[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 147 (Monday, July 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46698-46706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.165A]


Magnet Schools Assistance Program; Notice Inviting Applications 
for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001

    Purpose of Program: The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) 
provides grants to eligible local educational agencies and consortia of 
such agencies to support magnet schools that are part of approved 
desegregation plans.
    Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies (LEAs) and 
consortia of such agencies.
    Applications Available: August 23, 2000.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: December 22, 2000.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: February 23, 2001.
    Estimated Available Funds: $92,000,000.
    The actual level of funding, if any, is contingent on final 
congressional action. However, we are inviting applications at this 
time to allow enough time to complete the grant process before the end 
of the Federal fiscal year (October 1, 2001), if Congress appropriates 
funds for this program.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000--$3,000,000 per year.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,533,000 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, 86, 97, 98, 99 and 299. (b) The regulations for this program in 
34 CFR part 280.
    Priorities: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) and 34 CFR 280.32(b)-(f), 
we award up to an additional 45 points to an application, depending on 
how well the application meets the five priorities listed below. These 
points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the 
selection criteria in 34 CFR 280.31.
    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 299.3 and 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.

    The Secretary also invites applications that meet the following 
invitational priority. Projects that propose to help the LEA(s) improve 
one or more low-performing schools by:
     Selecting schools identified for school improvement or 
corrective action under Title I of the ESEA as magnet schools to be 
funded under this project;
     Maximizing the opportunity of students in low-performing 
schools to attend higher performing schools under the project for the 
reduction, elimination or prevention of minority group isolation;
     Effectively involving and informing parents about 
improvement goals for the MSAP schools as well as the goals for their 
own children; and
     Improving the quality of teaching and instruction in the 
low-performing schools to be funded under the project.
    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) an application that meets the 
invitational priority does not receive a competitive or absolute 
preference over other applications.

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 an 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 MSAP program 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. This section of the notice 
describes those information requirements.
    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 46699]]

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 
January 26, 2001.

Voluntary Plans

    A voluntary plan must be approved by ED each time an application is 
submitted for funding. Even if we have approved a voluntary plan in an 
LEA in the past, the plan must be resubmitted to us 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 our 
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 decision making 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 us 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 such 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 the considerations set out above 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 continuing to develop.

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 46700]]

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 discussion below.
    An applicant that proposes to establish new magnet schools must 
submit projected data for each magnet and feeder school that show that 
the magnet schools and all feeders will maintain eligibility for the 
entire three-year period of the grant. Projected data are included in 
the examples below.

Objective: Reduction of Minority Group Isolation in Existing Magnet 
Schools

    In situations where the applicant intends to reduce minority 
isolation in an existing magnet program, whether in the magnet school 
or in one or more of the feeder schools, and minority isolation has 
increased, the applicant must provide data and information to 
demonstrate that the increase was not due to the applicant's magnet 
program, in accordance with Sec. 280.20(g). See the following examples.

Options for Demonstrating Reduction

1. Magnet School Analysis
    District Z has two existing magnet 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
           Magnet school (base year)                Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams (1999)...................................          449          382         85.1           67         14.9
Edison (1999)..................................          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
           Magnet school (base year)                Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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 46701]]



                                  District Z Base Year Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Feeder school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose...........................................          398          301         75.6           97         24.4
Rocky Mt.......................................          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
District-wide..................................        2,961        1,771         59.8        1,190         40.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 District Z Current Year Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Feeder school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose...........................................          401          278         69.3          123         30.7
Rocky Mt.......................................          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
District-wide..................................        2,978        1,810         60.8        1,168         39.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Magnet school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams..........................................          469          349         74.4          120         25.6
Edison.........................................          410          312         76.1           98         23.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Magnet school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams..........................................          483          331         68.5          152         31.5
Edison.........................................          407          289         71.0          118         29.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Magnet school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams..........................................          489          307         62.8          182         37.2
Edison.........................................          409          266         65.0          143         35.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             District Z Projected 2001-2002 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Feeder school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose...........................................          400          272         68.0          128         32.0
Rocky Mt.......................................          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
District-wide..................................        2,979        1,850         62.1        1,129         37.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46702]]


