U. S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Annual Report to Congress 

Of the Office for Civil Rights

Fiscal Year 2007–08
Annual Report to Congress

Of the Office for Civil Rights

Fiscal Years 2007–08 

January 2009

U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights
ii

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office for Civil Rights

Stephanie Monroe

Assistant Secretary

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is 

granted. The publication's citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report to 

Congress of the Office for Civil Rights: Fiscal Years 2007–08, Washington, D.C., 2008.

To order copies of this publication, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

You may fax your order to: 1-301-470-1244 or send an e-mail request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet 

available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 

1-877-576-7734.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: http://www.edpubs.gov.

This publication is also available on the Department's Office for Civil Rights Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/ocr. Any updates to this publication will be available at this Web site. 

On request, this publication is also available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format 

Center at 1-202-260-0852 or 1-202-260-0818.
iii

OCR’s Mission:

Ensuring equal access to education and 

promoting educational excellence

throughout the nation through

vigorous enforcement of civil rights.
iv
v

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...........................................................................viii

FOREWORD ............................................................................................. ix

OVERVIEW OF OCR’S STRUCTURE AND PROGRAM .......................................1

I. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE................................................... 3

II. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS........................ 4

III. COMPLAINT JURISDICTIONS ...................................................... 7

IV. COMPLIANCE REVIEWS AND OTHER PROACTIVE INITIATIVES ...... 10

V. MONITORING ...........................................................................12

VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ......................................................... 13

ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION: GETTING RESULTS ............... 15

I. TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 ................................. 15

A. Complaint Resolutions ............................................................... 16

B. Proactive Enforcement ............................................................... 20

C. Regulatory and Policy Development................................................ 22

D. Higher Education Desegregation Agreements.................................... 23

II. TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 .................. 25

A. Complaint Resolutions ............................................................. 25

B. Proactive Enforcement ............................................................... 28

C. Regulatory and Policy Development ................................................ 29

III. SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AND TITLE II 

OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 ....................... 32

A. Complaint Resolutions ............................................................... 32
vi

B. Proactive Enforcement............................................................... 38

C. Regulatory and Policy Development ................................................40

IV. THE AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1975 ....................................... 41

A. Complaint Resolutions ............................................................... 41

B. Proactive Enforcement ............................................................... 42

V. THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EQUAL ACCESS ACT ........................42

VI. OTHER PROGRAM MANDATES AND ACTIVITIES ...........................43

A. Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) ....................................43

B. Vocational Education Methods of Administration .............................. 43

C. Minority and Related Institutions...................................................43

D. Good Guidance Practices ............................................................44

VII. TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 44

A. Case and Activity Management System .......................................... 44

B. Civil Rights Data Collection ...................................................... 45

C. Web-based Electronic Complaint Filing ..........................................46

VIII. PROMOTING MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE................................... 46

A. Customer Service .....................................................................47

B. Staff Training and Development ................................................... 49

C. Fiscal Management .................................................................. 49

D. Human Capital Planning ............................................................ 49

MEETING OUR MISSION .................................................................... 51

APPENDIX A: OFFICES AND ADDRESSES ...................................... 54

APPENDIX B: FY 2008 COMPLAINT RECEIPTS, BY 

OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICE ................................... 55
vii

APPENDIX C: FY 2007 COMPLAINT RECEIPTS, BY 

OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICE .................................56

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF OCR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

PUBLICATIONS AT WWW.ED.GOV/OCR ................... 57
viii

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

1. OCR’S Offices .......................................................................................4

2. FY 2008 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction ................................................ 8

3. FY 2007 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction ...................................................8

4. FY 2006 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction ................................................ 9

5. Percentage of Student Population, by Race/Ethnicity ..........................................15

6. Percentage of Students Classified as Having a Specific Learning Disability 

Nationwide and by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................ 22

7. Number of FOIA Requests Received by OCR, FY 2000-08.................................48

TABLES

1. OCR Budget Requests, Appropriations, FTE Usage and Workload, 1997-2008 ......... 3 

2. OCR Compliance Reviews, by Issue: FY 2007 .................................................11

3. OCR Compliance Reviews, by Issue: FY 2008 .................................................12

4. Percentage of Final Case Resolution Documents Accessible to OCR Staff via 

CAMS’ Document Management System ........................................................45
ix

FOREWORD

On behalf of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), I am pleased to present the Annual Report to 

Congress for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. OCR continues to focus on one mission: to ensure 

equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through 

vigorous enforcement of civil rights. The dedicated employees of OCR strive to implement this 

mission for all students and I am proud to inform you of our achievements. 

This report details OCR’s accomplishments in 

enforcing the civil rights laws under which OCR 

has been granted jurisdiction to address and 

remedy discrimination. These enforcement efforts 

include complaint investigation and resolution, 

compliance reviews and technical assistance, as 

well as regulatory and policy development. This 

report also highlights OCR’s efforts to further 

improve enforcement capabilities by promoting 

management excellence. OCR continues to carry 

out its mission by seeking to meet the highest 

performance and quality standards.

On June 23, 2007, OCR celebrated the 35th anniversary of Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), one of the nation’s landmark civil rights laws. Title IX prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive federal 

financial assistance. Congress passed Title IX amid growing concerns of the disparity in 

education opportunities available to male and female students. Title IX greatly increased the 

ability of women and girls to engage fully and actively in opportunities previously denied them. 

The strides we have made since the enactment of Title IX are significant, and OCR remains fully 

committed to ensuring nondiscrimination in all education programs and activities so that all 

students, male or female, have access to education opportunities regardless of their sex. 

The right of every child to have equal education opportunity is at the heart of every law OCR 

enforces. In 2001, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB symbolizes a national commitment to education by requiring schools 

to show achievement through measurable results and to take actions where targeted results have 

not been achieved. As U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings noted, NCLB “is not just 

an education law, it’s a civil rights law, designed to make America’s promise a reality for all 

citizens.” The truth of this statement is profound. All children, regardless of race, color, national

On education, we must trust students to 

learn if given the chance, and empower 

parents to demand results from our 

schools. In neighborhoods across our 

country, there are boys and girls with 

dreams—and a decent education is their 

only hope of achieving them.

President George W. Bush 

2008 State of the Union Address
x

origin, disability, or sex, deserve the 

opportunity to receive a quality 

education. NCLB mandates equal access 

to a quality education, and OCR is 

working to further guarantee that 

opportunity for all students by ensuring 

they are able to learn in an environment 

free of discrimination. 

President Bush has said, “In 

neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams—and a decent education 

is their only hope of achieving them.” Education is the gateway to success. It is our responsibility

to ensure that every child has access to that pathway to success and that no child is ever 

foreclosed from achieving his or her dreams. In order to achieve this, all students must be able to 

fully participate in the education system. OCR is committed to providing this opportunity to 

every child. This report details OCR’s efforts in meeting this mission.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie J. Monroe

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

[A]ll children, regardless of what they look like, 

or where they come from, deserve a quality 

education.

Secretary Margaret Spellings

Remarks at the National Press Club

January 10, 2008
1

OVERVIEW OF OCR’S STRUCTURE AND 

PROGRAM

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is 

responsible for enforcing five federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the 

bases of race, color, national origin, sex, disability and age by recipients of federal 

financial assistance. These laws are:

§ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination based on 

race, color and national origin);

§ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex 

discrimination in education programs or activities);

§ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting disability 

discrimination);

§ The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age discrimination); and 

§ Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (prohibiting disability 

discrimination by public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal 

financial assistance; OCR has enforcement responsibilities with respect to 

elementary and secondary education systems and institutions, institutions of 

higher education and vocational education other than schools of medicine, 

dentistry, nursing, and other health-related schools, and libraries).

In addition, OCR enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. This law, part of 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides equal access to meet in school forums for 

the Boy Scouts of America and other youth groups designated, in Title 36 of the United 

States Code, as “patriotic societies.” The act applies to any public elementary school, 

public secondary school or state or local education agency that has a designated open 

forum or limited public forum and that receives funds from ED.

These civil rights laws represent a national commitment to end discrimination in 

education programs and activities. Since most education institutions receive some type of 

federal financial assistance, these laws apply throughout the nation.

These civil rights laws extend to: 

§ 17,618 public elementary and secondary education agencies;1

§ 4,276 colleges and universities; and 2

§ thousands of institutions conferring certificates below the associate degree 

level, such as training schools for truck drivers and cosmetologists, and other 

entities, such as libraries, museums, and vocational rehabilitation agencies.3

1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Digest of Education 

Statistics 2006, Table 85, ““Number of public elementary and secondary education agencies, by type of 

agency and state or jurisdiction: 2003-2004 and 2004-2005,” Washington, D.C.: Author.

2

Ibid, Table 244, “Degree-granting institutions by control and type of institution: Selected years, 1949-

1950 through 2005-2006.”

3

Ibid, Table 361, “Number of non-degree-granting Title IV institutions offering postsecondary education, 

by control and state or jurisdiction: Selected years 2000–01 through 2005–06.” 
2

Consequently, these civil rights laws protect millions of students attending or seeking to 

attend our education institutions. In certain situations, the laws also protect persons who 

are employed or seeking employment at education institutions. Overall, these laws 

protect:

§ more than 49.8 million students attending public elementary and secondary

schools;4and 

§ more than 18.2 million students attending degree-granting institutions, such as 

colleges and universities.5

Enforcing these laws is critical to carrying out the mission of ED: to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational 

excellence and ensuring equal access.

In FY 2007, OCR’s budget was $91,205,000 with full-time equivalent (FTE) usage of 

614. In FY 2008, OCR’s budget was $89,612,000 and the FTE usage remained 

unchanged from FY 2007 at 614. Despite the cut in its budget, OCR has continued to 

carry out a heavy workload. In FY 2008, OCR received 6,194 complaints and resolved 

5,943 complaints.6 OCR initiated 42 compliance reviews in FY 2008, which was a 

significant increase from FY 2007, and OCR resolved 38 compliance reviews.7See Table 

1 showing appropriations, FTEs and workload from 1997 to 2008. 

4U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Projections of Education 

Statistics to 2015 (NCES-2008-060), Table 1, “Actual and projected numbers for enrollment in grades PK–

12, PK–8 and 9–12 in elementary and secondary schools, by control of school: Fall 1990 through fall 

2015,” Washington, D.C.: Author.

5

Ibid, Table 10, “Actual and alternative projected numbers for total enrollment in all degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control of institution: Fall 1990 through fall 

2015.”

6

Includes cases carried over from previous years.

7

Includes cases carried over from previous years.
3

Table 1. OCR Budget Requests, Appropriations, FTE Usage and Workload, 1997-2008 

Complaints Compliance Reviews

FY Presidential 

Request

Congressional 

Appropriation

FTE

(Usage) Filed Resolved†

Initiated Resolved†

2008 $93,771,000 $89,612,000 614 6,194 5,943 42 38

2007 $92,866,000 $91,205,000 614 5,894 5,737 23 26

2006 $91,526,000 $90,611,000 630 5,805 5,893 9 72

2005 $92,801,000 $89,375,000 640 5,533 5,365 73 66

2004 $91,275,000 $88,305,000 655 5,044 4,968 53 29

2003 $89,710,000 $85,715,000 672 5,141 5,246 74 14

2002 $79,934,000 $79,666,000 698 5,019 4,842 11 18

2001 $76,000,000 $75,822,000 696 4,571 4,777 21 43

2000 $73,262,000 $71,200,000 712 4,897 6,364 47 71

1999 $68,000,000 $66,000,000 727 6,628 5,369 76 93

1998 $61,500,000 $61,500,000 685 4,847 4,753 102 100

1997 $60,000,000 $54,900,000 681 5,296 4,981 152 140

† Includes cases carried over from previous years.

I. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

OCR is composed of a headquarters office, located in Washington, D.C., and 12 

enforcement offices representing 12 regions located in the United States and its 

jurisdictions. The headquarters office provides overall leadership, policy development 

and coordination of enforcement activities. The enforcement offices are responsible for 

investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination, conducting compliance reviews, 

monitoring corrective action agreements, and providing technical assistance. The 

majority of OCR’s staff is assigned to the enforcement offices, which are located in 

Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Dallas, Cleveland, Chicago, 

Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle. See Appendix A for a list of the 

enforcement offices and contact information.
4

Figure 1. OCR’s Offices

II. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

One of the most important ways OCR carries out its responsibilities is by investigating 

and resolving complaints. People who believe there has been a violation of the civil rights 

laws enforced by OCR may file a complaint with the appropriate enforcement office. 

In resolving complaints, OCR’s primary objectives are to investigate promptly the 

allegations of discrimination, to accurately determine whether the civil rights laws have 

been violated, and to remedy the violation. In FY 2007, OCR received 5,894 complaints 

and resolved 5,737, some of which had been filed in previous years. In FY 2008, OCR 

received 6,194 complaints and resolved 5,943. (See Table 1. See also, Appendix B, 

which shows FY 2008 complaint receipts by OCR enforcement office, and Appendix C, 

which shows FY 2007 complaint receipts by OCR enforcement office.)

Timeliness is critical to students and parents in the resolution of civil rights issues. OCR 

has set goals for timeliness, which serves as a useful measure of the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its complaint resolution process. OCR’s goal is to have at least 80 

percent of new complaints resolved within 180 days of being filed. In FY 2007, 93 

percent of new complaints were resolved in 180 days, significantly exceeding the target 

of 80 percent. In FY 2008, 91 percent of new complaints were resolved in 180 days. The 

FY 2008 percentage continues to greatly exceed the target of 80 percent. 

OCR continues to meet or exceed its customers’ expectations of resolving complaints in a 

timely and thorough manner as well as its Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) performance indicator, as demonstrated in the chart on page six.

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

(Headquarters

and regional office)

Seattle

San

Francisco

Denver Kansas

City

Chicago

Atlanta Dallas

Cleveland
5

The performance target was modified in FY 2006 to measure whether at least 80 percent 

of complaints with due dates in the relevant fiscal year were resolved within the 180-day

timeframe. The charts below illustrate performance results for FY 2008, FY 2007 and FY 

2006 using the new standard as well as prior fiscal-year results using the former standard. 

Current performance measure for complaint workload:

Fiscal Year

Number of 

Complaints With 

Resolution Due 

Dates Within the 

Fiscal Year

Number of Complaints 

Resolved Within 180 Days 

of Receipt

Percentage of Complaints 

Resolved Within 180 Days 

of Receipt

2008* 5,964 5,412 91%

2007** 5,882 5,497 93%

2006 5,692 5,201 91%

* Data as of October 15, 2008; Complaints received April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, have due dates in FY 2008.

**Data as of October 17, 2007; Complaints received April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007, have due dates in FY 2007.

Historical performance measure for complaint workload:

Fiscal Year

Number of 

Complaints Resolved

Number of Complaints 

Resolved Within 180 Days of 

Receipt 

Percentage of Complaints 

Resolved Within 180 Days of 

Receipt

2002 4,842 4,301 89%

2003 5,225 4,737 91%

2004 4,968 4,539 92%

2005 5,365 4,924 92%

In addition, after identifying an increase in the percentage of pending cases that were 

over 180 days old, OCR added a target to ensure that no more than 25 percent of pending 

cases would be over 180 days old. In FY 2007, only 18 percent of pending cases were 

over 180 days old, exceeding the 25 percent GPRA target as well as the FY 2006 

performance level of 21 percent. In FY 2008, OCR matched its FY 2007 percentage with 

only 18 percent of pending cases over 180 days old. 

