
Influential External Forces
The theme of external influences affecting opportunities to address magnet school
segregation emerged in the interviews of two principals. Both principals identified school
families or the school community as a primary influencer. P1 added that an outside consultant
had been contracted by the district to review magnet enrollment policies, including resulting
disproportionalities, but whose work was cut short by COVID-19 school closures and not
subsequently restarted. P2 channeled the perceptions of the school’s equity team when referring
to external power dynamics (e.g., “the community and/or the board”) and opportunities to
address disproportional enrollment demographics, conveying that prior attempts by the equity
team signaled proposed changes would not garner support. Again, these findings align with
research on principals’ struggles to address rooted inequities in their schools (Brooks & Miles,
2006; DeMatthews, 2018; Frick & Faircloth, 2007; Grissom et al., 2021; Theoharis, 2007).
Implications for Practice
This qualitative case study on highly rated magnet schools in Western Washington
contributes to research on the persistence of school segregation. Findings from this study aligned
with existing research and suggest implications for practice to support desegregation efforts,
particularly in choice or magnet schools.
Going Public With Inequities
To address issues of equity and access that reflect systemic privilege and racism in
schools today, it is critical that districts move beyond standard articulations of commitments to
equity via formally approved policy statements. School districts need to take adequate time to
77

study—whether through internal means of self-analysis or externally via audits or hired
consultants—the breadth and depth of inequities to be addressed in their school system.
Two key findings from the study included that each of four districts representing the six
magnet schools established an equity policy. Some districts, like MSD1/2, developed more
robust communication plans related to equity, such as a quarterly newsletter. Others, like
MSD3/5, created an analysis and decision-making tool to evaluate decisions associated with its
equity policy and procedure. Both represent promising starts; however, practices varied widely
across the districts, and no district demonstrated sustained attention to or any degree of progress
related to their magnet school’s segregated enrollment patterns.
Although the scope of the study did not account for other potential inequities outside of
enrollment in magnet schools, there is an opportunity for each district to begin realizing its
promise of educational equity by offering a full and ongoing report of the systems and practices
needing to be addressed. An initial publicized identification of enrollment disproportionality
along with other potential inequities, such as discipline, academic outcome gaps, and teacher
hiring, would serve to inform the public that an awareness exists and that resources being
reallocated to address such issues are not without merit. Research has shown this level of
forthright transparency also would serve to engender trust between the district and its
stakeholders, signal a commitment to accountability and ethical decision-making processes, and
increase innovation and collaboration (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017; Meijer et al., 2012;
Peterman & Lynskey, 2016).
From Platitudes to Action and Accountability
Along with open, comprehensive reporting on the extent of inequities needed for clarity
and transparency, each district would be well served to develop concrete plans to begin
78

addressing them. In primary source documents for each magnet school district, I found espoused
commitments to equity, principally in the form of a board-approved equity policy or
supplemental documents in some districts. Further, evidence of action, or readiness to act, was
found in the form of MSD4’s equity decision-making tool and in MSD3/5’s creation of an equity
advisory team. Although these progressive steps demonstrated a perceived increase in action
orientation compared to other districts, actions appeared to be limited when viewed through
public-facing documents. For example, related to segregated enrollment, no district provided
communication via its public-facing documents of any action being taken to address the
substantial underrepresentation of historically marginalized students at its magnet schools.
The importance of developing strategic action plans would appear to be self-evident.
Critical school reform like desegregation cannot be actualized without clear goals (e.g., SMART
goals), identified actors responsible for specific actions, and how progress or results will be
measured. Without a clear plan, confusion, inefficiencies, and insufficient progress will result.
On the other hand, action plans that include clear objectives, strategies to achieve identified
objectives, timelines for implementation, and indicators of measurable progress will ensure
reform efforts are best organized to succeed (Bryk et al., 2015).
Leveraging Existing Strategies to Increase Access and Integration
As noted previously, although each school district studied developed and published
equity policies, with some districts creating supplemental documents to guide and inform the
public of their work, no district published plans to address the pattern of segregated enrollment
their highly rated magnet schools were experiencing. Organizing and communicating such plans
in a clear, transparent manner is imperative; however, as districts consider strategies to increase
access and demographic representation, I advise they inquire into what research has found as
79

