NJ’s Education Law Center is celebrating an agreement between Cape May County Technical Board of Education and the NJ Division of Civil Rights. According to ELC’s press release, administrators in Cape May regular public schools reported discrimination against students with disabilities who applied to Cape May Technical High School, a magnet school that operates, like almost all NJ magnet schools, under the umbrella of the county-run vocational and technical schools. The agreement aims to ensure that students with disabilities will have a “fair opportunity” for admission to this selective school.

According to ELC, Cape May County Technical High School’s student body includes only 1.25% of students classified with disabilities even though the percentage in the rest of Cape May County school districts is almost 18%.  That’s pretty typical for NJ’s magnet schools, which often have rigorous admissions policy that exclude students with disabilities.

A couple of thoughts:

• Why did ELC target Cape May? Certainly that magnet school is not alone in admitting disproportionately small numbers of kids with disabilities.  For example, Monmouth County’s Biotechnology High School, according to its most recent School Performance Report, admits exactly 0% of kids with disabilities.  Bergen Academies’ enrollment includes 2% of kids with disabilities, surely not representative of its location in Hackensack. (For comparison’s sake, Hackensack High School’s population includes 14% of kids with disabilities.)

That’s how magnet schools work in NJ, our versions of NYC’s Bronx Science or Stuyvesant High School. ELC’s challenge to Cape May is not arbitrary but challenges admissions practices in all of NJ’s magnet schools.

• Do magnet schools, with rigorous admissions procedures and exclusionary practices, have a place in the fabric of NJ’s public school system? There are logical arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, although I think specialized high schools serve an important purpose, particularly by offering alternative options for kids who, for one reason or another, don’t fit well into typical high schools.

But ELC’s “no” to magnet schools’ exclusionary admissions practices seems driven by politics, not education.  In a sense, the organization finds itself painted into a corner because of its increasingly loud challenges to NJ public charter schools. (See here and here.) Much of ELC’s  opposition to charters (let’s forget about the role of unions here) is based  on the belief that charters also use selective admissions practices by accepting disproportionately low numbers of kids with disabilities.  Logically, then, it must also challenge magnet schools for much lower admissions of kids with disabilities or it runs the risk of appearing to be a special pleader.

• But here’s the thing: NJ loves its magnet schools. They’re a source of pride in many communities, and also enjoy the support of NJEA because magnet school teachers are NJEA members (unlike many charter school teachers). Is ELC really prepared to argue that magnets should have the same proportion of kids with disabilities – including those with cognitive and developmental delays – as typical public schools? Should all kids, then, be incorporated into typical schools? Is ELC opposed to NJ’s healthy industry of private special education schools because they admit disproportionately low number of kids without disabilities? Silly, right? But is it such a large stretch from barring selective magnet schools to barring tracking within public schools?  Should honors or AP courses have no admissions requirements?

It’s a slippery slope.

ELC might be better advised to put its focus on its bailiwick, funding discrepancies. For example, Hackensack High School spends $14,797 per child and Bergen Academies, located smack in the middle of Hackensack,  gets to spend $26,927 per child.

 That’s an issue that needs some disinfectant. But, of course, such an approach lends no weight to ELC’s battle against charter schools, which informs this  current complaint against magnet schools.