14868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.165A]

Magnet Schools Assistance Program;

Notice Inviting Applications for New

Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

Purpose of Program Provides grants to

eligible local educational agencies

and consortia of such agencies to

support magnet schools that are part

of approved desegregation plans.

Eligible Applicants: Local educational

agencies (LEAs) and consortia of such

agencies.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: May 12, 1995.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:

July 11, 1995.

Applications Available: March 20, 1995.

Available Funds: $111,359,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000–

$4,000,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

$1,855,983.

Estimated Number of Awards: 60.

Note: The Department is not bound by any

estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)

in 34 CFR Parts 75 as published in the

Federal Register on June 10, 1994 (59

FR 30258), 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and

86; and (b) the regulations in 34 CFR

Part 280 as amended in this issue of

the Federal Register.

Priorities

Background

The Magnet Schools Assistance

Program (MSAP) makes grants to

eligible LEAs and consortia of LEAs for

programs that are designed to

support——

• The elimination, reduction, or

prevention of minority group isolation

in public elementary and secondary

schools with substantial proportions of

minority group children;

• The development and

implementation of magnet school

projects that will assist in achieving

systemic reform and providing all

children the opportunity to meet

challenging State content standards and

challenging student performance

standards;

• the development and design of

innovative educational methods and

practices; and

• courses of instruction within

magnet schools that will substantially

strengthen the knowledge of academic

subjects and the grasp of tangible and

marketable vocational skills of students

attending those magnet schools.

Competitive Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) and 34

CFR 280.32(b)-(f), the Secretary gives

preference to applications that meet

competitive priorities. Depending upon

how well an application meets each

priority, the Secretary awards additional

points to the application for each

priority up to the maximum number of

points available for that priority. These

points are in addition to any points the

applicant earns under the selection

criteria in 34 CFR 280.31.

The Secretary will award up to a total

of 45 points for the following

competitive priorities:

• Need for assistance. (15 points) The

Secretary evaluates the applicant’s need

for assistance under this part, by

considering—

• (a) The costs of fully implementing

the magnet schools project as proposed;

• (b) The resources available to the

applicant to carry out the project if

funds under the program were not

provided;

• (c) The extent to which the costs of

the project exceed the applicant’s

resources; and

• (d) The difficulty of effectively

carrying out the approved plan and the

project for which assistance is sought,

including consideration of how the

design of the magnet school project—

e.g., the type of program proposed, the

location of the magnet school within the

LEA—impacts on the applicant’s ability

to successfully carry out the approved

plan.

• New or revised magnet schools

projects. (10 points) The Secretary

determines the extent to which the

applicant proposes to carry out new

magnet schools projects or significantly

revise existing magnet schools projects.

• Selection of students. (10 points)

The Secretary determines the extent to

which the applicant proposes to select

students to attend magnet schools by

methods such as lottery, rather than

through academic examination.

• Innovative approaches and

systemic reform. (5 points) The

Secretary determines the extent to

which the project for which assistance

is sought proposes to implement

innovative educational approaches that

are consistent with the State’s and

LEA’s systemic reform plans, if any,

under Title III of Goals 2000: Educate

America Act.

• Collaborative efforts. (5 points) The

Secretary determines the extent to

which the project for which assistance

is sought proposes to draw on

comprehensive community involvement

plans.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicants must submit with their

applications one of the following types

of desegregation plans: (1) A plan

required by a court order; (2) a plan

required by a State agency or official of

competent jurisdiction; (3) a plan

required by the Office for Civil Rights

(OCR), United States Department of

Education (ED), under Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI plan);

or (4) a voluntary plan adopted by the

applicant.

Under the regulations, applicants are

required to provide all of the

information required under the

regulations at § 280.20 (a)–(g) in order to

satisfy the civil rights eligibility

requirements found in § 280.2 (a)(2) and

(b) of the regulations. In the past, if

necessary, ED requested enrollment data

or other information from applicants

after their applications were submitted

utilizing the procedures set forth in

§ 280.20(h). However, that follow-up

process delayed awards under the

program. In order to respond to requests

from applicants and grantees that the

Department announce MSAP awards

earlier in the year, ED has modified the

application review process for this

competition.

Specifically, when conducting

eligibility reviews of desegregation

plans, under § 280.2 the Department

will not follow up with applicants to

obtain additional information or

clarification. Accordingly, in order to

satisfy the civil rights eligibility

requirements found in § 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 § 280.20 (a)–(g). This

notice describes that information.

