November 26, 2014

Dr. Soner Tarim

Superintendent/Chief Executive Officer 

Harmony Public Schools Central Office

9321 West Sam Houston Pkwy. South

Houston, TX 77099

Re: OCR Docket No. 06-11-5004

Dear Dr. Tarim:

This letter is to advise you of the resolution of the above-referenced compliance review by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Harmony Public Schools 

(HPS), a public charter school system in Texas. The review was initiated under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title VI and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 

100, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; Section 504 and its 

implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 104, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in 

education programs operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance; and Title II and its 

implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by 

public entities. HPS receives Federal funds from the Department, and its schools are public 

educational entities. Therefore, OCR has jurisdictional authority to investigate HPS and initiate 

this compliance review under Title VI, Section 504, Title II and their implementing regulations. 

This review generally examined whether HPS discriminates on the basis of national origin or 

disability by failing to provide national origin minority English Language Learner (ELL) 

students and students with disabilities equal access to and equal opportunity to participate in its

charter schools. OCR’s review specifically focused on HPS’ compliance, under Title VI, Section 

504, and Title II, with respect to equal opportunity in admissions, the provision of alternate 

language services to ELL students, communications with national origin minority limited 

English proficient (LEP) parents and guardians, the provision of a free appropriate public 

education (FAPE) to students with disabilities, HPS’ notice of nondiscrimination on the basis of 

disability, HPS’ designation of Section 504/Title II coordinators, and HPS’ grievance procedures 

for complaints of disability discrimination. 

Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, HPS expressed an interest in voluntarily 

resolving the review. HPS voluntarily submitted the enclosed Resolution Agreement 

(Agreement) to resolve the compliance issues examined in this review on October 30, 2014. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

1999 BRYAN ST., SUITE 1620

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-6810

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

www.ed.gov

REGION VI 

ARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

TEXAS
Page 2 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

OCR has determined that the provisions of the Agreement are aligned with OCR’s compliance 

concerns regarding the specific civil rights issues examined in the review and will appropriately 

resolve them. OCR will monitor HPS’ completion of the steps outlined in the Agreement to 

ensure that they have fully implemented the provisions of the Agreement and are in compliance 

with the above-referenced regulations. 

This letter summarizes the applicable legal standards, the information gathered during the 

review, and how the review was resolved.

Background 

The Cosmos Foundation Inc. (CF), a non-profit charter management organization, established in 

Houston, Texas, operates HPS. HPS is headquartered in Houston, Texas, and as of October 

2014, information from the HPS website indicated that the HPS system enrolled 28,500 students. 

Based on data from HPS, in the 2011-2012 school year, HPS served 20,239 students, which 

included 2,372 ELL students (11.72% of total),1656 students with disabilities (3.24% of total), 

identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et 

seq., and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (2014), and 198 students with 

disabilities identified under Section 504 (0.98% of total).

The HPS system contains 15 individual districts opened under separate charter documents. Each 

individual district is considered a separate local education agency (LEA) by the Texas Education 

Agency (TEA). There are 43 individual charter schools within the 15 HPS districts. According 

to HPS’ website, HPS charter schools are “high performing K-12 college preparatory charter 

schools focusing on math, science, engineering, and computer technologies.” The website cites 

HPS’ high graduation and college acceptance rates (both at 100%) and low student-to-teacher 

ratio (14-to-1). HPS describes its mission as preparing “each student for higher education by 

providing a safe, caring, and collaborative atmosphere featuring a quality, student-centered 

educational program with a strong emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics.”

In the course of this investigation, OCR reviewed HPS’ policies and procedures for student 

recruitment and admission, the provision of alternative language program services to ELL students, 

and the provision of a FAPE to students with disabilities. The policies and procedures generally 

applied to all of HPS’ 15 LEAs, including all 43 HPS charter schools. OCR also analyzed 

comprehensive data regarding the implementation of the policies and procedures in four of HPS 

“districts” with the largest student enrollments. These districts included the following 18 schools 

as of the 2010-2011 school year:

 

1

For the Harmony Districts that were the focus of OCR’s review, the three most common home languages of ELL 

students were Spanish (52%), Turkish (14%), and Vietnamese (7%).
Page 3 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

1. Harmony Public Schools - Harmony School of Excellence (Houston-North)2

(TEA District #101858) -- hereinafter, District #1

 Harmony Science Academy – Houston Northwest (located in Cypress-Fairbanks 

Independent School District (ISD))

 Harmony School of Excellence (located in Cypress-Fairbanks ISD)

 Harmony School of Excellence—Endeavor (located in Aldine ISD)

 Harmony School of Advancement High (located in Aldine ISD)

 Harmony School of Discovery (located in Cypress-Fairbanks ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy—Bryan/College Station (located in Bryan ISD)

2. Harmony Public Schools—Harmony School of Science (Houston-West)

(TEA District #101862) -- hereinafter, District #2

 Harmony School of Science (located in Fort Bend ISD)

 Harmony School of Science-High (located in Fort Bend ISD)

3. Harmony Public Schools—Harmony Science Academy (Houston-South)

(TEA District #101846) -- hereinafter, District #3

 Harmony School of Innovation-Houston (located in Alief ISD)

 Harmony School of Ingenuity-Houston (located in Houston ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy-Houston High (located in Alief ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy-Houston (K-8) (located in Houston ISD)

 Harmony School of Fine Arts and Technology (located in Houston ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy-Beaumont (located in Beaumont ISD)

4. Harmony Public Schools - Harmony Science Academy (Fort Worth)

(TEA District #220813) -- hereinafter, District #4

 Harmony Science Academy-Fort Worth (located in Fort Worth ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy-Grand Prairie (located in Grand Prairie ISD)

 Harmony Science Academy-Euless (located in Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD)

 Harmony School of Nature and Athletics (located in Duncanville ISD. 

OCR conducted on-site visits at seven of the above schools, including one elementary school 

(grades K-5), three elementary-middle schools (grades K-7 or K-8) and three elementary-middlehigh schools (grades K-9, K-10, or K-11).3 During the on-site activities, OCR conducted 

interviews with HPS central office and school administrators, English-as-a-second language (ESL) 

and special education (SPED) teachers and program coordinators, teachers of core subjects, and 

school personnel involved in the admission process. OCR also conducted an extensive review of 

student files for ELL students and students with disabilities who were selected for admission to 

examine the language assistance and/or special education and related aids and services provided to 

students.

