[Federal Register: July 31, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 46698-46706]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy00-54]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[CFDA No.: 84.165A]
Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications
for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001
Purpose of Program: The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP)
provides grants to eligible local educational agencies and consortia of
such agencies to support magnet schools that are part of approved
desegregation plans.
Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies (LEAs) and
consortia of such agencies.
Applications Available: August 23, 2000.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: December 22, 2000.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: February 23, 2001.
Estimated Available Funds: $92,000,000.
The actual level of funding, if any, is contingent on final
congressional action. However, we are inviting applications at this
time to allow enough time to complete the grant process before the end
of the Federal fiscal year (October 1, 2001), if Congress appropriates
funds for this program.
Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000--$3,000,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,533,000 per year.
Estimated Number of Awards: 60.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 36 months.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81,
82, 85, 86, 97, 98, 99 and 299. (b) The regulations for this program in
34 CFR part 280.
Priorities: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) and 34 CFR 280.32(b)-(f),
we award up to an additional 45 points to an application, depending on
how well the application meets the five priorities listed below. These
points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the
selection criteria in 34 CFR 280.31.
Need for assistance. (5 points) The Secretary evaluates the
applicant's need for assistance under this part, by considering--
(a) The costs of fully implementing the magnet schools project as
proposed;
(b) The resources available to the applicant to carry out the
project if funds under the program were not provided;
(c) The extent to which the costs of the project exceed the
applicant's resources; and
(d) The difficulty of effectively carrying out the approved plan
and the project for which assistance is sought, including consideration
of how the design of the magnet school project--e.g., the type of
program proposed, the location of the magnet school within the LEA--
impacts on the applicant's ability to successfully carry out the
approved plan.
New or revised magnet schools projects. (10 points) The Secretary
determines the extent to which the applicant proposes to carry out new
magnet schools projects or significantly revise existing magnet schools
projects.
Selection of students. (15 points) The Secretary determines the
extent to which the applicant proposes to select students to attend
magnet schools by methods such as lottery, rather that through academic
examination.
Innovative approaches and systemic reform. (10 points) The
Secretary determines the extent to which the project for which
assistance is sought proposes to implement innovative educational
approaches that are consistent with the State's and LEA's systemic
reform plans, if any, under Title III of Goals 2000: Educate America
Act.
Collaborative efforts. (5 points) The Secretary determines the
extent to which the project for which assistance is sought proposes to
draw on comprehensive community involvement plans.
Additionally, the Secretary gives preference to applications that
use a significant portion of the program funds to address substantial
problems in an Empowerment Zone, including a Supplemental Empowerment
Zone, or an Enterprise Community designated by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development or the United States
Department of Agriculture. Under 34 CFR 299.3 and 34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii), the Secretary selects an application that meets this
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does
not meet this competitive priority.
Note: A list of areas that have been designated as Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities is published as an appendix to this
notice.
The Secretary also invites applications that meet the following
invitational priority. Projects that propose to help the LEA(s) improve
one or more low-performing schools by:
* Selecting schools identified for school improvement or
corrective action under Title I of the ESEA as magnet schools to be
funded under this project;
* Maximizing the opportunity of students in low-performing
schools to attend higher performing schools under the project for the
reduction, elimination or prevention of minority group isolation;
* Effectively involving and informing parents about
improvement goals for the MSAP schools as well as the goals for their
own children; and
* Improving the quality of teaching and instruction in the
low-performing schools to be funded under the project.
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) an application that meets the
invitational priority does not receive a competitive or absolute
preference over other applications.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicants must submit with their applications one of the following
types of plans to establish eligibility to receive MSAP assistance: (1)
A desegregation plan required by a court order; (2) a plan required by
a State agency or an official of competent jurisdiction; (3) a plan
required by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), United States Department
of Education (ED), under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI plan); or (4) a voluntary plan adopted by the applicant.
Under the MSAP program regulations, applicants are required to
provide all of the information required at Sec. 280.20(a)-(g) in order
to satisfy the civil rights eligibility requirements found in
Sec. 280.2(a)(2) and (b) of the regulations. This section of the notice
describes those information requirements.
In addition to the particular data and other items for required and
voluntary plans, described separately in the information that follows,
an application must include:
* Signed civil rights assurances (included in the
application package);
* A copy of the applicant's plan; and
* An assurance that the plan is being implemented or will be
implemented if the application is funded.
