[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;
(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. (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