VII\. Implementation of MSAP Projects:

Enabled Activities and ED Role

In this chapter, we examine the ways in which the Magnet Schools
Assistance Program (MSAP) districts have planned and implemented MSAP
projects in 1998--99 and 1999--2000, as well as their plans for
continuing projects after MSAP funding ends. Next, we examine how MSAP
projects have budgeted and spent project funds and the extent to which
they have been able to access other sources of support. Finally, we turn
to the role of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in the MSAP
program, focusing on the processes used to award MSAP grants and the
technical assistance provided by ED's Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (OESE), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and Equity Assistance
Centers.

Planning and Implementation Activities in MSAP Districts

Of the 57 MSAP projects, 20 (35 percent) included a planning year
(1998-99) for one or more of their schools.[^1] Because many of the
grant awards were not made until summer 1998, some of the school
programs could not be implemented for the 1998--99 school year. For
example, several Project Directors reported that they were not hired
until well into the 1998--99 school year. Others said that although
their project had not intended to have a planning period, the late start
created delays, and planning occurred while equipment was being ordered
and staff hired. Typically this planning involved teachers (in 70
percent of the projects with planning years) and parents (in 60 percent)
as well as the MSAP Project Director and/or other administrators.[^2]
The Project Directors named 15 types of activities that occurred during
the planning time. The most common are:

-   providing professional development for staff---reported for 11
    projects, or 55 percent of those with a planning year

-   designing curriculum---reported by 9 projects

-   learning from outsiders---(e.g., through visits to schools featuring
    the theme planned for the project's school)---reported by 6 projects

-   planning and conducting recruitment activities---reported by 4
    projects

-   recruiting, hiring, and organizing staff---also reported by 4
    projects

In addition to planning, the 57 projects began implementing their MSAP
programs: incorporating themes into instruction, providing staff
development related to those themes, installing new equipment, adding
special staff to assist MSAP-supported schools, developing links with
parent and community members, and other activities that are necessary to
provide and support special curricula in magnet schools.

Project Directors described a variety of implementation activities, as
the examples below indicate.

> **MSAP Project Directors told us:**

-   An MSAP middle school has created a CD with the help of the local
    Botanical Garden, and it is being showcased at the Smithsonian in
    Washington, DC. Another school in the same district has developed a
    Distance Learning curriculum with the help of a local college, and
    it is being shared with a number of non-MSAP schools in the district
    and city.

-   An MSAP project developed handbooks that are unique to each MSAP
    school and include general information (e.g., "Learning the Ropes,"
    the school calendar, district policies, and a map of the school) and
    specific information about what students in each grade will learn.
    The information on the curriculum is backed up with a one-page
    syllabus that MSAP teachers developed during the summer, giving the
    curriculum new coherence and specificity. These handbooks have
    proven to be useful not only in helping teachers plan lessons but
    also in answering parents' questions about what they can expect if
    their children attend this school.

-   Implementation of a school improvement model in an MSAP school has
    encouraged many community groups to come to the school, observe the
    program in operation, and learn how it operates. The Project
    Director sees this as an important step in facilitating
    communication and building support for schools in the community.

-   An MSAP school with a global studies and technology curriculum
    reports that students not only work diligently on their laptops and
    read more of the information found on their computers, but they are
    increasingly aware of political, social, and economic factors facing
    the world.

-   Community outreach in one MSAP project includes an Intergenerational
    Club with students and seniors. Together they put together a penny
    harvest, collecting coins for food.

##### 

**Plans for Continuing Projects after MSAP Funding Ends**

The MSAP is designed to help school districts develop and begin
implementing magnet schools but is not intended as a way to sustain
those projects over time. As part of their applications, districts are
to describe the ways in which they will continue the magnet school
project after grant funds are no longer available. In our interviews
with Project Directors in 1999, we asked what the district's strategies
are for continuing the magnet project after the current grant period.
The 57 projects are using six main strategies:[^3]^,^ [^4]

-   District support, committed and sought---53 percent of the projects
    are looking to their districts for support. In 32 percent, the
    district is committed to continuing the project; in 21 percent, MSAP
    projects are seeking district support but it is not yet committed.