recommended pathways toward greater integration. Orfield and Frankenburg (2013), for
example, developed an effective family workshop model using the website SmartChoices to
assist parents in their school choice options and decisions. Frankenberg et al. (2008) outlined
multiple policy changes districts should consider to increase diversity in their magnet schools,
including special outreach and advertising efforts and teacher training for culturally responsive
teaching practices. Smrekar (2019) provided critical checkpoints for districts to consider with
respect to community engagement, information dissemination and marketing of magnet schools,
and partnership agreements. Finally, U.S. Department of Education reports have outlined
effective strategies to aid more diverse and inclusive magnet schools, both K–8 magnet schools
(2008) and magnet schools in general (2004).
Of course, none of these recommendations preclude a district taking the initial step to
examine the real or perceived barriers associated with their magnet school enrollment policies
and processes. An honest assessment may lead to expeditious action, for example, by targeting
onerous requirements like professional dress, essay writing, or the need for a family to schedule
a meeting with magnet school officials to demonstrate further their interest and commitment
beyond their application.
Recommendations for Research
This study analyzed 56 documents across four school districts and six magnet schools,
along with interviewing two principals from the six magnets, to identify themes and patterns to
understand better segregated enrollment in Western Washington’s highly rated magnet schools.
Findings from this qualitative case study uncovered additional areas that would benefit from
further exploration. The following are recommendations for future research.
80

Further Explore the History and Purposes Associated With Barriers to Magnet School
Enrollment
A significant number of enrollment requirements have been enacted that limit access and
disproportionally affect low-income and historically disadvantaged families. These include
exceptionally early application deadlines, required internet access and proficiency, varied
transportation support, and stringent academic requirements. Some of these requirements, which
would not be imposed upon students registering at a nonmagnet neighborhood school, are
common among the six magnet schools (e.g., early registration deadlines) and some are unique
to individual magnets (e.g., written essay submission). The research on segregated magnet
schools would benefit from a study on these additional requirements to comprehend more fully
the intent from school and district officials behind such gatekeeping measures and the degree to
which individual requirements discourage underrepresented families from applying.
Study the Role of Central Office Administrators on Influencing the Enrollment
Demographics of Magnet Schools
A central finding of this case study included the perception from magnet school
principals that they had little influence on enrollment policies and practices resulting in their
school’s segregated outcomes. An additional study would benefit the research on magnet school
segregation in its examination of different roles and influences from central office leadership,
including larger scale departments or offices overseeing enrollment in general or individual
leaders at various organizational levels within the district with degrees of authority over
enrollment at magnets. Future research in this area also would serve to confirm or problematize
principals’ view on their limited influence.
81

Conduct Additional Investigation on the Influence of Privileged Families and Community
Members on Magnet School Segregation
Each of the interviewed magnet school principals identified their broader school
community as affecting enrollment policies and the demographic composition of their school.
Individual case studies would serve to illuminate the extent of influence this may have on efforts
to diversify and provide more representative access to magnet schools. In turn, findings from
such research would serve the greater body of research on segregation and magnet schools as
well as provide educational leaders with deeper levels of understanding of the complex
relationship between formalized equity commitments and the realities of hegemonic privilege.
Conclusion
This study has substantiated that magnet school enrollment segregation persists in a
localized context of Western Washington. Aligned with the research and recent reports on the
continuation of segregation throughout the United States, magnet school enrollment
disproportionality is pronounced in highly rated schools in Western Washington. The study also
demonstrated the complex, multifaceted causes of segregation, particularly hegemonic privilege
now supported by neoliberal colorblind ideologies, remain entrenched when viewed through
public-facing documents and interviews with local magnet school principals.
The study also illuminated that little is being done to create awareness or begin strategic
planning to address long-standing inequities of underrepresentation manifested in the sampled
magnet schools. Although school districts have communicated a vested interest in addressing
inequities and promoting diversity, equity, and access, it does not appear there is a priority to
dismantle disproportional access to magnet schools. Moreover, even though magnet school
82