[[Page 46699]]
Required Plans
1. Plans Required By a Court Order
An applicant that submits a plan required by a court must submit
complete and signed copies of all court or State documents
demonstrating that the magnet schools are a part of the approved plan.
Examples of the types of documents that would meet this requirement
include--
* A Federal or State court order that establishes or amends
a previous order or orders by establishing additional or different
specific magnet schools;
* A Federal or State court order that requires or approves
the establishment of one or more unspecified magnet schools or that
authorizes the inclusion of magnet schools at the discretion of the
applicant.
2. Plans Required By a State Agency or Official of Competent
Jurisdiction
An applicant submitting a plan ordered by a State agency or
official of competent jurisdiction must provide documentation that
shows that the plan was ordered based upon a determination that State
law was violated. In the absence of this documentation, the applicant
should consider its plan to be a voluntary plan and submit the data and
information necessary for voluntary plans.
3. Title VI Required Plans
An applicant that submits a plan required by OCR under Title VI
must submit a complete copy of the plan demonstrating that magnet
schools are part of the approved plan.
4. Modifications to Required Plans
A previously approved desegregation plan that does not include the
magnet school or program for which the applicant is now seeking
assistance must be modified to include the magnet school component. The
modification to the plan must be approved by the court, agency, or
official that originally approved the plan. An applicant that wishes to
modify a previously approved OCR Title VI plan to include different or
additional magnet schools must submit the proposed modification for
review and approval to the OCR Regional Office that approved its
original plan.
An applicant should indicate in its application if it is seeking to
modify its previously approved plan. However, all applicants must
submit proof to ED of approval of all modifications to their plans by
January 26, 2001.
Voluntary Plans
A voluntary plan must be approved by ED each time an application is
submitted for funding. Even if we have approved a voluntary plan in an
LEA in the past, the plan must be resubmitted to us for approval as
part of the application.
An applicant submitting a voluntary plan must include in its
application:
* A copy of a school board resolution or other evidence of
final official action adopting and implementing the plan, or agreeing
to adopt and implement the plan upon the award of assistance.
* Enrollment and other information as required by the
regulations at Sec. 280.20(f) and (g) for applicants with voluntary
plans. Enrollment data and information are critical to our
determination of an applicant's eligibility under a voluntary plan.
Narrow Tailoring
The purposes of the MSAP include the reduction, elimination or
prevention of minority group isolation. In many instances, in order to
carry out these purposes, districts take race into account in assigning
students to magnet schools. In order to meet the requirements of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, applicants submitting voluntary plans that
involve the use of race in decision making must ensure that the use of
race satisfies strict scrutiny. That is, the use of race must be
narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest in reducing,
eliminating or preventing minority group isolation.
In order for us to make a determination that a voluntary plan
involving a racial classification is adequate under Title VI the plan
must be narrowly tailored. Among the considerations that affect a
determination of whether the use of race in a voluntary plan is
narrowly tailored are (1) whether the district tried or seriously
considered race-neutral alternatives and determined that such measures
have not been or would not be similarly effective, before resorting to
race-conscious action; (2) the scope and flexibility of the use of
race, including whether it is subject to a waiver; (3) the manner in
which race is used, that is, whether race determines eligibility for a
program or whether race is just one factor in the decision making
process; (4) the duration of the use of race and whether it is subject
to periodic review; and (5) the degree and type of burden imposed on
students of other races.
Each of the considerations set out above should be specifically
considered in framing a district's strategy. Some examples follow,
although it must be recognized that the legal standards in this area
are continuing to develop.
Race-Neutral Means
Before resorting to race-conscious action, school districts must
try or seriously consider race-neutral alternatives and determine that
they have not been or would not be similarly effective. One example of
a race-neutral approach for applicants proposing to conduct a lottery
for student admission to a magnet school would be to strengthen efforts
to recruit a large pool of eligible students for the lottery that
reflects the diverse racial and ethnic composition of the students in
the applicant's district. If recruitment efforts are successful, the
lottery should result in a racially and ethnically diverse student
body.
It may be possible to broaden the appeal of a given magnet school
by aggressively publicizing it, making application to it as easy as
possible, and broadening the geographic area from which the school is
intended to draw.
