September 25, 2014

Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent

Tupelo Public School District

72 S. Green St.

Tupelo, MS 38804

Re: OCR Docket 06-11-5002

Dear Dr. Loden:

The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), conducted a 

compliance review of the Tupelo Public School District (District), Tupelo, Mississippi under 

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

implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100. 

Title VI, and its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100, prohibit discrimination based on 

race, color or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department. 

The District is a recipient of such assistance and is subject to the requirements of Title VI. 

Title VI and its implementing regulation require that a school’s disciplinary policies and 

practices be applied to students without regard to a student’s race. OCR’s review investigated 

the District’s disciplinary policies and practices and, specifically, whether the District 

discriminated against African-American students by disciplining them more frequently and more 

harshly than other similarly situated students on the basis of race, in violation of Title VI and its 

implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 100.3.

Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, OCR and the District agreed to explore voluntary 

resolution in accordance with OCR’s Case Processing Manual, and the District entered into an 

agreement on September 15, 2014, which commits the District to specific actions to address the 

issue under review. This letter summarizes the applicable legal standards, the information 

gathered during the review and how the review was resolved. 

Legal Authority

The standards for determining compliance with Title VI are set forth in the regulation at 34 

C.F.R. §100.3(a) and (b). The 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 service or benefit to an individual which is different or provided in a 
Page 2 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

different manner; subject an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any matter related 

to receipt of any service or other benefit under the programs; restrict an individual in the 

enjoyment of any benefits of its programs; treat an individual differently in determining whether 

he or she satisfices any admission, enrollment, eligibility, or other requirement or condition to be 

provided any service or other benefit in its programs; or, deny an individual an opportunity to 

participate in a program through the provision of services that is different from that afforded 

others under the program. The regulation, at 34 C.F.R. §100.3(b)(2), also provides that a 

recipient may not utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting 

individuals to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 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 race, color, or national origin.

OCR investigates alleged discrimination in the application of student discipline consistent with 

federal statutory authority, the Department’s regulations, policies and pertinent case law. 

Disciplinary policies and practices can result in unlawful discrimination based on race in two 

ways: first, if students are intentionally subject to different treatment on account of their race; 

second, even if a policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate and unjustified effect on 

student(s) of a particular race, referred to as disparate impact.

Different Treatment

Title VI prohibits schools from intentionally disciplining students differently based on race.

Enforcement of a rule or application in a discriminatory manner is prohibited intentional 

discrimination. When similarly situated students of different races are disciplined differently for 

the same offense, discrimination can be the only reasonable explanation for the different 

treatment. Intentional discrimination in the administration of student discipline can take many 

forms, however, and can be proven even without the existence of a similarly situated student. 

Additionally, a school’s adoption of a facially neutral policy with an invidious intent to target 

certain races is prohibited intentional discrimination. 

Title VI also protects students even if a school contracts or arranges for entities, over which it 

exercises some control, to be responsible for aspects of a school’s student safety or student 

discipline program. Schools cannot divest themselves of responsibility for the nondiscriminatory administration of school safety and student discipline by relying on school 

resource officers, school district police officers, “contract” law enforcement companies or other 

contractors or law enforcement personnel over whom the school can exercise some control.

Whether OCR finds a violation of Title VI will be based on the facts and circumstances 

surrounding the particular discipline incident or series of incidents.

Disparate Impact

In addition to different treatment of students based on race, schools violate Federal law when 

they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies or practices that, although not adopted 

with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against 

students on the basis of race. The resulting discriminatory effect is commonly referred to as 
Page 3 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

“disparate impact.”1 In determining whether a facially neutral student discipline policy has an 

unlawful disparate impact on the basis of race, OCR engages in the following three-part inquiry: 

1) Has the discipline policy resulted in an adverse impact on students of a particular race as 

compared with students of other races? 

