The Orange County School Board on Aug. 26 reviewed recommended revisions to policy JFBD governing magnet schools and magnet programs, including moving the application window earlier, increasing the share of high‑school magnet seats assigned by GPA to 80% and allowing schools to offer seats through the first 10 days of the school year.

The changes, presented by Greg Moody of the district and Michelle Thomas, director of school choice, are intended to give families earlier notice of placements and to make high‑school magnets more academically selective by using GPA ranking for the majority of seats. "We recommend opening the dates of the magnet application as early as mid October and closing the application just before winter break," Michelle Thomas said, adding that the first lottery would be mid‑January and a second lottery mid‑February.

The revisions also shift seat assignment for competitive high‑school magnets so that 80% of seats are placed by a GPA ranking system and the remaining 20% by lottery. "Members of the board have expressed the desire to make high school magnet programs more competitive," Thomas said. Under the proposed language, the system will rank applicants by GPA, take the top 80% as seat offers from that ranking and allocate the remaining 20% by lottery.

Board members pressed staff on operational details and equity concerns. Member Felder said the 80/20 split would increase competition and push students to raise grades while still preserving some lottery access for students with lower GPAs. Member Gallo asked whether the earlier application period, which runs from mid‑October through December, risks being overlooked during the holiday season and whether district marketing would be stepped up; Michelle Thomas said the district would coordinate with Scott Howard’s marketing team and schools were already preparing promotional materials.

Staff described a summer application path and a separate wait‑list process for seats that remain after lotteries. Moody said the 80/20 process applies to the main lottery cycle; summer and first‑come summer offers are handled differently and seats may be offered from waiting lists. He told the board the district piloted extending offers into the first 10 days of school and "we actually seated 47 students in magnet program between the first day of school and the tenth day of school," and some academies placed as many as 87 students under that pilot.

Members asked for clarity on siblings and full magnet schools. Michelle Thomas said that for full magnet schools (for example, Howard Middle and Hillcrest), a sibling does not receive an automatic sibling transfer into the magnet school; the sibling must apply to the magnet and be selected through the lottery. For other magnet programs the district’s transfer policy can allow a sibling to attend the same school but not automatically be enrolled in the magnet program.

Questions also addressed how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are handled. Thomas said if a student has an IEP at the time of application the IEP will be reviewed to confirm the magnet site can implement required services before placement. Deputy Superintendent Dr. Armbruster explained that if a magnet school lacks a required specialized unit or service — for example, an autism unit — the district cannot place a student who legally requires that unit on a campus without it because replicating those services for one or two students would be infeasible and not required by law.

Board members raised concerns about geographic diversity and equitable access. Member Vannos urged staff to examine the geographic distribution of magnet applicants and suggested the district consider recruitment and transportation strategies to broaden the student base for certain programs. District staff said they would collect demographic and geographic data and meet individually with members who requested follow‑up before returning any recommended policy edits.

On next steps, district counsel and staff sought board consensus to advertise the proposed policy language under the district’s policy process. There was no formal vote during the work session; staff reported they would advertise the language as presented and follow up with board members on the outstanding questions so changes, if any, could be considered in a future work session. "If there's anyone who's uncomfortable with the language who would like to pursue changes, we certainly can do that," said district staff; the board asked staff to meet individually with members who raised issues and then return with options.

The revised JFBD policy would also make several non‑substantive formatting changes, rename "Internal Academy" to "Scholastic Academy" and expand eligibility so students districtwide may apply. District staff noted that moving the timeline earlier requires coordination across multiple departments and that delaying adoption would pause those operational changes for the coming season.

Board members directed staff to continue outreach, to provide data on lottery demographics and geographic patterns, and to return with any recommended edits after those conversations. The work session did not include a formal board vote on policy adoption.

Staff and board members said the district will advertise the current recommended language while staff gathers additional data and meets with members to address sibling transfers, geographic diversity and IEP implementation questions.