[Federal Register: July 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 41323-41327]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jy03-41]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1810-ZA08
Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department proposes requirements for the Migrant Education
Program (MEP) Consortium Incentive Grant program. Under the authority
of section 1308(d) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
the Department would award incentive grants to State educational
agencies (SEAs) in high-quality consortium arrangements. The Department
may use
[[Page 41324]]
these requirements for competitions in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and later
years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 11, 2003.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed requirements should
be addressed to: Elsa Chagolla, Office of Migrant Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, Room 3E257,
FOB-6, SW., Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 260-2823. If
you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the
following address: elsa.chagolla@ed.gov. If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
you must send your comments to the Office of Management and Budget at
the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
representative named in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elsa Chagolla, Telephone: (202) 260-
2823, or via Internet: elsa.chagolla@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
requirements. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all
public comments about these proposed requirements in room 3E257, 400
Maryland Avenue, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
The Migrant Education Program (MEP), authorized in Title I, Part C
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is a State-operated
and State-administered formula grant program. The MEP provides
assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs) to support high-quality
and comprehensive educational programs that provide migratory children
appropriate educational and supportive services that address their
special needs in a coordinated and efficient manner, and give migratory
children the opportunity to meet the same challenging State academic
content and student academic achievement standards that all children
are expected to meet.
Section 1308(d) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to ``reserve
not more than $3 million to award grants of not more than $250,000
[each] on a competitive basis to SEAs that propose a consortium
arrangement with another State or other appropriate entity that the
Secretary determines, pursuant to criteria that the Secretary shall
establish, will improve the delivery of services to migratory children
whose education is interrupted.''
Through this notice, the Department proposes the new requirements,
criteria, and procedures to award consortium incentive grants in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2003 and subsequent years. In brief, the Department proposes
to change: (1) The way proposed consortia are evaluated by using
application selection criteria; and (2) the funding formula under which
the incentive grants are awarded to SEAs that participate in consortia
whose applications are ranked as being of sufficiently high quality.
The Department proposes these changes for two reasons. First, it will
promote implementation of consortia that will achieve meaningful
results. Second, since section 1308(d) now permits the Department to
award consortium incentive grants without SEAs having to demonstrate
resulting MEP administrative or program function cost savings, the
Department will be able to implement a grant selection process that
focuses much more on the quality of proposed consortium arrangements.
Proposed Definition for Eligibility for Consortium Incentive Grants
Section 1308(d) permits an SEA to enter into a consortium
arrangement with another State or other appropriate entity. The
Department proposes that the term ``other appropriate entity'' would
mean any public or private agency or organization. However, under
section 1308(d), only SEAs are eligible applicants to receive
consortium incentive grants.
Proposed Application Requirements
An application for an incentive grant would be submitted by an SEA
that will act as the ``lead SEA'' for the proposed consortium. This
application would include--
1. The identity of the lead SEA for the consortium arrangement and
of each other SEA or entity participating in the consortium
arrangement;
2. The goals and measurable outcomes of the consortium arrangement,
and the activities that each participating SEA or entity in the
consortium will conduct during each project year to improve the
delivery of services to migratory children whose education is
interrupted;
3. A concise and cogent explanation of the need for and value of
the proposed consortium arrangement to each participating SEA;
4. A description of the process each participating SEA will use for
evaluating its progress in achieving the measurable outcomes of the
consortium arrangement; and
5. A signed statement from the Chief State School Officer (or his/
her authorized representative) of each SEA that is participating in the
proposed consortium arrangement of his/her SEA's commitment to
implement its activities as described in the application.
Proposed Absolute Priorities
Section 75.105(c)(3) of the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) authorizes the Department to
establish absolute preferences under which all of a program's funding
is reserved for applicants that meet this priority. For competitions in
FY 2003 and later years, the Department proposes the following seven
absolute priorities that promote key national objectives of the MEP. In
order for SEAs to be considered for incentive grants, a proposed
consortium arrangement would need to address one or more of the
following absolute priorities:
1. Services designed to improve the proper and timely
identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children whose
education is interrupted;
2. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to improve the school readiness of pre-school age migratory
children whose education is interrupted;
[[Page 41325]]
3. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to improve the reading proficiency of migratory children
whose education is interrupted;
4. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to improve the mathematics proficiency of migratory children
whose education is interrupted;
5. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to decrease the dropout rate of migratory students (i.e.
grades 7 to 12) whose education is interrupted and improve high school
completion rates;
6. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to strengthen the involvement of migratory parents in the
education of migratory students whose education is interrupted; and
7. Services designed (based on review of scientifically based
research) to expand access to innovative educational technologies
intended to increase the academic achievement of migratory students
whose education is interrupted.
