Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

Federal RegisterMar 20, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]

[Notices]

[Pages 14868-14873]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 95-6708]

[[Page 14867]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV

Department of Education

_______________________________________________________________________

Magnet Schools Assistance Program, Applications for New Awards for

Fiscal Year 1995; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

[[Page 14868]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.165A]

Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications

for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

Purpose of Program 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.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 12, 1995.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 11, 1995.

Applications Available: March 20, 1995.

Available Funds: $111,359,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$4,000,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,855,983.

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 as published in

the Federal Register on June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30258), 77, 79, 80, 81,

82, 85 and 86; and (b) the regulations in 34 CFR Part 280 as amended in

this issue of the Federal Register.

Priorities

Background

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) makes grants to

eligible LEAs and consortia of LEAs for programs that are designed to

support----

The elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority

group isolation in public elementary and secondary schools with

substantial proportions of minority group children;

The development and implementation of magnet school

projects that will assist in achieving systemic reform and providing

all children the opportunity to meet challenging State content

standards and challenging student performance standards;

the development and design of innovative educational

methods and practices; and

courses of instruction within magnet schools that will

substantially strengthen the knowledge of academic subjects and the

grasp of tangible and marketable vocational skills of students

attending those magnet schools.

Competitive Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) and 34 CFR 280.32(b)-(f), the

Secretary gives preference to applications that meet competitive

priorities. Depending upon how well an application meets each priority,

the Secretary awards additional points to the application for each

priority up to the maximum number of points available for that

priority. These points are in addition to any points the applicant

earns under the selection criteria in 34 CFR 280.31.

The Secretary will award up to a total of 45 points for the

following competitive priorities:

Need for assistance. (15 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;

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. (10 points) The Secretary

determines the extent to which the applicant proposes to select

students to attend magnet schools by methods such as lottery, rather

than through academic examination.

Innovative approaches and systemic reform. (5 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applicants must submit with their

applications one of the following types of desegregation plans: (1) A

plan required by a court order; (2) a plan required by a State agency

or 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 regulations, applicants are required to provide all of

the information required under the regulations 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. In the past, if

necessary, ED requested enrollment data or other information from

applicants after their applications were submitted utilizing the

procedures set forth in Sec. 280.20(h). However, that follow-up process

delayed awards under the program. In order to respond to requests from

applicants and grantees that the Department announce MSAP awards

earlier in the year, ED has modified the application review process for

this competition.

Specifically, when conducting eligibility reviews of desegregation

plans, under Sec. 280.2 the Department will not follow up with

applicants to obtain additional information or clarification.

Accordingly, in order to satisfy the civil rights eligibility

requirements found in Sec. 280.2 (a)(2) and (b) of the regulations, it

is very important that an applicant provide all of the information

required under the regulations at Sec. 280.20 (a)-(g). This notice

describes that information.

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 desegregation plan; and

An assurance that the plan is being implemented or will be

implemented if the application is funded.

Required Plans

1. Plans Required by a Court Order

An applicant that submits a plan required by a court, State agency

or official of competent jurisdiction, 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 [[Page 14869]] 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

April 17, 1995.

Voluntary Plans

A voluntary desegregation plan must be approved each time an

application is submitted for funding. Even if ED has approved a

voluntary desegregation plan in an LEA in the past, the plan must be

resubmitted to ED for approval as part of the application.

An applicant submitting a voluntary desegregation plan must include

in its application:

A copy of a school board resolution or other evidence of

final official action adopting and implementing the desegregation plan,

or agreeing to adopt and implement the desegregation 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

desegregation plans. Enrollment data and information are critical to

ED's determination of an applicant's eligibility under a voluntary

desegregation plan.

A voluntary desegregation 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

desegregation 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 high schools that began their

magnet programs in different years. 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 59.95 percent. Since becoming a magnet school,

Enterprise Magnet has increased its MGI from 74.40 percent to 76.55

percent. Because of this increase, this school would be found

ineligible unless the increase in MGI 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 minority 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.

[[Page 14870]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Base year Current year

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Z magnet school & base year Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Increase

Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------- in MGI

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson (1993)...................... 459 349 76.03 110 23.97 514 356 69.26 158 30.74 ........