principals may demonstrate awareness of the disparities occurring at their school, there is a clear
perception that outside influences prevent them from deconstructing the systemic challenge.
I present this study with hope and optimism. Examples from each school district I
examined reflect degrees of promising starts for enacting change. To increase representation,
diversity, and access, steps can be taken immediately to acknowledge the problem and begin
dismantling barriers that prevent families from gaining access. In addition, substantial research
has provided school districts with roadmaps and strategies to confront the inequities; however, it
will take individual and collective courage to realize the promise of districts’ equity policies with
respect to segregated enrollment in highly rated magnet schools. Fundamental perils exist,
particularly with respect to the power and influence of privileged stakeholders who may exert
their influence to continue, whether consciously or not, their advantaged access. Educational
leaders must tackle these challenges and ensure the just redistribution of opportunity for the
betterment of not only the most disadvantaged students but also society as a whole.

83

References
2022 best school districts in Washington. (2022). Niche. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from
https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-school-districts/s/washington/
2022 best U.S. high schools. (2022). U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-
rankings?int=top_nav_National_Ranking Adelman, C. (2015). Case study, methodology
and educational evaluation: A personal view. In T. Greenhalgh (Ed.), Case study
evaluation: Past, present and future challenges (pp. 1–18). Emerald Group
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-786320140000015001
Arundel, K. (2020). Most superintendents say they’re not “very well prepared” to lead race,
equity conversations. Education Dive.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/most-
superintendents-say-theyre-not-very-well/docview/2456664757/se-2
Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.),
Qualitative research: Theory, methods and practice (2nd ed., pp. 56-75). SAGE
Publications.
Bell, D.A. (1992). Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review, 24(2), 363–380.
Bellevue School District. (2021). Procedure 0130P: Equity & accountability.
https://bsd405.org/wp-content/pdf/policy/0130P.pdf
Ben-Shahar, T. H. (2015). Distributive justice in education and conflicting interests: Not
(remotely) as bad as you think. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(4), 491–509.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12122
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).
84

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2009). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism & racial inequality in
contemporary America (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Brantlinger, E., Majd-Jabbari, M., & Guskin, S. L. (1996). Self-interest and liberal educational
discourse: How ideology works for middle-class mothers. American Educational
Research Journal, 33(3), 571–597. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033003571
Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. (2006). From scientific management to social justice . . . and back
again? Pedagogical shifts in the study and practice of educational leadership.
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(21).
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How
America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1999). Dismantling environmental racism in the USA. Local Environment, 4(1),
5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725577
Burns, M. (2017). “Compromises that we make”: Whiteness in the dual-language context.
Bilingual Research Journal, 40(4), 339–352.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a
qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(1),
623–640.
Chávez-Moreno, L. C. (2021). Dual language as white property: Examining a secondary
bilingual-education program and Latinx equity. American Educational Research Journal,
58(6), 1107–1141. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211052508
85

Christenson, B., Eaton, M., Garet, M., Miller, L., Hikowa, H., & DuBois, P. (2003). Evaluation
of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the
Under Secretary.
Clotfelter, C. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton
University Press.
Coates, R., Ferber, A., & Brunsma, D. L. (2017). The matrix of race: Social construction,
intersectionality, and inequality. SAGE Publications.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., &
York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Cornwell, P. (2016, April 2). Aviation High School seeks diversity with enrollment lottery. The
Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/aviation-high-seeks-
diversity-with-enrollment-lottery/
Crawford, E., & Arnold, N. W. (2017). “We don’t talk about undocumented status… We talk
about helping children”: How school leaders shape school climate for undocumented
immigrants. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(2),
116–147.
Creswell, J. W. (2020). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No
Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
Davis, T. M. (2014). School choice and segregation: “Tracking” racial equity in magnet schools.
Education and Urban Society, 46(4), 399–433.
86