2) Is the discipline policy necessary to meet an important educational goal?2 

3) Even in situations where a school can demonstrate that a policy is necessary to meet an 

important educational goal, are there comparably effective alternative discipline policies 

available that would meet the school’s stated educational goal with less of a burden or 

adverse impact on the disproportionately affected racial group or is the school’s proffered 

justification a pretext for discrimination?

Overview of the District

The Tupelo Public School District is a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade school district 

located in Lee County, Mississippi, which is in the northeastern corner of the state. When OCR 

initiated the compliance review, the District had a total of fourteen schools, which included one 

Pre-Kindergarten school (King Early Childhood Education Center); ten Elementary schools 

(Grades K-2: Carver Elementary, Church Street Elementary, Joyner Elementary, Parkway 

Elementary, and Thomas Street Elementary; Grades 3-5: Lawhon Elementary, Lawndale 

Elementary, Pierce Street Elementary, and Rankin Elementary; Grade 6: Milam Elementary); 

one middle school (Grades 7-8, Tupelo Middle School); one high school (Grades 9-12, Tupelo 

High School); and one alternative school (Filmore Center).3

The District provided the following information regarding its overall student enrollment for the 

2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. 

District Total Enrollment

Enrollment by race 2010-2011 2011-2012

African-American 3670 49% 3721 50%

White 3391 45% 3275 44%

Total 7484 7436

Figure 1.

For this compliance review, OCR focused on three schools—Milam Elementary (6th Grade 

Center), Tupelo Middle School, and Tupelo High School (hereinafter referred to as the target 

schools) — because these schools represented fifty percent of the total District enrollment and 

comprised the largest number of sanctions administered. Below is the enrollment by race at each 

of the target schools:

 

1 Recipients of Federal financial assistance are prohibited form “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration 

which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or 

have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect 

individuals or a particular race, color, or national origin.” 34 C.F.R. §100.3(b)(2); see also 28 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2).

2

See Elston v. Talladega County Bd. Of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394 (11th Cir. 1993).

3 During the course of the investigation, the District closed Church Street Elementary and now uses the building for 

its curriculum department. According to the District, students now attend Carver Elementary. 
Page 4 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

Milam Elementary (6th Grade Center) Enrollment

Enrollment by race 2010-2011 2011-2012

African-American 266 49% 310 50%

White 261 48% 273 44%

Total 546 619

Figure 2.

Tupelo Middle School (TMS) Enrollment

Enrollment by race 2010-2011 2011-2012

African-American 499 46% 494 48%

White 521 48% 484 47%

Total 1080 1031

Figure 3.

Tupelo High School (THS) Enrollment

Enrollment by race 2010-2011 2011-2012

African-American 1038 49% 1024 50%

White 954 46% 930 45%

Total 2092 2050

Figure 4.

Summary of Review

During the investigation, OCR requested and received information from the District regarding its 

student enrollment, discipline records, and discipline policies and procedures. OCR conducted an 

onsite investigation at the District and interviewed students, teachers, and administrators and 

conducted a parent/community forum. OCR reviewed the discipline reports for each target 

school for both the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. OCR also examined data provided 

to the Department for the 2011 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 4and documents on the 

District’s website. Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the District agreed to enter

into a voluntary resolution agreement to resolve the compliance review. 

Discipline Policies, Procedures and Practices

Preschool

The District does not have a separate discipline code for the King Early Childhood Education 

Center, the District’s preschool. The District informed OCR that it does not use disciplinary 

suspension or expulsion for preschool students and, in the 2011 CRDC, the District reported that 

it did not suspend or expel any of the 272 students at the preschool. The District’s 2014-15 

parent handbook states that the Center uses "Positive Behavior Support," which it describes as a 

 

4

http://ocrdata.ed.gov
Page 5 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

behavioral process that “aims to build an emotionally safe environment in which positive 

behavior is more likely to occur.”5The handbook further states: 

The components of the plan are creating expectations, rules, reinforcement and 

intervention strategies. The Early Childhood Education Center’s Pre-Kindergarten 

classrooms are designed so that the children will be busy and engaged in 

activities, which will prevent serious behavior problems. If the child breaks a rule, 

the teacher and child will discuss the problem and the child will be redirected to 

another activity. However, if a child continually breaks a rule, the teacher and the 

child will work towards conflict resolution through our plan of Think, Talk and 

Do. If the problem continues, we will send a note home or call you and we can 

discuss a solution. Please remember that you know your child much better than 

we do and your support and input are critical. We believe that positive 

reinforcement can help prevent many discipline problems which can occur in the 

classroom of 4 year-olds.