 

2 TEA names the charter LEA after the first school opened under that particular charter. 

3 As the grade configuration of each Harmony campus changed each school year, OCR used the grade levels for the 

above campuses for the 2011-2012 school year.
Page 4 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Legal Authority

The statutes and regulations at issue in this review, Title VI, Section 504 and Title II, are the 

same as those that apply to other public schools.4These laws extend to all operations of a charter 

school, including recruiting, admissions, academics, educational services and testing, school climate 

(including prevention of harassment), disciplinary measures (including suspensions and expulsions), 

athletics and other nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, and accessible buildings 

and technology. 

Admissions 

The fact that students choose to attend a charter school and are not simply assigned to attend a 

charter school underscores the need to be mindful of the rights of children and parents in the 

community when publicizing the school to attract students and when evaluating their 

applications for admission. Charter schools may not discriminate in admission on the basis of race, 

color, national origin or disability. As a general rule, a school’s eligibility criteria for admission 

must be nondiscriminatory on their face and must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. In 

addition, charter schools may not use admissions criteria that have the effect of excluding students 

on the basis of race, color, or national origin from the school without proper justification. Charter 

schools also may not categorically deny admission to students on the basis of disability. 

The Title VI regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) states that no person shall, on the grounds of race, 

color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise 

subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 

100.3(b)(1)(i)-(vi) further states that a recipient may not, on the grounds of race, color or national 

origin, deny an individual any service or benefit of its programs; provide any services or benefits to 

an individual which are different or provided in a different manner; subject an individual to separate 

treatment; restrict an individual in the enjoyment of any benefits of its programs; treat an individual 

differently in determining enrollment in its programs; or, deny an individual an opportunity to 

participate in a program through the provision of services or otherwise or afford an opportunity to 

do so which is different from that afforded others under the program. 

The Title VI implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2) states that a recipient, in 

determining the types of services, facilities or other benefits to be provided, or the situations in 

which such services or benefits will be provided, may not directly or through contractual or other 

arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting 

individuals to discrimination because of their national origin, or have the effect of defeating or 

substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program with respect to 

individuals of a particular national origin. 

 

4

See OCR Dear Colleague Letter on Charter Schools (May 14, 2014), 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-charter.pdf (reminding charter schools of their 

legal obligations under Federal civil rights laws and briefly addressing a few subjects that have arisen in the charter 

school context). 
Page 5 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

The regulations implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a) and (b), and Title II at 28 

C.F.R. § 35.130(a), provide, in pertinent part, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, 

on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of the 

services, programs, or activities of the recipient or public entity, or otherwise be subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity of the recipient or public entity. In general, the 

Title II regulations applicable to the FAPE issues raised in this compliance review do not provide 

greater protection than the applicable Section 504 regulations. Therefore, in accordance with the 

Title II regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.103, OCR applied the Section 504 standards in examining 

the issues raised in this compliance review.

In determining whether a recipient subjected students to different treatment on the basis of race, 

color or national origin in violation of Title VI, or on the basis of disability in violation of Section 

504 and Title II, OCR looks to whether there were any apparent differences in the treatment of 

similarly situated students on the basis of national origin. If different treatment is found, OCR 

evaluates the recipient’s explanation for any differences in the treatment of similarly situated 

students to determine if the explanation is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation and whether 

it is merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Additionally, OCR examines whether the 

recipient treated the students in a manner that was consistent with its established policies and 

procedures and whether there is any other evidence of discrimination based on national origin. In 

addition to different treatment of students on the basis of race, color, national origin, and disability, 

a recipient violates Title VI when it evenhandedly implements facially neutral policies or practices 

that have a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race, color or national 

origin or on students with disabilities; this form of discrimination is known as disparate impact. 

Like all traditional public schools, public charter schools must ensure that language-minority 

parents who are not proficient in English receive meaningful access to the same admissions 

information and other school-related information provided to English-proficient parents in a manner 

and form they can understand, such as by providing free interpreter and/or translation services. 

Under OCR policy, school districts have the responsibility to adequately notify national origin 

minority group parents of information that is called to the attention of other parents. Such notice, in 

order to be adequate, may have to be provided in a language other than English.5

ELL Students

Like all public schools, charter schools must take affirmative steps to help ELL students overcome 

language barriers so that they can participate meaningfully in their schools’ educational programs.6 

A charter school must timely identify language-minority students who have limited proficiency in 

 

5

See OCR May 25, 1970, memorandum, “Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of 

National Origin,” reprinted in 35 Fed. Reg. 11,595 (July 18, 1970). See also Executive Order 13166, “Improving 

Access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” reprinted at 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (August 16, 2000) 

(requiring recipients of Federal financial assistance to “take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their 

programs and activities by LEP persons.”) and U.S. Department of Justice Policy Guidance, “Enforcement of Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency 

(LEP)” (June 18, 2002), (provides guidance to recipients of Federal financial assistance from DOJ about the method and 

manner (including translation and interpretation) for delivering information to LEP persons). 

6 OCR’s policies governing the treatment of ELL students are available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/ellresources.html.
Page 6 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

reading, writing, speaking, or understanding English, and must provide those students with an 

effective language instruction educational program that also affords meaningful access to the 

school’s academic content. Federal civil rights laws do not, however, require any school, including 

a charter school, to adopt or implement any particular educational model or program of instruction 

for ELLs; schools have substantial flexibility to determine how they will satisfy their legal 

obligations to meet these students’ needs. 

According to OCR policy, where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes 

national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program 

offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency

in order to open its instructional program to these students. These compliance standards require 

schools to select a sound educational theory for their programs for ELL students that are likely to 

meet the educational needs of language-minority students effectively. A school must use practices, 

resources and personnel reasonably calculated to implement its educational theory. Schools have a 

dual responsibility to teach students English and to provide them with access to the curriculum, 

taking steps to ensure that students are not left with academic deficits. Schools must demonstrate 

that their programs for ELL students are successful in meeting these responsibilities, or modify 

them if necessary. Unless the specialized program requires proficiency in English, the recipient 

must ensure that evaluation and testing procedures do not screen out LEP students on the basis of 

their limited English proficiency. Tests used to select students for specialized programs should 

not be of the type that the student’s limited proficiency in English will prevent the student from 

qualifying for a program for which the student would otherwise be qualified. 