Enterprise (1991)..................... 375 279 74.40 96 25.60 388 297 76.55 91 23.45 2.15%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: ``Base Year'' is the year prior to the year each school became a magnet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Base year Current year

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder school (ranked in order of Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Increase

descending minority enrollments) Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------- in MGI

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rose.................................. 398 301 75.63 97 24.37 401 278 69.33 123 30.67 ........

Rocky Mount........................... 289 199 68.86 90 31.14 291 211 72.51 80 27.49 3.65%

Wheeler............................... 239 144 60.25 95 39.75 250 153 61.20 97 38.80 0.95%

King.................................. 289 144 49.83 145 50.17 277 149 53.79 128 46.21 ........

Tinker................................ 451 211 46.78 240 53.22 423 221 52.25 202 47.75 ........

Holly................................. 481 122 25.36 359 74.64 450 130 28.89 320 71.11 ........

Districtwide.......................... 2,981 1,749 58.67 1,232 41.33 2,994 1,795 59.95 1,199 40.05 1.28%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995-1996 Projected 1996-1997 Projected 1997-1998

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Projected magnet school & base year Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Minority Non-minority

Total ---------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson (1993)...................................... 500 335 67 165 33 510 337 66 173 34 515 340 66 175 34

Enterprise (1991)..................................... 390 289 74 101 26 400 288 72 112 28 410 295 72 115 28

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995-1996 Projected 1996-1997 Projected 1997-1998 Projected

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

Total ---------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rose.................................................. 400 272 68 128 32 400 272 68 128 32 400 264 66 136 34

Rocky Mount........................................... 300 210 70 90 30 300 210 70 90 30 300 204 68 96 32

Wheeler............................................... 250 148 59 102 41 250 148 59 102 41 250 148 59 103 41

King.................................................. 280 151 54 129 46 280 151 54 129 46 280 151 54 129 46

Tinker................................................ 430 232 54 198 46 430 232 54 198 46 430 232 54 198 46

Holly................................................. 460 161 35 299 65 460 184 40 276 60 460 207 45 253 55

Districtwide.......................................... 3,010 1,798 60 1,212 40 3,030 1,822 60 1,208 40 3,045 1,841 60 1,204 40

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, as with the magnet Enterprise, if the MGI in a magnet

increases above the districtwide increase, 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 nonminority students that

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 that came from other schools, the MGI is higher than the

districtwide average, it can be concluded that the increase in MGI was

not caused by the magnet school.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year student Current year

transfer data for ---------------------------------------------------

magnet schools that Minority Nonminority

increase in minority ---------------------------------------

group isolation over Total

the districtwide enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

minority enrollment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enterprise.......... 388 297 76.55 91 23.45

Students transferred

to Jefferson to

attend magnet

program............ 25 4 ........ 21 ........

---------------------------------------------------

Magnet school

minority enrollment

with transfer

students

``returned'' to

feeders............ 363 293 80.72 70 19.28

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14871]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year student Current year

transfer data for ---------------------------------------------------

feeder schools that Minority Nonminority

increase in minority ---------------------------------------

group isolation over Total

the districtwide enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

minority enrollment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Mount......... 291 211 72.51 80 27.49

Students

attending

Jefferson...... 21 16 ........ 5 ........

Students

attending

Enterprise..... 19 15 ........ 4 ........

---------------------------------------------------

Feeder school

minority enrollment

with transfer

students

``returned''from

magnet............. 331 242 73.11 89 26.89

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Feeder School Analysis

In District Z, two feeder schools, Rocky Mount and Wheeler,

increased in MGI by 3.65 percent and 0.95 percent respectively. Since

Wheeler's MGI increase of 0.95 percent is less than the districtwide

MGI increase of 1.28 percent, Wheeler's MGI increase was 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

Jefferson and Enterprise, increased in MGI over the districtwide

average from 68.86 percent to 72.51 percent, this would make both

Jefferson and Enterprise 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 minority and nonminority students that left Rocky

Mount to attend magnet programs at Jefferson and Enterprise. By adding

the number of students that 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 it impossible 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--i.e., the year prior to the

year each school became a magnet or a feeder--enrollment data 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year 1995-1996 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District X Magnet School Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority--

Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Williams........................................ 450 426 94.67 24 5.33 450 400 89 50 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year 1995-1996 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School (Ranked in order of descending Minority Nonminority-- Minority Nonminority

minority enrollments) Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaw............................................ 398 179 44.97 219 55.03 400 190 48 210 53