Dearing, E., McCartney, K., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., & Simpkins, S. (2004). The promotive
effects of family educational involvement for low-income children’s literacy. Journal of
School Psychology, 42(6), 445–460.
del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). Chapter 4. A humanizing pedagogy reinventing the principles and
practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1),
121–148.
DeMatthews, D. (2018). Social justice dilemmas: Evidence on the successes and shortcomings of
three principals trying to make a difference. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 21(5), 545–559.
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for White people to talk about racism.
Beacon Press.
Diem, S., & Hawkman, A. M. (2018). Whiteness as policy: Reconstructing racial privilege
through school choice. In J. S. Brooks & G. Theoharis (Eds.), Whiteucation: Privilege,
power, and prejudice in school and society (pp. 96–115).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351253482
Doane, A. W. (2003). Rethinking Whiteness studies. In A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.),
White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 3–18). Routledge.
Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE Publications.
Ellen, I. G., O’Regan, K., Schwartz, A. E., & Stiefel, L. (2002). Immigrant children and New
York City schools: Segregation and its consequences. Brookings-Wharton Papers on
Urban Affairs, 183+.
87

Elman, C., Gerring, J., & Mahoney, J. (2016). Case study research: Putting the quant into the
qual. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 375–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116644273
Feagin, J. (2009). The White racial frame: Centuries of White racial framing and
counterframing. Routledge.
Feagin, J., & Bennefield Z. (2014). Systemic racism and U.S. health care. Social Science and
Medicine, 103(10), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.006
Ferrandino, J. (2015). Minority threat hypothesis and NYPD stop and frisk policy. Criminal
Justice Review, 40(2), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016814564989
Frankel, D. M., & Volij, O. (2011). Measuring school segregation. Journal of Economic Theory,
146(1), 1–38.
Frankenberg, E., & Le, C. Q. (2009). The post-Seattle/Louisville challenge: Extra-legal obstacles
to integration. Ohio State Law Journal, 69(5), 1015–1072.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Orfield, G. (2008). The forgotten choice? Rethinking
magnet schools in a changing landscape. University of California.
Frankenberg, E., & Taylor, K. (2017). School district secessions: How boundary lines stratify
school and neighborhood populations in Jefferson County, Alabama, 1968–2014. Rural
Sociology, 86(3).
Freeman, R. D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: “Its much more than
language.” TESOL Quarterly, 30, 557—582.
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).
88

Frick, W. C., & Faircloth, S. C. (2007). Acting in the collective and individual “best interest of
students”: When ethical imperatives clash with administrative demands. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 20(1), 21–32.
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through
preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 191–229.
Gamoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
García, E. (2020). Schools are still segregated, and black children are paying a price. Economic
Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/schools-are-still-segregated-and-black-
children-are-paying-a-price/
Garza, E., Jr., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership for school
success: Lessons from effective principals. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(7), 798–811.
Gerhart, L. G., Harris, S., & Mixon, J. (2011). Beliefs and effective practices of successful
principals in high schools with a Hispanic population of at least 30%. NASSP Bulletin,
95(4), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511428373
Gilead, T. (2019). Promoting distributive justice in education and the challenge of
unpredictability. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(4), 439–451.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09655-2
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race
theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485–505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500132346
89

Gillborn, D. (2014). Racism as policy: A critical race analysis of education reforms in the United
States and England. The Educational Forum, 78(1), 26–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.850982
Glenn, E. N. (2014). Settler colonialism as structure. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 54–
74. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214560440
Godwin, R. K., Leland, S. M., Baxter, A. D., & Southworth, S. (2006). Sinking Swann: Public
school choice and the resegregation of Charlotte’s public schools. The Review of Policy
Research, 23(5), 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00246.x
Goodman, D. J. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged
groups. SAGE Publications.
Graves, J. L., Jr. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes: Biological theories of race at the new
millennium. Rutgers University Press.
Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Weske, U., Bouwman, R., & Tummers, L. (2017). Public sector
transparency. In O. James, S. R. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public
management research (pp. 291–312). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676912.014
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
students: A systemic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/documents/how-principals-affect-
students-and-schools.pdf
Gutierrez, E. C. (2022). Getting beyond “stuck” on equity in schools. Educational Leadership,
79(5). https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/getting-beyond-stuck-on-equity-in-schools
90