In addition to the particular data and

other items for required and voluntary

plans, described separately in the

information that follows, an application

must include:

• Signed civil rights assurances

(included in the application package);

• A copy of the applicant’s

desegregation plan; and

• An assurance that the plan is being

implemented or will be implemented if

the application is funded.

Required Plans

1. Plans Required by a Court Order

An applicant that submits a plan

required by a court, State agency or

official of competent jurisdiction, must

submit complete and signed copies of

all court or State documents

demonstrating that the magnet schools

are a part of the approved plan.

Examples of the types of documents that

would meet this requirement include—

• A Federal or State court order that

establishes or amends a previous order
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14869

or orders by establishing additional or

different specific magnet schools;

• A Federal or State court order that

requires or approves the establishment

of one or more unspecified magnet

schools or that authorizes the inclusion

of magnet schools at the discretion of

the applicant.

2. Plans Required by a State Agency or

Official of Competent Jurisdiction

An applicant submitting a plan

ordered by a State agency or official of

competent jurisdiction must provide

documentation that shows that the plan

was ordered based upon a

determination that State law was

violated. In the absence of this

documentation, the applicant should

consider its plan to be a voluntary plan

and submit the data and information

necessary for voluntary plans.

3. Title VI Required Plans

An applicant that submits a plan

required by OCR under Title VI must

submit a complete copy of the plan

demonstrating that magnet schools are

part of the approved plan.

4. Modifications to Required Plans

A previously approved desegregation

plan that does not include the magnet

school or program for which the

applicant is now seeking assistance

must be modified to include the magnet

school component. The modification to

the plan must be approved by the court,

agency or official, that originally

approved the plan. An applicant that

wishes to modify a previously approved

OCR Title VI plan to include different

or additional magnet schools must

submit the proposed modification for

review and approval to the OCR

Regional Office that approved its

original plan.

An applicant should indicate in its

application if it is seeking to modify its

previously approved plan. However, all

applicants must submit proof to ED of

approval of all modifications to their

plans by April 17, 1995.

Voluntary Plans

A voluntary desegregation plan must

be approved each time an application is

submitted for funding. Even if ED has

approved a voluntary desegregation

plan in an LEA in the past, the plan

must be resubmitted to ED for approval

as part of the application.

An applicant submitting a voluntary

desegregation plan must include in its

application:

• A copy of a school board resolution

or other evidence of final official action

adopting and implementing the

desegregation plan, or agreeing to adopt

and implement the desegregation plan

upon the award of assistance.

• Enrollment and other information

as required by the regulations at

§ 280.20(f) and (g) for applicants with

voluntary desegregation plans.

Enrollment data and information are

critical to ED’s determination of an

applicant’s eligibility under a voluntary

desegregation plan.

A voluntary desegregation plan is a

plan to reduce, eliminate, or prevent

minority group isolation (MGI), either at

a magnet school or at a feeder school—

a school from which students are drawn

to attend the magnet school. Under

§ 280.2, the establishment of the magnet

school cannot result in an increase in

MGI at a magnet school or any feeder

school above the districtwide

percentage of minority group students at

the grade levels served by the magnet

school.

The following example and those in

subsequent sections of this notice are

designed to assist applicants in the

preparation of their application. The

examples illustrate the types of data and

information that have proven successful

in the past for satisfying the voluntary

desegregation plan regulation

requirements.

District A has a districtwide

percentage of 65.5 percent for its

minority student population in

elementary schools. District A has six

elementary schools with the following

minority student populations:

1. School A—67 percent.

2. School B—58 percent.

3. School C—64 percent.

4. School D—76 percent.

5. School E—47 percent.

6. School F—81 percent.

District A has five minority group

isolated schools, i.e., five schools with

minority student enrollment of over 50

percent. District A seeks funding to

establish a magnet program at School F

to reduce MGI at that school. For

District A to be eligible for a grant, the

establishment of the magnet program at

School F should not increase the

minority student enrollment at feeder

school C to more than 65.5 percent (the

districtwide percentage). Also, the

establishment of the magnet program

should not increase the minority

student enrollment at feeder schools A

or D at all because those schools are

already above the districtwide

percentage for minority students. If

projected enrollments at a magnet or

feeder school indicate that there will be

an increase in MGI, District A should

provide an explanation in its

application for the increase that shows

it is not caused by the establishment of

the magnet program. See the discussion

below.

An applicant that proposes to

establish new magnet schools must

submit projected data for each magnet

and feeder school that show that the

magnet schools and all feeders will

maintain eligibility for the entire threeyear 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 § 280.20(g). See the

following examples.