In instances where parents refuse to enroll their children in an ELL program, the school district 

should inform parents about the purpose and benefits of the ELL program in a language they 

understand and, if a student who has been opted out of ELL services is unable to perform at grade 

level without receiving ELL services, the school district should periodically remind the parent that 

the student remains eligible for such services. School districts must also provide language 

services to students whose parents have declined or opted out of the ELL program by monitoring 

students’ academic progress and providing other language support services for such students.

Students with Disabilities

Under Section 504, every student with a disability enrolled in a public school, including a public 

charter school, must be provided a FAPE – that is, regular or special education and related aids 

and services that are designed to meet his or her individual educational needs as adequately as 

the needs of students without disabilities are met. Evaluation and placement procedures are 

among the requirements that must be followed if a student needs, or is believed to need, special 

education or related services due to a disability. Charter schools may not ask or require students 

or parents to waive their right to a FAPE in order to attend the charter school. Additionally, 

charter schools must provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in such a 

manner that students with disabilities are given an equal opportunity to participate in these 

services and activities. 
Page 7 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 provides that (a) a recipient that 

operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall provide a FAPE to 

each qualified person with a disability who is in the recipient's jurisdiction, regardless of the 

nature or severity of the person's disability; and (b)(1) the provision of an appropriate education 

is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that (i) are designed 

to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of 

nondisabled persons are met and (ii) are based upon adherence to procedures that satisfy the 

Section 504 requirements of §§ 104.34, 104.35 and 104.36. Implementation of an individual 

education plan (IEP) or a Section 504 plan is a means by which to meet this requirement.

The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.34 states that a recipient shall educate, or shall 

provide for the education of, each qualified person with a disability in its jurisdiction with 

persons who are not disabled to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the person with 

a disability.

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a)-(c) requires a recipient to 

conduct an evaluation of any person who, because of a disability, needs or is believed to need 

special education or related services before taking any actions with respect to the initial 

placement of the person in regular or special education and any subsequent significant change in 

placement.

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. § 104.36 requires a recipient to establish 

and implement, with respect to actions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational 

placement of persons who, because of disability, need or are believed to need special instruction 

or related services, a system of procedural safeguards that includes notice, an opportunity for the 

parents or guardian of the person to examine relevant records, an impartial hearing with 

opportunity for participation by the person’s parents or guardian and representation by counsel, 

and a review procedure. 

Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. § 104.8 requires recipients to notify participants, beneficiaries, 

applicants, employees and unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or 

professional agreement with the recipient that the recipient does not discriminate on the basis of 

disability in violation of Section 504. The regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. § 35.106 

requires a public entity to make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other 

interested parties information regarding the provisions of Title II and its applicability to the 

services, programs, or activities of the public entity, and make such information available to 

them in such a manner as the head of the entity finds it necessary to apprise such persons of the 

protections against discrimination assured them by Title II. 

In addition, the Section 504 regulation requires a recipient to designate at least one person to 

coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504, and to publish the identity of that individual 

and his or her contact information. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7(a) and 104.8(a). The regulation 

implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a) requires a public entity to coordinate its efforts 

to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title II. The public entity shall make 

available to all interested individuals the name (or title), office address, and telephone number of 

the designated employee.
Page 8 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Finally, the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b) states in part that a recipient shall 

adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide 

for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by Section 

504. The regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b) similarly requires a recipient 

to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of 

complaints alleging any actions prohibited by Title II. 

Admissions 

OCR examined the admissions and recruitment policies applicable to HPS charter schools 

currently and throughout OCR’s investigation. HPS provided OCR with a copy of its nondiscrimination policy stating that its charter schools do not discriminate on the basis of race, 

color, national origin and disability in providing educational services, activities and programs. 

The investigation revealed that HPS has written policies and procedures for student admission, 

which include the use of a random lottery. The policies and procedures provide that admission 

and enrollment are open to all students who reside within the geographic boundaries stated in the 

open-enrollment charter of each HPS school, and who are eligible for admission based on criteria 

identified in the charter and state law. The geographic boundaries for HPS schools within a HPS 

district include the traditional public school district in which the HPS school is located with 

some schools encompassing other surrounding public school districts as well. The geographical 

boundaries are approved by the TEA, including any changes to geographic boundaries. 

As required by the TEA, the policies provide that when making admission decisions, HPS does 

not discriminate against students based on national origin, ethnicity, or disability, or the district 

the child would otherwise attend under state law (e.g., a predominantly minority school district 

or low performing school district). State law provides that charter schools may exclude from 

admission students with a documented history of a criminal offense, juvenile court adjudication 

or discipline problems. HPS’ application specifically asks whether a student has any 

documented history of a criminal offense or juvenile court adjudication and notes that HPS’ 

decision to admit a student may be withdrawn if the charter school’s later review of the student’s 

disciplinary records indicates that the student is disqualified from admissions eligibility. OCR 

did not obtain information about how many students were denied admission because of a 

documented history of a criminal offense or juvenile court adjudication or had their admissions 

decisions withdrawn due to the student’s disciplinary records. 

The above policies and procedures also provide that to be eligible for participation in the random 

lottery for admission, applicants are first required to submit a completed application form. 

Individual school websites include the application form for their schools, although the content is 

the same for all HPS charter schools. OCR noted that the websites for some schools specifically 

describe the information required for enrollment, including the student’s birth certificate, last 

report card, standardized test scores, copy of social security card, copy of special education 

records, immunization records, proof of residency and proof of withdrawal from former school. 

The required enrollment information is also listed in the admissions packets mailed to students 
Page 9 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

after selection and in student handbooks.7 In a joint Dear Colleague Letter issued on May 8, 

2014, OCR and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reminded all 

schools that they must ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national 

origin, and that students are not barred from enrolling in public schools at the elementary and 

secondary level on the basis of their own citizenship or immigration status or that of their parents 

or guardians.8 OCR and DOJ emphasized that certain enrollment practices may chill or 

discourage the participation of students based on their or their parents’ or guardian’s citizenship 

or immigration status in contravention of Title VI and other laws. Specifically, the letter stated 

that a school district may not bar a student from enrolling in its schools because he or she lacks a 

birth certificate or has records that indicate a foreign place of birth, such as a foreign birth 

certificate. In addition, the letter explained that a district may not deny enrollment to a student if 

he or she (or his or her parent or guardian) chooses not to provide a social security number. 

