Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998
Federal RegisterFeb 17, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Purpose of Program: Provides grants to eligible local educational
agencies and consortia of those agencies to support magnet schools that
are part of approved desegregation plans.
Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies (LEAs) and
consortia of those agencies.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 9, 1998.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 8, 1998.
Applications Available: February 17, 1998.
Available Funds: $96,500,000.
Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$3,000,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,608,000 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 and 86; and (b) the regulations in 34 CFR Part 280.
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. (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 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.
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
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 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. Prior to 1995, 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,
when conducting eligibility reviews of plans under Sec. 280.2, the
Department may 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 plan; and
An assurance that the plan is being implemented or will be
implemented if the application is funded.
[[Page 8022]]
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
May 7, 1998.
Voluntary Plans
A voluntary plan must be approved each time an application is
submitted for funding. Even if ED has approved a voluntary 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 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 ED's
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 decisionmaking 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 the Department 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
those 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 these considerations 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 developing.
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 8023]]
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 following discussion.
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 following examples.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Magnet school (base year) enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams (1996)....................................................... 449 382 85.1 67 14.9
Edison (1996)...................................................... 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Magnet school enrollment Minority 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 8024]]
District Z Base Year Data for Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Feeder school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose............................................................... 398 301 75.6 97 24.4
Rocky Mount........................................................ 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
Districtwide....................................................... 2,961 1,771 59.8 1,190 40.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Current Year Data for Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Feeder school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose............................................................... 401 278 69.3 123 30.7
Rocky Mount........................................................ 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
Districtwide....................................................... 2,978 1,810 60.8 1,168 39.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 1998-1999 Data for Magnet Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Magnet school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.............................................................. 469 349 74.4 120 25.6
Edison............................................................. 410 312 76.1 98 23.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 1999-2000 Data for Magnet Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Magnet school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.............................................................. 483 331 68.5 152 31.5
Edison............................................................. 407 289 71.0 118 29.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2000-2001 Data for Magnet Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Magnet school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.............................................................. 489 307 62.8 182 37.2
Edison............................................................. 409 266 65.0 143 35.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 1998-1999 Data for Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Feeder school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose............................................................... 400 272 68.0 128 32.0
Rocky Mount........................................................ 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
Districtwide....................................................... 2,979 1,850 62.1 1,129 37.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 1999-2000 Data for Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Feeder school enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose............................................................... 396 265 66.9 131 33.1
Rocky Mount........................................................ 293 202 68.9 91 31.1
Wheeler............................................................ 259 153 59.1 106 40.9
[[Page 8025]]
King............................................................... 291 169 58.1 122 41.9
Tinker............................................................. 418 242 57.9 176 42.1
Holly.............................................................. 451 216 47.9 235 52.1
Districtwide....................................................... 2,998 1,867 62.3 1,131 37.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Z Projected 2000-2001 Data for Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
Feeder school enrollment Minority 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
Districtwide....................................................... 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 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 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison (1997)...................................................... 400 326 81.5 74 18.5
Students who transferred from feeder schools to Edison in order to
attend magnet..................................................... 50 31 ............... 19
Edison enrollment with transfer students ``returned'' to feeder
schools........................................................... 350 295 84.3 55 15.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Year Student Transfer Data for Feeder Schools That Increase in Minority Group Isolation Above the Districtwide Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mount (1997)................................................. 291 211 72.5 80 27.5
Students who transferred to Edison to attend magnet................ 10 8 ............... 2
Students who transferred to Adams to attend magnet................. 6 6 ............... 0
Rocky Mount enrollment if transfer students were ``returned'....... 307 225 73.3 82 26.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 minority
and non-minority students that left Rocky Mount to attend magnet
programs at Adams and Edison. (See previous student transfer data.) 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
[[Page 8026]]
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 previously. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
Districtwide....................................................... 4,704 2,598 55.2 2,106 44.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 1998-1999 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
Districtwide....................................................... 4,712 2,622 55.6 2,090 44.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 1999-2000 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
Districtwide....................................................... 4,794 2,683 55.9 2,111 44.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District X Projected 2000-2001 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet)...................................................... 600 450 75.0 150 25.0
Shaw (Feeder)...................................................... 410 2 15 52.4 195 47.6
Smith (Feeder)..................................................... 477 229 48.0 248 52.0
Districtwide....................................................... 4,815 2,690 55.9 2,125 44.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective: Construction of New Magnet School/Reopening Closed
School
District Y will construct a new school, Ashe, and open its magnet
program in 1999. 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,
[[Page 8027]]
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 1999, 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 1999-2000 school year), data is 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 & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashe (Magnet)...................................................... 600 400 66.7 200 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 1999-2000 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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 2000-2001 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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 & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Year Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8028]]
Projected 1998-1999 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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
Districtwide....................................................... 1,910 1,244 65.1 664 34.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 1999-2000 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority number percentage number percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet)..................................................... 532 200 37.5 332 62.5
North (Feeder)..................................................... 470 329 70.0 141 30.0
Lewis (Feeder)..................................................... 445 344 77.2 101 22.8
Clark (Feeder)..................................................... 528 425 80.4 103 19.6
Districtwide....................................................... 1,975 1,298 65.7 677 34.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2000-2001 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minority Non-minority Non-minority
School enrollment Minority 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 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, S.W., Portals Room
4509, Washington, D.C. 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.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request of the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application
package in an alternate format, also, by contacting that person.
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
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of a document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032.
[[Page 8029]]
Dated: February 10, 1998.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
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*
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
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 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. 98-3765 Filed 2-13-98; 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.