[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67922-67926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32562]



[[Page 67921]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



Title I Migrant Education Coordination Program; Notice of Final 
Priority for Fiscal Year 1997

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 24, 1996 / 
Notices  

[[Page 67922]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Title I Migrant Education Coordination Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priority for fiscal year 1997.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
announces an absolute priority for competitive grants awarded under the 
Migrant Education Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997. Under this 
priority, the Department will support projects that use technologies in 
innovative ways to strengthen the academic achievement of migrant 
students who move between school districts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect January 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Gilbert, Office of Migrant 
Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Room 4100 Portals Building, Washington, DC 20202-6140. Telephone: (202) 
260-1357. 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. Inquiries may also be sent by e-mail 
to [email protected] or by FAX at (202) 205-0089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary intends to award grants to 
applicants, applying as a member of consortia, who propose to use 
technologies in innovative and effective ways to improve teaching and 
learning for highly mobile migrant students. Projects selected for 
funding will be those judged most likely to be effective in helping 
migrant children whose education is interrupted by moves between 
districts and States. In FY 1997, the Secretary will make up to $3 
million available under the Migrant Education Program (MEP) for this 
competition, from which 6 to 8 projects are expected to be funded. 
Grants are projected to range from $200,000 to $600,000 per year and 
may be funded for up to 5 years.
    The MEP is authorized in Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Under this program, the 
Secretary makes grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help 
ensure that migrant children have the opportunity to meet the same 
challenging State content and student performance standards that all 
children are expected to meet. Toward this objective, the program 
supports a range of services for migrant children, including preschool 
children, and youth through age 21 who are entitled to a free public 
education through grade 12. For example, it provides supplemental 
instruction and other related services that address educational 
disruption, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, various 
health-related problems, and other factors inhibiting the ability of 
children to do well in school or make successful transitions to 
postsecondary education or employment.
    Section 1308 of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to reserve a 
portion of each year's MEP appropriation and, in consultation with the 
States, make grants for programs to improve the coordination of 
services to migrant students who move within and between States. The 
Secretary will use part of the FY 1996 and subsequent year reservation 
to support multi-year projects under the priority in this notice. The 
Secretary believes that technology, if applied thoughtfully, can be the 
catalyst that reinforces and extends migrant students learning 
opportunities, motivation and achievement. This priority is intended to 
stimulate creative thinking about how to integrate technology more 
effectively into high-quality educational programs that meet the 
special needs of the migrant community.
    As some migrant programs are already beginning to demonstrate, 
technology can help improve the teaching and learning of migrant 
students by, for example, making curricula and other teaching materials 
more readily available to migrant students; stimulating new education 
solutions to counter the adverse impact that frequent moves have on the 
education of migrant students; and facilitating on-going cooperative 
arrangements between schools in ``sending'' and ``receiving'' States to 
reinforce and extend teaching and learning of migrant students. 
Moreover, States and districts are spending their own funds and funds 
from other Federal programs for technology and technology-related 
expenses. These expenditures frequently complement the investments of 
the MEP and other ESEA programs to help all children, including migrant 
children, learn to high standards.
    The competition is intended to build on those activities by helping 
to support efforts to put challenging academic standards more closely 
within reach of migrant students. The grants are intended to stimulate 
partnerships, funding, and action at the State and local levels and 
private sector. Each project's choice of partners, and each project's 
design with new approaches and strategies, are keys to whether the 
handful of projects to be funded under this competition can have a 
significant impact on the education of hard-to-reach, highly mobile, 
migrant children and youth--now and in the future.
    Applicants are encouraged to consider a range of other Federal and 
non-Federal sources of technical or financial support. Possible sources 
of Federal support include assistance that States and communities 
receive under programs administered by the Department, including: Goals 
2000; Title I, Part A of the ESEA; the Eisenhower Professional 
Development program; Bilingual Education programs; School-to-Work 
Opportunities; the Star Schools program; the Challenge Grants for 
Technology in Education; the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services technology programs; the recently created 
Regional Comprehensive Assistance Centers and Regional Technology 
Consortia; the Regional Educational Laboratories; and the MEP itself.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