Use of Racial Criteria in Admissions
It may be permissible to establish a procedure whereby race is
taken into account in admissions only if race-neutral steps are
considered and a determination is made that they would not prove
similarly effective. Racial caps are the most difficult use of race to
justify under a narrow tailoring analysis.
The decision to consider race in admission decisions should be made
on a school-by-school basis.
Scope and Flexibility
Over time, the enrollment at a magnet school may become stable and
the school may attract a diverse group of students. At this point, use
of race as a factor in admissions may no longer be necessary.
In some instances, exceptions to the use of race in admissions--
where a relatively small number of students are adversely affected and
their admission will not substantially affect the racial composition of
the program--should be available.
Duration of the Program and Reexamination of the Use of Criteria
The school or school district should formally review the steps it
has taken which involve the use of race on a regular basis, such as on
an annual basis, to determine whether the use of race is still needed,
or should be modified.
[[Page 46700]]
Effect on Students of Other Races
Where there are a number of magnet schools, it may also be possible
to assign students to a comparable magnet school, if they are unable to
gain admission to their first preference.
Enrollment and Other Information
A voluntary plan is a plan to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
minority group isolation (MGI), either at a magnet school or at a
feeder school--a school from which students are drawn to attend the
magnet school. Under Sec. 280.2, the establishment of the magnet school
cannot result in an increase in MGI at a magnet school or any feeder
school above the districtwide percentage of minority group students at
the grade levels served by the magnet school.
The following example and those in subsequent sections of this
notice are designed to assist applicants in the preparation of their
application. The examples illustrate the types of data and information
that have proven successful in the past for satisfying the voluntary
plan regulation requirements.
District A has a districtwide percentage of 65.5 percent for its
minority student population in elementary schools. District A has six
elementary schools with the following minority student populations:
1. School A--67 percent.
2. School B--58 percent.
3. School C--64 percent.
4. School D--76 percent.
5. School E--47 percent.
6. School F--81 percent.
District A has five minority group isolated schools, i.e., five
schools with minority student enrollment of over 50 percent. District A
seeks funding to establish a magnet program at School F to reduce MGI
at that school. For District A to be eligible for a grant, the
establishment of the magnet program at School F should not increase the
minority student enrollment at feeder school C to more than 65.5
percent (the districtwide percentage). Also, the establishment of the
magnet program should not increase the minority student enrollment at
feeder schools A or D at all because those schools are already above
the districtwide percentage for minority students. If projected
enrollments at a magnet or feeder school indicate that there will be an
increase in MGI, District A should provide an explanation in its
application for the increase that shows it is not caused by the
establishment of the magnet program. See the discussion below.
An applicant that proposes to establish new magnet schools must
submit projected data for each magnet and feeder school that show that
the magnet schools and all feeders will maintain eligibility for the
entire three-year period of the grant. Projected data are included in
the examples below.
Objective: Reduction of Minority Group Isolation in Existing Magnet
Schools
In situations where the applicant intends to reduce minority
isolation in an existing magnet program, whether in the magnet school
or in one or more of the feeder schools, and minority isolation has
increased, the applicant must provide data and information to
demonstrate that the increase was not due to the applicant's magnet
program, in accordance with Sec. 280.20(g). See the following examples.
Options for Demonstrating Reduction
1. Magnet School Analysis
District Z has two existing magnet elementary schools. All of the
other schools in the district are feeder schools to one or both of the
magnet schools. District Z has six feeder schools and a districtwide
minority enrollment of 60.0 percent at the elementary school level.
District Z Base Year Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Magnet school (base year) Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams (1999)................................... 449 382 85.1 67 14.9
Edison (1999).................................. 387 306 79.1 81 20.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ``Base Year'' is the year prior to the year each school became a magnet.
District Z Current Year Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Magnet school (base year) Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.......................................... 459 365 79.5 94 20.5
Edison......................................... 400 326 81.5 74 18.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since becoming a magnet school last year, Adams has decreased in
MGI from 85.1 percent to 79.5 percent and the district projects that
through operation as a magnet school MGI will continue to be reduced
over the next three years. At Edison, the district projects that MGI
will be reduced over the next three years through its operation as a
magnet even though MGI increased 2.4 percent, from 79.1 percent to 81.5
percent since the school first became a magnet. Because of the
increase, this school would be found ineligible unless the increase in
MGI in the current year was not caused by the magnet school. This may
be shown through data indicating an increase either in minority
enrollment districtwide or in the area served by the magnet school.