Halley, J. O., Eshleman, A., & Vijaya, R. M. (2011). Seeing White: An introduction to White
privilege and race. Rowman & Littlefield.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2009). New evidence about Brown v. Board of
Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement. Journal of
Labor Economics, 27(3), 349–383. https://doi.org/10.1086/600386
Harvey, D. (2008). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). Chapter 1: What Americans want from public schools.
In J. Hochschild & N. Scovronick (Eds.), The American Dream and the public schools
(pp. 9–27). Oxford University Press.
Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in
America’s classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Jackman, M. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism, and conflict in gender, class, and race
relations. University of California Press.
Jacobs, L. (Host). (2020, May 6). Magnet schools and equity [Audio podcast]. https://www.ace-
ed.org/listen-how-magnet-schools-promote-equity-access-throughout-the-country/
Jansen, J. D. (2006). Leading against the grain: The politics and emotions of leading for social
justice in South Africa. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 37–51.
Jasso, G., Tornblom, K. Y., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive justice. In C. Sabbagh & M.
Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 201–218). Springer.
Kaufman, J. E., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (1992). Education and employment of low-income Black
youth in White suburbs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 229–240.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
91

King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers.
The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 131–146.
Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018). Basic facts about low-income children. National Center for
Children in Poverty. https://www.nccp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/text_1194.pdf
Kotok, S., Frankenberg, E., Schafft, K. A., Mann, B., & Fuller, E. J. (2017). School choice, racial
segregation and poverty concentration: Evidence from Pennsylvania charter school
transfers. Educational Policy, 31(4), 415–447.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. Crown.
Lacireno-Paquet, N., & Brantley, C. (2012). Who chooses schools, and why? The characteristics
and motivations of families who actively choose schools. In G. Miron, K. G. Welner, P.
H. Hinchey, & W. J. Mathis (Eds.), Exploring the school choice universe: Evidence and
recommendations (pp. 65–88). Information Age Publishing.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and White
families. American Sociological Review, 67, 747–776.
Legal Defense Fund. (2022, December 20). Case: Sheff v. O’Neill.
Leonardo, Z. (2007). The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educational
construction of Whiteness. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 261–278.
Levin, H. R. (2009). An economic perspective on school choice. In M. Berends, M. G. Springer,
D. Ballou, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 19–34).
Routledge.
Lewis, A. E. (2004). “What group?” Studying whites and whiteness in the era of
“colorblindness.” Sociological Theory, 22(45), 623–646.
92

Lewis, M. M., Modeste, M. E., & Johnson, R. M. (2023). The rise of the school district chief
equity officer: Moving beyond mimetic isomorphism and promoting anti-racist systemic
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(1), 143–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231153404
Lleras, C. (2008). Race, racial concentration, and the dynamics of educational inequality across
urban and suburban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 886–912.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE Publications.
Looney, T. (2017). NVivo: Coding explained data analysis demystified. S. T. Publishing House.
Lyken-Segosebe, D., & Hinz, S. E. (2015). The politics of parental involvement: How
opportunity hoarding and prying shape educational opportunity. Peabody Journal of
Education, 90(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.988536
Macartney, H., & Singleton, J. D. (2018). School boards and student segregation. Journal of
Public Economics, 164, 165–182.
Magnet Schools of America. (2021, February 9). Magnet schools: Our pillars.
https://magnet.edu/about/what-are-magnet-schools#1499667975017-442c6dff-d0a4
Magnet Schools of America. (2022, February 20). What are magnet schools?
https://magnet.edu/about/what-are-magnet-schools
Mansfield, K. C., & Jean-Marie, G. (2015). Courageous conversations about race, class, and
gender: Voices and lessons from the field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 28(7), 819–841.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
93