Pending complaints over 180 days old, FY 2006-08:

Fiscal Year

Number of Pending 

Complaints 

Number of Pending 

Complaints Over 180 Days 

Percentage of Pending 

Complaints Over 180 Days

2008 1,876 337 18%

2007 1,617 285 18%

2006 1,458 308 21%

OCR has an additional performance measure –customer satisfaction– which is 

determined through a customer service survey that is distributed to both complainants and 

recipients after a case is resolved. The survey measures courteous and considerate 
6

treatment of customers, prompt written and oral communication, clear and responsive 

oral and written communication, and whether the customer was kept informed about his 

or her case. Based on responses to the survey in FY 2005, OCR’s customer satisfaction 

performance baseline was established at 3.66, on a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the 

highest score possible. OCR has steadily improved its score on the customer service 

survey. OCR’s FY 2006 score was 3.84; its FY 2007 score was 3.96; and its FY 2008 

score was 3.99. 

Customer service scores, FY 2005-08:

GPRA 3.66 on Mean Score of responses to OCR’s customer service survey

FY 2008 3.99

FY 2007 3.96

FY 2006 3.84

FY 2005 3.66

During FY 2007, OCR used the Case Resolution and Investigation Manual (CRIM) 

(updated May 2005), which provided procedures for promptly and effectively 

investigating and resolving complaints. The CRIM explained how OCR would process all 

phases of complaint resolution, including evaluation, investigation, resolution, 

monitoring, and enforcement. The CRIM was posted on OCR’s Web site and was made 

available to the public. 

During FY 2007, OCR continued using an investigative approach that stressed full 

investigation of complaints prior to making a determination of compliance. Under the 

CRIM, if, after a full investigation, OCR determined that there was evidence of a 

violation, OCR would attempt to negotiate a resolution agreement with the recipient to 

correct the violation. Pursuant to both statute and regulation, OCR is obligated to resolve 

civil rights violations by voluntary and informal means, if possible. If negotiation and 

resolution methods failed, OCR issued a violation letter of findings and again attempted 

to negotiate a settlement agreement to correct the violations. It is only after OCR advised 

recipients of their failure to comply with the civil rights laws and determined that 

compliance could not be secured by voluntary means that, as a last resort, OCR sought 

compliance through the administrative hearing process or referred cases to the U.S. 

Department of Justice for judicial enforcement. 

In March 2008, OCR issued a new Case Processing Manual (CPM) to replace the CRIM. 

Like the CRIM, the CPM sets forth procedures for all phases of case processing, 

including evaluation, investigation, resolution, monitoring, and enforcement, with a goal 

of ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly and are legally sufficient and 

dispositive of all the allegations raised in complaints. The CPM provides OCR with the 

procedures to promptly and effectively investigate complaints and compliance reviews, 

issue findings, and secure resolution agreements that remedy discriminatory policies or 
7

Instead of a complaint, I would like to file a 

commendation! Earlier this week, we participated 

in an early complaint resolution meeting 

facilitated by an OCR investigator. As you can 

imagine, a letter from OCR is not something we 

want to receive, but the OCR investigator’s 

professionalism and experience made this 

resolution process a pleasure. She gave us the 

steps we needed to take and we followed those 

steps. ... Her mediation skills were wonderful. She 

kept the meeting on task and as a result, the 

district and complainant reached a resolution in 

the best interest of the child involved. 

E-mail From an Assistant Superintendent

practices identified by OCR. The CPM was revised with the goal of ensuring due process 

and of providing greater flexibility in resolution. Recognizing that training is always 

critical to the success of any initiative, training sessions were conducted for each OCR 

enforcement office as well as staff in headquarters. By March 14, 2008, each enforcement 

office as well as headquarters received in-person training on the CPM.

Similar to the CRIM, the CPM also 

provides for the resolution of complaints 

prior to the conclusion of OCR’s 

investigation through the use of the Early 

Complaint Resolution (ECR) process.

However, the CPM provides more 

opportunity to resolve complaints through 

the use of ECR. The ECR process 

facilitates the resolution of complaints by 

providing an opportunity for the parties 

involved to voluntarily resolve the 

allegations that prompted the complaint. If 

OCR determines that ECR is appropriate 

and the complainant and the recipient are 

willing to proceed, OCR will initiate ECR 

to facilitate an agreement between the 

recipient and the complainant. 

ECR may take place at any time during the investigative process. OCR does not sign, 

approve, or endorse any agreement reached between the parties. However, OCR assists 

both parties in understanding pertinent legal standards and possible remedies. OCR will 

not monitor the agreement but will inform the parties that if a breach occurs, the 

complainant has the right to file another complaint. OCR monitors the process of ECR 

carefully to ensure adequate time for completion of the investigation in the event that 

ECR is unsuccessful. The investigation must be completed in accordance with normal 

case processing standards and timelines. In FY 2007, OCR resolved 226 complaint 

allegations using the ECR process. In FY 2008, OCR resolved 259 complaint allegations 

using the ECR process. 

OCR’s process continues to provide that if the complainant disagrees with a decision not 

to proceed with a complaint or a determination that the investigation did not establish a 

violation of law, the complainant may ask OCR to reconsider the decision. A 

complainant, however, may not request reconsideration after OCR has investigated, 

found a compliance concern, and entered into an agreement with a recipient. 

Reconsiderations focus on factual or legal concerns that could change the disposition of

the case. There is a two-tiered process for requesting reconsideration, in which a 

complainant may first make a request of the enforcement office director and then of 

headquarters. In FY 2007, 465 first-level requests for reconsideration were received in 

the enforcement offices and approximately 108 second-level requests were received in 

headquarters. In FY 2008, 417 first-level requests for reconsideration were received in 
8

the enforcement offices and approximately 112 second-level requests were received in 

headquarters. 

III. COMPLAINT JURISDICTIONS

As in most years, the majority of complaints OCR received in FY 2007 alleged 

discrimination on the basis of disability (51 percent). Again in FY 2008, 51 percent of 

the complaints filed alleged discrimination on the basis of disability. Overall, the 

focus of complaints filed over the last several years has remained fairly consistent, 

with similar percentages of complaint receipts in each of the subject-matter 

jurisdictional areas.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 below show the number and percentage of complaint receipts by 

jurisdiction in FY 2008, FY 2007 and FY 2006. Appendix B provides a breakout of 

complaint receipts by jurisdiction and OCR enforcement office for FY 2008. 

Appendix C provides a breakout of complaint receipts by jurisdiction and OCR 

enforcement office for FY 2007. 

Figure 2. FY 2008 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction

6,194 Receipts

Multiple Allegations

15% (917)

Age Discrimination

2% (96)

Disability Discrimination

51% (3,165)

Sex Discrimination

5% (328)

Race / National Origin

16% (993)

Other Complaints

11% (695)
9

The number of complaints indicated on the figures as received in each of the jurisdictions 

represents those complaints that were “purely” within that jurisdiction. “Other” includes 

mostly complaints over which OCR had no jurisdiction or that were referred to another 

agency. Those complaints that contained, for example, allegations of both sex and race 

discrimination, are counted in the “Multiple” section. With this in mind, the following 

represents the total number of complaints received in FY 2007 that contained allegations 

in each of the jurisdictions, including in those complaints that contained allegations in the 

“Multiple” jurisdiction category:

Figure 3. FY 2007 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction

5,894 Receipts

Multiple Allegations

14% (848)

Age Discrimination

2% (97)

Disability 

Discrimination

51% (3,013)

Sex Discrimination

6% (327)

Race / National Origin

16% (934)

Other Complaints

11% (675)

Figure 4. FY 2006 Complaint Caseload, by Jurisdiction

5,805 Receipts

Age Discrimination

1% (86)

Multiple Allegations

13% (750)

Other Complaints

11% (612)

Race/National Origin

17% (998)

Sex Discrimination

6% (334)

Disability 

Discrimination

52% (3,025)
10

Title VI: 1,583 complaints received containing race discrimination allegations (including 

934 complaints containing only Title VI issues);

Title IX: 682 complaints received containing sex discrimination allegations (including 

327 complaints containing only Title IX issues);

Section 504/Title II: 3,560 complaints received containing disability discrimination 

allegations (including 3,013 complaints containing only Section 504/Title II issues); and 

Age Discrimination Act: 402 complaints received containing age discrimination 

allegations (including 97 complaints containing only Age Discrimination Act issues).

The total number of complaints received in FY 2008 that contained allegations in each of 

the jurisdictions, including in those complaints that contained allegations in the 

“Multiple” jurisdiction category, are as follows:

Title VI: 1,724 complaints received containing race discrimination allegations (including 

993 complaints containing only Title VI issues);

Title IX: 770 complaints received containing sex discrimination allegations (including 

328 complaints containing only Title IX issues);

Section 504/Title II: 3,760 complaints received containing disability discrimination 

allegations (including 3,165 complaints containing only Section 504/Title II issues); and

Age Discrimination Act: 410 complaints received containing age discrimination 

allegations (including 96 complaints containing only Age Discrimination Act issues).

IV. COMPLIANCE REVIEWS AND OTHER PROACTIVE INITIATIVES

In addition to resolving complaints, OCR initiates compliance reviews and takes other 

proactive steps to focus on specific compliance issues that are particularly acute or 

national in scope. It has been OCR’s experience that targeted compliance reviews and 

proactive initiatives increase the impact of OCR’s resources, complement the complaint 

resolution process, and can benefit larger numbers of students than sole reliance on 

complaint resolutions, which may involve only one student. Compliance review sites are 

selected based on various sources of information, including information provided by 

parents, education groups, media, community organizations, and the public, and, in 

certain circumstances, on statistical data, to the extent they are supported by other sources 

of information. 

In FY 2007, OCR initiated 23 compliance reviews that focused on several important 

areas, including accessible facilities for individuals with disabilities (accessibility), Title 

IX athletics, services for students with limited English proficiency and inappropriate 

inclusion or exclusion of students with limited English proficiency in special education, 

inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of minorities in special education, procedural 

requirements, and testing. In FY 2007, OCR resolved 26 compliance reviews. The 
11

resolved compliance reviews focused on accessibility, services for students with limited 

English proficiency and inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of students with limited 

English proficiency in special education services, inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of 

minorities in special education, and procedural requirements. More specific information 

about the compliance reviews resolved during FY 2007 is included later in this report. 

See Table 2 showing the number of reviews initiated and resolved by compliance issue in 

FY 2007.
12

Table 2. OCR Compliance Reviews, by Issue: FY 2007

Compliance Issue(s) Initiated Resolved*

Accessibility (Section 504, ADA Title II) 2 9

Athletics (Title IX) 1 0

Limited-English Proficient Students and Special Education / 

Services for Students with Limited-English Proficiency (Title 

VI, Section 504, ADA Title II)

6 6

Minorities and Special Education (Title VI, Section 504, 

ADA Title II)

1 7

Procedural Requirements (Title IX) 7 3

Procedural Requirements (Section 504) 2 0

Procedural Requirements (Multiple Jurisdiction) 3 1

Testing (Section 504, ADA Title II) 1 0

TOTAL 23 26

* Includes reviews carried over from previous years.

In FY 2008, OCR initiated 42 compliance reviews. In addition to many of the issues 

covered in FY 2007 compliance reviews, the compliance reviews initiated by OCR in FY 

2008 covered the high-priority issue of access to Advanced Placement (AP) classes and 

other high-level learning opportunities. Specifically, OCR initiated five compliance 

reviews on minority access to AP and similar courses, two compliance reviews on access 

to AP and similar courses by students with disabilities, and one compliance review 

concerning access by LEP students and students with disabilities to AP and similar 

courses. In FY 2008, OCR also focused on Title IX Athletics, initiating 16 compliance 

reviews on this issue. In FY 2008, OCR resolved 38 compliance reviews. See Table 3 

showing the number of reviews initiated and resolved by compliance issues in FY 2008.
13

Table 3. OCR Compliance Reviews, by Issue: FY 2008 

Compliance Issue(s) Initiated Resolved*

Accessibility (Section 504, ADA Title II) 1 3

Admission (Title VI) 2 0

AP and Other High-Level Learning Opportunities (Title VI) 5 0

AP and Other High-Level Learning Opportunities (Section 

504, ADA Title II)

2 2

AP and Other High-Level Learning Opportunities (Multiple 

Jurisdiction)

1 0

Assignment of Student (Section 504, ADA Title II) 0 1

Athletics (Title IX) 16 6

Discipline (Title VI) 0 1

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (Section 504, 

ADA Title II)

2 1

Limited-English Proficient Students and Special Education / 

Services for Students with Limited-English Proficiency (Title 

VI, Section 504, ADA Title II)

8 7

Minorities and Special Education (Title VI, Section 504, 

ADA Title II)

0 2

Procedural Requirements (Title IX) 3 10

Procedural Requirements (Section 504, ADA Title II) 0 3

Procedural Requirements (Multiple Jurisdictions) 2 2

TOTAL 42 38

* Includes reviews carried over from previous years.

V. MONITORING

To ensure accountability and effectiveness in enforcing the civil rights laws, OCR 

monitors complaint and compliance review resolution agreements to ensure the 

commitments made by school districts, colleges, universities and other appropriate 

entities in those agreements are carried out. During FY 2007, OCR completed the 

monitoring of a number of resolution agreements and, after ensuring that all 

commitments had been fully implemented, closed 347 cases—306 complaints and 41 

compliance reviews. The 306 complaints closed after monitoring involved diverse 

jurisdictions and issues, including: 24 complaints concerning Title VI race and-or 

national origin discrimination, 42 complaints concerning Title IX sex discrimination, 213 

complaints concerning Section 504-Title II disability discrimination, 27 complaints 

concerning multiple jurisdictions. The 41 compliance reviews closed after monitoring 

involved jurisdictions and issues such as: 7 compliance reviews concerning Title VI race 

and-or national origin discrimination, 16 compliance reviews concerning Title IX sex 

discrimination, 4 compliance reviews concerning Section 504-Title II disability
14

discrimination, and 14 compliance reviews involving multiple jurisdictions, including 2 

Title VI and Title IX cases and 12 Title VI and disability cases. 

In FY 2008, OCR completed the monitoring of and closed 285 cases. Of these 285 cases, 

272 were complaints and 13 were compliance reviews. Among the 272 complaints closed 

after monitoring, issues included: 47 complaints concerning Title VI race and-or national 

origin discrimination, 36 complaints concerning Title IX sex discrimination, 153 

complaints concerning Section 504-Title II disability discrimination, 2 complaints 

concerning age discrimination, 32 complaints concerning multiple jurisdictions, and 2 

complaints classified as “other.” The 13 compliance reviews closed after monitoring 

involved jurisdictions and issues such as: 5 compliance reviews concerning Title VI race 

and-or national origin discrimination, 3 compliance reviews concerning Title IX sex 

discrimination, 1 compliance review concerning Section 504-Title II disability

discrimination, and 4 compliance reviews regarding both Title VI and disability.

VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

To meet its mission, OCR assists 

education institutions in complying 

with federal civil rights requirements 

by providing to them technical 

assistance. OCR also provides technical 

assistance to parents, students and 

others to inform them of their rights 

under the law. OCR provides 

information and other support services 

through a variety of methods, including 

on-site consultations, conferences, 

training, community meetings, and 

publication and dissemination of 

materials—including extensive 

materials publicly posted on the 

Internet—to interested parties, 

including students, parents, teachers, 

administrators, schools, colleges, 

universities and community groups. 

Appendix D lists a sample of the 

technical assistance publications available on OCR’s Web site.

In FY 2007, OCR provided approximately 165 technical assistance presentations at 

approximately 130 events. For FY 2008, OCR increased its number of technical 

assistance presentations, with more than 185 presentations at approximately 150 events. 