If District Z's districtwide elementary school enrollment has
become more minority isolated due to districtwide demographic changes
in the student population and if a magnet or a feeder school's increase
in MGI is less than the districtwide increase in MGI, ED will conclude
that the school's increase in MGI was not the result of the magnet
programs, but due to the overall effect of demographic changes in the
district as a whole at the elementary level.
[[Page 46701]]
District Z Base Year Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Feeder school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose........................................... 398 301 75.6 97 24.4
Rocky Mt....................................... 289 199 68.9 90 31.1
Wheeler........................................ 239 144 60.3 95 39.7
King........................................... 289 144 49.8 145 50.2
Tinker......................................... 429 173 40.3 256 59.7
Holly.......................................... 481 122 25.4 359 74.6
District-wide.................................. 2,961 1,771 59.8 1,190 40.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Current Year Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Feeder school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose........................................... 401 278 69.3 123 30.7
Rocky Mt....................................... 291 211 72.5 80 27.5
Wheeler........................................ 251 153 61.0 98 39.0
King........................................... 277 149 53.8 128 46.2
Tinker......................................... 424 198 46.7 226 53.3
Holly.......................................... 475 130 27.4 345 72.6
District-wide.................................. 2,978 1,810 60.8 1,168 39.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Magnet school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.......................................... 469 349 74.4 120 25.6
Edison......................................... 410 312 76.1 98 23.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Magnet school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.......................................... 483 331 68.5 152 31.5
Edison......................................... 407 289 71.0 118 29.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Magnet school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.......................................... 489 307 62.8 182 37.2
Edison......................................... 409 266 65.0 143 35.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Feeder school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose........................................... 400 272 68.0 128 32.0
Rocky Mt....................................... 306 216 70.6 90 29.4
Wheeler........................................ 250 148 59.2 102 40.8
King........................................... 280 151 53.9 129 46.1
Tinker......................................... 417 232 55.6 185 44.4
Holly.......................................... 447 170 38.0 277 62.0
District-wide.................................. 2,979 1,850 62.1 1,129 37.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46702]]
District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Feeder school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose........................................... 396 265 66.9 131 33.1
Rocky Mt....................................... 293 202 68.9 91 31.1
Wheeler........................................ 259 153 59.1 106 40.9
King........................................... 291 169 58.1 122 41.9
Tinker......................................... 418 242 57.9 176 42.1
Holly.......................................... 451 216 47.9 235 52.1
District-wide.................................. 2,998 1,867 62.3 1,131 37.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Feeder school Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose........................................... 400 267 66.8 133 33.2
Rocky Mount.................................... 299 204 68.2 95 31.8
Wheeler........................................ 262 154 58.8 108 41.2
King........................................... 302 181 59.9 121 40.1
Tinker......................................... 419 244 58.2 175 41.8
Holly.......................................... 441 227 51.5 214 48.5
District-wide.................................. 3,021 1,850 61.2 1,171 38.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as with the Edison magnet, if the MGI in a magnet
increases above the districtwide increase between the base year and the
current year, an applicant must demonstrate that the magnet is not
causing the problem. In order to show that the increase in MGI at a
particular school is not the result of the operation of a magnet, a
district should provide student transfer data on the number of minority
and non-minority students who attend the magnet program from the other
feeder schools in the district for the current year. If, by subtracting
from the magnet enrollment those students who came from other schools,
the MGI is higher than the actual MGI for the current year, it can be
concluded that the increase in MGI was not caused by the magnet school.
Current Year Student Transfer Data for Magnet Schools That Increase in Minority Group Isolation Above the
Districtwide Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison (2000).................................. 400 326 81.5 74 18.5
Students who transferred from feeder schools to 50 31 19
Edison in order to attend magnet..............
Edison enrollment with transfer students 350 295 84.3 55 15.7
``returned'' to feeder schools................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Year Student Transfer Data for Feeder Schools That Increase in Minority Group Isolation Above the
Districtwide Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mount (2000)............................. 291 211 72.5 80 27.5
Students who transferred to Edison to attend 10 8 2
magnet........................................
Students who transferred to Adams to attend 6 6 0
magnet........................................