    The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the 
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals 
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new 
partnerships to strengthen schools and expand the Department's 
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain 
information needed to achieve these Goals.
    This priority and these selection criteria would address the 
National Education Goals that all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 
12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and 
that by the year 2000 the high school graduation rate will increase to 
at least 90 percent. The priority and selection criteria would further 
the objectives of these Goals by focusing available funds on projects 
that will provide students, while they migrant between school 
districts, a richer learning environment and continuity of education 
through the innovative use of technologies.
    On August 20, 1996, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 
Secondary Education published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for 
this program in the Federal Register (61 FR 43122-5). Additional 
information is provided in that notice on pages 43122-3, including 
examples of existing programs for migrant youth that include technology 
components. While changes have been made since publication of the NPP, 
these changes merely clarify the priority without altering its intent.


[[Page 67923]]


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice 
inviting applications under this competition is published elsewhere 
in this edition of the Federal Register.

Summary of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed 
priority, 10 parties submitted comments. All commenters supported the 
thrust of this priority. In general, commenters recommended that the 
priority clarify (1) who are eligible applicants, as well as the 
composition and financial responsibilities of the consortium; (2) that 
applicants must address how their consortia would actually use 
technology to increase achievement of migrant students; and (3) that 
applicants may propose uses of technology that focus exclusively on 
improving the skills or knowledge of those who teach migrant students. 
An appendix to this notice contains an analysis of the comments and of 
the changes in the priority. The changes do not alter the priority's 
original intent.
    Priority: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an 
absolute preference to applications that meet the following priority. 
The Secretary funds under this competition only applications that meet 
this priority:

Technology Applications for Teaching and Learning in the Migrant 
Community

    Under this priority, an eligible applicant will compete for a 
grant, as a member of a consortium that may be funded for up to five 
years, to cover the costs of developing, adapting, or expanding 
existing and new applications of technology that members of the 
consortium will use to improve teaching and learning for migrant 
students who move within and between States. In developing their 
projects, applicants are encouraged to consider how technology might be 
put to effective use within the whole spectrum of educational inputs--
including curriculum, modes of learning, professional development, 
parental involvement--to increase the achievement of the migrant 
students they serve. To help broaden project planning and impact, 
consortium efforts must be carefully designed to encourage--wherever 
possible--the ongoing involvement of educators and parents, business 
and civic leaders, community organizations, and others committed to 
providing enhanced educational opportunity for highly mobile migrant 
students. While there is no matching requirement for this competition, 
applications will be reviewed for, among other things, the extent to 
which the consortium as a whole secures from partners or other entities 
monetary or in-kind contributions for equipment, technical support, and 
any other associated project costs. These additional contributions may 
be from Federal or non-Federal sources; however, the reviewers will 
note the degree to which a project has broad support as evidenced by 
its non-Federal contributions. Additional sources of support might also 
include foundation grants and other philanthropic contributions, and 
services provided through grants or contracts from other government 
agencies. Examples of assistance available from Federal agencies, other 
than the Department of Education, are included in the notice of 
proposed priority for this program published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 43122-5).

Eligible Applicants

    Any SEA, local educational agency (LEA), institution of higher 
education, or public or private nonprofit entity is eligible to apply. 
However, the Secretary specifically invites the following entities to 
submit applications: SEAs that administer MEPs; LEAs that have a high 
percentage or high number of migrant students; and non-profit 
community-based organizations that work with migrant families. In 
addition, to help ensure that this competition supports coordination 
activities between school districts: (1) applicants must apply as part 
of a consortium that includes at least two entities described in the 
preceding sentence, and (2) consortium members must provide educational 
services to migrant students in at least two or more school districts. 
To help ensure that the projects are effective and have broad community 
and technical support, the consortium must also include at least one 
other partner from the business community, institutions of higher 
education, academic content experts, software designers, or other 
entities.