Entities hosting these presentations in both FY 2007 and 2008 included state departments 

of education, colleges and universities, school districts and associations. OCR 

participated in national and regional conferences. OCR also presented to small classes of 

college students preparing to become teachers as well as to groups of parents of children 

with disabilities. Audiences for OCR presentations included school administrators, 

I am writing to thank you for speaking with me 

by phone yesterday about the educational 

options that we can consider for my 17-year-old 

daughter ... who has bipolar disorder. As we 

discussed, we had a 504 meeting today to 

discuss distance learning and other options ... to 

make up for credits missed because of excessive 

absenteeism this academic year. Going to the 

meeting armed with the knowledge of our rights 

as parents of a student with a qualifying 

disability under Section 504 certainly maximized 

efficiency and led to the team both accepting 

online credits and proposing other viable 

options.... Without your guidance, I suspect 

things would not have gone so well today.

Letter From Parent
15

educators, parents, students, guidance counselors, psychologists, school attorneys, 

disability support service providers, Section 504 coordinators, and English as a Second 

Language teachers.

Disability is by far the most requested subject matter for technical assistance. In FY 2007, 

OCR provided 115 presentations that focused entirely or partially on disability issues. 

Similarly, in FY 2008, OCR provided approximately 130 presentations that focused 

entirely or partially on disability issues. In both FY 2007 and FY 2008, the most 

commonly presented presentation on disability issues concerned students with disabilities 

transitioning from the high school setting to the postsecondary setting. The second most 

popular presentation explained the requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 for public elementary and secondary schools. 

Also, during FY 2007 and 2008, OCR provided technical assistance presentations on 

such topics as appropriate services for students with limited English proficiency (LEP), 

the athletic provisions of Title IX, the Title IX single-sex regulations, and sexual 

harassment. Other presentations included student discipline as it relates to Title VI, racial 

harassment, whether food allergies can be a disability under Section 504, Web 

accessibility for individuals with disabilities, and an overview of all the laws enforced by 

OCR. 
16

ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION: 

GETTING RESULTS

Each year, OCR investigates thousands of cases that result in resolution agreements 

impacting hundreds of thousands of students. OCR 

understands its critical mission—ensuring equal 

access to education and promoting educational 

excellence throughout the nation through vigorous 

enforcement of civil rights—and is constantly 

striving to improve the effectiveness and efficiency 

of its case resolution process. Following are caserelated examples of OCR’s work in FY 2007 and 

2008. These important resolutions have a positive 

impact on students, parents and teachers, and 

ultimately, on the success of our nation’s education 

system.

I. TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1994 1997 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Source: ED Civil Rights (Elementary and Secondary Public School)

Data Collection 1994 through 2006

Figure 5. Percentage of Student Population, by Race/Ethnicity

American 

Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Black

White

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color 

or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. OCR staff have 

investigated and resolved numerous cases since Title VI’s inception, including 

desegregation, overrepresentation of minority students in special education classes, 

underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented classes, racial harassment, 

I would like to thank you again for being so 

helpful and diligent. I have found people 

like you rare in bureaucratic agencies and 

am overcome with gratitude when I find 

them. Although rare, I am so grateful that 

people like you are in place in government.

Letter From Complainant 
17

and limited English proficient (LEP)-related issues. Figure 5 shows the racial/ethnic 

distribution of K-12 U.S. students from 1994 to 2006.

A. Complaint Resolutions

Resolved Through Early Complaint Resolution (ECR)

· A complaint was filed with OCR alleging that an African-American eighth-grade 

student was subjected to racial harassment by 

other students and that the district failed to 

respond. The complaint alleged that other 

students called the student “ape” and 

“monkey” while at school and that the daily 

harassment had caused the student to lose 

interest in and to not want to attend school. 

The student’s parent said that she complained 

to local school officials, but the harassment 

did not stop. With the help of OCR, the 

complainant and district entered into an 

agreement in which the district agreed to 

provide a written response that would include 

a description of the district’s handling of the allegations and notice of the district’s 

formal complaint procedure prohibiting race discrimination. Under the agreement, 

local school staff were obligated to comply with the procedure to address any future 

discrimination complaints from the complainant, to receive training on the district’s 

policies and procedures prohibiting racial harassment, and to publish in the school’s 

parent-student handbook the district’s nondiscrimination notice and reference to the 

procedure for reporting discrimination and harassment. 

Racial Harassment 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that three middle school students—

specifically, two African-American students and a bi-racial student—were racially 

harassed as they walked to a district-sponsored basketball event. Three white high 

school students followed the middle school students in a truck, and at least one of the 

high school students directed racial slurs towards the middle school students and 

threatened to lynch African-Americans. In the school parking lot, one of the white 

students punched one of the African-American students in the face, breaking his 

glasses and lacerating his face. Another white student prevented a friend of the 

injured student from helping him. OCR found that district officials became aware of 

the incident almost immediately but failed to conduct any reasonable investigation 

into the racial aspects of the incident, even though local law enforcement had charged 

one of the white students under the state’s ethnic intimidation law. District officials 

initially denied to OCR that the incident was racial in nature or that the district had 

any duty to address it as such. As a result of OCR’s investigation, the district agreed 

to revise its procedures for handling racial harassment incidents, to take steps to 

I want to say thanks so much once again 

for your assistance. My daughter and I 

are truly grateful for the hard work that 

you put into ... our case, and we want to 

say that we truly appreciate it .... I’m also 

thankful that there is an organization 

such as OCR that can help people who 

are or have been in a situation like I was 

in.

Letter From Complainant
18

address the racially hostile environment, and to offer counseling to the students 

involved in this incident. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that an African-American student was 

repeatedly subjected to racial harassment by other students and that a district failed to 

respond appropriately. The allegations included the charge that the student was 

subjected to racial slurs and threatened with being dragged through town tied behind 

a truck. OCR’s investigation established that, in fact, the district did not take 

appropriate action when it became aware of the alleged harassment of the student and 

a second African-American student. To resolve the case, the district agreed to adopt 

and distribute a policy prohibiting racial harassment, present an anti-harassment 

program to all students and provide in-service training to district employees on the 

policy prohibiting racial harassment. The district also agreed to train investigators and 

then conduct a full and impartial investigation into all allegations of racial harassment 

pertaining to the two students. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a school failed to take appropriate action 

when a parent reported to the school that a fellow student was subjecting her son, a 

fifth-grader, to repeated racial harassment. OCR’s investigation revealed that a 

teacher who had witnessed the harassment and to whom the student had complained 

about the harassment failed to refer the matter to an administrator. To resolve the 

complaint, the school district developed a districtwide policy prohibiting racial 

harassment and procedures for addressing complaints of racial harassment. The 

district provided notice of the policy and procedures to all district staff and to students 

and their parents and provided training to all staff on the obligation to report 

allegations of racial harassment and on the complaint procedures. The district also 

offered to provide the student who was the victim of racial harassment with 

counseling through the school counselor as needed. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district allowed a racially hostile 

environment to exist for Hispanic students at a middle school. OCR’s investigation 

determined that white and African-American students called Hispanic students 

racially derogatory names and told Hispanic students to “go back to their own 

country.” Some of the Hispanic students reported the harassment to a teacher who 

failed to take appropriate action. OCR determined that a racially hostile environment 

existed and the district entered into an agreement to resolve the complaint. The 

district provided training on racial and national origin harassment to the middle 

school staff and students, posted notices in English and Spanish explaining the 

district’s prohibition on harassment and how and to whom to report harassment, and 

improved its response to complaints of harassment and harassment witnessed by staff.

Excluding or Limiting Students From a Program

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a university discriminated on the basis of 

race and national origin by excluding students of certain ethnic groups from 

consideration for one of its scholarship programs. OCR confirmed that the university 

considered an individual’s race and national origin in determining the individual’s 
19

eligibility for a scholarship that the university established for students who are 

members of certain minority groups. OCR determined that the university’s practice of 

awarding points towards eligibility for the scholarship based solely on a student’s 

race or national origin did not comply with the law. To resolve the complaint, the 

university agreed not to award points to an individual based solely on race or national 

origin, and to fully consider an individual’s entire application for the scholarship. The 

university agreed that any consideration of race in determining eligibility for the 

scholarship would be as one factor among other pertinent elements of diversity and 

not the sole factor.

Discipline

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district discriminated against a student 

on the basis of race when a special education teacher subjected the student to harsher 

discipline than other students in the class and the district failed to adequately respond 

to the parents’ complaints about the treatment of the student. OCR found that the 

teacher subjected the student to different treatment in discipline. OCR determined, 

based on the totality of circumstances, which included the teacher stating that she 

specifically pulls aside black students to discuss how they should talk and behave, 

that the teacher’s reasons for subjecting the student to different treatment were 

pretexts for discrimination. OCR also found that the district failed to appropriately 

respond to the parents’ complaints of racial discrimination. Under the agreement 

reached between the district and OCR, the district committed to developing a racial 

discrimination prevention training program for all staff at the school; creating a 

record-keeping system for responding to complaints of racial discrimination; and 

providing written ongoing notice to students, parents, staff and administrators that the 

district does not tolerate racial discrimination. 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that the district discriminated against LEP 

students on the basis of national origin at one of its middle schools by failing to 

provide 10 intermediate-level LEP students with any social sciences or science 

instruction for a school year and by segregating all LEP students into the same 

groupings for all subject-area classes and nonacademic activities. The complaint also 

alleged that the district failed to provide adequate storage and classroom facilities for 

the LEP program. The district expressed a desire to resolve the complaint prior to the 

conclusion of the OCR investigation and, as a result, entered into a voluntary 

resolution agreement with OCR in which it agreed, among other things, to change the 

practices that resulted in the alleged disparities and segregation and to provide 

compensatory instruction to the students who were denied instruction in science and 

social sciences.

· OCR investigated whether a large suburban school district discriminated against 

national-origin minority students by operating the Newcomer Academy that 

segregated immigrant and refugee LEP students. OCR also investigated whether the 

Newcomer Academy provided equal educational opportunities to LEP students. 
20

OCR’s investigation found that the district failed to demonstrate that its newcomer 

program was carried out in the least segregative manner consistent with achieving its 

goals. As a result of OCR’s investigation, the district is revising its policies and 

procedures to ensure that it does not inappropriately segregate students. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district inappropriately exited LEP 

students from its English Language Development (ELD) program. OCR found that 

the district’s high school did not follow its procedures for exiting over 40 LEP 

students from the ELD program and relied on inadequate information as well as 

faulty documentation in exiting the students. The district also failed to monitor the 

LEP students in the regular education program, as required by its own procedures, to 

ensure they were afforded equal educational opportunity. The district agreed to ensure 

that all ELD program-exiting decisions are made appropriately and documented by 

trained staff. It also agreed to provide training to all relevant staff on the transitioning 

and exiting procedures, and to provide compensatory services, if necessary, to 

students who were inappropriately exited from the ELD program or inadequately 

monitored after exiting. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district was not providing adequate 

English language and academic support to three students who had been adopted from 

Russia. OCR’s investigation revealed that the students’ teachers had no training or 

instruction on how to meet the students’ needs and had no method for evaluating 

whether the strategies outlined for the students were effective. The district entered 

into an agreement to resolve the complaint. The district developed a specific 

instruction plan for each student based on the results of English language 

assessments, provided training to the teachers regarding strategies and techniques that 

are appropriate to the education of the students, and monitored the progress of the 

students to make instructional adjustments, as necessary, to ensure their continued 

success. 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Parents

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district discriminated against a parent on 

the basis of national origin (Chinese) by failing to communicate with her in a 

language she could understand during the special education process for her son. OCR 

found that the district failed to provide access to information about the son’s proposed 

educational program, his progress in school, and a variety of school events for which 

other parents had notice. Although the district had documents, such as a home 

language survey, already translated into Mandarin—the parent’s primary language—

the district did not use these documents when communicating with her. Because of 

the lack of a tutor or interpreter for two months of the school year, the classroom 

teacher attempted to communicate information about school events using hand 

gestures and pictures. The district committed to develop a procedure to ensure 

meaningful communication with national-origin minority parents, including 

translation or communication of written materials, the availability and qualification of 

interpreters, and notice to parents of this procedure. 
21

Retaliation

· OCR investigated a case alleging that a district’s non-renewal of a teacher’s contract 

was in retaliation for the teacher advocating on behalf of language minority students 

and for participating in a previous OCR investigation that found Title VI compliance 

concerns with the district’s program for LEP students. OCR’s investigation, which 

included testimony from the district’s outgoing superintendent corroborating the 

teacher’s assertion, established that the reasons offered by the district for its nonrenewal were pretext for retaliation. Under the agreement reached between the district 

and OCR, the district was required to rehire the teacher or pay her front pay; pay the 

teacher compensatory damages; remove negative statements from her personnel file; 

provide her a letter of recommendation; develop policies that prohibit retaliation 

under Title VI and provide training to staff on such policies; and issue a letter to other 

witnesses interviewed by OCR with assurances that the district would not retaliate 

against them for participating in OCR’s investigation. 

Monitoring 

· A large urban district entered into an agreement to ensure that it communicates with 

national-origin minority LEP parents about school-related matters in a language they 

understand. In FY 2007, the district demonstrated to OCR that it met all the terms of 

its agreement and developed and implemented a written plan with procedures to 

ensure meaningful communication with parents, including self-monitoring 

procedures. The district reports that its efforts have resulted in dramatically improved 

communication services to, and meaningful access for over 9,000 LEP parents. The 

district trained 596 interpreters so that it 

would ensure meaningful access was 

available in all district service areas. The 

district reported, and parents confirmed, 

effective delivery of interpreter and translator 

services. 

· OCR found that a large urban school district 

did not effectively communicate with 

national-origin minority LEP parents about school-related matters in a language they 

could understand. The district entered into an agreement to resolve the complaint. The 

district identified more than 4,400 district parents who needed alternative language 

communications and saw a six-fold increase in requests for translators. To meet this 

increased demand, the district trained 12 staff members, who became certified 

translators, trained hundreds of teachers on its policies and procedures for effectively 

communicating with parents, and saw increased attendance by LEP parents at school 

events. Parent surveys showed that 95 percent of the parents were satisfied with the 

quality of communications they received from the district. Because the district 

demonstrated that it met all the terms of the agreement, OCR closed the monitoring of 

this resolution agreement. 

Our model of school-based delivery of 

interpreter/translator services has proven to 

be good for both our LEP students and 

families, and our employees, as all share in 

its success.

Letter From a School District
22

B. Proactive Enforcement 

Compliance Reviews 

In FY 2007, OCR initiated seven compliance reviews concerning issues related, at least 

in part, to its Title VI enforcement. OCR resolved 13 compliance reviews concerning, in 

part, Title VI issues in FY 2007. These compliance reviews involved issues pertaining to 

providing appropriate language services for LEP students, whether LEP students were 

being discriminated against by inappropriate inclusion in or exclusion from special 

education, as well as whether minority students were being denied education benefits 

because of discriminatory inclusion in or exclusion from special education.

In FY 2008, OCR initiated 17 compliance reviews concerning issues related, at least in 

part, to its Title VI enforcement in FY 2008. In addition to initiating eight compliance 

reviews on LEP issues, OCR initiated compliance reviews regarding minority access to 

AP classes and other high-level learning opportunities as well as the use of race in 

admissions. OCR also initiated a compliance review that considered, among other things, 

whether a recipient’s non-discrimination notice complied with the Title VI regulations 

and other regulations enforced by OCR. In FY 2008, OCR resolved 10 compliance 

reviews concerning, at least in part, Title VI issues.