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In P. McIntosh (Ed.),
On privilege, fraudulence, and teaching as learning: Selected essays 1981–2019 (pp. 29–
34). Routledge.
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D. M., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and
voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Cornell University Press.
Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1995)
Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in
the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press.
Orfield, G. (1969). The reconstruction of southern education: The schools and the 1964 Civil
Rights Act. Wiley-Interscience.
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2013). Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen
inequality and how to make schools fair. University of California Press.
https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520274730.001.0001
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Increasingly segregated and unequal schools as courts
reverse policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 718–734.
94

Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a
dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01069.x
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
Peralta, E. (2011, December 21). BofA’s Countrywide to pay $335 million, settling lending
discrimination case [Radio broadcast]. NPR. https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2011/12/21/144083080/bofas-countrywide-will-pay-335-million-in-lending-
discrimination-case
Peterman, M. E., & Lynskey, J. H. (2016). Transparency and accountability through public-
sector reporting. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 65(4), 54–56.
Posey, L. (2012). Middle- and upper-middle-class parent action for urban public schools:
Promise or paradox. Teachers College Record, 114(1), 1–43.
2Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field
experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41), 10870–10875.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Ray, R. (2022). Black Lives Matter at 10 years: 8 ways the movement has been highly effective.
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/10/12/black-
lives-matter-at-10-years-what-impact-has-it-had-on-policing/
Reardon, S. F. , & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school
segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218.
Rippa, S. A. (1997). Education in a free society: An American history. Langman.
95

Rosiek, J., & Kinslow, K. (2015). Resegregation as curriculum: The meaning of the new racial
segregation in U.S. public schools. Routledge.
Rothstein, R. (2014, March 25). Segregated housing, segregated schools. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-segregated-housing-segregated-
schools/2014/03
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Rothstein, R. (2019). The myth of de facto segregation: Today's high levels of school segregation
can be traced to specific government policies that created distinct White and Black
neighborhoods. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(5), 35-38.
Saldaña, J., Leavy, P., & Beretvas, N. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford
University Press.
Samad, A. A. (2009). Post-raciality in education: Revisiting Myrdal's "American dilemma."
Human Rights, 36(4), 11–13.
Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation
by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181–203.
Schneider, C. E. (1995). Discretion and rules: A lawyer’s view. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of
discretion (pp. 47–88). Clarendon Press.
Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the
internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 133–144.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2000). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study: A case study in random
assignment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 14(3–4), 136–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790008666969
96

Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s
reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.
Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1 (1996)
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary
schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35, 149–165.
Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2011). Redefining diversity: Political responses to the
post-PICS environment. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(5), 529–552.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.616135
Smrekar, C. (2019). The social context of magnet schools. In M. Berends, A. Primus, & M. G.
Springer (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 259–272). Routledge.
Smrekar, C., & Goldring, E. (1999). School choice in urban America: Magnet schools and the
pursuit of equity. Teachers College Press.
Smith, J., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Parent involvement in urban charter schools: A new
paradigm or the status quo. Vanderbilt University.
Steil, J., De la Roca, J., & Ellen, I. G. (2015). Desvinculado y desigual: Is segregation harmful to
Latinos? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 660(1),
57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215576092
Strange, K. (2017, September 27). The elephant in the classroom: Segregation in Seattle public
schools. Medium. https://medium.com/@katyjonesstrange/the-elephant-in-the-classroom-
segregation-in-seattle-public-schools-3c00df51393d
Sumartono, S., Huda, N., & Rafsanjani, W. A. (2021). Student’s perception of online learning
due to COVID-19. Webology, 18(2), 1023–1034.
https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V18I2/WEB18371
97

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
Taylor, B. O. (2002). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5),
375–378.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social
justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221–
258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293717
Top ranked public schools in Washington. (2022). Public School Review. Retrieved May 20,
2022, from https://www.publicschoolreview.com/top-ranked-public-schools/washington
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Innovations in Education: Creating successful magnet
school programs. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608530.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Creating and sustaining successful K–8 magnet schools.
Office of Innovation and Improvement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504196.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2022). K–12 education: Student population has
significantly diversified, but many schools remain divided along racial, ethnic, and
economic lines. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104737.pdf
Valdes, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the
education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–429.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.3.n5q175qp86120948
Valdez, V. E., Freire, J. A., & Delavan, M. G. (2016). The gentrification of dual language
education. The Urban Review, 48(4), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0370-
0
98