Options for Demonstrating Reduction

1. Magnet School Analysis

District Z has two existing magnet high

schools that began their magnet programs in

different years. All of the other schools in the

district are feeder schools to one or both of

the magnet schools. District Z has six feeder

schools and a districtwide minority

enrollment of 59.95 percent. Since becoming

a magnet school, Enterprise Magnet has

increased its MGI from 74.40 percent to 76.55

percent. Because of this increase, this school

would be found ineligible unless the increase

in MGI was not caused by the magnet school.

This may be shown through data indicating

an increase either in minority enrollment

districtwide or in the area served by the

magnet school.

If District Z’s districtwide minority

enrollment has become more minority

isolated due to districtwide demographic

changes in the student population and if a

magnet or a feeder school’s increase in MGI

is less than the districtwide increase in MGI,

ED will conclude that the school’s increase

in MGI was not the result of the magnet

programs, but due to the overall effect of

demographic changes in the district as a

whole.
14870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

District Z magnet school & base

year

Base year Current year

Increase

in MGI Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Jefferson (1993) ............................. 459 349 76.03 110 23.97 514 356 69.26 158 30.74 .............

Enterprise (1991) ............................ 375 279 74.40 96 25.60 388 297 76.55 91 23.45 2.15%

Note: ‘‘Base Year’’ is the year prior to the year each school became a magnet.

Feeder school (ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments)

Base year Current year

Increase

in MGI Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Rose ............................................... 398 301 75.63 97 24.37 401 278 69.33 123 30.67 .............

Rocky Mount ................................... 289 199 68.86 90 31.14 291 211 72.51 80 27.49 3.65%

Wheeler .......................................... 239 144 60.25 95 39.75 250 153 61.20 97 38.80 0.95%

King ................................................. 289 144 49.83 145 50.17 277 149 53.79 128 46.21 .............

Tinker .............................................. 451 211 46.78 240 53.22 423 221 52.25 202 47.75 .............

Holly ................................................ 481 122 25.36 359 74.64 450 130 28.89 320 71.11 .............

Districtwide ..................................... 2,981 1,749 58.67 1,232 41.33 2,994 1,795 59.95 1,199 40.05 1.28%

Projected magnet school & base

year

1995–1996 Projected 1996–1997 Projected 1997–1998

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Non-minority

NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Number

PercentNumberPercent

Jefferson (1993) ........................ 500 335 67 165 33 510 337 66 173 34 515 340 66 175 34

Enterprise (1991) ....................... 390 289 74 101 26 400 288 72 112 28 410 295 72 115 28

Feeder School

1995–1996 Projected 1996–1997 Projected 1997–1998 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent

Rose ............................. 400 272 68 128 32 400 272 68 128 32 400 264 66 136 34

Rocky Mount ................ 300 210 70 90 30 300 210 70 90 30 300 204 68 96 32

Wheeler ........................ 250 148 59 102 41 250 148 59 102 41 250 148 59 103 41

King .............................. 280 151 54 129 46 280 151 54 129 46 280 151 54 129 46

Tinker ........................... 430 232 54 198 46 430 232 54 198 46 430 232 54 198 46

Holly ............................. 460 161 35 299 65 460 184 40 276 60 460 207 45 253 55

Districtwide ................... 3,010 1,798 60 1,212 40 3,030 1,822 60 1,208 40 3,045 1,841 60 1,204 40

However, as with the magnet

Enterprise, if the MGI in a magnet

increases above the districtwide

increase, an applicant must demonstrate

that the magnet is not causing the

problem. In order to show that the

increase in MGI at a particular school is

not the result of the operation of a

magnet, a district should provide

student transfer data on the number of

minority and nonminority students that

attend the magnet program from the

other feeder schools in the district for

the current year. If, by subtracting from

the magnet enrollment those students

that came from other schools, the MGI

is higher than the districtwide average,

it can be concluded that the increase in

MGI was not caused by the magnet

school.

Current year student transfer data for magnet schools that increase in minority group isolation over the districtwide minority enrollment.

Current year

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent

Enterprise ............................................................................................................................... 388 297 76.55 91 23.45

Students transferred to Jefferson to attend magnet program ................................................ 25 4 ............. 21 .............

Magnet school minority enrollment with transfer students ‘‘returned’’ to feeders. ................ 363 293 80.72 70 19.28
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14871

Current year student transfer data for feeder schools that increase in minority group isolation over the districtwide minority enrollment.

Current year

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent

Rocky Mount ........................................................................................................................... 291 211 72.51 80 27.49

Students attending Jefferson .......................................................................................... 21 16 ............. 5 .............