· After a compliance review by OCR, a state department of education entered into an 

agreement to develop guidance to assist all of its local education agencies (LEAs) to 

develop plans for providing alternative language services to LEP students. The state 

department of education agreed to provide technical assistance to the LEAs and to 

implement a monitoring program of all LEAs to ensure that LEP students are 

receiving an equal educational opportunity in academic instruction. Satisfied that the 

state department of education met the terms of its agreement, OCR closed its 

monitoring of the agreement in FY 2007. The monitoring initiatives undertaken by 

the state department of education impacted approximately 15,000 LEP students 

statewide.

· In a compliance review of a large district with about 3,500 LEP students, OCR 

identified hundreds of LEP students, including students receiving special education 

services, who were not receiving instruction that would enable them to acquire and 

become proficient in English or instruction designed to allow them to access the core 

academic content. The district had no procedures in place for evaluating the success 

of its LEP program or determining whether the program modifications were 

appropriate. OCR found that when LEP students were evaluated for special 

education, most were evaluated in English only. The district entered into an 

agreement to resolve the compliance issues. It agreed, among other things, to revise 

its master plan for LEP students; to develop a process to evaluate its LEP program; 

and to create policies and procedures to ensure that when LEP students need special 

education, they are properly referred for assessment, evaluated, and placed into 

special education. 
23

· In conducting a compliance review of a district’s programs for LEP students who 

qualified for both special education and English language acquisition services, OCR 

found the district did not provide these students with needed English language 

acquisition services due to scheduling conflicts with other classes and individual 

teacher preferences. OCR also found that the district did not consistently draw upon 

or carefully consider information regarding a LEP student’s English language 

proficiency and linguistic and cultural background during the special education prereferral or referral, evaluation and placement processes. The district failed to ensure 

LEP parents had meaningful access to their children’s educational program and failed 

to identify kindergarten students who were LEP and provide them with needed 

English language acquisition services. The district agreed to provide English 

language acquisition services to all LEP students enrolled in kindergarten programs, 

to ensure that LEP students are not inappropriately placed in special education 

programs based on their LEP status, to ensure that LEP students enrolled in special 

education programs receive both English language acquisition services and special 

education services, and to provide notice and training to all teaching and 

administrative staff at the elementary school level. 
24

Figure 6 shows the racial/ethnic distribution of K-12 U.S. students with disabilities from 

1994 to 2006.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1994 1997 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Source: ED Civil Rights (Elementary and Secondary Public Schools)

Data Collection 1994 through 2006

Figure 6. Percentage of Students Classified as Having a Specific 

Learning Disability Nationwide and by Race/Ethnicity

American

Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Black

White

Nationwide

Technical Assistance

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR presented technical assistance on Title VI-related topics, 

including harassment, OCR’s policies concerning LEP students, providing language 

assistance to LEP parents, and allegations of race-based treatment in student discipline. 

OCR presented technical assistance on the use of race by colleges and universities in 

areas such as admissions and financial aid to representatives from over 100 colleges and 

universities at a symposium hosted by the U.S. Department of Labor as well as to a state 

university system. 

OCR conducted a presentation on racial and other forms of harassment to groups such as 

administrators and staff at back-to-school in-service training sessions; lawyers, educators, 

and students at an education law conference; and members of a tribal council. OCR’s 

Dallas enforcement office held a conference regarding unlawful harassment of students 

based on race, color, national origin, sex, and disability. One hundred seventy-five 

district administrators and teachers attended the conference. 

C. Regulatory and Policy Development

Title VI and Access to Advanced Placement (AP) Courses
25

On May 22, 2008, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to local education agencies on 

Title VI and access to AP courses. The letter reminded schools that if AP courses are 

offered to students, Title VI requires that the courses be made available on a 

nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to a student’s race, color, or national origin. The 

letter emphasized that the determination of which high schools in a district will offer AP 

courses must be made in a nondiscriminatory manner; that the admissions process for AP 

courses must not treat students differently based on race, color, or national origin; that 

students must not be discriminated against based on race, color, or national origin in any 

aspect of AP course administration, such as the allocation of books, laboratory 

equipment, the qualifications or credentials of teachers, or grade determination; and if fee 

subsidies are provided, they must be provided in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Use of Race in Postsecondary Student Admissions

On Aug. 28, 2008, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter clarifying how OCR evaluates 

whether the use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution is consistent with 

Title VI. The letter discussed the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger, 

539 U.S. 244 (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). OCR reiterated that, 

consistent with these decisions, OCR’s policy continues to be that racial classifications in 

admissions policies are subject to strict scrutiny, which means they are impermissible 

unless they are “narrowly tailored” to meet a “compelling governmental interest,” such as 

the remediation of past discrimination or, in the context of higher education, to achieve 

appropriate student body diversity. The letter reminded postsecondary institutions that if 

they seek to use racial classifications in admissions, they will bear the burden of 

providing sufficient detail about their processes to enable OCR to determine whether the 

institution is complying with Title VI. OCR also identified parameters it would continue 

to use in assessing whether a particular use of race in admissions by a postsecondary 

institution receiving federal financial assistance was permissible. 

Use of Race in Assigning Students to Elementary and Secondary Schools

On Aug. 28, 2008, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining how the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 

127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) (Parents Involved), will guide OCR’s assessment of whether a 

district’s use of race is consistent with Title VI. The letter explained that in Parents 

Involved, the Court considered policies that denied a student’s request to attend a school 

if that student’s enrollment would cause the school’s racial enrollment to exceed a 

predetermined percentage that was based on districtwide racial averages. The Court 

invalidated the plans and reiterated that the use of such measures simply to achieve racial 

balance is “patently unconstitutional.” The Court also explained that to be constitutional a 

program must “focus[] on each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a member of 

a particular racial group.” OCR reminded school districts that the Court’s response in 

Parents Involved provides parameters to guide schools when race is used in admissions. 

The letter reiterated that the Department of Education strongly encourages the use of 

race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools. 
26

D. Higher Education Desegregation Agreements 

In the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision, United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 

(Fordice), the Court set forth standards for determining whether states that previously 

operated racially segregated higher education systems had met their affirmative duty to 

dismantle those systems and their vestiges under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution and Title VI. After the Fordice decision, OCR negotiated and entered into 

agreements to address and resolve higher education desegregation compliance issues in 

Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. 

During FY 2007, OCR continued to monitor implementation of its higher education 

agreements with the seven states. For FY 2008, Assistant Secretary Stephanie Monroe 

highlighted this as a high-priority issue for OCR. Assistant Secretary Monroe assigned a 

team of expert OCR staff from various OCR offices to review and assess the progress 

made by each of the states in fulfilling their commitments. Assistant Secretary Monroe 

established a goal for issuing final or interim reports for these states by January 2009.
27

It means a lot to me to know that 

there are still good people out 

there.

Letter From a Complainant

on OCR’s Service 

II. TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

sex in education programs and activities that receive federal funds. The Title IX 

regulations cover admissions and recruitment policies, participation in education 

programs and activities (such as athletics), financial assistance, and employment in 

education programs and activities. 

A. Complaint Resolutions

Resolved Through Early Complaint Resolution (ECR)

· A complaint alleged that a school district discriminated against a student by failing to 

accommodate the student’s absences, which were caused by her disability and 

pregnancy. The complaint alleged that the district assigned the student failing grades 

in all courses, despite the student’s satisfactory completion of all of the course work 

at home. OCR facilitated an agreement between the parties, in which the district 

agreed to provide the student with the accommodations required by her Section 504 

plan and adjusted her grades to remove penalties for absences caused by her 

pregnancy. 

· A complaint alleged that a district discriminated against members of a newly 

established girls’ ice hockey team on the basis of sex by failing to provide them with 

equipment and supplies comparable in quality and 

amount to the equipment and supplies provided to 

the boys’ ice hockey teams. With the help of 

OCR, the complainant and district entered into an 

agreement in which the district agreed to modify 

the 2007–08 operating budget for the girls’ ice 

hockey team to include additional funds 

specifically earmarked for the purchase of team 

equipment and supplies and to ensure that the 

additional funds would be sufficient to equip athletes with new helmets and gloves 

for use during 2007–08 competitions. The district also agreed to include in the 2008–

09 operating budget for the girls’ hockey team sufficient funds to equip athletes with 

new sport-specific apparel to be used during the 2008–09 competitions. The district 

estimated the value of the new equipment at $4,000.

· A complaint alleged that a school had not adopted and published grievance 

procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee 

complaints alleging discrimination based on sex. The complaint also alleged that the 

school failed to designate a Title IX coordinator and to notify students, parents and 

employees of the name or title, office address and telephone number of the individual 

designated as the Title IX coordinator. In April 2004, through a “Dear Colleague” 

letter issued nationally, OCR reminded all education institutions to designate and 

adequately train a Title IX coordinator, adopt and disseminate a nondiscrimination 
28

policy and put grievance procedures in place to address complaints of discrimination 

on the basis of sex as required by Title IX. With the help of OCR, the complainant 

and school entered into an agreement in which the school agreed to designate and 

train an employee to serve as the Title IX coordinator and to revise its nondiscrimination policy to include the name and contact information for the Title IX 

coordinator consistent with the Title IX regulations.

Sexual Harassment

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a female college student was sexually 

harassed by other students during the pledging period for a literary society. The 

student alleged that she was required to sing vulgar songs, recite sexually explicit 

poems, view pornography and dance provocatively for male students. The 

complainant alleged that the college failed to appropriately respond to her allegations. 

During the course of OCR’s investigation, the college asked to resolve the complaint. 

OCR’s resolution of the complaint ensured that the college would take action 

calculated to end any hostile environment for the student and prevent any recurrence 

of established sexual harassment of the student. The college then took appropriate and 

effective corrective actions to address the sexual harassment of the student, including 

requiring all pledges and existing members of the society to undergo annual sexual 

harassment training at the beginning of pledging season and a warning that additional 

incidents of sexual harassment would result in severe sanctions. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a college rejected a student’s application 

for readmission in retaliation for her having filed a sexual harassment complaint 

against a college professor. After an investigation, OCR determined that the college’s 

stated reason for denying the student’s application for readmission was a pretext to 

hide its retaliatory motivation. To resolve the complaint, the college agreed to 

reconsider the application for readmission. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district failed to take prompt and 

remedial action to prevent a female student from being subjected to a sexually hostile 

environment at her school after the sexual harassment allegations were reported to 

district officials. OCR resolved this complaint with an agreement during the course of 

its investigation. The district agreed to designate a compliance coordinator for Title 

IX, Section 504, Title II, and the Age Discrimination Act; revise and publish its 

combined notice of nondiscrimination in hard-copy and online publications; revise 

and publish its policies and grievance procedures in hard-copy and online 

publications to ensure prompt and equitable resolution of sex discrimination 

complaints, including sexual harassment; maintain complaints and allegations of sex 

discrimination in a centralized file in each school and in the administrative office; 

provide training on the subject of sexual harassment to students, officials and staff at 

the school as well as periodic training to new employees; provide training regarding 

the investigation of sexual harassment to officials and staff at the school responsible 

for conducting investigations; and pay for the cost of professional outside counseling 

for the female student. 
29

Athletics

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district failed to provide practice and 

competitive facilities used by a girls’ fast-pitch softball program that were equal or 

equal in effect to the practice and competitive facilities used by the boys’ teams. 

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the girls’ team practiced and competed on a 

field with deteriorating and unsafely mounted light poles, nonworking lights, an 

uneven playing surface, holes in the infield and outfield, and poor drainage. Prior to 

OCR’s involvement, the team could not practice or compete during inclement 

weather and was forced to either forfeit or reschedule games. The female athletes had 

limited practice opportunities because of the poor lighting and field drainage 

problems. The female athletes were also subjected to unnecessary injuries due to the 

poor condition on the field’s playing surface. OCR was able to negotiate an 

agreement with district officials to upgrade the fast-pitch softball facility. The 

upgrade included 12 new utility poles with new wiring and light fixtures and a new 

and improved playing surface. 

Monitoring

· OCR closed the monitoring of an agreement to resolve a complaint alleging that a 

school failed to take appropriate action when a student and her parent complained to 

school staff of sexual harassment by other students. The school revised its procedures 

for addressing complaints of sexual harassment and trained all teachers, staff and 

administrators concerning their obligations in receiving, reporting and investigating 

sexual harassment complaints. The school also designated a counselor for the student 

on whose behalf the complaint was filed to report any instances of harassment and to 

ensure that any such claims would be properly reported pursuant to the district’s 

revised procedures. 

· OCR closed the monitoring of an agreement regarding the effective accommodation 

of athletic interests and abilities of females after OCR confirmed the university took 

the necessary action to comply with the agreement. To resolve the complaint, the 

university agreed to assess the athletic interests and abilities of university students 

and, based on the results of the assessment, develop a plan of action to ensure that the 

university was effectively accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of 

women to the extent necessary to provide equal opportunity to both sexes. Due to the 

assessment, the university added an intercollegiate women’s bowling team and 

expanded the size of several of its other women’s intercollegiate athletics teams. This 

resulted in an increase of approximately 25 percent in the number of women 

participating in the university’s intercollegiate athletics program. As a result of these 

changes, the university is now offering intercollegiate athletic participation 

opportunities to men and women in numbers substantially proportionate to their 

overall enrollments. This was accomplished without reducing the number of 

intercollegiate athletic participation opportunities available to men at the university.

Also in compliance with the agreement, the university made several improvements to 

its locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, including a new designated 
30

practice and competitive facility with adjacent locker rooms for exclusive use by the 

women’s volleyball team and new locker rooms for the women’s softball team. 

· OCR closed the monitoring of an agreement regarding effectively accommodating the 

athletic interest and abilities of female students to the extent necessary to provide 

equal athletic opportunity. To bring itself into compliance with Title IX the district 

entered into a settlement agreement in which it agreed to provide participation 

opportunities in interscholastic athletics for female and male students at the district’s 

high school and to develop a plan for achieving compliance with Title IX. The district 

also agreed to periodically gather information to determine the interests and abilities 

of students in interscholastic athletics, to review the participation of girls and boys in 

its interscholastic athletics program, and to promptly and effectively respond to the 

collected information to ensure compliance with Title IX. During OCR’s monitoring 

of the agreement, the district reported that competitive bowling was added and that 

the district joined a bowling league, permitting female students to compete against 

nine other schools. The district also instituted a process for administering an interest 

and ability survey each fall, and developed a form for students to submit to the 

athletics department throughout the school year of their interests in adding an 

intramural or interscholastic sport. 

B. Proactive Enforcement

Compliance Review

In FY 2007, OCR initiated 11 compliance reviews that concerned, at least in part, Title 

IX issues, including Title IX athletics and the procedural requirements of Title IX. OCR 

resolved 4 compliance reviews regarding, at least in part, Title IX procedural 

requirements. 

In FY 2008, OCR initiated 21 compliance 

reviews that concerned, at least in part, 

Title IX issues. OCR initiated 16 

compliance reviews on Title IX athletics, 

3 compliance reviews on the procedural 

requirements of Title IX, and 2

compliance reviews on the procedural 

requirements of the Title IX regulations 

and other regulations enforced by OCR. In 

FY 2008, OCR resolved 18 compliance 

reviews regarding, at least in part, Title IX 

issues. 

· OCR initiated a review to determine 

whether a college designated an 

employee to coordinate its efforts to 

comply with Title IX and Section 504. 

OCR also reviewed whether the college had adopted and published grievance 

I would like to take this time to say thank you for 

all of the help you have given me and the School 

Division the past year working through this Title 

IX grievance procedure. I can truly say we had an 

adventure in making sure our revisions met the 

Federal guidelines and regulations. You were 

always friendly, helpful, and patient throughout 

the entire process and willing to listen to my 

concerns, no matter how trivial. If I ever need to 

work with the Title IX department in the future, 

you can be sure I will call your name. Again, 

thanks for all your help.