-   MSAP reapplication---18 percent of the projects intend to apply for
    a 2001 MSAP grant; however, all but one of these projects are using
    other strategies as well.

-   Other state, federal grants---26 percent are seeking other federal
    (i.e., besides MSAP) and state grants.

-   Self-sustaining schools---18 percent of the projects are developing
    magnet schools that can be self-sustaining, with no further outside
    support needed.

-   Business support---12 percent are looking to businesses for support.

-   School reputation---4 percent are counting on the good reputation of
    their magnet schools to create public and district support for
    continuation.

##### 

##### Enabled Activities---How MSAP Projects Budget and Spend Their Funds

Funds from the MSAP enable projects to support planning and promotional
activities related to their academic programs and services, add
specially hired staff to support and enhance school instruction; provide
focused training in program areas or educational methods for teachers
and other staff; and purchase equipment such as computers, video
broadcasting equipment, or science centers; and supplies like
supplementary reading texts and math manipulatives.[^5] When districts
submit their applications for MSAP grants, they include budgets that
detail the amount of funds requested to support the proposed projects.
When grants are made by the Department, the funds are virtually always
less than the districts requested, so grantees adjust their plans and
submit revised budgets that reflect the actual amounts, not the
hoped-for ones.

During our fall and winter 1999 interviews, we asked the 57 MSAP Project
Directors what changes were made in their programs as a result of the
reduced budget amounts. Responses indicated that slightly more than one
fourth of the projects made no major changes. For the remainder of the
projects, the most common change (made by 47 percent of the 57 projects)
was to eliminate staff positions (e.g., a technology specialist or
parent coordinator) or to reduce positions from full time to part time.
The next most common change (made by 35 percent of the 57 projects) was
to reduce purchases of equipment and materials. Fifteen projects (26
percent) either delayed implementation of programs or activities or
reduced their scope (with relatively small changes). Overall, despite
the reduction from requested amounts, the Project Directors reported
that their programs were implemented with few major changes from the
plans on which their application budgets were based.[^6]

> **MSAP Project Directors told us:**

-   Like many other MSAP grantees, one district is trying to attract
    students to areas of a large city that are commonly seen as unsafe.
    To alleviate parents' fears, the project hired assistants
    (informally called "hand-holders") for elementary school students
    from outside the school neighborhood. These assistants check on
    every student each day and have cell phones with immediate access to
    and by parents. This has proven to be a popular service that
    increases parents' sense of security about their children.

-   Districts with old school buildings and new MSAP-funded computer
    equipment have found that wiring and security are sometimes
    inadequate. Project Directors point out the importance of taking
    wiring costs and time demands into consideration in implementing
    programs. One Project Director found that Board policies would not
    provide a security system to annexes and portables, where computers
    were needed, so his solution was to place the equipment on carts,
    moving them into secure areas at the end of the day.

**Differences in Grant Amounts and in Grantees' Distribution of Funds**

Grant amounts may vary from year to year according to a project's
implementation plan. Differences between first and second year funds are
most often attributable to provision of a planning year and the opening
of an MSAP school in the second year of the grant cycle. The final,
three-year budgets that projects submit to ED provide information about
the major categories and amounts, and they are summarized in Figure
VII-1. It reports on the budgets for only 50 of the 57 projects and
provides the average amounts budgeted for each year of the grant period,
by category.

As seen in Figure VII-1, projects spend about 45 percent of their
budgets on staff (personnel and fringe benefits), with increases each
year. [^7] Equipment and supplies each account for about 20 percent of
the budget overall, leaving about 15 percent for the remaining budget
items: travel (e.g., to attend conferences, observe other magnet
programs), contractual (e.g., for local program evaluations or
assistance from outside experts), construction, and other direct costs.
As the figure also indicates, equipment budgets are largest during the
first and second years, as projects begin to implement programs, and
they taper off somewhat in the third year.