Rocky Mount enrollment if transfer students 307 225 73.3 82 26.7
were ``returned''.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Feeder School Analysis
In District Z, two feeder schools whose MGI was greater than the
districtwide average, Rocky Mount and Wheeler, increased in MGI by 3.7
percent and 0.7 percent respectively between the base year and the
current year. Since Wheeler's MGI increase of 0.7 percent is less than
the districtwide MGI increase of 1.0 percent for the same time period,
Wheeler's MGI increase would be considered to be due to the demographic
changes in the district and further scrutiny of Wheeler is not
required.
Because Rocky Mount, a feeder school to magnet programs at Adams
and Edison, increased in MGI over the districtwide average from 68.9
percent to 72.5 percent, this would make both Adams and Edison
ineligible unless the district demonstrates that the increase was not
because of the magnet programs. The clearest way for an applicant to
show this is to provide student transfer data on the number of
[[Page 46703]]
minority and non-minority students who left Rocky Mount to attend
magnet programs at Adams and Edison. (See student transfer data above.)
By adding the number of students who transferred to the magnet programs
to Rocky Mount's total enrollment, ED can determine whether the
increase was due to the magnet program. If it can be demonstrated that
without the magnet program, the MGI at the feeder school would be even
higher, these magnet schools would be found eligible.
Some applicants may find that they are unable to provide the type
of student transfer data referred to above. In some cases, these
applicants may be able to present demographic or other statistical data
and information that would satisfy the requirements of the statute and
regulations. This demographic data must persuasively demonstrate that
the operation of a proposed magnet school would reduce, eliminate, or
prevent minority group isolation in the applicant's magnet schools and
would not result in an increase of MGI at one of the applicant's feeder
schools above the districtwide percentage for minority students at the
same grade levels as those served in the magnet school. (34 CFR
Sec. 280.20(g)). For example, an applicant might include data provided
to it by a local social service agency about the numbers and
concentration of families in a recent influx of immigrants into the
neighborhood or attendance zone of the feeder school.
3. Additional Base-Year Data
If an applicant believes that comparing a magnet program's current-
year enrollment data with its base year enrollment data (i.e., data
from the year prior to the year each school became a magnet or a
feeder) is misleading due to significant changes that have occurred in
attendance zones or other factors affecting the magnet school or in the
closing and combining of other schools with the magnet school,
additional and more recent enrollment data for an alternative to the
base year may be submitted along with a justification for its
submission.
Objective: Conversion of an Existing School to a New Magnet Program
District X will convert Williams, an existing elementary school, to
a new elementary magnet program. Currently, Williams has a minority
enrollment of 94.67 percent. The district projects that the magnet
program will reduce minority group isolation at Williams to 89 percent
in the first year of the project. The projection of enrollment should
be based upon reasonable assumptions and should clearly state the basis
for these assumptions, e.g., parent or student interest surveys, or
other objective indicators, such as waiting lists for other magnet
schools in the district.
District X Current Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet).................................. 450 426 94.7 24 5.3
Shaw (Feeder).................................. 398 179 44.9 219 55.1
Smith (Feeder)................................. 477 186 39.0 291 61.0
District-wide.................................. 4,704 2,598 55.2 2,106 44.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet).................................. 450 400 89.0 50 11.0
Shaw (Feeder).................................. 404 195 48.3 209 51.7
Smith (Feeder)................................. 471 191 40.5 280 59.5
District-wide.................................. 4,712 2,622 55.6 2,090 44.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet).................................. 500 415 83.0 85 17.0
Shaw (Feeder).................................. 406 203 50.0 203 50.0
Smith (Feeder)................................. 482 205 42.5 277 57.5
District-wide.................................. 4,794 2,683 55.9 2,111 44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet).................................. 600 450 75.0 150 25.0
Shaw (Feeder).................................. 410 215 52.4 195 47.6
Smith (Feeder)................................. 477 229 48.0 248 52.0
District-wide.................................. 4,815 2,690 55.9 2,125 44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46704]]
Objective: Construction of New Magnet School/Reopening a Closed School
District Y will construct a new school, Ashe, and open its magnet
program at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. There is no pre-
existing school, and consequently, it appears that no enrollment data
are readily available to use as a comparison. However, the district
estimates that if the proposed magnet school had opened as a
``neighborhood school,'' without a magnet program designed to attract
students from outside the ``neighborhood'' or attendance zone, it would
have a minority enrollment of 67 percent. This estimate was based on
national census tract data, supplemented by more current data on the
neighborhood provided by the local county government. The district
further reasonably anticipates, based on surveys and other indicators,
that when the new school opens as a magnet school in 2002, it will have
a minority enrollment of 58 percent.