Specifically, an SEA wishing to receive an incentive grant would
need to be a partner within a consortium that focuses on one or more of
these seven key priorities. The Department believes that these seven
priorities reflect the most pressing needs of migratory students that
warrant particular attention through work in consortium arrangements.
The area of identification and recruitment is a critical first
component of any migrant education program, and one in which consortium
activities have proven useful and effective. The areas of early
childhood education, reading and mathematics achievement, parental
involvement, and reduction in the migrant dropout rate are critical to
ensuring that migratory students stay in school and achieve to high
academic content and academic performance standards. However, to date,
these areas have not been a primary focus of consortia efforts. As
school interruption and low levels of student achievement continue to
be dominant characteristics of the migrant student population, finding
innovative uses of electronic technologies to assist students away from
home to continue to master State content and academic achievement
standards also remains a priority.
In proposing these particular priorities to govern receipt of
consortium incentive grants, the Department understands that migratory
students have other significant needs that also warrant the focused
attention of interstate and interagency consortia. These efforts, in
areas such as improving the responsiveness of teachers to migrant
student needs, transfer of key education and health records, and
increasing the numbers of migratory students who take and pass State
assessments, are clearly important and should continue. However, the
Department believes that migratory students will be better served at
this time by targeting special financial incentives to SEAs that
participate in high-quality consortia that focus on one or more of the
proposed seven absolute priorities.
Proposed Amount and Duration of Incentive Grants
The Department proposes that an SEA that participates in a high-
quality consortium arrangement, as determined by use of the program's
selection criteria, would receive only one incentive grant award
regardless of the number of high-quality consortia in which it
participates.
Rather than determine the amount of grant awards on the basis of a
cost analysis as described in section 75.232 of the EDGAR, the
Department would make awards to SEAs participating in these consortia
on the basis of the following two-tiered formula: For each project
period, SEAs whose MEP allocations are $1 million or less would receive
a grant award that is twice the amount of the award provided to SEAs
whose MEP allocations are greater than $1 million. Within each tier,
awards would be of equal size. However, no SEA would receive an
incentive grant award that exceeds the amount of its Title I, Part C
MEP formula grant or $250,000, whichever is less.
It should be noted that, because these requirements would prohibit
an SEA from receiving a consortium incentive grant award that exceeds
its MEP formula allocation, some SEAs with MEP allocations of $1
million or less may not receive a consortium incentive grant award that
is twice the amount of the award provided to SEAs whose MEP allocations
are greater than $1 million.
In proposing to award only one incentive grant per SEA and to
utilize a two-tiered formula, subject to the limitations discussed
above, for making incentive grants, the Department is recognizing that
these awards are by law, only ``incentives'' for SEAs to enter into
high-quality consortium arrangements, and as such are not necessarily
intended to pay the costs of consortium activities.
While the award of these grants offers all SEAs an incentive to
participate in consortium arrangements, the use of this two-tiered
formula would recognize the particular resource needs of SEAs whose
MEPs are $1 million or less. Section 1303(d)(1) directs the Department
to specifically consult with SEAs that receive MEP allocations of $1
million or less in order to determine whether their participation in
consortium arrangements would result in the delivery of MEP services in
a more effective and efficient manner.
On February 25, 2003, officials of the Department's Office of
Migrant Education (OME) met with the MEP Directors from those SEAs that
receive an MEP allocation of $1 million or less in order to discuss
their States' special needs. One of the foremost concerns these State
MEP Directors raised was the need to receive a consortium incentive
grant fund amount large enough to encourage and enable their State
MEPs' full participation in consortium arrangements. Responding to a
possible option of having all SEAs that participated in high-quality
consortia receive the same size consortium incentive grant,
participants recommended that the Department consider awarding a higher
consortium incentive grant amount to those States that receive MEP
grants of $1 million or less.
The idea of awarding a higher level of consortium incentive grant
funds to SEAs that receive MEP allocations of $1 million or less was
later proposed to all the State MEP Directors in attendance at the
February 26-27, 2003 Annual Meeting of State MEP Directors, and no
objections were raised.
In short, the proposed two-tiered approach for awarding consortium
incentive grants eliminates the costs and burdens associated with the
individual SEAs and consortia preparing and reviewing their estimated
cost savings, as was required under this program in prior years.