**Figure VII-1**

**Percentage of Direct Costs by Budget Category and Year for 50 MSAP
Projects**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.5in" height="3.8666666666666667in"}n=50
projects

Source: U.S. Department of Education

To provide an indication of what grants mean at the school level, Figure
VII-2 focuses on school-level budgets for the 233 MSAP-supported schools
(about 80 percent of all MSAP-supported schools) for which such budgets
are available. As it indicates, on average, MSAP-supported schools spend
about \$135,000 on personnel (staff and fringe), about \$70,000 on
equipment, and about \$60,000 on supplies per year.[^8] For these
schools, grants average about \$307,000 per school year, but the range
is considerable across the projects. For example, in 1998--99, the
school budgets ranged from \$11,000 (for a school with a planning year)
to \$844,000 (for a school establishing a technology-based program).

**Figure VII-2**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.709722222222222in"
height="3.48125in"}**Mean Budget Amounts for 233 MSAP-supported Schools
in 50 MSAP Projects, by Year**

n=233 schools

Source: U.S. Department of Education

**Other Sources of Support Obtained by MSAP Projects and Schools**

To augment their MSAP grants, districts seek funds from other sources,
such as other federal programs (e.g., Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration, National Science Foundation), state and district
programs, local businesses and foundations, and in-kind donations. We
asked MSAP Project Directors whether their districts have been
successful in obtaining additional funds specifically for their
MSAP-supported schools, that is, in addition to federal, state, and
local funds available for all schools in their districts. Of the 56
projects responding, 25 (45 percent) projects report that they have
obtained additional support from other sources:[^9]

-   Federal programs other than MSAP---Five districts report receiving a
    total of \$3,360,000, with a range of \$5,000 to \$3 million and an
    average of \$672,000.

-   State programs---Five districts report receiving a total of
    \$6,646,231, with a range from \$47,626 to \$6 million and an
    average of \$1,329,246.

-   District programs---One district reports receiving \$2,120,000.

-   Businesses and foundations---Twelve districts report receiving a
    total of \$1,177,565, with a range from \$6,000 to \$403,200 and an
    average of \$98,130.

-   In-kind and other types---Five districts report receiving other
    assistance but did not specify amounts.

**What Federal Funds Enable Projects To Do**

What do these funds enable projects and schools to do that they could
not do otherwise? We asked principals to identify the three most
important activities and resources that MSAP grants enabled their
schools to provide. As presented in Figure VII-3, almost one third of
the principals of MSAP schools consider the addition of staff (e.g.,
content area specialists, technical support, classroom aides, and school
program coordinators) to be the most important thing that MSAP funds
make possible.[^10] About 27 percent of the principals consider support
for the acquisition of computers most important. When we combined
principals' choices for the three most important enabled activities, 63
percent of the principals cite the addition of staff, and about 55
percent indicate professional development, the acquisition and use of
computers, and books, supplies, and materials.

**Figure VII-3**

**Most Important Activities and Resources Enabled by MSAP Grant from the
Viewpoint of Principals**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.000694444444444in"
height="4.548611111111111in"}n=241 principals

Source: Principal Survey, 1999--2000, Item 33

#####  

##### How MSAP Grants Are Awarded[^11]

We describe the process of reviewing MSAP applications and awarding
grants in full in the appendix for this chapter and summarize it briefly
below.[^12]

**Announcements and Awarding of Grants**

Announcements of the MSAP grant application period are made in the
Federal Register, along with information on how and where to apply.
Following that announcement, a three-part review process is implemented:

1.  ED staff identify and recruit members of a review panel and screen
    applications to ensure compliance with regulations (e.g., inclusion
    of a desegregation plan).

2.  Each selected panelist receives and reads about eight or nine MSAP
    applications and makes preliminary evaluations of their merit. Each
    application is reviewed by three panelists.

3.  Panelists meet in groups to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
    applications and assign scores of up to 100 points for each one: for
    Plan of Operation (25 points), Quality of Personnel (10 points),
    Quality of Project Design (35 points), Budget and Resources (5
    points), Evaluation Plan (15 points), and Commitment and Capacity
    (10 points), with up to 45 additional points for applications
    meeting specified priorities (e.g., Need for Assistance, 5 points;
    New or Revised Magnet Schools, 10 points).