Application Contents

    Objectives: Applicants must demonstrate how the consortium would 
make innovative uses of technologies to achieve the following 
objectives: (a) promoting greater continuity of instruction for migrant 
students as they are served in different school districts in which 
members of the consortium operate educational programs that are 
available to migrant students; and (b) helping these migrant students 
achieve to high academic standards.
    Required Application Descriptions: In describing how it would use 
technologies to meet the educational purposes described in response to 
the preceding paragraph, each applicant must also address how the 
project will provide--
    1. Adequate access to technology for all project participants, 
whether they are migrant students, their families, or teaching 
personnel;
    2. Sufficient time and opportunity for teachers (and other 
educational support staff) to learn to use the technologies and to 
incorporate them into their own curricular goals;
    3. Easily accessible technical support, such as on-site assistance;
    4. A method for evaluating the educational benefits of the project; 
and
    5. A strategy for disseminating a successful project to other SEAs, 
LEAs and other agencies that operate MEPs.
    Other Application Requirements: Among other generally applicable 
application requirements, applicants are reminded that 34 CFR 75.112 
and 75.117 of the Education Department and General Administrative 
Regulations (EDGAR) contain additional narrative and budgetary 
requirements for applicants that request funding on a multi-year basis. 
In particular, Sec. 75.112 requires an application to include a 
narrative that describes how and when, in each budget period of the 
project, the applicant plans to meet each project objective. (In 
determining whether to make a continuation award in future years to a 
project recipient, the Secretary intends to examine each performance 
report submitted under 34 CFR 75.253 to ensure, among other things, the 
quality of the project's emerging design and implementation 
activities.)

Selection Criteria

    The Secretary will use two criteria to select applications for 
funding: significance and feasibility; i.e., is the proposed activity 
important, and can it be done?
    Significance will be determined by the extent to which the project: 
1. Offers a creative vision for using technology to help migrant 
students who move within or between States learn challenging academic 
content and improve the coordination of their teaching and learning 
when they move;
    2. Is likely to achieve far-reaching impact through results, 
products, or benefits that can be readily achieved, exported or adapted 
to other migrant communities or to settings of other mobile 
populations;
    3. Will enhance inter- or intrastate coordination of teaching and 
learning

[[Page 67924]]

(that takes into consideration the cultural and language 
characteristics of the migrant population) by integrating acquired 
technologies into the curriculum;
    4. Will provide for ongoing, intensive professional development for 
teachers (and other personnel) working with the migrant population to 
further the learning of migrant students through the use of technology 
in the classroom, library, home, or other learning environment;
    5. Is designed to serve highly mobile migrant populations that are 
likely to benefit the most from educational technology applications;
    6. Is designed to create new learning communities, and expanded 
markets for high-quality educational technology applications and 
services for migrant and other similar populations.
    Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which: 1. The 
project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of 
technologies for inter- and intrastate coordination of teaching and 
learning for migrant students and staff that will be sustainable both 
during and beyond the period of the grant;
    2. The consortium and other appropriate entities will contribute 
substantial financial and/or other resources or both to achieve the 
goals of the project; and
    3. The applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as 
evidenced by: the extent to which the project is likely to meet the 
needs that have been identified; the quality of the project design, 
including objectives, approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination 
plan; the adequacy of resources, including money, personnel, 
facilities, equipment, and supplies; the qualifications of key 
personnel who would conduct the project; and the applicant's prior 
experience relevant to the objectives of the project.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in this final priority notice is 1810-0028.