Lincoln......................................... 477 186 38.99 291 61.01 480 210 44 270 56

Districtwide.................................... 1,325 791 59.70 534 40.30 1,330 800 60 530 40

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996-1997 Projected 1997-1998 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnet School Minority Nonminority-- Minority Nonminority

Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Williams........................................ 450 392 87 59 13 450 383 85 67 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14872]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996-1997 Projected 1997-1998 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School (Ranked in order of descending Minority Nonminority-- Minority Nonminority

minority enrollments) Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaw............................................ 410 200 49 210 51 420 215 51 205 49

Lincoln......................................... 490 220 45 270 55 500 235 47 265 53

Districtwide.................................... 1,350 812 60 538 40 1,370 833 61 537 39

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objective: Construction of New Magnet School/Reopening a Closed School

District Y will construct a new school, Barton, and open its

magnet program in 1996. There is no preexisting 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 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

1996, it will have a minority enrollment of 58 percent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year 1995-96 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Y Magnet School Nonminority Minority Nonminority

Total Minority ------------------------------ Total ---------------------------------------------------

enrollment enrollment Number Percent Number percent Enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barton.............................. 600 400 66.67 200 33.33 -- -- -- -- --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Since this magnet will not open until 1996, the current year is the base year. Provide hypothetical base year data for what the school would look

like if it had opened as a neighborhood school. For example, census data could be used to estimate the hypothetical enrollment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current year 1995-96 projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School (ranked in order of descending Total Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

minority enrollments) Enrollment ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark........................................... 298 101 33.89 197 66.11 -- -- -- -- --

Topper.......................................... 324 111 34.26 213 65.74 -- -- -- -- --

Districtwide.................................... 1,222 612 50.08 610 49.92 -- -- -- -- --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996-1997 Projected 1997-1998 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnet School Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barton.......................................... 600 336 58 250 42 580 331 57 249 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996-97 Projected 1997-98 Projected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School (ranked in order of descending Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

minority enrollments) Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark........................................... 300 125 42 175 58 310 136 44 174 56

Topper.......................................... 330 135 41 195 59 340 146 43 194 57

Districtwide.................................... 1,230 610 50 620 50 1,230 613 50 617 50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Current Year

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnet School Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

Total ------------------------------------------ Total Percent --------------------

enrollment Percent Number Percent Enrollment number Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas...................................... 505 129 25.54 376 74.46 520 221 42.50 299 57.50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14873]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Base year Current year

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School (ranked in order of descending Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

minority enrollments.) Total ---------------------------------------- Total ---------------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

North........................................... 398 309 77.64 89 22.36 401 275 68.58 126 31.42

Central......................................... 312 239 76.60 73 23.40 300 229 76.33 71 23.67

South........................................... 289 205 70.93 84 29.07 302 189 62.58 113 37.42

Districtwide.................................... 1,504 882 58.64 622 41.36 1,523 914 60.01 609 39.99

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995-96 Projected 1996-97 Projected 1997-98 Projected

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnet School Total Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

enrollment ------------------------------------ Total ------------------------------------ Total -----------------------------------

Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas......................................... 520 234 45 286 55 525 247 47 278 53 530 276 52 254 48

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995-96 Projected 1996-97 Projected 1997-98 Projected

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeder School Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority Minority Nonminority

Total ------------------------------------ Total ------------------------------------ Total -----------------------------------

enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

North........................................... 410 275 67 135 33 410 267 65 143 35 410 258 63 152 37

Central......................................... 300 225 75 75 25 300 222 74 78 26 300 204 68 96 32

South........................................... 310 186 60 124 40 310 186 60 124 40 310 186 60 124 40

Districtwide.................................... 1,540 920 60 620 40 1,545 922 60 623 40 1,550 924 60 626 40

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 who find that the enrollment data

requested is 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

APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION'' heading.

FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S.

Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Portals Room

4509, Washington, DC 20202-6140. Telephone (202) 260-2476. 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.

Information about the Department's funding opportunities, including

copies of application notices for discretionary grant competitions, can

be viewed on the Department's electronic bulletin board (ED Board),

telephone (202) 260-9950; or on the Internet Gopher Server at

GOPHER.ED.GOV (under Announcements, Bulletins, and Press Releases).

However, the official application notice for a dsicretionary grant

competition is the notice published in the Federal Register.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Thomas W. Payzant,

Assistant Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 95-6708 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.