Vittorini, P., & Galassi, A. (2021). From blended to online due to the COVID outbreak: The case
study of a data science course. Open Learning, 36(3), 212–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1973399
Vogels, E. A. (2021, June 22). Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes
make gains in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-
gains-in-tech-adoption/
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Report card. Retrieved March
8, 2022, from
https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/103
950
Webb, L. D. (2006). The history of American education: A great American experiment. Pearson.
Wells, A. S. (2014). Seeing past the “colorblind” myth: Why education policymakers should
address racial and ethnic inequality and support culturally diverse schools. National
Education Policy Center.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America’s schools. New
Press.
Yettick, H. (2016). Information is bliss: Information use by school choice participants in
Denver. Urban Education, 51, 859–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914550414
Zhao, L. Thomas, P., & Zhang, L. (2021). Do our children learn enough in Sky Class? A case
study: Online learning in Chinese primary schools in the COVID era March to May 2020.
Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00180-9

99

Appendix A: Interview Recruitment Letter
[Date]
[Name of potential participant]
Principal, [school name]
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]

Re: USC Dissertation Research Study on Magnet School Enrollment Policies and Principals’
Experiences
Dear [insert name]:
I am writing to let you know about an opportunity to participate in a research study about
enrollment policies and outcomes in school-wide public school choice or magnet schools in
Western Washington. This study is being conducted by me, Jonathan Shearer, at the University
of Southern California. This study will analyze enrollment data at magnet schools in Western
Washington as well as the policy, procedures and practices that may be resulting in such
enrollment outcomes. It will also study the role of the principal in managing local district
enrollment policies, particularly with respect to their influence on enrollment policies.
As a former principal of a magnet school in Western Washington, I was aware of your position
as Principal of a choice or magnet school and have received permission from the school district
to contact you regarding your participation in the study.
As a follow-up to this communication, I will contact you via phone. You may opt out by
contacting me via the information below and requesting that no further contact be made. Please
100

note that if you have interest in participating, it will not mean that you are automatically enrolled
for the study.
Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Jonathan Shearer
(XXX) XXX–XXXX
xxxxx@usc.edu
101

Appendix B: Interview Cover Sheet
Name of researcher:
Date of interview:
Name of interviewee:
City:
Authorizer’s phone number:
Authorizer’s email address:
Interview start time:
Interview end time:
Introduction
My name is Jonathan Shearer, and I am a researcher at the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a study on enrollment policies of
local school district choice or magnet schools and the experiences and perspectives of magnet
school principals in relation to enrollment policies and outcomes. In our collective effort to
ensure public education is equitable and just, it is important to analyze the roll of policy in
enrollment outcomes in magnet schools as well as the degree of influence individual principals
have.
During this interview, I hope to learn more about your experiences related to enrollment
policies, procedures, and related practices. I am particularly interested in learning about work
you may have already conducted in this area as well as what work and communication, if any,
has been done around integration and inclusion via enrollment policies and practices.
The information you provide will hopefully serve to support policymakers and those
charged with policy implementation, such as principals, now and in the future.
102

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you, or your organization, by name. I would like to tape record this interview to capture
information that I may have missed. Would this be okay to do?
The interview should take approximately 45 minutes.
Thank you for your time.