Based on these consultations with the State MEP Directors, the
Department believes that the proposed two-tiered funding formula offers
two advantages over other proposals. First, with little burden on SEAs,
it provides a reasonable and efficient basis for awarding consortium
incentive grant funds. In addition, it will assist those SEAs that
receive MEP allocations of $1 million or less obtain the funds they
need to participate effectively in consortium arrangements, while also
administering and operating their State MEPs.
For FY 2003, the Department proposes to reserve $2.5 million for
consortium incentive awards. The amount of awards in future years would
vary and would be announced prior to any future competition. With a
$2.5
[[Page 41326]]
million reservation of funds, the annual award to SEAs participating in
consortium arrangements would vary from $35,738 (if all 52 SEAs
received grants under this competition) to $250,000 (the statutory
maximum). Based on the number of States that received consortium
incentive grants (39) in FY 2002, the size of an annual award would be
$45,997 for SEAs whose MEP allocations are greater than $1 million and
$91,995 for SEAs whose MEP allocations are $1 million or less. The
actual size of an SEA's award will depend on the number of SEAs that
will participate in high-quality consortium arrangements as determined
on the basis of this program's selection criteria, and the size of an
SEA's MEP formula grant allocation.
Consortium incentive grants would be awarded for up to two years.
(For example, the Department would not conduct a new incentive grant
competition with FY 2004 funds; rather it would use FY 2004 funds for
second-year continuation awards to those SEAs receiving FY 2003
incentive awards.) Pursuant to section 75.118 and 75.590 of EDGAR, each
SEA that receives a consortium incentive grant award would submit a
performance report (through the consortium's lead State) toward the end
of the first project year, and a final evaluation report at the end of
the second year. Eligibility of each SEA for second-year continuation
funding would depend on that State's substantial performance of first-
year consortium activities and attaining the outcomes identified in the
approved consortium application.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Department proposes to use the selection criteria from the
general criteria for competitive grants contained in section 75.210 of
EDGAR to evaluate applications for the incentive grants competition.
The proposed selection criteria can be found in the application
package, which is available on the following Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/OME/index.html.
Applications would be reviewed
and ranked on the basis of how well the information provided responds
to these final selection criteria. Regardless of the number of
consortium incentive grant applications ranked as being of sufficiently
high quality in which an SEA participates, each SEA would receive only
one incentive grant award.
Proposed Use of Consortium Incentive Grant Funds
An SEA that receives an incentive grant award would use this
financial incentive to supplement its MEP formula grant funds provided
under ESEA section 1303(a). Therefore, the SEA could use incentive
grant funds to implement the consortium arrangement's activities or to
carry out any other activities authorized under section 1306(b) of the
ESEA. Moreover, general requirements governing the use and reporting of
awarded funds would be governed by provisions of part 76 of EDGAR,
which govern State-administered formula grant programs rather than
provisions of part 75 of EDGAR, which govern discretionary grant
programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Department certifies that these proposed requirements would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Entities that would be affected by these regulations are SEA.
The information burden on each of these groups consists only of the
time and resources needed to submit grant applications. Hence, the
regulations would not have a significant impact on any entity because
they would not impose excessive regulatory burden or require
unnecessary Federal supervision.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed criteria in this notice identified in the section
entitled ``Application Requirements,'' contain information collection
requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of this
notice and the information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Migrant Education Program Consortium
Incentive Grant program.
Applicants for MEP Consortium Incentive Grant funds would need to
submit a program application that responds to the selection criteria
announced in this notice. Applicants also would need to provide certain
minimum information identified in the ``Application Requirements''
section of this notice.
We collect information once from applicants for this program. We
estimate annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information to average 50.67 hours for each application for 15 SEA
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, we
estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection on all those preparing application under the State Program
to be a total of 380 hours.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You
may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative
named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
[sbull] Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
[sbull] Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
[sbull] Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
[sbull] Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed regulations.
Requests for copies of the proposed application packages for the
Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant program may be
accessed at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian
Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5624,
Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may
also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_IMG_
Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive
[[Page 41327]]
order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document is intended to provide early notification of our
specific plans and actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You 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 the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. 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.
You may also view this document in text at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/OME/index.html.
Note: The official version of this 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
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.144: (Migrant
Education Coordination Program)
Dated: July 7, 2003.
Eugene W. Hickok,
Under Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 03-17532 Filed 7-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P