Note that in this example, since the school will not open until the
second year of the project (the 2002-2003 school year), data are needed
only for the current year and each of the two years of the project
during which the magnet at Ashe will be implemented.
District Y Current Year Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashe (Magnet).................................. 600 400 66.7 300 33.3
Mason (Feeder)................................. 298 101 33.9 197 66.1
Vine (Feeder).................................. 324 111 34.2 213 65.8
Districtwide................................... 2,511 1,339 53.3 1,172 46.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Y Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashe (Magnet).................................. 600 348 58.0 252 42.0
Mason (Feeder)................................. 290 133 45.8 157 54.2
Vine (Feeder).................................. 332 144 43.4 188 56.6
Districtwide................................... 2,559 1,352 52.8 1,207 47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Y Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashe (Magnet).................................. 600 300 50.0 300 50.0
Mason (Feeder)................................. 300 145 48.3 155 52.7
Vine (Feeder).................................. 336 170 50.6 166 49.4
Districtwide................................... 2,604 1,383 56.2 1,221 43.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective: Reduction, Elimination, or Prevention of MGI at Targeted
Feeder Schools
Many applicants apply for MSAP funding to reduce, eliminate, or
prevent minority group isolation at a magnet school. However, some
applicants have established magnet programs at schools that are not
minority-isolated for the purpose of reducing, eliminating, or
preventing minority isolation at one or more targeted feeder schools.
The data requirements and analysis for this type of magnet program are
the same as described for ``Existing Magnet Schools.'' In this example,
MGI is being reduced in each of the targeted feeder schools.
Base Year Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)................................. 505 62 12.3 443 87.7
North (Feeder)................................. 449 347 77.3 102 22.7
Lewis (Feeder)................................. 404 355 87.9 49 12.1
Clark (Feeder)................................. 471 459 97.5 12 2.5
Districtwide................................... 1,829 1,223 66.9 606 33.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46705]]
Current Year Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)................................. 520 105 20.2 415 79.8
North (Feeder)................................. 453 338 74.6 115 25.4
Lewis (Feeder)................................. 398 335 84.1 63 15.9
Clark (Feeder)................................. 477 443 92.9 34 7.1
Districtwide................................... 1,848 1,221 66.1 627 33.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)................................. 526 139 26.5 387 73.5
North (Feeder)................................. 461 331 71.9 130 28.1
Lewis (Feeder)................................. 424 347 81.8 77 18.2
Clark (Feeder)................................. 499 427 85.5 72 14.5
District-wide.................................. 1,910 1,244 65.1 664 34.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)................................. 532 200 37.5 332 62.5
North (Feeder)................................. 480 329 70.0 141 30.0
Lewis (Feeder)................................. 445 344 77.2 101 22.8
Clark (Feeder)................................. 528 425 80.4 103 19.6
District-wide.................................. 1,975 1,298 65.7 677 34.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
School Total Minority Minority minority minority
enrollment number percentage number percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)................................. 548 263 48.0 285 52.0
North (Feeder)................................. 475 316 66.5 159 33.5
Lewis (Feeder)................................. 460 342 74.4 118 25.6
Clark (Feeder)................................. 536 402 75.0 134 25.0
Districtwide................................... 2,019 1,323 65.5 696 44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective: Prevention of Minority Group Isolation
An applicant that applies for MSAP funding for the purposes of
preventing minority isolation must demonstrate that without the
intervention of the magnet program, the magnet school or targeted
feeder school will become minority-isolated within the project period.
Generally this may be documented by showing a trend in the enrollment
data for the proposed school. For example, if a neighborhood school
currently has a 45 percent minority enrollment and, for the last three
years, minority enrollment has increased an average of three percent
each year (36 percent, 39 percent, and 42 percent), it is reasonable to
expect that, in three years, the school would exceed 50 percent thereby
becoming minority-isolated during the project period without the
intervention of a magnet. The applicant in this example should submit
this enrollment data in its application.