E-mail From the Chief Human Resources Officer 

of a School District
31

procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex and 

disability discrimination. OCR’s investigation concluded that while the college had 

designated individuals to coordinate its efforts to comply with Title IX and Section 

504, it did not provide consistent or complete information about the identity of the 

coordinators and how those individuals could be contacted in the event of a 

complaint. OCR also found that while the college had adopted grievance procedures 

to address complaints of sexual harassment, it had not adopted grievance procedures 

for addressing other complaints of sex discrimination or for complaints of disability 

discrimination. To resolve the compliance concerns, the college agreed to notify 

students, staff and other beneficiaries of the identity and location of its Section 504 

and Title IX coordinators. The college also agreed to adopt grievance procedures that 

address complaints of sex discrimination, other than harassment, and disability 

discrimination. 

Technical Assistance

As part of its proactive enforcement of Title IX in FY 2007 and 2008, OCR provided 

technical assistance presentations on such topics as sexual harassment, the athletic 

provisions of Title IX, the responsibilities of a Title IX coordinator, and the Title IX 

single-sex regulations. Audiences for these presentations included students, parents, 

school attorneys, school board members, teachers, school administrators, college 

counselors, and career and technical education professionals. 

OCR’s deputy assistant secretary for enforcement participated on a panel at a national 

forum on gender equity hosted by an athletics organization. At the request of a state 

department of education, OCR provided technical assistance on Title IX athletics, sexual 

harassment, the single-sex regulations, and the responsibilities of a Title IX coordinator 

to approximately 150 elementary and secondary school Title IX coordinators. At a 

separate event, OCR provided a technical assistance presentation on sexual harassment at 

a workshop for over 20 superintendents and principals from high schools and middle 

schools. 

OCR provided presentations on both the athletic provisions of Title IX and the Title IX 

single-sex regulations to approximately 200 representatives from school districts 

throughout a state, including superintendents and school board members. The coordinator 

of the event reported to OCR that the presentations were very well received by seminar 

participants. 

C. Regulatory and Policy Development

Single-sex Education

In October 2006, new regulations were published in the Federal Register amending the 

Title IX regulations. These new regulations provide recipients more flexibility to offer 

nonvocational elementary and secondary school classes, extracurricular activities, and 

schools on a single-sex basis, consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements of Title 

IX. The new regulations took effect on Nov. 24, 2006. On Jan. 31, 2007, OCR issued a 
32

“Dear Colleague” letter to all local education agencies. The letter summarized the 

requirements for single-sex classes, extracurricular activities and schools, and enclosed a 

copy of the new regulatory provisions. OCR also provided a designated e-mail box for 

questions or technical assistance requests regarding the new single-sex regulations. This 

e-mail box operated until Dec. 31, 2007. 

35th Anniversary of Title IX

On June 22, 2007, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter recognizing the 35th 

anniversary of Title IX. The letter 

highlighted the progress that has 

been made since Title IX’s 

enactment in 1972 in providing 

education to all students, male and 

female, free of discrimination. The 

letter noted the increase in the 

percentage of women earning 

bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral 

degrees. It highlighted the increase 

in women participating in athletics 

at both the high school and college 

levels. The letter also recognized 

that Title IX brought substantial 

focus on the issue of sexual 

harassment in schools and that the 

enforcement of Title IX principles 

made it easier for schools to 

recognize and address sexual 

harassment. While there was 

significant progress to report, the 

letter also noted that there was still 

considerable work before us. 

Pregnancy and Scholarships

From 1972 to 2005, the percentage of women who 

enrolled in college immediately after graduating from 

high school rose from 46 percent to 70 percent. In 

1972, approximately 3,512,000 women were enrolled 

in undergraduate institutions, making up 44 percent 

of undergraduate enrollment; by fall 2005, that 

number had increased to 8,555,000, or 57 percent.

Between academic years 1971–72 and 2004–05, the 

percentage of bachelor’s degrees earned by women 

also increased from 44 percent to 57 percent.

Additionally, more and more women have entered the 

work force with advanced degrees—from 1971–72 to 

2004–05, the percentage of master’s degrees earned 

by women increased from 41 percent to 59 percent, 

and the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to 

women increased from 16 percent to 49 percent.

Women also are pursuing professional degrees in 

increasing numbers. In fall 1972, women made up 

only 11 percent of students enrolled in firstprofessional degree programs; by fall 2005, that 

percentage more than quadrupled to 49 percent, and 

women are projected to have exceeded 50 percent of 

total first-professional enrollment for the first time in 

2006.

Assistant Secretary Stephanie Monroe

Dear Colleague Letter Celebrating the 35th 

Anniversary of Title IX, June 22, 2007
33

On June 25, 2007, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to college and university 

presidents, reminding them of the Title IX regulatory requirements as they apply to the 

nondiscriminatory treatment of pregnant students. The letter responded to recent media 

reports that some postsecondary institutions were terminating the scholarships of female 

athletes on the basis of pregnancy. The letter reiterated that terminating or reducing 

financial assistance on the basis of pregnancy or a related condition is prohibited under 

Title IX. 

Athletic Activities Counted for Title IX Compliance

On Sept. 17, 2008, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to state education agencies, 

local education agencies and postsecondary institutions providing information to help 

them determine whether interscholastic or intercollegiate athletic activities can be 

counted for the purpose of Title IX compliance. The letter explained that when OCR 

conducts an investigation to determine whether an institution provides equal athletic 

opportunities for male and female students, OCR evaluates the opportunities provided by 

the institution's intercollegiate or interscholastic "sports." OCR does not have a definition 

of the term "sport." Instead, OCR will consider several factors related to an activity's 

structure, administration, team preparation and competition when determining whether an 

activity is a sport that can be counted as part of an institution's athletic program for the 

purpose of Title IX compliance. The letter identified the specific factors OCR will 

consider in determining whether an activity will be counted as a "sport" under Title IX. 

The factors set forth in the letter give recipients flexibility to expand student athletic 

opportunities and allow students to take advantage of a wide array of competitive athletic 

activities. 
34

III. SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AND TITLE II OF 

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of disability in all programs or 

activities that receive federal financial 

assistance. The Section 504 regulations (34 

C.F.R. Part 104) contain general provisions 

as well as more specific provisions 

addressing employment; accessibility; 

preschool, and elementary and secondary 

education; postsecondary school education; 

health, welfare and social services; and 

procedures.

OCR also enforces Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II of the 

ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of disability by public entities, 

including public schools. OCR is 

responsible for enforcing Title II of the ADA 

with respect to public elementary and 

secondary school education systems and 

institutions, public institutions of higher 

education and vocational education (other 

than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing 

and other health-related schools), and public 

libraries.

A. Complaint Resolutions

Resolved Through Early Complaint Resolution (ECR)

· A complaint alleged that students with emotional disabilities, who were in two selfcontained classrooms, were assigned to “closets” for their classrooms, and were not 

provided classrooms comparable in terms of their space and conditions to those 

provided to students without disabilities. OCR facilitated an agreement between the 

parties in which the district agreed to move the self-contained students with 

disabilities to larger and comparable classrooms as those provided to the general 

education population. The district agreed to no longer use the space to which the 

students had been assigned for any special education class. 

· A complaint alleged that a school district would not allow a student with Down 

Syndrome to graduate with other high school students in the district’s graduation 

ceremony. Instead, the district offered the student a private graduation ceremony on 

another day. With the district’s graduation ceremony quickly approaching, OCR acted 

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for 

the service of the two OCR employees who 

handled my recent complaint to your office. Both 

employees took the time to understand the issues 

involved and to help me clarify what actions I 

needed. They made several phone calls to 

facilitate mediation between me and the school 

system involved and that mediation was 

successfully held today. Without their 

assistance, I would still not have a resolution to 

this issue and I am indebted to them for their 

exceptional services. Both of these individuals 

truly define what is meant by government 

service and are a credit to the Department of 

Education and to Federal employees 

everywhere. I hope that you will convey to them 

my appreciation for their dedication, hard work, 

and professional service. All of us are fortunate 

to have such exceptional persons defending our 

rights.

Letter From Complainant
35

promptly and facilitated an agreement between the parties that allowed the student to 

participate in the district’s graduation ceremony alongside his peers.

· A complaint alleged that students with disabilities in an exceptional children’s class 

were denied the opportunity to participate in a school’s art and music program, field 

trips and assemblies as well as use of the school’s library. OCR facilitated an 

agreement between the parties in which the district agreed to provide students in the 

exceptional children’s class the opportunity to participate in these programs and 

activities to the same extent as students without disabilities. 

· A complaint alleged that a high school student with juvenile diabetes was excluded 

from participating in band activities due to unavailability of staff trained to treat the 

student’s diabetes during the after-school activity. Through early complaint 

resolution, OCR successfully mediated an agreement whereby the district agreed to 

ensure that a person trained to administer medication for the student’s diabetes is 

available whenever an after-school practice for the student’s band section is held. 

Excluding or Limiting Students From a Program

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a student who used a wheelchair but did 

not require special education services was denied admission to two charter schools in 

the district because of his need for related aids and services. OCR confirmed the 

allegations and found that the two charter schools, along with three others in the 

district, used screening methods to determine whether students had a disability prior 

to enrollment. The district voluntarily agreed to ensure that each of the district’s 13 

charter schools implement their admission policies in a nondiscriminatory manner to 

avoid screening out or categorically denying admission to students with disabilities. 

Specifically, the district agreed to ensure that charter schools removed from the 

enrollment form any questions pertaining to a student’s disability status or IEP; that 

charter schools would provide related aids and services on an individual basis, as 

needed, to any student with a disability who met the enrollment criteria; and that a 

statement of nondiscrimination regarding equal access and treatment of persons with 

disabilities would be included on district 

handouts, brochures, school choice 

literature, and charter school Web sites. 

The agreement impacted approximately 

379 students with disabilities.

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging 

that a district charged students with 

disabilities who required an aide more 

than it charged non-disabled students to 

participate in the district’s after-school

enrichment program. Specifically, parents 

of children who needed a special 

education aide to participate in the 

program were required to pay $25 for 

I wanted to follow up with you to let you 

know that I appreciate the way you handled 

the complaints in our district. ... [F]acing 

three OCR complaints my first year was 

overwhelming. Your professionalism and 

courtesy in answering my questions and 

arranging interview dates and times helped 

make the process less frightening. Thank you, 

again, for your consideration to our district 

and me.

E-mail From a District’s Exceptional 

Children’s Program Director
36

each session of an after-school course in order to cover the cost of the aide. The 

district agreed to resolve the complaint by amending its fee policy and to reimburse 

parents who paid the additional fee during the school year.

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a district discriminated on the basis of 

disability when it refused to admit a student with autism into its childcare program for 

children of district employees. As a result of the district’s discrimination, both parents 

ultimately lost their jobs due to the need to stay home to care for the child. OCR 

confirmed the allegations and found that integrating the child into the program would 

not have caused a fundamental alteration to the program. Among other things, the 

district agreed to reinstate the mother, who was a district employee, and to admit the 

student into the childcare program. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging a district discriminated against special 

education students at a middle school on the basis of disability by excluding special 

education students from recognition on its A and B honor roll or comparable honor 

roll. OCR found that the district was selectively applying its unwritten honor roll 

policy by treating severely disabled students who met the honor roll criteria 

differently without a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The district agreed, 

among other things, to develop a written honor roll policy that is consistent with 

Section 504 and Title II and to submit evidence to OCR showing that the school 

uniformly applied the honor roll policy in effect and provided equal recognition to all 

eligible honor roll students for the previous six-week grading period, regardless of 

their disability status.

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging a district discriminated against a student on 

the basis of disability when it denied the student admission to an online high school 

operating statewide under a management service agreement with the district. OCR 

found that the online school contractor had established and applied written and 

unwritten criteria that denied admission to the online high school to students with 

disabilities solely because of their need for certain special education or related 

services. The district entered into an agreement to revise the admissions policies and 

procedures for the online high school to ensure disabled students were not excluded 

from participation solely because of a need for special education or related services. 

The district informed the student of the online high school’s new admissions policies 

and procedures and offered the student an opportunity to apply for admission to the 

school. 

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a student with a significant medical 

disability was not evaluated for Section 504 eligibility. OCR found that the district’s 

practice was to place students with medical conditions on intervention plans rather 

than to consider whether such students were eligible for services under Section 504. 

As a result of OCR’s investigation, the student was found to be eligible for a Section 

504 plan and thereby received such modifications as a reduced course load, a plan for 

homebound instruction when needed, and modifications on the state’s standardized 
37

assessments. Moreover, the district reviewed all students with medical conditions on 

intervention plans to determine which students might be eligible for Section 504

services. As a result of the review, 91 students with medical conditions were 

evaluated and found eligible for Section 504 services. 

· OCR’s investigation found that students with disabilities at 12 of the district’s 99 

schools were denied educational services due to the district’s transportation schedule. 

Students with disabilities who were transported on the district’s buses arrived at their 

assigned schools after the official start of the school day and left school before the 

official end of the school day. Students who lost 15 minutes of instruction daily 

missed a total of six full days of instruction per year; students who lost 30 minutes of 

instruction daily missed more than 12 full days of instruction per year; and students 

who lost one hour of instruction daily missed more than 19 full days of instruction per 

year. To correct the noncompliance, the district agreed to adjust the transportation 

schedules for the 75 buses that transported students with disabilities so that the 

students would arrive at, and depart from, their assigned schools at the official 

designated start and end time of the school day. The district also agreed to determine 

on an individual basis each student’s need for compensatory services for the loss of 

instructional time. The agreement impacted 880 students. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging a district failed to consider and address all 

relevant information about a student’s disability. The student had been diagnosed 

with asthma and had a need for frequent and long-lasting disability-related absences. 

He also needed to use an inhaler at school. OCR found that, when the district 

determined that the student was ineligible for Section 504 status, it did not address 

whether the student’s asthma substantially limited the major life activity of breathing. 

The district also failed to consider the impact of the student’s asthma on his ability to 

attend school. To resolve these compliance concerns, the district agreed to solicit 

information about the student’s asthma from his parents and physician and to invite 

his parents to participate in a team meeting to determine whether the student needed a 

Section 504 plan. The district also agreed to revise its Section 504 policies and 

procedures to include a more detailed definition of an individual with a disability and 

to train relevant school staff on identifying students with a health or medical 

disability under Section 504. 

Grievance Procedures 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a very large local education agency 

(LEA) failed to respond appropriately to a complaint that a teacher harassed a student 

because of his disability. OCR’s investigation determined that nearly two years after a 

complaint had been filed with the LEA on the student’s behalf, no final determination 

of the complaint had been made. OCR found that the duration of most of the LEA’s 

other complaint investigations was similar. OCR also determined that the LEA had 

not adopted grievance procedures that provided for the prompt and equitable 

resolution of complaints. To resolve the underlying OCR complaint, the LEA agreed 

to adopt and publish grievance procedures for addressing complaints of disability 

discrimination, including harassment, which would incorporate appropriate due 
38

process standards and provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of such 

complaints. It also agreed to immediately conclude its investigation of the complaint 

alleging that the student was harassed on the basis of disability. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a college discriminated against a student 

on the basis of her disability when it placed her on involuntary medical leave 

following a voluntary admission as an inpatient at a psychiatric facility. The 

complaint alleged that the student was not given an opportunity to grieve the vice 

president’s decision to place her on medical leave, and there was no individualized 

assessment of her ability to return to college following her discharge from the facility.

OCR determined that the college’s policy did not provide students with an 

opportunity to appeal decisions or otherwise provide students with due process 

comparable to that provided to students without mental or emotional disorders. The 

college agreed to revise its policy on involuntary withdrawal in order to ensure that 

students are afforded an appeal process and/or other due process rights comparable to 

those provided to students without mental or emotional disorders. The college 

partially reimbursed the student for the semester in which she was placed on 

involuntary leave. 