                             District Z Projected 2002-2003 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Feeder school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose...........................................          396          265         66.9          131         33.1
Rocky Mt.......................................          293          202         68.9           91         31.1
Wheeler........................................          259          153         59.1          106         40.9
King...........................................          291          169         58.1          122         41.9
Tinker.........................................          418          242         57.9          176         42.1
Holly..........................................          451          216         47.9          235         52.1
District-wide..................................        2,998        1,867         62.3        1,131         37.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             District Z Projected 2003-2004 Data for Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                 Feeder school                      Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
District-wide..................................        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 who 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 who 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                                                    Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison (2000)..................................          400          326         81.5           74         18.5
Students who transferred from feeder schools to           50           31                        19
 Edison in order to attend magnet..............
Edison enrollment with transfer students                 350          295         84.3           55         15.7
 ``returned'' to feeder schools................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Current Year Student Transfer Data for Feeder Schools That Increase in Minority Group Isolation Above the
                                              Districtwide Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                                                    Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mount (2000).............................          291          211         72.5           80         27.5
Students who transferred to Edison to attend              10            8                         2
 magnet........................................
Students who transferred to Adams to attend                6            6                         0
 magnet........................................
Rocky Mount enrollment if transfer students              307          225         73.3           82         26.7
 were ``returned''.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 46703]]

minority and non-minority students who left Rocky Mount to attend 
magnet programs at Adams and Edison. (See student transfer data above.) 
By adding the number of students who transferred to the magnet programs 
to Rocky Mount's total enrollment, ED can determine whether the 
increase was due to the magnet program. If it can be demonstrated that 
without the magnet program, the MGI at the feeder school would be even 
higher, these magnet schools would be found eligible.
    Some applicants may find that they are unable to provide the type 
of student transfer data referred to above. In some cases, these 
applicants may be able to present demographic or other statistical data 
and information that would satisfy the requirements of the statute and 
regulations. This demographic data must persuasively demonstrate that 
the operation of a proposed magnet school would reduce, eliminate, or 
prevent minority group isolation in the applicant's magnet schools and 
would not result in an increase of MGI at one of the applicant's feeder 
schools above the districtwide percentage for minority students at the 
same grade levels as those served in the magnet school. (34 CFR 
Sec. 280.20(g)). For example, an applicant might include data provided 
to it by a local social service agency about the numbers and 
concentration of families in a recent influx of immigrants into the 
neighborhood or attendance zone of the feeder school.
3. Additional Base-Year Data
    If an applicant believes that comparing a magnet program's current-
year enrollment data with its base year 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
District-wide..................................        4,704        2,598         55.2        2,106         44.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         District X Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
District-wide..................................        4,712        2,622         55.6        2,090         44.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         District X Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
District-wide..................................        4,794        2,683         55.9        2,111         44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         District X Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet & Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill (Magnet)..................................          600          450         75.0          150         25.0
Shaw (Feeder)..................................          410          215         52.4          195         47.6
Smith (Feeder).................................          477          229         48.0          248         52.0
District-wide..................................        4,815        2,690         55.9        2,125         44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46704]]

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

    District Y will construct a new school, Ashe, and open its magnet 
program at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. 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, 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 2002, 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 2002-2003 school year), data are 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 and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashe (Magnet)..................................          600          400         66.7          300         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 2002-2003 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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 2003-2004 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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 and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46705]]


                                 Current Year Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Projected 2001-2002 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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
District-wide..................................        1,910        1,244         65.1          664         34.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Projected 2002-2003 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     number     percentage     number     percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant (Magnet).................................          532          200         37.5          332         62.5
North (Feeder).................................          480          329         70.0          141         30.0
Lewis (Feeder).................................          445          344         77.2          101         22.8
Clark (Feeder).................................          528          425         80.4          103         19.6
District-wide..................................        1,975        1,298         65.7          677         34.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Projected 2003-2004 Data for Magnet and Feeder Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Non-         Non-
                     School                         Total       Minority     Minority     minority     minority
                                                  enrollment     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 that find that the enrollment data 
requested are 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 FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT heading.
    For Applications Contact: Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), 
P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20749-1398. Telephone (toll free): 1-877-576-
7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734.
    You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html, or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address: 
[email protected] 
    If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify 
this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.165A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3E112, Washington, DC

[[Page 46706]]

20202-6140. Telephone (202) 260-2476, or via Internet: [email protected]
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this 
section.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application 
package in an alternate format by contacting ED Pubs. 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 Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the 
following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free 
at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using PDF, 
call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-
6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of a document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html


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

    Dated: July 24, 2000.
Michael Cohen,
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*
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
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 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. 00-19198 Filed 7-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4001-01-P