Kindergarten – 12th Grade

OCR reviewed the District school board policies and Student Code of Conduct (Code of 

Conduct), which pertain to discipline for students in K – 12th grade. The District has separate 

discipline codes (Disciplinary Codes) for specific grade levels -- elementary grades K-5, 6th

grade only, Middle School (7-8

th grades), and High School, and for its Alternative School.6

 Each 

Disciplinary Code lists violations and infractions and also lists consequences (“discipline 

ladder”/sanctions) for the misconduct. The listed sanctions include detention, in school 

suspension (ISS), out of school suspension (OSS), referral to the District’s alternative school, 

and expulsion. According to the District, instruction is provided to students during ISS. 

None of the discipline policies includes provision for the use of corporal punishment and the 

District reported to OCR that it has not used corporal punishment for many years. 

According to the District, each of the target school campuses also has its own student parent 

handbook, which refers generally to the District’s discipline policies and procedures. The Code 

of Conduct and student handbook are disseminated to parents and students at each school at the 

beginning of each school year. 

The Discipline Codes indicate that teachers are encouraged to handle discipline within their 

classrooms, and that rule violations that result in the teacher’s referral of the student to the office 

will be handled according to the applicable discipline ladder. The February 1, 2011 District 

progressive discipline matrix for Elementary and Secondary schools stated that “Minor 

 

5 The District’s 2014-15 parent handbook for the Early Childhood center is available at: 

http://www.tupeloschools.com/cms/lib07/MS01910594/Centricity/Domain/502/ECEC%20Parent%20Handbook%2

02014-2015.pdf. 

6

 The Student Code of Conduct and discipline policies are available on the District website under School Board 

Policies: http://www2.tupeloschools.com/liveserver_schoolboardpolicies/PolicyIndex.aspx. The District’s specific 

school-level Discipline Codes include codes for Elementary Grades K-5, Elementary Grade 6, Middle School

Grades 7-8, High School, and the Alternative School. The District also has a Bus Discipline policy. 
Page 6 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

Offenses” are managed “on the spot” (classroom, common areas, etc.). Interventions for these 

behaviors are addressed and documented on “Low Level Referrals,” which may later be used to 

demonstrate a pattern of misbehavior. “Major Offenses” are described as violations that require 

the immediate attention of administrative staff. These behaviors are documented on an “Office 

Referral Form.” 

During OCR interviews, administrative staff indicated that teachers were encouraged to use 

reasonable behavior class management techniques prior to referring students to the office for 

disciplinary action. Specifically, teachers indicated that they attempt to use the discipline ladder 

in the classroom before they refer a student to an administrator (assistant principal or principal) 

for disciplinary action. For example, at the 6th Grade Center, it was indicated that teachers can 

impose discipline procedures in the classrooms (e.g., sitting out recess, writing an assignment). 

Staff at TMS indicated that they utilized the six-step classroom ladder prior to office referral, 

which include: 1) warning; 2) teacher conference; 3) parent contact; 4) counselor; 5) discipline 

assignment; and 6) office referral. At THS, staff indicated that they also use classroom 

procedures before office referral, although the District did not provide OCR with copies of any 

documents to demonstrate when and how THS uses classroom ladders. 

Once referred out of the classroom for discipline, the first step in each of the discipline ladders is 

detention, and the last step is referral to the alternative school and/or expulsion. Under all of the 

policies, a student may enter the discipline ladder at any step, depending upon the nature of the 

offense. Students referred for a repeat or a more serious violation of the policies may escalate 

more than one step. 