Students attending Enterprise ......................................................................................... 19 15 ............. 4 .............

Feeder school minority enrollment with transfer students ‘‘returned’’from magnet ............... 331 242 73.11 89 26.89

2. Feeder School Analysis

In District Z, two feeder schools,

Rocky Mount and Wheeler, increased in

MGI by 3.65 percent and 0.95 percent

respectively. Since Wheeler’s MGI

increase of 0.95 percent is less than the

districtwide MGI increase of 1.28

percent, Wheeler’s MGI increase was

due to the demographic changes in the

district and further scrutiny of Wheeler

is not required.

Because Rocky Mount, a feeder school

to magnet programs at Jefferson and

Enterprise, increased in MGI over the

districtwide average from 68.86 percent

to 72.51 percent, this would make both

Jefferson and Enterprise ineligible

unless the district demonstrates that the

increase was not because of the magnet

programs. The clearest way for an

applicant to show this is to provide

student transfer data on the number of

minority and nonminority students that

left Rocky Mount to attend magnet

programs at Jefferson and Enterprise. By

adding the number of students that

transferred to the magnet programs to

Rocky Mount’s total enrollment, ED can

determine whether the increase was due

to the magnet program. If it can be

demonstrated that without the magnet

program, the MGI at the feeder school

would be even higher, these magnet

schools would be found eligible.

Some applicants may find it

impossible to provide the type of

student transfer data referred to above.

In some cases, these applicants may be

able to present demographic or other

statistical data and information that

would satisfy the requirements of the

statute and regulations. This

demographic data must persuasively

demonstrate that the operation of a

proposed magnet school would reduce,

eliminate, or prevent minority group

isolation in the applicant’s magnet

schools and would not result in an

increase of MGI at one of the applicant’s

feeder schools above the districtwide

percentage for minority students at the

same grade levels as those served in the

magnet school. (34 CFR § 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 currentyear enrollment data with its base

year—i.e., the year prior to the year each

school became a magnet or a feeder—

enrollment data is misleading due to

significant changes that have occurred

in attendance zones or other factors

affecting the magnet school or in the

closing and combining of other schools

with the magnet school, additional and

more recent enrollment data for an

alternative to the base year may be

submitted along with a justification for

its submission.

Objective: Conversion of an Existing School

to a New Magnet Program

District X will convert Williams, an

existing elementary school, to a new

elementary magnet program. Currently,

Williams has a minority enrollment of 94.67

percent. The district projects that the magnet

program will reduce minority group isolation

at Williams to 89 percent in the first year of

the project. The projection of enrollment

should be based upon reasonable

assumptions and should clearly state the

basis for these assumptions, e.g., parent or

student interest surveys, or other objective

indicators, such as waiting lists for other

magnet schools in the district.

District X Magnet School

Current year 1995–1996 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority—

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Williams ......................................... 450 426 94.67 24 5.33 450 400 89 50 11

Feeder School (Ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments)

Current year 1995–1996 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority— Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Shaw .............................................. 398 179 44.97 219 55.03 400 190 48 210 53

Lincoln ........................................... 477 186 38.99 291 61.01 480 210 44 270 56

Districtwide .................................... 1,325 791 59.70 534 40.30 1,330 800 60 530 40

Magnet School

1996–1997 Projected 1997–1998 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority— Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Williams ......................................... 450 392 87 59 13 450 383 85 67 15
14872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

Feeder School (Ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments)

1996–1997 Projected 1997–1998 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority— Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Shaw .............................................. 410 200 49 210 51 420 215 51 205 49

Lincoln ........................................... 490 220 45 270 55 500 235 47 265 53

Districtwide .................................... 1,350 812 60 538 40 1,370 833 61 537 39

Objective: Construction of New Magnet

School/Reopening a Closed School

District Y will construct a new school,

Barton, and open its magnet program in 1996.

There is no preexisting school, and

consequently, it appears that no enrollment

data are readily available to use as a

comparison. However, the district estimates

that if the proposed magnet school had

opened as a ‘‘neighborhood school,’’ without

a magnet program designed to attract

students from outside the ‘‘neighborhood’’ or

attendance zone, it would have a minority

enrollment of 67 percent. This estimate was

based on national census data, supplemented

by more current data on the neighborhood

provided by the local county government.

The district further reasonably anticipates,

based on surveys and other indicators, that

when the new school opens as a magnet

school in 1996, it will have a minority

enrollment of 58 percent.