> We examined a limited sample of reviewer comments, and it suggests
> that identified strengths and weaknesses tend to focus on definition
> of roles, extensiveness of staff development plans, realistic
> benchmarks for measuring the effectiveness of a plan, and realistic
> and attainable objectives. Comments did not reflect substantive
> concerns regarding a plan's interpretation of the MSAP statute and
> regulations. At least for this sample, reviewers seemed to be most
> interested in whether applicants provide a thoroughly developed,
> defensible plan for their MSAP project, with sufficiently high levels
> of detail.
>
> Applications with at least 115 points are considered for funding, and
> awards are determined from a ranking list created for each review
> panel.

Before award announcements are made, ED program staff check the panel
comments for accuracy, and the Office for Civil Rights conducts a review
to certify that civil rights assurances are met and that the
desegregation plan meets MSAP regulations and eligibility standards.
Grants are then awarded.

**Determination of Grant Amounts**

Exact grant awards are determined by two-person teams of ED staff
members and depend on the amounts that the applicants request, the size
and scope of their project, and the extent to which the activities
planned can justify the budget items. Other factors include the
allowability of specific costs, OMB guidelines, and statutes limiting
individual magnet grants to no more than \$4 million per year.

##### Technical Assistance Provided by ED to MSAP Projects[^13]

ED provides technical assistance to MSAP applicants and grantees by
offering technical assistance conferences and workshops, responding to
individual calls, and maintaining a supply of successful high scoring
proposals for interested applicants to review. In 1997, ED provided
workshops on magnet projects at the three regional Improving America's
Schools conferences. Because districts were then developing their 1998
MSAP applications and changes had been made in the ways that districts
with voluntary plans can select students, those sessions mainly focused
on application requirements and the narrow tailoring of race criteria.
In February and March of 1998, three additional technical assistance
workshops were held in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas for the MSAP,
and they involved staff from OESE, OCR, and OGC. In January 1999, ED
provided a two-day workshop for MSAP Project Directors that focused on
project evaluation, performance indicators, and project implementation.
Sessions included a review of ED services and information on issues
affecting MSAP projects, such as program implementation requirements and
the continuation review process; plans for the MSAP evaluation;
performance report data and formats; assessment of MSAP project
evaluation plans; legal updates on recent court decisions; student
selection procedures; strategies for student recruitment and selection;
and project management issues.

## Primary Source of Technical Assistance 

The primary sources of technical assistance are ED staff from the Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and other ED agencies
(e.g., the Office for Civil Rights \[OCR\], which helps districts
understand requirements related to desegregation plans and legal
requirements connected with selection procedures for MSAP schools).
Assistance is also available from 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers
(EACs, ED-funded agencies that provide assistance to public school
districts in promoting equal educational opportunities) and Magnet
Schools of America (a non-government organization that provides
conferences and workshops to assist and promote magnet school
personnel).

**Technical Assistance from the Perspective of Grantees**

To gain insights into technical assistance from the standpoint of MSAP
grantees, we asked Project Directors about the frequency and usefulness
of assistance from the MSAP office in OESE, OCR, EACs, other ED
agencies, and Magnet Schools of America. The responses indicate that the
most frequently sought sources of assistance are:

-   OESE---35 percent of the Project Directors often request assistance;
    another 58 percent sometimes request assistance

-   OCR---17 percent often request assistance; 29 percent sometimes
    request it

-   Equity Assistance Centers---19 percent sometimes request assistance

Other sources are less frequently used.[^14]

**Purpose and Usefulness of Technical Assistance**

We asked MSAP Project Directors to indicate the purpose of the technical
assistance they request---the tasks on which they need help. For OESE,
the great majority of the requests center on preparing an MSAP
application, completing MSAP reports, and dealing with implementation
problems. For OCR, the requests focus on developing a desegregation plan
and designing a student selection process.

Project Directors report that the technical assistance provided is
generally useful. Of those who request assistance from OESE, 92 percent
find it very useful. Assistance from the OCR and Equity Assistance
Centers is less frequently requested but about 80 percent of the Project
Directors requesting it find it very useful.