Selection Procedures

    The Secretary will consider only applications that establish the 
likelihood that the proposed projects will meet the objectives, and 
that include the required elements, described within the section, 
``Application Contents.'' The Secretary will evaluate applications 
using the unweighted selection criteria described under the ``Selection 
Criteria'' section of this notice. In determining whether applicants 
have met these criteria, the Secretary believes that the use of 
unweighted criteria is most appropriate because they will allow the 
reviewers maximum flexibility to apply their professional judgments in 
identifying the particular strengths and weaknesses in individual 
applications. Therefore, the Secretary will not apply the selection 
procedures in EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.210 and 75.217, which otherwise require 
a rank order to be established based on weighted selection criteria.
    The Secretary intends to use the following selection procedures for 
this competition:
    The first peer review panel or panels of experts will analyze each 
application to determine whether or not it responds to the requirements 
in the application contents section of this notice, and in terms of the 
two selection criteria: significance and feasibility. A reviewer will 
assign to each application two separate qualitative ratings--one for 
significance, the other for feasibility--based on the extent to which 
the application meets each of these criteria. The two ratings (which 
are of equal importance) taken together will yield a composite rating, 
representing each reviewer's total rating of each application. All 
reviewer ratings for each application will then be combined across the 
reviewers in a panel to yield an overall rating for each application. 
The panels will also identify inconsistencies, points in need of 
clarification, and other concerns, if any, pertaining to each 
application.
    The Secretary will assign each application to one of three or four 
groups based on the panel's composite rating of each applicant. 
Starting with the highest quality group and moving down to the lowest, 
the Secretary will identify the groups containing applications that are 
of sufficiently high quality to be considered for funding.
    Depending upon the number of applications received, a second panel 
will be convened to reevaluate each application identified by the first 
panel as being of sufficiently high quality to be considered for 
funding. In doing so, this second panel will take into account any 
additional information or materials supplied by applicants after the 
first panel review in response to a request by the Secretary (see final 
paragraph of this section), to redetermine the extent to which each 
application addresses the selection criteria. The Secretary will 
reassign each reevaluated application to one of the several quality 
groups.
    In the final stage of the selection process, the Secretary will 
select for funding those applications of highest quality, based on the 
final results of the second review panel or panels, but only if the 
Secretary is satisfied that they are of high quality with regard to 
both significance and feasibility. If in this final stage, the 
Secretary determines that the highest quality group or groups include 
more applications than can be funded, panelists may be asked to 
differentiate further between the applications on the basis of quality.
    The Secretary might not have need for the two-tiered procedures, 
depending upon the number of applications received.
    In accordance with 34 CFR 75.109(b), an applicant is permitted to 
make changes to an application on or before the deadline date for 
submission of applications. Also, in accordance with 34 CFR 75.231, the 
Secretary may request an applicant to submit additional information 
after the application has been selected for funding. Given the 
technical nature of the proposals, the Secretary expects that it might 
be necessary to obtain clarifications and additional information from 
applicants during the selection process. The Secretary would request 
additional information or materials from applicants that the review 
panel has determined are of sufficiently high quality, and that address 
the concerns and questions, if any, identified by the peer review 
panel. Therefore, for the purpose of this grant competition, the 
Secretary will also permit an applicant to submit additional 
information in response to a specific request from the Secretary made 
during the application review and selection process.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the 
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program. Applicable Regulations: EDGAR 34 CFR Parts 74, 75 (except 
Sec. 75.201, 75.210 and 75.217), 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86; and 34 
CFR 200.40.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398(a).


[[Page 67925]]


    Dated: December 17, 1996.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
Assistant Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education.

Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes

    Comments: One commenter suggested that the priority clarify whether 
charter schools are eligible for grants.
    Discussion: This grant competition is open to any SEA, LEA or other 
public or private nonprofit entity that applies as part of a consortium 
and meets the criteria announced in this notice. A charter school that 
is an LEA or a public or private nonprofit agency in the State in which 
it is located would be eligible to apply.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters questioned the proposed requirement that 
the consortium partners contribute financial or in-kind resources to 
the project. One commenter requested clarification as to whether 
members of the consortium could meet this requirement by using 
resources provided through another Federal program. The other commenter 
expressed concern that the proposed requirement could limit the number 
of applicants. The commenter noted that because LEAs, SEAs, and 
nonprofit agencies might not have substantial resources to contribute 
to the project, other participants in a consortium, such as the 
business community and academic content experts, might have to 
contribute the bulk of additional financial assistance.
    Discussion: Funds awarded under this competition can play a pivotal 
role in helping to support initiatives that use technology as a key 
ingredient to increasing the academic achievement of migrating 
students. However, initiatives that rely solely--or even principally--
on these or other Federal funds may be less likely than other projects 
to succeed or endure beyond the project period. First, the amount of 
project funds that the Secretary can award under section 1308(a) of the 
ESEA may simply be too small to meet total project costs. But more 
important, a project's likely impact and success depends in part on 
funding support that is broad and lasting, as demonstrated by the 
degree to which applicants obtain significant commitments of non-
Federal as well as Federal resources. For this reason, while applicants 
are not required to demonstrate that they have any outside support as a 
condition of their eligibility for an award, the notice clarifies that 
project's feasibility will depend, in part, on the degree to which (a) 
consortium partners and other entities are committed to making 
substantial financial and in-kind contributions to the success of the 
project, and (b) contributions include those from non-Federal sources. 
Moreover, the Secretary believes that applications that demonstrate a 
consortium's ability to leverage significant additional resources are 
likely to be more competitive than applications that do not.
    The Secretary is aware that some participants in a consortium may 
be unable to contribute significant amounts of actual or in-kind 
resources to the project, and that some consortia may be able to pull 
together more resources for their projects than others. The final 
notice clarifies that applications will be reviewed for the extent to 
which the consortium as a whole--rather than its individual members or 
other participating entities--are contributing substantial financial 
and/or in-kind contributions to achieve the project goals.
    Changes: The supplementary information and statement of the 
priority have been revised accordingly.
    Comments: A commenter requested clarification about whether 
priority will be given to consortia that includes all three applicants 
(SEA, LEA, or other non-profit organization) that were specifically 
invited to apply.
    Discussion: No priority will be given to any particular make-up of 
consortia.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A commenter questioned the use of the word, ``or'' 
illustrating types of partners--beyond SEAs, LEAs and nonprofit 
agencies--that must be a part of a consortium funded under this 
competition. The statement referred to the inclusion of entities ``such 
as business, academic content, or software designers * * *.'' The 
commenter recommends that the word ``and'' be substituted for ``or'' in 
order to emphasize the need for projects to include both software 
design and academic content expertise.
    Discussion: The Secretary encourages partnerships of all types to 
compete for funding under this notice and does not believe it to be 
appropriate to limit eligibility to any particular configuration.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested that the priority strengthen the 
connections between the use of technology and the educational program 
design. Two other commenters recommended that the applications be 
required not only to describe the use of technology, but also to show 
how they address inter- and intra-state coordination of educational 
programs that serve migrant students.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that further 
clarity is needed in these areas. As explained in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section of this notice, the intent of this competition 
is, and has been, to further support the effective use of technology as 
a means of increasing migrant student achievement. Moreover, because 
funds will be awarded under section 1308(a) of the ESEA, funded 
projects need to be designed to improve inter- or intra-state 
coordination among programs assisting migrant students.
    Changes: In order to ensure that all selected projects reflect 
these objectives, the Secretary has revised the ``Application 
Contents'' portion of the notice to require an applicant to demonstrate 
how it would use technology as a tool to improve achievement. Further, 
this section of the notice now clarifies that applicants also must 
demonstrate how they would use technology to promote greater continuity 
of instruction for migrant students as they are served at different 
project sites.
    Comments: A commenter suggested that eligibility be expanded to 
include States and island nations with immigrant populations. In this 
context, the commenter also suggested that all agencies responsible for 
providing services to migrant and immigrant children be required to 
share appropriate electronic databases.
    Discussion: Section 1308(a) of the ESEA does not authorize the use 
of funds under this program to serve the needs of immigrant children.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the criteria be broadened to 
permit funding of interstate projects that would use technology only to 
strengthen professional development of teachers of migrant students. 
The commenter expressed concern that, as written, the notice appears to 
require migrant student participation in all projects.
    Discussion: This competition is intended to fund well-designed 
proposals that improve teaching and learning for migrant students who 
move from one location to another. In doing so, applicants may propose 
uses of technology that focus exclusively on those who teach migrant 
students, rather than on the migrant students themselves, for example, 
by offering those teachers increased access to professional development 
activities.
    Changes: The ``Required Application Descriptions'' section 
clarifies that while project participants must be given adequate access 
to technology, those participants may be students, their families, or 
teaching personnel.