Kindergarten – 5

th Grade: The District has a separate Discipline Code for its eight K-5 

grade schools. The applicable Code lists 28 violations and infractions for K-5 students. 

6

th Grade: The District has a separate Discipline Code for Grade 6, which is located at 

Milam Elementary. The applicable Code lists the same 28 violations as the K-5 Discipline Code, 

but increases the severity of the available sanctions for many infractions. The Code provides for 

OSS as the first step for “harassment, intimidation or threatening of students or teachers” and 

“use or possession of dangerous objects.” The Code provides for referral to the alternative school 

or expulsion for students engaged in forgery, “possession of inappropriate photos or other printed 

materials on weapon making, pornography, violence, hatred, etc.” and “other misbehavior as 

determined by the school officials.”

At the K-6

th grade levels, the Discipline Codes provide that the principal or designee may give an 

OSS for 10 offenses “without going through any of the steps of the discipline plan.” These 

include: 1. “a shocking or dangerous behavior which may cause physical or emotional harm to 

the student or others such as inappropriate touching;” 2. “Fighting, physical altercation;” 3. 

Weapons; 4. Stealing; 5. Drugs, alcohol, tobacco or drug paraphernalia; 6. Gang related dress 

or activity; 7. Destruction of school materials and property; 8. Inappropriate Clothing; 9. 

Sexual Harassment; and 10. Intimidation. In addition, OSS is included for these students as a 

step in the discipline ladder for other offenses such as defiance/disobedience, profanity or 
Page 7 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

vulgarity. OCR also noted that the discipline ladder for truancy at the K-6

th grade levels ranges 

from Steps 2 to 9 (2 days of afterschool detention to up to 10 days OSS).

7

7-8

th Grades: The District has a separate Discipline Code for Grades 7-8, which are 

located at Tupelo Middle School, the District’s only middle school. The current Code lists 34 

violations and infractions. 

High School: The District has a separate Discipline Code for the District’s only high 

school, Tupelo High School. The Code lists the same 34 violations and infractions as the Middle 

School Discipline Code. 

At the middle and high school levels, the steps on the disciplinary ladders for “skipping or 

cutting class” range from Steps 5 – 8 (3-4 days ISS to up to 10 days OSS or referral to the 

alternative school). The current Middle and High School Discipline Codes include OSS as the 

first step in the discipline ladder for offenses such as smoking and “sexual misconduct, 

harassment and improper touching.” OSS is also included as a step in the discipline ladder for 

other offenses such as defiance/disobedience, profanity or vulgarity, other misbehavior as 

determined by administration, use or possession of dangerous objects or materials, “improper 

behavior at school,” habitual violation of school rules, and dress code violations. The current 

Codes for the Middle and High Schools raised the consequences for many infractions. For 

example, the minimum sanction for profanity is now a 3 or 4-day ISS, compared to detention. In 

addition, the Codes raised the first step penalty for fighting from OSS to referral to alternative 

school for a minimum of 45 days.

The current Middle School and High School Discipline Codes include nine offenses with “nonnegotiable” discipline consequences: (1) fight; (2) assault; (3) alcohol; (4) unlawful drugs; (5) 

selling/distributing unlawful drugs/alcohol; (6) weapons; (7) look-alike weapon; (8) theft; and 

(9) breaking/entering and/or major destruction of school property.

8

The non-negotiable offenses 

each have a specific minimum sanction of a referral to the alternative school (for a minimum of 

45 days) or expulsion. The Codes also indicate that all cases of “non-negotiables” will be 

reported to the Tupelo Police Department. 

Further, while the District provided offense descriptions in the Student Code of Conduct for 

some infractions (e.g., physical altercation, assault, disruptive behavior), some infractions were 

 

7 OCR has stated that “policies that impose out-of-school suspensions or expulsions for truancy raise [disparate 

impact] concerns because a school would likely have difficulty demonstrating that excluding a student from 

attending school in response to the student’s efforts to avoid school was necessary to meet an important educational 

goal.” See Dear Colleague Letter on school discipline, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague201401-title-vi.html and School Discipline FAQs, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/faq.pdf. 