The preceding examples are not intended to be an exhaustive set of
examples. Applicants with questions about their desegregation plans and
the information required in support of those desegregation plans
(including applicants that find that these examples do not fit their
circumstances and applicants that find that the enrollment data
requested are unavailable or do not reflect accurately the
effectiveness of their proposed magnet program) are encouraged to
contact ED for technical assistance, prior to submitting their
application by calling the contact person listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT heading.
For Applications Contact: Education Publications Center (ED Pubs),
P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20749-1398. Telephone (toll free): 1-877-576-
7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: http://www.ed.gov/
pubs/edpubs.html, or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address:
Edpubs@inet.ed.gov
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify
this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.165A.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3E112, Washington, DC
[[Page 46706]]
20202-6140. Telephone (202) 260-2476, or via Internet: OESE_MSAP@ed.gov
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this
section.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application
package in an alternate format by contacting ED Pubs. However, the
Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard
forms included in the application package.
Electronic Access to This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using PDF,
call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-
6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of a document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032.
Dated: July 24, 2000.
Michael Cohen,
Assistant Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education.
Appendix--Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES
Empowerment Zones
California: Los Angeles
California: Oakland
Georgia: Atlanta
Illinois: Chicago
Kentucky: Kentucky Highlands*
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts: Boston
Michigan: Detroit
Mississippi: Mid Delta*
Missouri/Kansas: Kansas City, Kansas City
New York: Harlem, Bronx
Ohio: Cleveland
Pennsylvania/New Jersey: Philadelphia, Camden
Texas: Houston
Texas: Rio Grande Valley*
Enterprise Communities
Alabama: Birmingham
Alabama: Chambers County*
Alabama: Greene, Sumter Counties*
Arizona: Phoenix
Arizona: Arizona Border*
Arkansas: East Central*
Arkansas: Mississippi County*
Arkansas: Pulaski County
California: Imperial County*
Michigan: Five Cap*
Michigan: Flint
Michigan: Muskegon
Minnesota: Minneapolis
Minnesota: St. Paul
Mississippi: Jackson
Mississippi: North Delta*
Missouri: East Prairie*
Missouri: St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
Nevada: Clarke County, Las Vegas
New Hampshire: Manchester
New Jersey: Newark
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New Mexico: Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos
California: L.A., Huntington Park
California: San Diego
California: San Francisco, Bayview, Hunter's Point
California: Watsonville*
Colorado: Denver
Connecticut: Bridgeport
Connecticut: New Haven
Delaware: Wilmington
District of Columbia: Washington
Florida: Jackson County*
Florida: Tampa
Florida: Miami, Dade County
Georgia: Albany
Georgia: Central Savannah*
Georgia: Crisp, Dooley Counties*
Illinois: East St. Louis
Illinois: Springfield
Indiana: Indianapolis
Iowa: Des Moines
Kentucky: Louisville
Louisiana: Northeast Delta*
Louisiana: Macon Ridge*
Louisiana: New Orleans
Louisiana: Ouachita Parish
Massachusetts: Lowell
Massachusetts: Springfield Counties*
New York: Albany, Schenectady, Troy
New York: Buffalo
New York: Newburgh, Kingston
New York: Rochester
North Carolina: Charlotte
North Carolina: Halifax, Edgecombe, Wilson Counties*
North Carolina: Robeson County*
Ohio: Akron
Ohio: Columbus
Ohio: Greater Portsmouth*
Oklahoma: Choctaw, McCurtain Counties*
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City
Oregon: Josephine*
Oregon: Portland
Pennsylvania: Harrisburg
Pennsylvania: Lock Haven*
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
South Dakota: Deadle, Spink Counties*
South Carolina: Charleston
South Carolina: Williamsburg County*
Tennessee: Fayette, Haywood Counties*
Tennessee: Memphis
Tennessee: Nashville
Tennessee/Kentucky: Scott, McCreary Counties*
Texas: Dallas
Texas: El Paso
Texas: San Antonio
Texas: Waco
Utah: Ogden
Vermont: Burlington
Virginia: Accomack*
Virginia: Norfolk
Washington: Lower Yakima*
Washington: Seattle
Washington: Tacoma
West Virginia: West Central*
West Virginia: Huntington
West Virginia: McDowell*
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Denotes rural designee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-19198 Filed 7-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4001-01-P