Postsecondary Education (Academic Adjustments and Housing)

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a college failed to provide electronic texts 

to a student with a reading disability. OCR’s investigation found that one month prior 

to the start of the semester, the student provided a list of nine textbooks he needed. 

Two of the e-texts were mailed two days before the start of class. At that time, the 

college offered to scan five textbooks, but this would have required the student to be 

without the books for at least two weeks after the start of the semester. The student 

received two more e-texts approximately a month after the start of class, but never 

received the remaining five textbooks. OCR determined that the college failed to 

provide the student with the necessary textbooks in an alternative format in a timely 

manner. To resolve the complaint, the college agreed to revise its procedures for 

requesting textbooks in an alternative format to ensure that requests are processed in a 

timely manner. The college also agreed to process the student’s request for texts for 

the next semester in a timely manner. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a university discriminated against a 

student with cystic fibrosis in its housing program by charging her more than its 

standard room rate for a single room with a semi-private bathroom that she needed 

because of her disability. OCR found that the university acknowledged that the 

student required the single room because of her disability, but the university’s 

housing policy made no provision for adjustments to the rate structure for reason of 

disability. As a result of OCR’s negotiations, the university agreed to revise its 

student housing policy and rate structure and to reimburse the student the difference 

between its standard room rate and the higher rate she was charged for the year she 

occupied the private room. 
39

Accessibility

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging accessibility issues at a large university’s 

stadium. OCR found that the stadium had over 107,500 seats, but only 88 wheelchairaccessible seats, all of which were located in the end zones. Over a period of several 

years the university effectively gutted most of the seating bowl in the stadium to 

accomplish what it argued were mere repairs. Despite having been advised by OCR 

that the construction activity was of sufficient magnitude to trigger compliance with 

Section 504 and ADA accessibility standards, the university completed the projects 

without adding a single accessible seat. OCR determined there was evidence to 

substantiate violations of Section 504 and the ADA with respect to: the number and 

location of accessible seating for persons with mobility impairments; accessible 

routes into and around the stadium; the accessibility of restrooms, concession stands 

and souvenir shops; and accessible parking. OCR’s attempts to resolve these matters 

with the university resulted in impasse and the case was referred to the U.S. 

Department of Justice, which joined a lawsuit already filed. A settlement was reached

under which the university will add approximately 248 permanent accessible seats 

over a two-year period, mostly along the sidelines. The university also agreed to 

modify its ticketing policies to ensure that persons with disabilities have a meaningful 

opportunity to obtain seats, to add accessible parking, improve inaccessible toilet 

rooms and provide accessible routes into and around the stadium. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging, among other things, that a student with a 

disability fell out of his wheelchair into the street because of the deterioration of a 

curb ramp on a university campus. In its investigation, OCR found numerous 

violations of applicable accessibility standards. The university entered into an 

agreement with OCR in which it agreed to rebuild the curb ramp where the student 

had fallen and to make modifications to 11 campus buildings, including renovations 

to restrooms, adjusting the pulling pressure for doors, providing other accessible curb 

ramps, installing directional signage, providing accessible ramps, installing accessible 

water fountains and providing accessible parking spaces. 

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that a children’s room of a public library was 

not accessible to persons with mobility impairments. OCR identified several

compliance concerns, including the lack of an accessible bathroom that rendered the 

programs of the library inaccessible to persons with physical disabilities. The town 

entered into an agreement to make needed modifications in order to provide access to 

the programs and activities of the library. 

· An OCR investigation found that three recently built playgrounds within a district had 

barriers that prevented children with mobility impairment from accessing any part of 

the playground. OCR also found barriers that prevented access to two of the district’s 

elementary schools. The district agreed to take actions to remedy the accessibility 

compliance concerns at these sites to ensure that programs and activities are readily 

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 
40

· OCR investigated a complaint alleging that an elementary school student with 

mobility impairments had to be lifted and carried onto the school bus; that others had 

to push the student’s wheelchair to the cafeteria because the route into the cafeteria 

was not accessible; that the activities held at the gymnasium were not accessible to 

the student because there was no ramp; that the main restroom for boys was not 

completely accessible; that there were insufficient disabled parking spaces at the 

school; and that the student could not play on the playground because it had a pea 

gravel surface. OCR’s investigation found the district failed to provide program 

accessibility. Specifically, OCR found inaccessible transportation for students with 

disabilities, inaccessible restrooms, inaccessible playground routes and surface areas, 

inaccessible nonacademic programs (i.e., recess), an inaccessible gymnasium, and 

inaccessible routes and parking lots for persons with disabilities. The district entered 

into an agreement requiring that it ensure the inaccessible areas are brought into 

compliance under the applicable accessibility standards. 

Monitoring

· An OCR investigation determined that there were accessibility concerns with six 

buildings at a university. Specifically, there was a lack of accessible entrances and 

routes as well as a lack of appropriate signage indicating designated accessible routes. 

The university agreed to address all the compliance concerns identified by OCR. As 

part of its monitoring activities, OCR conducted a follow-up visit to the university. 

OCR determined that the university had successfully fulfilled its commitments and, 

therefore, OCR completed its monitoring of the case. 

· An OCR investigation found that a district failed to comply with Section 504 and 

Title II in its policies and practices for students with disabilities seeking admission to 

its alternative and magnet schools through its intradistrict open-enrollment lottery. 

The district entered into an agreement to resolve the compliance concerns. In its 

monitoring of the agreement, OCR confirmed that the district developed written 

procedures for assigning students with disabilities to alternative schools under the 

district’s intradistrict open enrollment program. These procedures will ensure that 

students with disabilities whose open enrollment lottery numbers entitle them to 

placement in their school(s) of choice will have equal access to existing district 

alternative schools. The district also revised all letters, informational materials, 

information on the district’s Web site, and information provided to parents at school 

fairs about the district’s open enrollment lottery to eliminate any statements advising 

or suggesting that special education services are not available at all alternative 

schools or similar statements that might discourage students with disabilities from 

applying for enrollment at alternative schools. In light of the actions taken by the 

district, OCR closed its monitoring of the agreement. 

B. Proactive Enforcement

Compliance Reviews 
41

In FY 2007, OCR initiated 2 accessibility compliance reviews and 1 compliance review 

on testing as it relates to Section 504 and Title II issues. OCR also initiated 2 compliance 

reviews concerning the procedural requirements of Section 504 and 3 compliance 

reviews that considered the procedural requirements of Section 504 along with the 

procedural requirements of other regulations enforced by OCR. As discussed in the Title 

VI section above, OCR initiated compliance reviews on whether LEP students were 

being inappropriately included in or excluded from special education and whether 

minority students were being inappropriately included in or excluded from special 

education. These compliance reviews concern Section 504 and Title II as well as Title VI. 

In FY 2007, OCR resolved 9 accessibility compliance reviews. OCR also resolved 

compliance reviews on whether LEP students were being inappropriately included in or 

excluded from special education, whether minority students were being inappropriately 

included in or excluded from special education, as well as the procedural requirements of 

Section 504 and other regulations enforced by OCR. 

In FY 2008, OCR focused on the important issues of access to AP and other high-level 

learning opportunities. OCR initiated 2 compliance reviews that focused on access of 

students with disabilities to AP and similar courses and 1 compliance review on the 

access of both students with disabilities and LEP students to these courses. In FY 2008, 

OCR resolved 2 compliance reviews on the issue of access of students with disabilities to 

AP and similar courses.

Additionally, in FY 2008, OCR initiated 2 compliance reviews on FAPE issues, 1 

compliance review on accessibility, and 2 compliance reviews on the procedural 

requirements of the Section 504 regulations and other regulations enforced by OCR. In 

FY 2008, OCR resolved 3 compliance reviews on the procedural requirements of Section 

504, 2 compliance reviews on the procedural requirements of Section 504 and other 

regulations enforced by OCR, 2 compliance reviews on minorities in special education, 3 

compliance reviews on accessibility, 1 FAPE-related compliance review, and 1 

compliance review on whether students with disabilities were discriminated against in 

interdistrict transfer policies, practices and procedures. 

· OCR initiated a compliance review of a university to evaluate whether the 

university’s buildings and programs were accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

OCR’s investigation determined there were compliance concerns and the university 

entered into an agreement to resolve these concerns. The university agreed to make 

modifications to approximately 60 buildings as well as athletic fields and parking 

facilities on two separate campuses. 

· OCR found compliance concerns at another university where it reviewed whether a 

university’s buildings and programs were accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

The university entered into an agreement to resolve the compliance concerns in which 

it agreed to modify approximately 31 parking facilities and 16 buildings, including 

entrances, restrooms, classrooms, meeting areas, residential buildings and 

laboratories. 
42

Technical Assistance

As part of OCR’s proactive enforcement of Section 504 and Title II, OCR provided 

numerous technical assistance presentations on disability issues. Disability is the most 

requested subject matter for OCR technical assistance and the area with the largest 

number of complaints filed. 

In FY 2007, OCR provided 115 technical 

assistance presentations that focused entirely or 

partially on disability issues. Presentation 

topics included the requirements of Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for public 

elementary and secondary schools, assistive 

technology, academic adjustments and 

auxiliary aids in postsecondary education, 

accessibility and Web accessibility. 

OCR’s presentation on students with disabilities transitioning from high school to college 

was the most frequently offered presentation in FY 2007, with over 30 of them given. 

Because there are differences between the rights and responsibilities of students with 

disabilities in the high school setting and those of students with disabilities in the 

postsecondary education setting, OCR has provided students with information proactively

to make this transition effectively. OCR has given this presentation to students with 

disabilities and their parents as well as to teachers, administrators, school counselors and 

disability services staff. 

In FY 2007, OCR also provided technical assistance on more specialized areas within 

Section 504 and Title II compliance. At a conference sponsored by a university and local 

bar association, OCR participated on a panel discussing mental health accommodations 

and discipline in postsecondary education. OCR provided a presentation at a statewide 

conference on issues related to deaf and hard–of–hearing students in postsecondary 

education. At a national conference for disability support service providers, OCR 

presented technical assistance on grievance procedures for processing disability 

discrimination complaints as well as strategies for creating access for students with 

disabilities in health science-related programs. OCR continues to provide technical 

assistance in the area of disability to varied audiences on a wide range of topics. 

In FY 2008, OCR presented approximately 130 technical assistance presentations that 

focused entirely or partially on disability issues. The presentation on students with 

disabilities transitioning from high school to college as well as the presentation on 

Section 504 for public elementary and secondary schools remain among the most 

frequently offered presentations. OCR has also offered a presentation on whether food 

allergies can be a disability under Section 504 and a presentation on grievance procedures 

for Section 504 cases. OCR continues to offer technical assistance on such issues as 

academic adjustments and auxiliary aids, accessibility, Web accessibility and assistive 

technology. 

Thank you for addressing our questions. You 

answered all my questions and I am no 

longer afraid of 504’s.

Written comment on evaluation 

following a technical assistance 

presentation on Section 504
43

C. Regulatory and Policy Development

Transition of Students From High School to Postsecondary Education

On March 16, 2007, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter and a “Dear Parent” letter 

regarding the legal rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities as they 

transition from secondary to postsecondary education settings. The letters noted that 

postsecondary education institutions have significantly different responsibilities from 

those of elementary and secondary school districts and they highlight examples of the 

unique relationship between postsecondary institutions and students with disabilities. To 

further inform students with disabilities, parents and educators, OCR highlighted its 

newly revised pamphlet Students With Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary 

Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities as well as the newly published guide 

Transition of Students With Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High 

School Educators, which responds to frequently asked questions on the topic of students 

with disabilities transitioning to postsecondary education. The pamphlet and guide, which 

are available electronically on OCR’s Web site, explain the legal requirements of Section 

504 and Title II in the postsecondary education context. 

Access by Students With Disabilities to Accelerated Programs

On Dec. 26, 2007, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter regarding the issue of students 

with disabilities seeking enrollment in challenging academic programs, such as Advanced 

Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) classes or programs. The letter 

made clear that it is unlawful to deny a qualified student with a disability admission to an 

accelerated class or program solely due to that student’s need for special education or 

related aids and services or because the student has an IEP or a Section 504 plan. The 

letter emphasized that the practice of conditioning participation in these classes or 

programs by a qualified student with a disability on the forfeiture of special education or

related aids and services to which the student is legally entitled violates Section 504 and 

Title II requirements. 

18th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

On July 25, 2008, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter commemorating the 18th

anniversary of the ADA. In addition to reflecting on the accomplishments made towards 

providing educational opportunities to students with disabilities, OCR announced its 

Wounded Warriors Initiative. This initiative focuses on the veterans returning from 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom who are now individuals with 

disabilities who want to pursue higher education. Because these veterans often have 

recently acquired their disability, they may not have a history of receiving disabilitybased accommodations and may not be familiar with their disability-related rights and 

responsibilities. Moreover, many colleges and universities have not had much experience 

accommodating students with the types of disabilities common among these veterans, 

including post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, late acquired blindness or 

deafness, significantly disfiguring burns and multiple amputations. With its Wounded 

Warriors Initiative, OCR seeks to work with both the veterans with disabilities who need 
44

to know their ADA rights and responsibilities and the institutions seeking to know how to 

best support these students. 

IV. THE AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1975

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (the Age Act) generally prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. ED’s 

regulations implementing the Age Act are codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 110 and state that no 

person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, 

be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 

receiving federal financial assistance. 

OCR received 402 complaints of age discrimination in FY 2007. Of these, 97 were “ageonly” complaints and 305 were “multiple bases” complaints. Of the 402 complaints 

received, 223 were processed in OCR and 179 were referred to other federal agencies for 

processing as appropriate. Issues surrounding allegations of discrimination on the basis of 

age vary. The most frequently cited issues involving students include “student treatment” 

(76 complaints); “program requirements” (52 complaints); and “admissions” (46 

complaints).

In FY 2008, OCR received 410 complaints of age discrimination. Of these, 96 were “ageonly” complaints and 314 were “multiple bases” complaints. Of the 410 complaints, 215 

were processed in OCR and 195 were referred to other agencies.

A. Complaint Resolutions

· A student who had dropped out of his local high school was denied admission to a 

college’s adult high school diploma program because he was 16 years old. The 

community college’s policy was that applicants to the program must be at least 18 

years old. With OCR’s help, the complainant and the college decided to resolve the 

complaint allegation through an early complaint resolution agreement. The college 

agreed to admit the student into the program. 

· A complaint alleged that a district: failed to designate an employee to coordinate its 

efforts to comply with the Age Act, Section 504, and Title II; failed to adopt and 

publish required notices regarding age and disability discrimination; and failed to 

adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution 

of complaints of age and disability discrimination. Following notification from OCR 

of the complaint, the district conducted a self-assessment and, based on that selfassessment, the district submitted an agreement that resolved the complaint. It agreed 

to designate and adequately train at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to 

comply with and carry out its responsibilities under the Age Act, Section 504 and 

Title II, and to adopt and disseminate a notice regarding its Age Act, Section 504 and 

Title II coordinator(s). The district also agreed to adopt and post on its Web site a 

notice of nondiscrimination regarding the protections against discrimination and 

retaliation assured by the Age Act, Section 504 and Title II. Further, the district 

agreed to develop grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable 
45

resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by the Age Act and to develop 

grievance procedures for Section 504 and Title II complaints that incorporate 

appropriate due process standards as well as provide for prompt and equitable 

resolution of complaints.

