[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8021-8029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3765]



  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 8021]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.165A]


Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications 
for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

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

    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