District Y Magnet School

Current year 1995–96 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority

enrollment

Nonminority

Total

percent

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Enrollment Number Percent Number Percent

Barton ............................................. 600 400 66.67 200 33.33 — — — — —

Note: Since this magnet will not open until 1996, the current year is the base year. Provide hypothetical base year data for what the school

would look like if it had opened as a neighborhood school. For example, census data could be used to estimate the hypothetical enrollment.

Feeder School (ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments)

Total

Enrollment

Current year 1995–96 projected

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Clark .............................................. 298 101 33.89 197 66.11 — — — — —

Topper ........................................... 324 111 34.26 213 65.74 — — — — —

Districtwide .................................... 1,222 612 50.08 610 49.92 — — — — —

Magnet School

1996–1997 Projected 1997–1998 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Barton ............................................ 600 336 58 250 42 580 331 57 249 43

Feeder School (ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments)

1996–97 Projected 1997–98 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Clark .............................................. 300 125 42 175 58 310 136 44 174 56

Topper ........................................... 330 135 41 195 59 340 146 43 194 57

Districtwide .................................... 1,230 610 50 620 50 1,230 613 50 617 50

Objective: Reduction, Elimination, or

Prevention of MGI at Targeted Feeder

Schools

Many applicants apply for MSAP funding

to reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority

group isolation at a magnet school. However,

some applicants have established magnet

programs at schools that are not minorityisolated 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.

Magnet School

Base Year Current Year

Total Nonminority

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Total

number Percent

Minority

Percent Number Percent Enrollment Number Percent

Douglas ..................................................... 505 129 25.54 376 74.46 520 221 42.50 299 57.50
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14873

Feeder School (ranked in order of

descending minority enrollments.)

Base year Current year

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

North .............................................. 398 309 77.64 89 22.36 401 275 68.58 126 31.42

Central ........................................... 312 239 76.60 73 23.40 300 229 76.33 71 23.67

South ............................................. 289 205 70.93 84 29.07 302 189 62.58 113 37.42

Districtwide .................................... 1,504 882 58.64 622 41.36 1,523 914 60.01 609 39.99

Magnet School

Total

enrollment

1995–96 Projected 1996–97 Projected 1997–98 Projected

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent

Douglas ..................... 520 234 45 286 55 525 247 47 278 53 530 276 52 254 48

Feeder School

1995–96 Projected 1996–97 Projected 1997–98 Projected

Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority Total

enrollment

Minority Nonminority

NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent

North .......................... 410 275 67 135 33 410 267 65 143 35 410 258 63 152 37

Central ....................... 300 225 75 75 25 300 222 74 78 26 300 204 68 96 32

South ......................... 310 186 60 124 40 310 186 60 124 40 310 186 60 124 40

Districtwide ................ 1,540 920 60 620 40 1,545 922 60 623 40 1,550 924 60 626 40

Objective: Prevention of Minority Group

Isolation

An applicant that applies for MSAP

funding for the purposes of preventing

minority isolation must demonstrate that

without the intervention of the magnet

program, the magnet school or targeted feeder

school will become minority-isolated within

the project period. Generally this may be

documented by showing a trend in the

enrollment data for the proposed school. For

example, if a neighborhood school currently

has a 45 percent minority enrollment and, for

the last three years, minority enrollment has

increased an average of three percent each

year (36 percent, 39 percent, and 42 percent),

it is reasonable to expect that, in three years,

the school would exceed 50 percent thereby

becoming minority-isolated during the

project period without the intervention of a

magnet. The applicant in this example

should submit this enrollment data in its

application.

The preceding examples are not intended

to be an exhaustive set of examples.

Applicants with questions about their

desegregation plans and the information

required in support of those desegregation

plans (including applicants that find that

these examples do not fit their circumstances

and applicants who find that the enrollment

data requested is unavailable or do not reflect

accurately the effectiveness of their proposed

magnet program) are encouraged to contact

ED for technical assistance, prior to

submitting their application by calling the

contact person listed under the ‘‘FOR

APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION’’ heading.

FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION

CONTACT: Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S.

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, SW., Portals

Room 4509, Washington, DC 20202–

6140. Telephone (202) 260–2476.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

Information about the Department’s

funding opportunities, including copies

of application notices for discretionary

grant competitions, can be viewed on

the Department’s electronic bulletin

board (ED Board), telephone (202) 260–

9950; or on the Internet Gopher Server

at GOPHER.ED.GOV (under

Announcements, Bulletins, and Press

Releases). However, the official

application notice for a dsicretionary

grant competition is the notice

published in the Federal Register.

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

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Thomas W. Payzant,

Assistant Secretary, Elementary and

Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 95–6708 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P