OCR determined that parents could apply to HPS online at individual school websites or fill out 

paper application forms and submit them before the application deadline. They also could 

submit hard copy applications by mail, in person, and by fax. Regarding the selection process for 

admission, OCR determined that prior to the spring 2012 application period, HPS lottery 

procedures provided that each applicant was assigned a number, and each number was placed in 

a container and randomly drawn one number at a time by the Principal or designee. However, 

documentation revealed that for the spring 2012 applicant period, TEA approved HPS' request to 

conduct a random lottery by computer software. HPS provided OCR with documentation of the 

TEA's approval of the above change in procedure as well as information regarding the type of 

random software program used. In addition, OCR reviewed a video of the admissions lottery for 

Harmony School of Innovation on March 31, 2012, which included a demonstration to lottery 

attendees showing that the above software randomly selected student names. 

For both prior school years (2010-2011 and 2011-2012) and the Spring 2012 application period, 

HPS lottery procedures provided that applicants whose numbers were drawn while openenrollment slots remained available were offered admission. Once all enrollment spots were 

filled by the lottery, the remaining numbers were to be drawn and the applicants assigned to 

these numbers were placed on a waiting list in the order in which they were drawn. According to 

written procedures, if a vacancy arose before the commencement of the school year, the 

individual on the waiting list with the lowest number assignment was offered admission. HPS 

admission policies provided that if an application was received after the application period had 

passed, the applicant's name would be added to the waiting list behind the names of applicants 

who timely applied in the order of the date received. Documentation from student records and 

interviews with HPS administrators at the system-wide and school levels showed that no 

information regarding students' race/ethnicity, ELL status, or disability status was obtained 

during the application or lottery process.

 

7

See 2014-2015 Student/Parent Handbook, at

http://harmonytx.org/WebShare/DOWNLOAD_CENTER/pdf/handbooks/HPS_Student_Handbook_English.pdf.

8

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf
Page 10 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

HPS admission policies and procedures provided that notification of parents of applicants 

selected by lottery would be made by telephone, e-mail, or the U.S. Postal Service. According to 

these policies and procedures, failure of an applicant to respond within 48 hours of the date of 

the telephone call or e-mail, or within three business days of a post-marked letter, would result in 

the forfeiture of his or her position in the application process. OCR reviewed a copy of an 

English-language letter to notify parents of students selected for admission provided by HPS. 

Based on interviews with school personnel, OCR found that the seven schools visited by OCR 

were more lenient than the policy and allowed 10 days to two weeks for parents to respond to 

notice of selection.

OCR determined that students were recruited for admission to schools via mass mailings of 

cover letters and standard application forms and HPS brochures. The brochures included school 

names, grades, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and website addresses. The brochures 

stated that applications were being accepted, and that parents may review the attached 

application and submit an application by mail, fax, or online at any of the schools. Also included 

were the dates, times, and locations of open houses at individual schools during the application 

period. OCR determined that HPS obtained mailing lists of addresses from the traditional public 

school districts in which the HPS schools were located and the contiguous school districts for a 

fee. HPS hired mailing companies to distribute bulk mail (school brochure, application form, 

open house letter) in January of each year. In the event that a traditional public school district did 

not provide HPS with a timely list, HPS purchased lists from a mailing company. 

In addition, interview evidence showed that students were recruited via open house recruiting 

activities conducted at individual schools during the application period and via dissemination of 

paper application forms and HPS brochures to parents visiting individual schools. 

ELL Students - Admissions 

OCR obtained enrollment data for ELL students at HPS charter schools from HPS and for the 

traditional public school districts from TEA for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 

2011-2012 school years.9 Based on the statistical analysis, OCR determined that ELL students 

were underrepresented to a statistically significant extent at many of the schools in the four 

Districts as compared to the enrollment of ELL students in the traditional public school district in 

which each respective HPS school is located.10 The chart below illustrates this for the 2011-

2012 school year. 

 

9 Note that some of the above schools were not in operation for all of the above four school years. 

10 HPS reported that it did not obtain data on the ELL status or national origin of student applicants until after their 

selection for admission. Thus, OCR was unable to obtain the composition of the applicant pool to compare to the 

composition of the pool of students selected for admission regarding ELL status and national origin. OCR therefore 

compared the national origin ELL composition of the student enrollment at individual schools in the four Districts to 

that of the traditional public school districts in which HPS schools were physically located. OCR expected that the 

ELL and national origin composition of the HPS schools would generally reflect that of the traditional public 

districts in which they were located.
Page 11 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

HARMONY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DISTRICTS #1, #2, #3, and #4)

ENROLLMENT OF ELL STUDENTS (2011-12 school year) 

(Schools with Statistically Significant Under-representation of ELL Students Shaded)

HPS DISTRICTS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

DISTRICT SCHOOL ELL STUDENTS TOTAL ELL STUDENTS TOTAL 

#1 

Houston 

North

Northwest 63 9.9% 636 12,205 18.9% 64,560

Excellence 38 4.7% 806 12,617 17.4% 76,627

Endeavor 102 18.4% 555 16,234 36.8% 44,076

Advancement HS 9 1.9% 482 1,629 8.3% 19,273

Discovery 79 15.2% 520 13,061 16.1% 81,336

Bryan/CS 57 17.5% 326 2,490 16.8% 14,809

Total 348 10.5% 3,325 32,970 11.0% 300,681

#2

Houston 

West

Science 159 25.4% 626 7,080 24.1% 29,416

Science High 14 2.7% 527 1,349 6.0% 22,467

Total 173 15.0% 1,153 8,429 16.2% 51,883

#3 

Houston 

South

Innovation 101 17.4% 579 12,860 46.6% 27,629

Ingenuity 113 19.4% 583 51,086 31.1% 164,372

Houston High 25 4.5% 556 1,734 11.4% 15,151

Houston K-8 69 22.0% 314 48,077* 34.9%* 137,668*

Fine Arts/Tech 75 12.5% 598

Beaumont 43 8.9% 486 1,268 6.9% 18,296

Total 426 13.7% 3,116 113,757 33.0% 344,820

#4

Fort 

Worth

Fort Worth 26 4.4% 589 20,761 26.5% 78,405

Grand Prairie 72 13.3% 540 6,232 25.9% 24,038

Euless 56 9.2% 610 2,165 12.2% 17,803

Nature/Athletics 51 7.8% 657 1,526 15.4% 9,910

Total 205 8.6% 2,396 30,684 23.6% 130,156

TOTAL 1,152 11.5% 9,990 185,840 22.5% 827,540

*Houston K-8 and Fine Arts/Tech are located in the same traditional school district.

Regarding the mailed recruiting materials described above, the applications and cover letters 

were in English and Spanish and the brochures in English. HPS provided OCR with a copy of 

the English and Spanish brochures. In addition to the information in the English-language 

brochure described above, the brochures included a Spanish-language statement, on the back of 

the brochure, indicating that a Spanish version of the brochure was available online or at 

individual schools. 
Page 12 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Based on interviews with school personnel, OCR determined that the four identified Districts had 

Spanish-language-proficient personnel (e.g., ESL teachers, administrative assistants) who were 

available to assist with translation/interpretation (generally, oral interpretation) in the recruiting 

and enrollment process. The investigation revealed, however, that not all schools had a staff 

member available to assist with translation or interpretation to Spanish at open house recruiting 

events, but schools usually had staff proficient in other languages such as Vietnamese or Turkish 

at open house recruiting events. Additionally, OCR could not confirm, due to conflicting 

information from interviews with school personnel and/or documentation, that all schools 

informed parents at open house orientations that the schools offered ESL services.

During the on-site investigation, the various schools OCR visited provided copies of a paper 

HPS application form with English on one side and Spanish on the opposite side, which did not 

include any inquiries as to student ELL status or race/ethnicity. Various school personnel stated 

that the schools received the above dual-language applications from the HPS central office. 

Interviews with school personnel revealed that four of the seven schools had Spanish and English 

language application forms available at each school. However, at the remaining three schools 

(District #2’s Science and District #3’s Innovation and Ingenuity schools), there was conflicting 

interview information regarding whether Spanish application forms and brochures were available 

for walk-in ELL parents.

At the time of the on-site investigation, OCR reviewed the school websites for the seven selected 

sites, all of which were essentially identical (had similar formats and included the same types of 

information), and had a Google Translate function to translate the website homepage into 

Spanish and many other languages. OCR was unable to translate any of the online application 

forms or instructions. For two schools, OCR was able to successfully download a Spanishlanguage version of the HPS brochure, but the Google Translate function was unable to translate 

an HPS catalog or the student handbook on any of the websites. For the remaining five schools, 

OCR was unable to access the Spanish HPS brochure, catalog, or handbook. The review 

identified a webpage on the websites for all seven schools with a description of the school’s ESL 

program; however, OCR was unable to translate the website page describing the ESL program 

with the Google Translate function. 

On August 22 and August 25, 2014, OCR again reviewed the school websites. At that time, only 

five of the seven school websites utilized the Google Translate function. Information on how to 

apply was available in English at all of the seven schools; however, the Google Translate 

function did not work on the application instructions. Only two schools had functioning links to 

the above documents. Six of the seven schools had links to a student-parent handbook but only 

one of the six schools had a Spanish-language version of the handbook online. 

Students with Disabilities – Admissions 

OCR obtained the enrollment data for students with disabilities at the HPS schools from HPS 

and for the public school districts from the TEA for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2011-2012 

school years. Based on the statistical analysis, OCR determined that students with disabilities 

were underrepresented to a statistically significant extent at many of the schools of the four HPS 
Page 13 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Districts as compared to the enrollment of students with disabilities in the public school district 

in which each respective HPS school is located.11 The chart below illustrates this for the 2011-

12 school year.

HARMONY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DISTRICTS #1, #2, #3, and #4)

ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILTIES

(2011-12 school year) 

(Schools with Statistically Significant Under-representation of

Students with Disabilities Shaded)

HPS DISTRICTS LOCAL SCHOOL 

DISTRICT

DISTRICT SCHOOL STUDENTS 

WITH 

DISABILITIES

TOTAL STUDENTS 

WITH 

DISABILITIES

TOTAL

#1 

Houston 

North

Northwest 28 4.4% 636 4,599 7.1% 64,560

Excellence 11 1.4% 806 5,132 7.1% 76,627

Endeavor 16 2.9% 555 2,865 6.4% 44,076

Advancement HS 15 3.1% 482 1,617 8.2% 19,273

Discovery 7 1.4% 520 5,723 7.0% 81,336

Bryan/CS 20 6.1% 326 1,020 6.9% 14,809

Total 97 2.9% 3,325 20,956 7.0% 300,681

#2 

Houston 

West

Science 8 1.3% 626 1,709 5.8% 29,416

Science High 6 1.1% 527 1,404 6.3% 22,467

Total 14 1.2% 1,153 3,113 6.0% 51,883

#3 Houston 

South

Innovation 8 1.4% 579 1,826 6.6% 27,629

Ingenuity 10 1.7% 583 12,903 7.9% 164,372

Houston High 15 2.7% 556 1,339 9.2% 15,151

Houston K-8 8 2.6% 314 10,221* 7.4%* 137,668*

Fine Arts/Tech 9 1.5% 598

Beaumont 40 8.2% 486 1,343 7.3% 18,296

Total 90 2.9% 3,116 27,632 8.0% 344,820

#4

Fort Worth

Fort Worth 20 3.4% 589 4,331 5.5% 78,405

Grand Prairie 21 3.9% 540 2,130 8.9% 24,038

Euless 10 1.6% 610 1,580 8.9% 17,803

Nature/Athletics 21 3.2% 657 893 9.0% 9,910

Total 72 3.0% 2,396 8,934 6.9% 130,156

TOTAL 273 2.7% 9,990 60,635 7.3% 827,540

*Houston K-8 and Fine Arts/Tech are located in the same traditional school district.

 

11 Again, as noted above, some of the schools were not in operation for all of the above four school years and for the 

same reason stated above regarding the unavailability of data concerning applicants to HPS charter schools, OCR’s 

analysis compared the charter school enrollment of students with disabilities to the enrollment of students with 

disabilities at individual schools in the four Districts to that of the traditional public school districts in which HPS 

schools were physically located. 
Page 14 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

As noted above, HPS selects students for admission based on a random lottery. HPS did not 

collect any information regarding student disability status until after the application and selection 

process when selected students registered and enrolled. As noted above, HPS recruited students 

through mailing materials, including applications and brochures, and holding open house events. 

These materials, as well as the school websites, included HPS’s nondiscrimination statement 

regarding disability as well as the HPS “Child Find” policy (policy to identify and locate 

students who contact or enroll in HPS and may have a disability). OCR determined that both 

parents of students with and without disabilities attending open house events were informed that 

the schools offered special education and Section 504 services. 

Students with disabilities and their parents received the same information about the school and 

how to apply as students without disabilities and their parents, and both were provided the same 

application materials, which did not include any requests for information regarding student 

disability status. OCR determined that no information is requested regarding disability status on 

the application form or during the admission or selection process, and students are randomly 

selected for admission through lottery. HPS did not categorically deny admission to any students 

on the basis of disability. 

ELL Students - Alternative Language Program

As described above, Title VI requires that charter school recipients take affirmative steps to help 

ELL students overcome language barriers so that they can participate in their school’s 

educational program. Therefore, during the course of the investigation, OCR examined evidence 

related to the following areas: the ELL program model used by HPS charter schools, the 

identification, assessment and placement of ELL students, ELL program staffing, ELL student 

access to special education and gifted and talented programs, and the exiting criteria and 

monitoring of exited ELL students. 

The investigation revealed that HPS has established an ALP designed to meet the academic 

needs of ELL students based on a sound educational theory (ESL program). Documentation and 

interviews revealed that HPS offered content-based and pullout ESL services at all seven schools 

in the four Districts examined by OCR. In the content-based ESL program, a certified full time 

ESL teacher provided supplemental instruction to ELL students for all content area classes while 

in the pull-out program, ELL students spent part of the day in mainstream classrooms and were

pulled out part of each day to receive specialized ESL instruction. Based on enrollment numbers 

and students’ schedules, ESL pull-out programs included individual or small group instruction. At 

the time of OCR’s investigation, HPS had applied for a waiver from the TEA regarding the 

requirement to provide bilingual education for the 2011-2012 school year, and was in the process of 

implementing a BE program for the 2012-2013 school year. However, OCR determined that as of 

the 2014-2015 school year, HPS has not implemented a BE program, and has continued to operate 

under a TEA waiver to offer only the ESL program.

HPS had policies and procedures for the identification, assessment, and placement of ELL students, 

which included the use of a home language survey (HLS), English language proficiency (ELP) 

testing, and language proficiency assessment committees (LPAC) as required by the TEA. Schools 
Page 15 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

used HLSs to identify students with a primary home language other than English for ELL testing. 

In addition, as noted above, HPS charter schools asked for the student’s ELL status on the 

enrollment forms submitted after selection for admission. Generally, student records reflected 

timely ELL identification. However, in its investigation, OCR identified delays in the assessment 

of five students (out of 333 student files randomly sampled at the seven schools visited by OCR), 

including:

 District #1 (Northwest): One ELL student showed a three month delay in ESL placement 

because the student’s enrollment form did not indicate that the student was an ESL student, 

and there was also a delay in receiving records from the previous district.

 District #3 (Ingenuity): One special education student showed a three year delay in testing for 

ELL status due to the District delaying ELL testing until the student was re-evaluated for 

speech. The student’s initial enrollment form indicated previous BE/ESL status. 

 District #4 (Grand Prairie): 

 One ELL student showed over a one semester delay in testing because the student was 

not identified until the District’s Special Programs Coordinator (SPC) conducted a folder 

audit. 

 One student showed approximately a two and a half year delay because the student was 

enrolled with a HLS including Spanish, but was not tested for ELL due to the student’s 

previous school records indicating he was “non-LEP.” The student was not assessed for 

ELL until a later re-evaluation.

 One special education student with “Somalic” identified on the student’s HLS was not 

tested for ELL because the student’s previous school reported that the student was “nonLEP.”

With respect to ELL students whose parents denied placement in an ESL program following 

ELL identification, documentation and interviews revealed that parents at the seven selected 

schools who denied ESL placement were informed of the benefits of the ESL through English or 

Spanish versions of a HPS letter and/or orally from the school SPC and/or ESL teacher. 

However, at District #1’s Northwest school, interviews revealed that some regular education 

teachers were not notified of students in their classes whose parents had denied ELL placement, 

and one teacher had been advised that these students could not be assisted due to the parent 

denying services.

Regarding ESL program staffing, HPS provided OCR with a list of ESL teachers for the four 

selected Districts with the type of state ESL teaching certification held. Based on interviews with 

school personnel and a review of the documentation submitted by HPS, OCR confirmed that 

ESL teachers at all schools except District #1’s Excellence school had state ESL teaching 

certifications. OCR received conflicting information regarding whether all ESL teachers at 

Excellence were ESL certified. 
Page 16 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Based on interviews with ESL coordinators and teachers, OCR determined that HPS had 

procedures for exiting students from the ESL program and/or ELL status based on TEA 

requirements for proficiency criteria for ELL exit specific to student grade level. However, OCR 

identified the following concerns regarding two ESL students exited from the ESL program in 

our file review sample of 333 students:

 District #3 (Innovation): A third grade student who was exited from ESL had been 

previously retained in third grade by his previous school district and had also repeated 

third grade at HPS.

 District #4 (Euless): An ELL student who scored “Advanced High” on the Texas English 

Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) in all four language modalities and 

her composite school was not exited from ELL status as the teacher’s recommendation 

was in favor of keeping the student in the ESL program to make sure her progress was 

stable.

HPS policies also provided that the academic progress of exited ELL students be monitored for 

two school years. However, OCR identified a concern regarding the monitoring of students 

exited from the ESL program. The investigation revealed that, in general, the only 

documentation of monitoring of students exited from the ESL program was a form indicating an 

end-of-year review by school LPACs. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that monitoring of 

exited students was informal.

OCR also investigated whether ELL students were allowed to participate in special opportunity 

programs: gifted and talented and special education programs. Based on interviews with school 

administrators and school SPCs/ESL coordinators, OCR determined that students in the ESL 

program were permitted to participate in the gifted and talented program, if qualified. OCR’s 

review of records and interviews of HPS officials established that students in the ESL program 

identified with disabilities pursuant to the IDEA were permitted to participate in the special 

education program. 

OCR determined that schools in the four Districts submitted an end-of the-year survey to the 

ESL departments to evaluate the effectiveness of their ESL programs. In addition, interview 

information revealed that at Northwest (District #1), Science (District #2), Innovation (District 

#3), and Grand Prairie and Euless (District #4), principals, school SPCs/ESL coordinators, and/or 

cluster SPCs conducted informal assessments of the ESL program through periodic meetings, 

review of implementation of services, and obtaining ESL teacher and/or parent input. 

Additionally, the principals at Ingenuity (District #3) and Excellence (District #1) reported that 

they were first year principals, but indicated they would create a report on the ESL program's 

effectiveness.
Page 17 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Students with Disabilities – FAPE 

The evidence showed that HPS had written policies and procedures for the identification, 

referral, evaluation, placement, and periodic re-evaluation of students with disabilities in 

accordance with the provisions of Section 504. HPS did not require students or parents to waive 

their right to a FAPE. 

Documentation and interviews revealed that HPS provided special education and/or related aids 

and services to students with disabilities with IEPs and/or Section 504 plans. OCR determined 

that HPS offered special education and related services that included but were not limited to 

speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, dyslexia services, 

counseling services, and assistive technology. The investigation revealed that for related 

services and evaluations, generally outside service providers were contracted. HPS provided 

OCR with a list of special education staff, which indicated that the individuals were certified in 

their appropriate areas. The investigation revealed that Section 504 services were offered at all 

HPS schools. 

Based on a file review of students’ special education and Section 504 folders, OCR identified the 

following concerns regarding record keeping for evaluation data for Section 504 students and 

evaluation and testing for some ELL students: 

 Pertinent Section 504 documentation (i.e., evaluation data used for placement decisions), 

while existing in the student’s general academic records and/or administrators’ records, was 

not always included in students’ Section 504 folders.

 OCR could not confirm the validity of orally interpreted special education evaluation testing 

for some ELL students (i.e., several students were given the Woodcock-Johnson III and 

Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests, which were orally interpreted into Turkish and Arabic by 

HPS personnel because it was not available in written format from the test publisher). 

OCR determined that HPS has developed systems of special education and Section 504 

procedural safeguards that included notice, an opportunity for parents/guardians to examine 

relevant records, an impartial hearing with opportunity for participation by the student's parents 

or guardians and representation by counsel, and a review procedure. However, during the course 

of the investigation, OCR identified concerns regarding the sufficiency of HPS’ internal 

procedures for Section 504 due process hearings and HPS’ Section 504 procedural safeguards 

form for parents. The procedural safeguards form did not provide notice of the name/title, office 

address, and telephone number for the Section 504 coordinator, or information on how to obtain 

an impartial Section 504 hearing. However, after informing HPS of the above concerns, OCR 

reviewed copies of revised procedures and forms provided by HPS, and determined that these 

concerns had been resolved. Thus, OCR determined that HPS is in compliance with the 

applicable Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.36.
Page 18 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

Students with Disabilities – Grievance Procedures

HPS informed OCR that it notified parents and students about its Section 504 grievance 

procedure, which was available in the student-parent handbook. OCR’s review of the studentparent handbook showed that it included a complaint procedure for discrimination and 

harassment allegations, including disability discrimination and harassment, which referred 

parents to contact the Section 504/ADA coordinator (identified as “contact front office”). In 

addition, HPS reported that employees were informed of grievance procedures prohibiting 

disability discrimination in its staff handbook. OCR’s review of the staff handbook also showed 

that it included separate complaint procedures for sexual harassment allegations (and other 

harassment allegations including disability harassment) and a general complaint procedure. 

However, the staff handbook did not specifically indicate which procedure staff should use for 

grievances alleging disability discrimination other than disability harassment. Moreover, 

although the harassment complaint procedure referred once to disability harassment, it mainly 

discussed sexual harassment complaints and referenced the Title IX coordinator. After informing 

HPS of the above concerns, OCR reviewed copies of revised grievance procedures in the current 

staff handbook and student-parent handbook. Based on the above review, OCR determined that 

the identified concerns had been resolved. Thus, OCR determined that HPS is in compliance 

with the applicable Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b) and Title II regulation at 28 

C.F.R. § 35.107(b).

Students with Disabilities – Notice of Nondiscrimination and Designation of Responsible 

Employee

As noted above, HPS provided OCR with a copy of its nondiscrimination policy stating that its 

schools do not discriminate on the basis of disability in providing educational services, activities 

and programs. However, the notices in the student-parent and staff handbooks did not include 

sufficient information regarding the identities and contact information for the school and District 

Section 504/ADA compliance coordinators (for example, both handbooks did not include the 

office address and telephone numbers of the Section 504 Coordinator). Based on the above, OCR 

determined that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of violations of Section 504 at

34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7(a) and 104.8(a), and Title II at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a) with respect to the 

notice of nondiscrimination and contact information for its Section 504/ADA coordinators. 

Conclusion

On October 30, 2014, prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, HPS voluntarily submitted 

the enclosed Resolution Agreement (Agreement) to resolve the compliance issues identified in 

this review. 

OCR’s investigation revealed that HPS’ admissions policies and procedures are nondiscriminatory on their face with respect to race/national origin, ELL status, and disability status. 

HPS selected students for admission to its charter schools through a random lottery. HPS did not 

request information regarding race/national origin, ELL status, or disability status on the 
Page 19 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

application form or during the admission or selection process. In addition, ELL students, 

students with disabilities, and their parents received the same information about the application 

procedures and how to apply as non-ELL students, students without disabilities, and their 

parents.

However, as described above, OCR’s investigation revealed that ELL students and students with 

disabilities are significantly underrepresented in their enrollment in HPS charter schools within 

the four Districts compared to the enrollment of ELL students and students with disabilities in 

the public school districts in the same geographic area. In the 2011-2012 school year, ELL 

students made up only 11.5% of the students at the four HPS Districts examined by OCR, 

compared to 22.5% of the students at the corresponding public school districts. Similarly, 

students with disabilities represented only 2.7% of the students at the four HPS Districts, 

compared to 7.3% of the students at the corresponding public school districts. The disparities 

between enrollment of ELL students and students with disabilities in the HPS Districts compared 

to their enrollment in the corresponding traditional school district were statistically significant in 

15 (for ELL students) and 16 (for students with disabilities) of the 18 schools in the Districts. 

Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, HPS requested to resolve the compliance review 

with a resolution agreement. Thus, OCR did not make any compliance determinations under 

Title VI, Section 504, or Title II as to whether HPS discriminated against students on the basis of 

race/national origin, ELL status or disability in the admission processes by failing to apply its 

eligibility criteria in a nondiscriminatory manner or using policies or by using policies and 

practices that resulted in an unlawful disparate impact on ELL students or students with 

disabilities. OCR is concerned, however, that the exclusion from admission and enrollment in 

HPS charter schools of students with a documented history of a criminal offense, juvenile court 

adjudication or discipline problems may improperly contribute to the lower enrollment of 

students with disabilities or ELL students in the HPS charter schools. Statistics show that 

students with disabilities and ELL students tend to be overrepresented among students subject to 

school discipline in Texas. In addition, the published enrollment procedures (which require 

students to provide their birth certificates and social security numbers, among other documents) 

may chill or lead to the exclusion of students based on their or their parents’ citizenship or 

immigration status. OCR is also concerned that the publication of these procedures alone may 

dissuade some parents of ELL students from applying to HPS charter schools. OCR also did not 

make a compliance determination under Title VI regarding HPS’ communications with LEP parents 

with respect to the admissions process, but noted concerns regarding the adequacy of these 

communications, including that interpreters or written translations were not available for 

admissions documents for LEP parents. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the HPS 

charter schools examined made clear to LEP parents that ESL services were available for ELL 

students at the schools. 

OCR also did not make Title VI compliance determinations regarding HPS’ alternative language 

program for ELL students. However, OCR identified concerns regarding identification delays, 

the exiting and monitoring of students who were exited from the ESL program, HPS’ evaluation 

of its alternative language program, and whether notice of continuing eligibility and available 

academic support was provided to students whose parents denied ESL placement. 
Page 20 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

OCR did not make compliance determinations as to whether HPS complies with the applicable 

Section 504 requirements relating to standards and procedures for initial evaluations and periodic 

reevaluations of students who need or are believed to need special education services and/or 

related services because of a disability and providing a FAPE to students with disabilities. 

OCR’s investigation identified concerns with respect to evaluation and placement documentation 

for students receiving Section 504 services and the validity of special education evaluation 

testing for some ELL students based on the use of orally interpreted tests. 

Finally, based on a review of the employee and student-parent handbooks, OCR determined that 

the evidence supported that the notice of nondiscrimination did not include the required contact 

information for HPS’ Section 504/ADA coordinators and thus did not comply with the 

applicable Section 504 regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7(a) and 104.8(a), and Title II regulations 

at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a). However, OCR also determined that HPS had taken steps to ensure 

that it complies with the applicable regulations relating to procedural safeguards and grievance 

procedures. 

As part of the Agreement, HPS has committed to ensuring that it takes effective measures to 

promote and ensure equal opportunities for all students, including ELL students and students 

with disabilities, to enroll and participate in its schools and programs. The Agreement requires 

HPS to take specific steps and actions to:

 Review its admissions policies, procedures, and practices to identify any potential barriers to 

increased participation by ELL students and students with disabilities and, as needed and 

following OCR review and approval, modify its admission policies, procedures, and 

practices to ensure equal access and equal opportunity for ELL students and students with 

disabilities to HPS charter schools; OCR expects that HPS will specifically examine 

whether its published enrollment requirements (requiring students to provide a copy of their 

birth certificates and social security numbers) pose barriers to increased participation by 

ELL students and whether its exclusion from admissions and enrollment of students with a

documented history of a criminal offense, juvenile court adjudication, or discipline 

problems improperly contributes to the lower enrollment of some students in the HPS 

charter schools; 

 Develop an “ELL Communication Plan” to ensure meaningful access to limited English 

proficient (LEP) parents with respect to student admissions and enrollment in HPS charter 

schools, including through interpretation and translation services;

 Implement a comprehensive plan for all HPS charter schools regarding the provision of 

services to ELL students that appropriately identifies and assesses ELL students for 

language development services, provides these services to the students, appropriately staffs 

and provides instructional resources to HPS’ English-as-a-second-language (ESL) program, 

ensures that its ESL students are appropriately exited and monitored, and evaluates the 

overall HPS alternative language program; 
Page 21 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

 Review and revise existing evaluation and placement procedures for students with 

disabilities to ensure that students are evaluated with appropriate evaluation materials and 

that schools properly document the educational needs of students in their records; 

 Collect and evaluate data on an ongoing basis to assess data related to the acceptance of 

students for admission to its charter schools in order to determine whether ELL students and 

students with disabilities are accepted at lower rates than other students and, if so, take 

necessary action to ensure that its admissions policies and procedures are fair and equitable; 

and 

 Provide training to administrators and relevant staff at all HPS charter schools regarding 

revisions to its admissions and enrollment policies and procedures, communications with 

LEP parents, and language assistance services for ELL students, and communication and 

outreach to LEP students and parents/guidance about admission to the HPS charter schools. 

Based on the commitments HPS has made in the Agreement, OCR has determined that it is 

appropriate to close the investigative phase of this compliance review. HPS has agreed to 

provide data and other information, demonstrating implementation of the Agreement, in a timely 

manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Agreement. OCR may conduct 

additional visits and request additional information as necessary to determine whether HPS has 

fulfilled the terms of the Agreement and is in compliance with Title VI, Section 504, or Title II 

with regard to the issues in the review. OCR will not close the monitoring of the Agreement until 

it has determined that HPS has complied with the terms of the Agreement and is in compliance 

with Title VI, Section 504, and Title II. Should the HPS fail to fully implement the Agreement, 

OCR will take appropriate action to ensure HPS’ compliance with Title VI, Section 504, and 

Title II including possibly initiating administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to 

enforce the specific terms and obligations of the Agreement. Before initiating administrative 

enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement, 

OCR shall give HPS written notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty calendar days 

to cure the alleged breach. 

This review did not attempt to investigate or address HPS’ compliance with all of the issues that 

may arise under Title VI, Section 504, and Title II. Instead, this review addressed the specific 

issues described above. In addition, this review did not address HPS’ compliance with any other 

statutes or regulations other than the specific statutes and regulations listed above. This letter 

sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal statement 

of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s formal policy 

statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related 

correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will 

seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if 

released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.
Page 22 - Dr. Soner Tarim, Superintendent/CEO

OCR appreciates the cooperation and assistance of HPS in coordinating the compliance review 

activities. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ms. Page Baird, the assigned 

investigator, at (214) 661-9604, or Mr. John Stephens, Team Leader, at (214) 661-9651. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Taylor D. August

Director 

Dallas Office

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Robert A. (Bob) Schulman,

Schulman, Lopez, & Hoffer, LLP

Mr. Ihsan Kara, Curriculum Director,

HPS Department of Special Programs