103

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
1. How would you analyze and describe your school’s enrollment data with respect to
race when compared to the district’s overall racial enrollment percentages?
2. How would you analyze and describe your school’s enrollment data with respect to
free/reduced meals when compared to the district’s overall free/reduced meals
enrollment percentage?
3. How would you analyze and describe your school’s enrollment data with respect to
English language learners (ELLs) when compared to the district’s overall ELL
enrollment percentage?
4. How would you analyze and describe your school’s enrollment data with respect to
special education when compared to the district’s overall special education
enrollment percentage?
5. How would you describe the enrollment policies, procedures, or any practices related
to student enrollment at your school?
6. Please describe what type of influence you have, if any, on the policy language,
procedures or any practices related to student enrollment at your school.
7. What communication, if any, have you received in the past 1–2 years about
enrollment policies, procedures, or practices, as it relates to enrollment
disproportionality? From whom and in relation to what aspects, more specifically?
8. What communication, if any, have you initiated or engaged in the past 1–2 years
about enrollment policies, procedures, or practices, as it relates to enrollment
disproportionality? To whom and in relation to what aspects, more specifically?
104

9. What has been done in the past 1–2 years to integrate and enroll students of different
races at your school to be on par with or exceed the racial enrollment percentages of
the district? What, if anything, is currently being done?
10. What has been done in the past 1–2 years to integrate and enroll students receiving
free/reduced meals at your school to be on par with or exceed the free/reduced meal
enrollment percentage of the district? What, if anything, is currently being done?
11. What has been done in the past 1–2 years to integrate and enroll students receiving
special education at your school to be on par with or exceed the special education
enrollment percentage of the district? What, if anything, is currently being done?
12. What has been done in the past 1–2 years to integrate and enroll students qualifying
as English language learners at your school to be on par with or exceed the ELL
enrollment percentage of the district? What, if anything, is currently being done?
13. What additional experiences or perspectives can you share related to enrollment
demographics, as well as policies, procedures and/or practices related to student
enrollment for your magnet or choice school?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze segregated enrollment taking place in Western Washington magnet schools, the highest rated schools in Washington State, according to popular school rating platforms. Developed as a qualitative case study, the research focused first on analyzing the degree of segregated enrollment in six sampled magnet schools and then examined policy-related documents to identify trends and patterns to understand why such enrollment disproportionality may be occurring. In addition, the study included interviews of two principals from the sampled magnet schools to gain insight into their perceptions and experiences as key influencers. The results revealed segregated enrollment is substantial with respect to race, income, and educational programming, specifically English language learners and students qualifying for special education services. Primary source, public-facing documents showed enrollment policies generally favoring colorblind, neutral access to magnet schools despite expressed commitments to equitable policies and practices. These findings are consistent with literature identifying neoliberal, colorblind ideologies allowing for opportunity hoarding from those privileged over those historically disadvantaged. In addition, documents uncovered patterns of exclusionary gatekeeping in the enrollment process. Through an examination of principals’ experiences, the study found principals were aware of their enrollment disproportionality when compared against district averages. However, principals discussed perceptions of limited power to affect their enrollment policies as well as influential external forces maintaining the status quo.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A qualitative phenomenological study examining the influence of political climate on African American teachers’ perceptions of professional experiences within predominately White K–12…

PDF

School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

A phenomenological study of secondary women athletic directors: an exploration of systemic bias

PDF

Gender-inclusive housing in northeastern boarding schools: a comparative case study of how housing policies impact gender expansive students’ sense of belonging

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Leading the new generation: principal leadership practices that promote retention of millennial teachers

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

An examination into leadership strategies that stop perpetuating the equity gap of historically marginalized students in high schools

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.

PDF

The declining enrollment in a California community college during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Interconnectedness of cultural responsiveness, retention, and mentorship: understanding the experiences of BIPOC intern educators with BIPOC mentors

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

PDF

Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

PDF

The role of the admissions director of a Catholic high school in Southern California

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in middle schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

The next generation of leaders: an exploration of the experiences of millennials as administrators in southern California’s urban public schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Shearer, Jonathan Christians (author)

Core Title The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 06/16/2023

Defense Date 04/17/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag disproportionality,enrollment policy,integration,K-12 public education,magnet schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,segregation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kishimoto, Christina (committee chair), Allman, Alexa (committee member), Cash, David (committee member)

Creator Email jcsheare@usc.edu,jocshearer@comcast.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113170772

Unique identifier UC113170772

Identifier etd-ShearerJon-11966.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ShearerJon-11966

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Shearer, Jonathan Christians

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230616-usctheses-batch-1056 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu