[Federal Register: April 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 15669-15671]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[Page 15669]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Title I, Part C--
Education of Migratory Children; Notice
[[Page 15670]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1830-ZA03
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Title I, Part C--
Education of Migratory Children
agency: Department of Education.
action: Notice of final criteria for consortium incentive grants in
fiscal year (FY) 1996 and subsequent fiscal years, available under Part
C of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: Under the authority of section 1308(d) of Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the
Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), the Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) establishes
criteria for awarding Migrant Education Program (MEP) consortium
incentive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) with approved
consortium arrangements.
effective date: These regulations take effect on May 8, 1996.
for further information contact: James English, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Portals Building, Room 4100,
Washington, D.C. 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 260-1394. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
supplementary information:
Background
The MEP, authorized in Title I, Part C of the ESEA, is a State-
operated, formula grant program under which SEAs receive funds to
improve the academic achievement and welfare of migratory children who
reside in their States. Consistent with the emphasis that the
reauthorized ESEA places upon removing barriers to cross-program
coordination and integration of programs that serve migratory children,
sections 1303(d) and 1308(d) of the ESEA encourage SEAs to consider
whether consortium arrangements with other States or appropriate
entities would result in a more effective and efficient delivery of MEP
services.
In this regard, section 1303(d) directs the Secretary to consult
with States whose MEP allocations in any year will be $1 million or
less about the desirability of forming consortia. This section also
directs the Secretary to approve any State's consortium proposal that
(1) reduces MEP administrative costs or program function costs, and (2)
increases the amount of MEP funds that are made available for direct
services to migratory children that add substantially to the
educational attainment or welfare of those children. While an SEA may
form a consortium arrangement with any appropriate entity, the
Secretary, in light of the strong interstate emphasis in the MEP,
encourages SEAs to establish multi-State consortium arrangements.
To encourage States to form consortium arrangements that meet the
requirements of section 1303(d), section 1308(d) of the ESEA directs
the Secretary to reserve up to $1.5 million of the funds appropriated
for the MEP for competitive incentive awards to SEAs with consortium
arrangements approved by the Secretary. Section 1308(d) also limits the
size of each of these grants to not more than $250,000 and provides
that not fewer than 10 grants be made to eligible SEAs with approved
consortium arrangements whose MEP are less than $1 million. While the
provision offers all States an incentive to participate in consortium
arrangements, it was enacted particularly to benefit those States that,
because of the small size of their MEP allocations, may have particular
difficulty in both administering the MEP and providing direct services
to migratory children.
Last year, for FY 1995, the Department exercised its authority
under section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
to waive public comment on the criteria and process for first-year
implementation of the consortium incentive grant program. The notice of
final criteria for the FY 1995 grants was published in the Federal
Register on March 30, 1995. FY 1995 awards went to 15 SEAs
participating in 5 approved consortium arrangements.
On February 1, 1996, the Secretary published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 3772) a notice of proposed criteria to award the
consortium incentive grants in FY 1996 and subsequent fiscal years. The
notice of proposed criteria, which was based on the Department's
experience with the FY 1995 grants and subsequent discussions with
staff from SEAs that applied or considered applying for grants last
year, proposed to continue using the same criteria and process as was
used in FY 1995. There are no differences between the notice of
proposed criteria and this notice of final criteria.
Analysis of Comment and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
criteria, two parties submitted comments. One commenter concurred with
the notice of proposed criteria as written. One commenter suggested
that the notice should include examples of the ``direct services'' for
which consortium incentive grant funds could be expended.
The Secretary has made no change in the notice of final criteria.
The Secretary cannot envision all possible activities that might be
characterized as direct services. The Secretary believes that providing
a partial list of examples could limit a recipient's flexibility in
using the consortium incentive grant funds.
Eligibility for Consortium Incentive Grants
The Secretary will reserve $1.5 million to implement this
consortium incentive grant program in FY 1996. For subsequent fiscal
years, the Secretary shall announce, in the Federal Register, the
amount of funds that will be available under this grant authority.
The Secretary will use a variety of methods, including meetings and
telephone calls, to discuss with SEA officials, in States receiving MEP
allocations of less than $1 million, the circumstances in which
consortium arrangements might enhance their programs for migratory
children.
Consistent with section 1303(d), a consortium arrangement will be
approved if it (1) reduces the overall amount of MEP administrative or
program function costs across the participating SEAs from the amount
that would be incurred in the absence of the consortium, and (2) makes
more funds available, in total across the participating SEAS, for
direct educational or support services to migratory children, so as to
add substantially to their welfare or educational attainment than would
have been available in the absence of the consortium.
For purposes of section 1303(d), ``administrative or program
function costs'' include all costs that an SEA or its local operating
agencies pay from MEP funds to support MEP activities other than direct
educational or support services for migratory children. Administrative
and program function costs would include the costs of general program
administration paid from funds reserved under section 1603(c) of ESEA,
as well as the costs of other, program-specific administrative
activities, such as identification and recruitment,
[[Page 15671]]
interstate, intrastate, and interagency coordination, and parent
advisory councils. The term ``direct educational or support services''
means any instructional or support activities provided directly to
migratory children, as well as training of instructional or support
staff who provide instructional or support services directly to
migratory children. For purposes of section 1303(d), the term ``other
appropriate entity'' can mean any public or private agency or
organization.
A single SEA may be part of more than one consortium arrangement.
However, consistent with section 1303(d) of the ESEA, each consortium
arrangement that the Secretary approves must separately decrease the
amount of MEP administrative or program function costs in total for the
participating SEAs and, conversely, increase the amount of MEP funds
available for direct services to migratory children in total for the
participating SEAs. An SEA will submit the information that the
Department needs to review and approve the SEA's consortium
arrangement, and determine the size of the SEA's consortium incentive
grant, through its MEP-specific application or in conjunction with the
optional consolidated State plan under section 14302 of the ESEA.
Amount of Incentive Grants
Each SEA with one or more consortium arrangements that the
Secretary determines meet the criteria in section 1303(d) of the ESEA,
and whose consortium arrangements increase the amount of MEP funds
available for direct services to migratory children in its State, will
receive one incentive award. In determining the size of an SEA's award,
the Secretary will rank SEAs seeking incentive grants on the basis of
the total percentage increase in MEP funds that the SEA will make
available for direct services to migratory children in its State as a
result of the SEA's participation in the consortium arrangements, as
compared to the level of direct services that would be made available
to migratory children in the State in the absence of the consortia.
Example I: SEA A has 1 consortium arrangement that increases the
amount of funds available for direct services in State A by 10
percent, while SEA B has 2 consortium arrangements that increase the
total amount of funds available for direct services in State B by 8
percent. SEA A would be ranked higher than SEA B even if SEA B's
consortium arrangements permit more total funds to be used for
direct services.
Example II: SEA C and SEA D participate together in one
consortium and this consortium is the only one in which each SEA
participates. If the amount available for direct services increases
in total across the two States due to participation in the
consortium, but the amount available for direct services in State C
does not increase, the consortium arrangement will be approved, but
only State D, and not State C, will receive an incentive grant.
From the information that an SEA submits, the Department will
calculate, for each State, the total percentage increase in MEP funds
available for direct services as a result of all the approved
consortium arrangements in which the applicant SEA participates. The
Department will then rank these percentages in descending order and
divide the distribution into thirds (that is, into terciles). Each SEA
ranked in the highest third of the distribution will receive an
incentive grant that is three times the size of the grant received by
each SEA ranked in the lowest third, while each SEA ranked in the
middle third will receive an incentive grant that is twice the size of
that provided to each SEA ranked in the lowest third. Within each
third, grant awards will be of equal size, except that adjustments will
be made so that no consortium incentive grant will be greater than
$250,000 or 100 percent of the amount of funds awarded to the SEA under
its formula grant allocation, whichever is less.
An SEA may use incentive grant funds awarded under section 1308(d)
of the ESEA only to provide direct services to migratory children.
These funds are in addition to, and not in place of, the funds awarded
under the MEP formula grant.
The Secretary implements section 1308(d) in this way in order to
(1) reward all SEAs whose participation in consortium arrangements
increases direct services to migratory children in their State, (2)
provide larger awards to those SEAs whose consortium arrangements most
enhance their capacity to deliver direct services, and (3) ensure that
funds under this program are available to SEAs as soon as possible.
Applicability of the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR)
In view of the process that the Department proposes to use to
obtain information on proposed SEA consortium arrangements, and the
criteria it proposes to use to determine, by formula, the amount of the
consortium incentive grant that each applicant SEA will receive, the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 75 (Direct Grant Programs) of the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) do not apply
Instead, the consortium incentive grant program will be administered,
like the MEP itself, under the provisions of 34 CFR Parts 76, 77, 79,
80, and 85 of EDGAR.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These final criteria have been examined under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information
collection requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
The MEP is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and
the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order
is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local
governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6393(d) and 6398(d).
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.011, Migratory
Education Basic State Formula Grant Program)
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 96-8539 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M