As a final aspect of technical assistance, Project Directors were asked
if they had requested any technical assistance that was not provided.
Ninety-three percent (93 percent) of the respondents responded "No."

##### What We Learned

-   About one third of the MSAP projects devoted the first grant year to
    planning for one or more of their schools.

-   Although 1998 grant amounts were less than projects requested in
    their applications, Project Directors report that in general, they
    were able to implement their programs as proposed.

-   Projects are relying on several strategies for continuing their
    magnet programs after the MSAP grant period. More than half (53
    percent) are looking to their districts for continued support.

-   Projects spend about 45 percent of their budgets on staff salaries
    and fringe benefits, about 20 percent on equipment, and about 20
    percent on supplies. The remainder is spent on a combination of
    travel, contractual, construction, and stipends.

-   When budgets are analyzed by school, grants average about \$307,000
    per school per year. Responses from principals echoed the importance
    of those funds in providing their schools with specialized staff,
    professional development for teachers, opportunities for the
    acquisition and use of computers, and the purchase of books,
    supplies, and equipment.

-   ED staff in the Office and Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
    provide the most technical assistance to grantees, mainly in
    developing MSAP applications, preparing MSAP reports, and solving
    implementation problems. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) helps
    grantees develop desegregation plans and student selection
    processes. Project Directors who request this assistance indicate
    that it is either very useful or useful.

**What We Hope to Learn**

-   Our spring 2000 Case Study visits provided us with insights into
    projects' planning and implementation activities. These insights,
    along with those gained during our second round of visits, in spring
    2001, will be reflected in future reports.

-   A critical part of planning an MSAP project is developing the MSAP
    application and determining how it will be evaluated and reported.
    Our Project Director interviews and reviews of MSAP applications and
    performance reports suggest that the role of performance indicators
    in the MSAP is not clear. Required by the Government Performance and
    Results Act of 1993, performance indicators for MSAP were in place
    when 1998 applications were submitted. Project Directors have asked
    us how much attention they should pay to the performance indicators
    in their performance reports and in the next round of MSAP
    applications. Some have expressed regret at having devoted
    considerable attention to them in their 1998 applications when they
    saw that other proposals, also funded, did not. We have referred
    them to ED for guidance.

-   Magnet school practitioners on our Technical Work Group suggest that
    the data on outside funds accessed by MSAP projects may be
    under-reported; for example, no projects reported on transportation
    costs that are covered by state funds. (MSAP funds cannot be used
    for transportation costs.) We will investigate this further in our
    Case Study projects.

.

[^1]: See Table A-VII-1 in Appendix VII.

[^2]: See Table A-VII-2 in Appendix VII.

[^3]: See Table A-VII-4 in Appendix VII.

[^4]: Thirty-three projects (58 percent) cited only one strategy; the
    remaining 24 projects cited from 2--4 strategies, for an average
    overall of 1.6 strategies. Four projects (7 percent) either did not
    respond or provided ambiguous responses.

[^5]: Allowable costs are described in 20 U.S.C. 7201--7213, Section
    280.40. Costs not allowable (described in Section 280.41) are
    planning costs that exceed more than 50 percent in the first year of
    an MSAP grant, 15 percent in the second year, 10 percent in the
    third year, and any amount after the third year; transportation
    funds; and any activity that does not augment academic improvement.

[^6]: See Table A-VII-5 in Appendix VII.

[^7]: See Table A-VII-6 in Appendix VII.

[^8]: See Table A-VII-7 in Appendix VII.

[^9]: See Table A-VII-8 in Appendix VII.

[^10]: See Table A-VII-9 in Appendix VII.

[^11]: The information in this section was obtained from interviews with
    ED staff who organize and oversee the reviews of applications and
    award determinations.

[^12]: See the section on How MSAP Grants Are Awarded at the end of
    Appendix VII.

[^13]: This section is also based on interviews conducted with ED staff.

[^14]: See Tables A-VII-10 and 11 for complete data.