[[Page 67926]]

    Comments: One commenter requested that the notice clarify that 
within a consortium, partnerships with universities--for the purpose of 
developing software--would have the same weight as business 
partnerships. Another commenter suggested that Comprehensive Regional 
Assistance Centers be included in the list of potential partners.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that 
universities and comprehensive centers are potentially very important 
partners in any consortium. The Secretary does not believe that the 
notice should emphasize university participation through the 
development of software.
    Changes. The ``Technology Applications for Teaching and Learning in 
the Migrant Community'' and ``Eligible Applicants'' sections of the 
notice have been revised to clarify the importance of institutions of 
higher education, while the ``Supplementary Information'' section has 
been revised to clarify the importance of the comprehensive centers.
    Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that use of unweighted 
selection criteria would create difficulties in making systematic and 
substantiated judgments about the relative quality of applications, 
whereas one commenter expressed support for use of the unweighted 
criteria. One commenter also suggested that training be offered to the 
review panels to help ensure quality of the comments.
    Discussion: This competition is designed to encourage all 
applicants, and particularly SEAs, LEAs, and other public and private 
nonprofit agencies serving migrant students, to reach out to 
businesses, universities, and others in their communities in creative 
ways that can give migrant students the benefit of recent technological 
innovations. Given the nature of the competition, and the many forms 
and varieties of new technological applications that it can support, 
the Secretary believes that unweighted criteria provide the most 
promising opportunity to select for funding those projects that are 
most significant and feasible. The Secretary will ensure that judgments 
about the relative quality of applicants are made systematically and in 
ways that are substantiated.
    Changes. None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested that there be a separate 
competition or a reservation of funds under this competition for credit 
exchange and accrual activities for migrant secondary school students.
    Discussion: A proposal that focuses on credit exchange and accrual, 
and, in so doing, uses technology to provide instruction and/or 
improved teaching to migrant students, is within the purview of the 
priority. Beyond this, the Secretary recognizes the importance of 
credit exchange and accrual activities, and will consider whether, in 
the future, a competition focusing specifically on credit exchange and 
accrual activities is desirable.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A commenter recommended that the priority be expanded to 
include applications for projects to offer technology workshops and 
training to migrant personnel.
    Discussion: The limited funds available under this competition are 
intended to help support a few high quality programs that incorporate 
technology into teaching and learning and that ultimately might be 
adapted in other sites. Each application must include as a part of its 
project easily accessible technical support, adequate access to 
technology for all project participants and sufficient time for 
teachers and educational staff to learn to use the technology. This 
competition is not a vehicle for financing broad-based technology 
workshops for the migrant community.
    Changes. None.
    Comment. One commenter recommended that the final priority notice 
prohibit for-profit entities from receiving funds awarded under this 
competition. The commenter asserted that these entities are not 
authorized by the program statute to receive grant funds, and that 
grant funds should not benefit for-profit entities at the expense of 
disadvantaged migrant students.
    Discussion. Section 1308(a) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to 
make grants or contracts for the improvement of inter-state and intra-
state coordination of migrant education projects to SEAs, LEAs, IHEs 
and other public and private nonprofit entities. This notice permits 
these entities--and only these entities--to be recipients of project 
grants. While applicants must apply as part of a broader consortium 
that conceivably might include a for-profit entity, the for-profit 
entity would not be the project grantee. Beyond this, the ESEA does not 
prohibit a project grantee from procuring services from a for-profit 
entity. Indeed, cost principles in Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-87, which govern an SEA's or LEA's use of project funds by 
virtue of 34 CFR 80.22, authorize SEA and LEA grantees to use 
reasonable and necessary amounts of program funds to procure supplies, 
materials and other services from for-profit entities.
    Changes. None.
    Comment. Officials within the Department suggested that the notice 
should include the relevant sections of EDGAR that will apply to this 
competition.
    Discussion. The Department inadvertently omitted references to 
EDGAR that govern this competition and agrees that these sections 
should be cited in the notice.
    Changes. The section, ``Applicable Regulations,'' includes 
references to all sections of EDGAR that apply to this competition.

[FR Doc. 96-32562 Filed 12-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P