B. Proactive Enforcement

Compliance Reviews

In FY 2007, OCR initiated a compliance review that concerned the procedural 

requirements of the Age Act regulations, as well as the procedural requirements of 

Section 504 and Title IX regulations. This compliance review was resolved in FY 2008. 

In FY 2008, OCR initiated a compliance review of another recipient that concerned the 

procedural requirements of the Age Act regulations as well as the regulations of Title VI, 

Title IX, Section 504 and Title II of the ADA. 

V. THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EQUAL ACCESS ACT

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (the Boy Scouts Act), part of the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001, applies to any public elementary school, public secondary 

school, LEA or SEA that has a designated open forum or limited public forum and that 

receives funds made available through ED. Under the Boy Scouts Act, these entities may 

not deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group 

officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or any other youth group listed in 

Title 36 of the United States Code (as a patriotic society) that wishes to conduct a 

meeting within the covered entity’s designated forum. The law gives ED, through OCR, 

responsibility for ensuring that the Boy Scouts and other covered youth groups have 

equal access to public school facilities. On March 24, 2006, OCR published final 

regulations implementing the Boy Scouts Act in the Federal Register. 

In FY 2007, OCR received 8 complaints alleging violations of the Boy Scouts Act. Of 

these cases, OCR resolved 7 and continues to investigate 1 case. In FY 2008, OCR 

received 5 complaints alleging violations of the Boy Scouts Act.
46

VI. OTHER PROGRAM MANDATES AND ACTIVITIES

A. Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP)

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP), administered by ED’s Office of 

Innovation and Improvement (OII), provides financial assistance to school districts 

seeking to improve education programs and to reduce, prevent or eliminate minority 

group isolation. The program provides three-year grants for the enhancement or 

establishment of magnet schools. The MSAP statute expressly requires that the assistant 

secretary for civil rights determine whether applicant school districts will meet 

nondiscrimination assurances specified in the MSAP statute. OCR also assesses whether 

applicants' MSAP plans are consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In FY 2007, OCR reviewed 47 MSAP applications from school districts. In FY 2008, 

OCR conducted reviews of 41 MSAP applications. After review and, for some districts, 

negotiation of agreements to address specific civil rights concerns, OCR certified that all 

the FY 2007 and FY 2008 applicant districts were meeting their MSAP civil rights 

assurances. In FY 2008, OCR completed its MSAP reviews in less time than it did in FY 

2005, FY 2006 or FY 2007, thus enabling OII to more quickly deliver MSAP funding to 

the districts. In addition, in both FY 2007 and FY 2008, OCR provided technical 

assistance to the majority of MSAP recipients to help them comply with the civil rights 

aspects of the MSAP statute. 

B. Vocational Education Methods of Administration

OCR oversees the civil rights compliance programs of 68 state agencies that administer 

vocational education at the secondary and postsecondary levels. Under the Guidelines for 

Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National 

Origin, Sex, and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs (Appendix B of the Title 

VI regulation), OCR leverages state agency resources to enhance compliance by school 

districts and community colleges that provide career and technical education. To guide 

and assist state agencies in their civil rights compliance activities, OCR conducts annual 

training conferences, provides case-specific technical assistance, evaluates state agency 

compliance reports, and provides individualized recommendations for improvement of 

state agency compliance programs. In FY 2007 and FY 2008, the 68 state agencies 

conducted approximately 300 comprehensive compliance reviews, and approximately 90 

percent of these reviews resulted in corrective action. As a result of the training, guidance 

and technical assistance that OCR provides to the state agencies, these agencies have 

steadily improved the quality of their compliance reviews and findings and the adequacy 

of the resulting remedies.

C. Minority and Related Institutions 

In April 2006, OCR developed and launched a redesigned Web site providing the lists of 

minority and related institutions. OCR published updated versions of these lists in 

September 2007, and updated these lists again in 2008. OCR provides these lists solely as 
47

a service to the public. None of the lists are necessarily a complete listing of all colleges 

and universities that might fall within a particular category. Whether or not an institution 

of higher education appears on one of these lists, institutions are responsible for 

establishing their eligibility for a particular grant or contract competition, or other benefit, 

with ED or any other federal agency. OCR has also continued to provide technical 

assistance to callers on this issue.

D. Good Guidance Practices

In FY 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued new requirements for 

federal agencies regarding the development and distribution of new significant guidance 

documents and the posting of existing significant guidance documents on agency Web 

sites. These requirements address drafting and language use, agency clearance, OMB 

notification and review, posting on agency Web sites, and public input through public 

comment and the filing of public complaints. OCR is working with ED’s Office of the 

General Counsel and other offices in ED to implement these requirements, which took 

effect July 24, 2007 (August 23, 2007 for posting existing significant guidance 

documents). Among other developments, OCR’s significant guidance documents have 

been published on ED’s Web site, at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significantguidance.doc. The Web site will be updated as appropriate.

VII. TECHNOLOGY

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR continued a concerted effort to create a paperless office 

environment, which would contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency with which OCR 

carries out its mission.

A. Case and Activity Management System

OCR’s Case and Activity Management System (CAMS) includes the combined tools of a 

Case Management System (CMS), an Activity Management System (AMS) and a 

Document Management System (DMS). CMS manages the tracking of OCR complaints, 

compliance reviews and proactive activities, such as technical assistance. In FY 2005, 

OCR began development of augmented capabilities through AMS that will allow for 

automated tracking of other OCR activities carried out by the Program Legal Group in 

OCR headquarters, including such activities as general legal and policy guidance, casespecific legal and policy guidance, and responses to information requests from the public. 

CAMS also includes an integrated DMS, which enables electronic storage of a wide 

range of OCR work products. In FY 2008, OCR reached a milestone with more than a 

quarter of a million documents stored on DMS. Several civil rights offices in other 

federal agencies have contacted OCR for information on CAMS and are considering 

developing similar systems.

OCR has developed performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of CAMS, 

including a measure capturing the percentage of OCR resolution documents that are 

available electronically via DMS. As Table 4 below shows, the percentage of documents 
48

available continues to increase rapidly, ensuring that all OCR staff across the nation have 

quick and easy desktop access to important case resolution documents.
49

Table 4. Percentage of Final Case Resolution Documents Accessible to

OCR Staff via CAMS’ Document Management System: 

FY 2004-08

FY 2008 99.6%

FY 2007 99%

FY 2006 98%

FY 2005 73%

FY 2004 61%

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR has continued its efforts to expand the Paperless Office 

Initiative, and launched the Paperless Office Pilot in OCR's Seattle Office in preparation 

for expanded use of CAMS' document management capabilities. OCR's vision through 

this initiative is that one day it will house all case-, policy- and management-related OCR 

documents to truly provide expanded access and efficiency.

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR continued to expand the project, with partial implementation 

in FY 2006, of a comprehensive, automated OCR Policy Repository. This repository 

provides OCR staff, for the first time, with a single, centralized, electronic source of 

current OCR policy documents–all readily accessible and easily searchable. In FY 2007, 

OCR developed a comprehensive interactive Web-based library reference tool, Legal and 

Policy Resource Guide, that includes links to statutes, regulations, case law and policy 

documents. This tool also resides in OCR's DMS.

B. Civil Rights Data Collection

The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) (formerly OCR’s Elementary and Secondary

School Survey (E&S Survey)) has now been merged with the Department’s EDFacts data 

collection and reporting system, a central repository of information on K–12 programs, 

including NCLB data. CRDC data are collected through a Web-based collection, the 

Supplemental Survey Tool, which assists EDFacts by providing a system with the 

capability to collect district- and school-level data from school districts that integrates 

civil rights and other data, including essential data related to NCLB. 

CRDC is primarily Web-based. For the 2006 CRDC, approximately 97 percent of the 

5,929 districts reporting provided data through the Web-based data collection, an increase 

from the approximately 66 percent of districts that provided data using the Web for the 

2004 CRDC. Implementation of data collection through the Web, combined with 

augmented outreach to school districts, resulted in a 100 percent response rate for the 

2006 CRDC. The 2006 CRDC represents the first time in the history of the CRDC (or of 

its predecessor collection, the E&S Survey) that 100 percent of the surveyed school 

districts responded.
50

The information collected by the CRDC is useful not only to ED, the Department of 

Justice and other federal agencies; the CRDC data also help school administrators and 

researchers evaluate schools, and help parents make better-informed education choices 

for their children. Data from the 2006 CRDC were made available to ED staff on the 

Internet in November 2007, and to the general public on the Internet in December 2007. 

The 2006 CRDC marks the first time that the CRDC data have been made available to the 

public on the Web in the same calendar year in which these data were collected. 

Two reports published in FY 2008 rely, in whole or in part, upon data from the CRDC. 

One report, issued by an education foundation, incorporates data from the 2006 CRDC 

and from the National Center for Education Statistics. The report highlights information, 

derived from the CRDC data, regarding race and high school graduation rates. The report 

also introduces a new analytical tool, which is based on data related to graduation rates, 

NAEP results, discipline, special education classification, and placement in gifted and 

talented and AP courses. Most components of this proposed analytical tool are based on 

data from the CRDC. Another report published in 2008 relied on CRDC data in its 

findings on corporal punishment during the 2006–07 school year. 

C. Web-based Electronic Complaint Filing

OCR has increased the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its complaint filing process by 

promoting the use of a Web-based electronic complaint filing system. The dramatic 

increase in complaints filed using this system is testament to its customer-friendly, 

efficient and effective design and implementation. In FY 2007, over 62 percent of the 

5,894 complaints received were filed electronically. In FY 2008, 66.5 percent of the 

6,194 complaints received were filed electronically. This represents a significant increase 

from FY 2004, when 34.4 percent of complaints were filed electronically.

VIII. PROMOTING MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR continued its focus on management excellence. These efforts 

have allowed OCR to maximize its ability to carry out its law enforcement mission in a 

timely and effective manner, even in light of shrinking resources and expanding 

demands. The processes OCR has put into place ensure synchronization as well as 

communication and coordination at all levels, including in OCR’s customer service, 

human resources, and fiscal responsibilities. 

OCR continues to make efforts to ensure that its strategic goals and priorities are 

regularly communicated to staff at all levels. In FY 2007, the assistant secretary for civil 

rights visited all 12 of OCR’s enforcement offices. These visits provided her with the 

opportunity to share OCR’s achievements, priorities and goals with the enforcement 

offices as well as to receive feedback from the staff in these offices. In FY 2008, the 

assistant secretary again visited all 12 of OCR’s enforcement offices and met with teams 

at each office, which provided OCR staff a greater opportunity to provide feedback. 

In December 2006, OCR held a national managers conference in Nashville, Tenn., which 

brought together OCR managers from each of OCR’s regional offices and headquarters. 
51

This conference provided training on the latest management and leadership strategies. It 

also allowed for discussions on how to improve coordination and OCR’s current case 

investigation processes. 

In September 2007, OCR’s managers met again in California and brought in management 

experts to discuss such topics as coaching others to be effective leaders and successful in 

their job responsibilities as well as broadening strategic management perspectives and 

problem–solving skills within the public administrative environment. A representative of 

the Office of Personnel Management and a human resources consultant discussed 

implementing effective succession planning and developing new leaders as the need 

arises to replace OCR’s retiring staff members. 

In July 2008, OCR’s office directors and chief attorneys met in Texas to discuss a full 

agenda, including key policy, enforcement and management issues. OCR’s senior 

management also gave careful thought and discussion to a proposed 2009 enforcement 

docket and the issues on which OCR will focus its limited discretionary funding 

resources. Due to OCR’s funding constraints during FY 2008, this was the only national 

managerial meeting OCR was able to have during the fiscal year. 

The following illustrates OCR’s efforts in FY 2007 and 2008 to promote effective 

management throughout the various mission-critical business processes in OCR.

A. Customer Service

Effective civil rights enforcement in education requires that the public as well as 

education institutions understand the legal regulatory requirements and that students, 

parents, educators and other members of the 

public understand their rights. To meet 

these goals, OCR makes its guidance 

available in many different media, 

including through the Internet, and updates 

and augments that guidance regularly to 

ensure it reflects current developments. 

OCR also serves the public through its 

national toll-free customer service line. In 

FY 2007, OCR responded to over 6,325 

hotline phone inquiries, a 17 percent increase over FY 2006. OCR responded to 6,891 

hotline calls in FY 2008, an 8.94 percent increase over FY 2007. OCR responds to 

written requests from Congress, other federal agencies, state agencies, education 

institutions at all levels and others. In FY 2007, OCR provided written and oral guidance 

in response to tens of thousands of inquiries, and exceeded ED's goal of a 10-day average 

for responding to controlled secretarial correspondence. Using an enhanced managerial 

oversight of the process, OCR was able to improve the average for completion of 

secretarial correspondence significantly. In FY 2008, OCR continued to improve its 

average time for responding to correspondence. Office of the secretary correspondence 

Thank you both for your time and diligence. It 

was helpful learning how Federal law applies 

to issues we discussed .... Both of you are to 

be commended for your patience and attention 

to detail in how you handled my questions and 

concerns and helped me understand the issues 

and law that pertain to my complaint.

Letter From Complainant
52

received a final response in fewer than two days, and general correspondence received a 

final response in an average of 3.3 days. 

OCR also carried out its customer service responsibilities through its work involving the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 

U.S.C. §552. The FOIA was enacted in 1966 and generally provides that any person has 

the right to request access to federal agency records. The Privacy Act, a companion to the

FOIA, also regulates federal government agency recordkeeping and disclosure practices. 

Under these two acts, persons (i.e., complainants, students, parents, school districts, 

colleges, universities and the media) have the right to request access to, or copies of, 

records maintained by OCR. OCR reviews and responds to the requests, consistent with 

the Department's FOIA and Privacy Act regulations. 

Each year, OCR receives a significant number of such requests, which are processed in 

OCR's headquarters and regional offices. (See Figure 10.) OCR devotes considerable 

resources to meeting the requirements of these laws and to providing timely and effective 

access to information to the public. In FY 2007, OCR received a combined total of 741 

FOIA and Privacy Act requests. OCR received a combined total of 1,005 FOIA requests 

in FY 2008.

To further customer service with respect to FOIA and Privacy Act requests, OCR has 

been a significant participant in the Department's initiative to automate case management 

under these laws. Executive Order 13392, "Improving Agency Disclosure of 

Information," issued on Dec. 14, 2005, emphasizes the need for more efficient and 

effective processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests. OCR is committed to producing 

tangible and measurable improvements in processing them and, in FY 2006, OCR 

successfully piloted FOIAXpress, the Department's Web-based solution for FOIA and 

Privacy Act case management, in two of its enforcement offices and in headquarters. By 

the end of FY 2007, FOIAXpress was fully implemented in all OCR field offices and 

headquarters.

In addition, in FY 2007, consistent with Executive Order 13392, OCR established new 

FOIA procedures, including delegation to the 12 OCR office directors the authority of 

FOIA denial officers. In addition, in FY 2007 the function of FOIA Service Center is 

provided by each of the enforcement offices directly to its customers for the FOIA

requests it processes. This allows FOIA requests to be processed in a more efficient and 

timely manner, and establishes clear accountability for FOIA processing. 
53

1013

915

1040

993

944

839

898

741

1005

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Figure 7. Number of FOIA Requests Received by OCR, FY 2000-08

B. Staff Training and Development

In FY 2007 and 2008, OCR continued its implementation of its national training and 

developmental strategy, ensuring that OCR employees receive adequate programmatic 

and professional development. For example, in FY 2007, OCR held a legal and 

investigative conference for its new employees both in its enforcement offices and 

headquarters. This conference, held in New Orleans, allowed new employees to learn 

from and interact with seasoned OCR staff. Experienced OCR staff taught sessions on: 

the laws and regulations enforced by OCR as well as OCR policy; effective investigative 

techniques; and how to efficiently use OCR’s document management system. The 

conference also provided new employees with an overview of the secretary of

education’s initiatives, a discussion of how OCR interacts with the rest of the Department 

of Education and other agencies, as well as a summary of OCR’s customer service survey 

and the organizational assessment initiatives. 

As part of its national training strategy, OCR has invested in the development of two 

Web-based training modules: one on general investigative procedures and a second on 

investigating allegations of harassment. While Web-based training will not replace 

classroom training, it will be available to the staff at their desks at minimal cost to OCR. 

To ensure successful implementation of the new Case Processing Manual (CPM), OCR 

provided training sessions to all employees in each enforcement office and in 

headquarters. The training highlighted the new procedures set forth in the CPM and 

focused on conducting quality, legally sufficient investigations. Because the CPM was 

revised to provide greater flexibility for resolution, training emphasized the procedural 

tools employees may use to conduct investigations thoroughly and promptly. While all 

formal training sessions were completed by March 14, 2008, staff has continued to 

receive instruction and additional training, as necessary, to ensure all staff are trained to

investigate and resolve complaints in the most effective manner.
54

C. Fiscal Management

In the area of financial management in FY 2007, OCR was in compliance with the 

Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and had no reportable conditions or material 

weaknesses in its financial accounting systems. Also, OCR had no unpaid Purchase Card 

transactions for FY 2007. In FY 2008, OCR continued to maintain its fiscal integrity by 

complying with and closely monitoring fiscal management systems such as authorized 

travel and contracts. Important information about fiscal management—including 

appropriate use of travel cards—is routinely shared with employees in OCR, and OCR 

managers are held to high standards on these issues. 

D. Human Capital Planning

During the past decade, FY 1998 through FY 2008, OCR’s complaint receipts rose by 

nearly 28 percent, from 4,847 in 1998 to 6,194 in 2008. However, OCR’s FTE usage has 

steadily declined over these years, from 685 in FY 1998 to 614 in 2008. This represents 

simultaneously the smallest number of staff and nearly the largest number of complaints 

received in OCR’s history.

OCR’s FTE usage has dropped from 630 in FY 2006 to 614 in both FY 2007 and FY 

2008. During this same period OCR’s complaint receipts have increased from 5,805 in 

FY 2006 to 6,194 in FY 2008. To meet this increased workload with a smaller number of 

staff, OCR has developed a systematic and strategic approach for managing its human 

capital that includes a rigorous recruitment and hiring process, development of a national 

training program, and performance appraisal standards that clearly recognize and 

distinguish among levels of employee performance. 

In hiring, OCR recruits widely from a range of sources that offer a large pool of qualified 

candidates. A panel, comprising knowledgeable OCR staff, reviews all resumes and 

conducts first-round interviews only of well-qualified applicants. The panel recommends 

the most highly qualified applicants for a second-round interview. Only applicants with 

the most excellent credentials are offered positions. As a result of this highly selective 

process in FY 2007 and FY 2008, OCR’s new employees have made strong and effective 

additions to the offices.

In the area of employee performance appraisals in FY 2007 and FY 2008, OCR 

continued its exacting standards in scrutinizing employee performance under the 

Department’s Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS). For employees whose 

performance is less than “Successful,” steps are taken to improve or enhance 

performance to bring it to the “Successful” level. 
55

MEETING OUR MISSION

As we seek to educate new generations of Americans, it is vital that all students, 

regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age, receive a quality 

education. As part of ED’s commitment to achieving this goal beyond FY 2008, OCR 

will continue to enforce federal civil rights laws through timely and efficient 

investigations, compliance reviews and policy guidance that address high-priority issues 

of significant impact, informative and proactive technical assistance, and innovative uses 

of technology. 

Because complaint investigation and resolution remains one of OCR’s most important 

responsibilities, OCR will continue to 

improve the quality, consistency and 

transparency of its case investigation 

and resolution process. In FY 2008, 

OCR continued to develop its 

enforcement abilities through 

increased training for OCR employees. 

In conjunction with added training, 

OCR’s new Case Processing Manual 

clarified the filing of complaints, their 

investigation and eventual resolution, 

making the entire OCR process easier 

and more accessible for complainants, 

recipients and the general public.

OCR will continue to initiate 

compliance reviews on high-priority

issues across the country designed to 

ensure that recipients are in 

compliance with the laws OCR 

enforces. To bolster OCR’s impact in 

these areas, OCR will continue to develop guidance, including Dear Colleague letters, on 

these high-priority issues. In our efforts to ensure that students are given every chance to 

learn regardless of race, sex, disability or age, OCR has initiated compliance reviews 

focused on whether minority students and students with disabilities are provided 

nondiscriminatory access to Advanced Placement programs. In conjunction with these 

reviews, OCR developed a Dear Colleague letter emphasizing the importance of 

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs and discussing Title VI 

compliance issues in regard to these programs. OCR also developed a Dear Colleague 

letter on students with disabilities and access to accelerated programs. Using both 

compliance reviews and a Dear Colleague letter, OCR plans to address the Title VI nondiscrimination requirements as applied to the NCLB transfer provisions for schools 

failing to make adequate yearly progress. In FY 2008, OCR began its rollout of a 

veterans with disabilities initiative designed to ensure that veterans who acquire 

If we don't believe that education is a civil right and 

a matter of economic competitiveness, we're kidding 

ourselves. The world doesn't grade on a curve. In 

1975, we were number one in college completion 

rates. In 2005, we were number 10. And the world 

continues to pass us by. Just to stay competitive, 

postsecondary education must become twice as 

productive. Studies show that 20 million more 

Americans will need higher education by 2025. The 

American Dream is about our kids doing better 

than us. But, at current rates, my daughters' 

generation will not be better educated than mine. 

We need more accountability, not less.

Secretary Margaret Spellings

Remarks on the future of the accountability 

movement

Sept. 15, 2008
56

disabilities during military campaigns have an equal opportunity to participate in higher 

education. 

Additionally, OCR will continue to focus its compliance reviews on crosscutting issues 

with significant impact on students’ lives. These issues will include physical access to 

campus facilities for students with disabilities; the provision of grievance procedures and 

coordinators under Title IX; ensuring equitable treatment on the basis of sex in 

accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of students; the provision of services 

for LEP students; the inappropriate 

inclusion or exclusion of LEP students 

in special education; and 

communication with LEP parents.

Over the past year, OCR has observed 

the emergence of specific trends that 

are complicating recipients’ ability to 

comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. For example, in 

the area of Title IX athletics, schools 

are often forced to make changes to 

athletic programs that may jeopardize 

their membership in outside athletic 

organizations. Specifically, regulations 

imposed upon schools by member 

organizations often conflict with Title 

IX and impede a school’s ability to 

comply with the law. In many 

instances, recipients face penalties or risk losing membership if they make changes 

required by Title IX. One of the challenges OCR faces is helping schools comply with 

Title IX without jeopardizing their membership in outside athletic organizations. 

Additionally, in the area of Title VI, OCR is seeing a trend develop in cases dealing with 

the instruction of LEP students. State laws mandate the type of program instruction LEP 

students receive and sometimes, these laws conflict with the requirements of Title VI. 

The multiple legal requirements imposed by different laws create confusion and make it 

extremely difficult for recipients to be certain they are in compliance with Title VI. 

OCR will assist schools dealing with these and other challenges and will continue to 

vigorously protect the right of every student to equal educational opportunities by using 

targeted technical assistance. Technical assistance will benefit schools, administrators, 

parents, and students by making clear the civil rights laws and regulations in education. 

OCR seeks to prevent conflict before it arises by proactively informing schools and 

students of their rights and obligations under the laws enforced by OCR.

In its continuing efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of all areas of its work, 

OCR will maximize its use of technology. OCR will continue its efforts to move towards 

a paperless system, which includes expanding the use of its document management 

Today, more than 50 years after Brown v. the 

Board of Education ... 40 years after the 

assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King ... and 

25 years after A Nation at Risk ... do we finally 

have the willpower to achieve equal opportunity 

in education? Do we have the courage to aim 

higher, and prepare every student for today’s 

global economy? I believe we do. Everywhere I 

go, I meet parents who are demanding change ... 

and hardworking educators who are 

wholeheartedly committed to achieving it. They 

need and deserve all the leverage we can give.”

Secretary Margaret Spellings

Remarks at the Detroit Economic Club

April 22, 2008
57

system. OCR plans to post all current policy documents on its Intranet site and create a 

centralized electronic collection in its document management system. OCR also will 

continue to develop Web-based training and seminars for its staff throughout the country. 

As we celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, we are reminded 

of the importance of all the laws enforced by OCR in providing access to education. In an 

increasingly competitive world the key to America’s continuing prosperity is education. 

Secretary Spellings has made clear her belief that “[w]e cannot prepare students for the 

global economy if we don’t get them to grade level first.” OCR will continue to strive to 

achieve this goal by ensuring that every child, every student, and every applicant has 

equal access to the vast educational opportunities this country offers. 
58

APPENDIX A: OFFICES AND ADDRESSES

U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Washington, DC 20202-1100

Customer Service: 800-421-3481 § TDD: 877-521-2172 § Fax: 202-245-6840

http://www.ed.gov/ocr

CONNECTICUT, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT

ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, MINNESOTA, 

NORTH DAKOTA, WISCONSIN

Office for Civil Rights, Boston Office

U.S. Department of Education

33 Arch St., Suite 900

Boston, MA 02110-1491

Telephone: 617-289-0111; Fax: 617-289-0150

E-mail: OCR.Boston@ed.gov

Office for Civil Rights, Chicago Office

U.S. Department of Education 

Citigroup Center

500 W. Madison St., Suite 1475

Chicago, IL 60661

Telephone: 312-730-1560; Fax: 312-730-1576

E-mail: OCR.Chicago@ed.gov

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, PUERTO RICO, 

VIRGIN ISLANDS MICHIGAN, OHIO

Office for Civil Rights, New York Office

U.S. Department of Education

32 Old Slip, 26th Floor 

New York, NY 10005-2500

Telephone: 646-428-3900; Fax: 646-428-3843

E-mail: OCR.NewYork@ed.gov

Office for Civil Rights, Cleveland Office

U.S. Department of Education

600 Superior Ave. East, Suite 750

Cleveland, OH 44114-2611

Telephone: 216-522-4970; Fax: 216-522-2573

E-mail: OCR.Cleveland@ed.gov

DELAWARE, MARYLAND, KENTUCKY, 

PENNSYLVANIA, WEST VIRGINIA

KANSAS, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OKLAHOMA, 

SOUTH DAKOTA

Office for Civil Rights, Philadelphia Office

U.S. Department of Education

The Wanamaker Building

100 Penn Square East, Suite 515

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3323

Telephone: 215-656-8541; Fax: 215-656-8605

E-mail: OCR.Philadelphia@ed.gov

Office for Civil Rights, Kansas City Office

U.S. Department of Education

8930 Ward Parkway, Suite 2037

Kansas City, MO 64114-3302

Telephone: 816-268-0550; Fax: 816-823-1404

E-mail: OCR.KansasCity@ed.gov

ALABAMA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, TENNESSEE

ARIZONA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, 

WYOMING

Office for Civil Rights, Atlanta Office

U.S. Department of Education

61 Forsyth St. S.W., Suite 19T70 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Telephone: 404-562-6350; Fax: 404-562-6455

E-mail: OCR.Atlanta@ed.gov

Office for Civil Rights, Denver Office

U.S. Department of Education 

Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building, Suite 310

1244 Speer Boulevard

Denver, CO 80204-3582

Telephone: 303-844-5695; Fax: 303-844-4303

E-mail: OCR.Denver@ed.gov

ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, TEXAS CALIFORNIA

Office for Civil Rights, Dallas Office

U.S. Department of Education

1999 Bryan St., Suite 1620

Dallas, TX 75201-6810

Telephone: 214-661-9600; Fax: 214-661-9587

E-mail: OCR.Dallas@ed.gov

Office for Civil Rights, San Francisco Office

U.S. Department of Education

50 Beale Street, Suite 7200

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: 415-486-5555; Fax: 415-486-5570

E-mail: OCR.SanFrancisco@ed.gov

NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ALASKA, AMERICAN SAMOA, GUAM, HAWAII, 

IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, OREGON,

Office for Civil Rights, District of Columbia Office

U.S. Department of Education

1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 316

P.O. Box 14620 

Washington, DC 20044-4620

Telephone: 202-786-0500; Fax: 202-208-7797

E-mail: OCR.DC@ed.gov

WASHINGTON AND NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Office for Civil Rights, Seattle Office

U.S. Department of Education

915 Second Ave., Room 3310

Seattle, WA 98174-1099

Telephone: 206-220-7900; Fax: 206-220-7887

E-mail: OCR.Seattle@ed.gov
59

APPENDIX B: FY 2008 COMPLAINT RECEIPTS, BY JURISDICTION AND 

OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICE 

OCR Office

Race/

National 

Origin Sex Disability Age Multiple Other Total

Boston 42 14 223 7 48 20 354

New York 84 21 270 14 90 91 570

Philadelphia 76 29 307 11 70 68 561

District of Columbia 78 25 241 4 69 48 465

Atlanta 136 28 321 6 92 117 700

Dallas 137 42 330 7 111 64 691

Chicago 119 45 291 15 93 45 608

Cleveland 67 23 242 6 48 27 413

Kansas City 74 23 199 6 67 15 384

Denver 40 13 199 9 50 96 407

San Francisco 88 45 350 10 108 86 687

Seattle 52 20 192 1 71 18 354

National 993 328 3,165 96 917 695 6,194
60

APPENDIX C: FY 2007 COMPLAINT RECEIPTS, BY JURISDICTION AND 

OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

OCR Office

Race/

National 

Origin Sex Disability Age Multiple Other Total

Boston 50 25 262 3 43 26 409

New York 63 20 265 10 80 54 492

Philadelphia 75 31 260 7 73 43 489

District of Columbia 76 18 250 8 55 41 448

Atlanta 143 35 308 8 81 109 684

Dallas 116 38 326 5 97 79 661

Chicago 105 44 243 13 102 47 554

Cleveland 73 18 183 9 51 34 368

Kansas City 44 18 191 2 62 28 345

Denver 37 22 197 3 50 93 402

San Francisco 98 31 326 24 93 79 651

Seattle 54 27 202 5 61 42 391

National 934 327 3,013 97 848 675 5,894
61

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF OCR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PUBLICATIONS 

AVAILABLE AT WWW.ED.GOV/OCR

Listed below is a sample of publications available on OCR’s Web site, including those 

most frequently requested by mail. How to File a Complaint With OCR and Ensuring 

Access to High-Quality Education are available in 17 or more languages in addition to 

English.

· Students With Disabilities: Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your 

Rights and Responsibilities, (English version), June 2006 and September 2007.

· Ensuring Equal Access to High-Quality Education, (English version), June 2006.

· Auxiliary Aids and Services for Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Higher 

Education’s Obligations Under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, Revised 

September 1998.

· Preparación para la educación postsecundaria para los estudiantes con 

discapacidades: Conozca sus derechos y responsabilidades (Spanish version of 

Students With Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education), April 2007.

· Asegurar la igualdad de acceso a educación de alta calidad (Spanish version of 

Ensuring Equal Access to High Quality Education), September 2004.

· Transition of Students With Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for 

High School Educators, June 2007.

· How to File a Discrimination Complaint With the Office for Civil Rights, October 

2007.

· Annual Report to Congress–FY 2006, July 2007.

· Federal Register: Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006: Part III: Department of Education: 34 

CFR Part 106: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 

Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, Final Rule. 

· Title IX: Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test–

Part Three, March 2005. 
62