8 Mississippi Code § 37-11-18 provides that “any student in any school who possesses any controlled substance in 

violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Law, a knife, handgun, other firearm or any other instrument 

considered to be dangers and capable of causing bodily harm or who commits a violent act on educational property 

as defined by Section 97-37-17, Mississippi Code 1972, shall be subject to automatic expulsion for a calendar year 

by the superintendent or principal of the school in which the student is enrolled; provided, however, that the 

superintendent of the school shall be authorized to modify the period of time for such expulsion on a case by case 

basis. Such expulsion shall take effect immediately subject to the constitutional rights of due process, which shall 

include the student’s right to appeal to the local school board.”
Page 8 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

subjective in nature and were not clearly defined in the Student Code or any of the Discipline 

Codes, such as “improper behavior at school” and “other misbehavior as determined by the 

administration.” For high school students, the discipline ladder for “improper behavior at 

school” ranged from Steps 1 (detention) – 11 (expulsion) and for “other misbehavior” from Steps 

1 (detention) – 8 (10-day OSS or referral to alternative school). OCR noted that the conduct 

described for these specific behaviors could have been coded as specific infractions. 

Specifically, conduct coded as “other misbehavior” in the SAMS report included tardy, 

inappropriate use of school computer, rude to teacher, iChat in class, cell phone usage, rude and 

disrespectful, and horse playing. 

Alternative School: The District has a separate Discipline Code for its one alternative 

school, Filmore Center. The Code includes 35 infractions. As noted above, students may be 

referred to the alternative school for numerous offenses. For example, at the high school, 

students may be referred to the alternative school for “non-negotiable” offenses such as fighting

(minimum 45 days), assault (minimum 90 days), alcohol (minimum 90 days), possession of 

unlawful drugs (minimum 180 days) as well as for other offenses such as possession of tobacco 

or tobacco related products, smoking, writing on school walls, harassment, improper behavior at 

school, leaving campus without permission, skipping or cutting class, disruptive behavior, and 

“other misbehavior as determined by the administration.” 

According to the District policy, the process for referring a student to Filmore School, includes 

steps where the school principal and/or counselor compiles disciplinary records, attendance 

records, and, if applicable, referral forms, interventions, the Functional Behavioral Assessment 

(FBA), or the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP); a committee reviews the alternative placement 

referral; the parent is notified of the referral and a conference convened; the Director of Student 

Support Services and the Superintendent or designee review the referral; and the student and his 

or her parent or legal guardian are provided due process rights and appeal information. 

An educational plan is developed for each student assigned to the alternative school, which 

follows the programs and class schedules from the home schools as closely as possible. Students 

receive grades at the alternative school, which are sent to the home school. The home school is 

responsible for the student’s final grade. The alternative school implements individual education 

plans (IEPs) for students who are to receive such services. While at the alternative school, 

students are searched thoroughly each day upon entry, escorted by security officers when 

changing classes, not allowed to carry purses, book bags or wallets, and not permitted to discuss 

specific information about other students and their situations in the community. Bus 

transportation is provided to students attending the alternative school. Students attending the 

alternative school are not permitted to participate in extra-curricular activities at their home 

school and are not permitted on the school’s campus until their alternative school placement has 

ended.

The alternative school uses a level system that prepares students to re-enter the home school and 

provides structure that allows the student to monitor his or her progress while learning 

replacement behaviors and social skills that lead to success. According to the alternative school 

handbook, the level system may be successfully completed in 30 or 45 school days. According to 

District policy, students are reinstated from the alternative school to their home school after a 

positive evaluation conducted by the Alternative Evaluation Committee, which is composed of 
Page 9 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

the Assistant Superintendent, Director of Alternative Center, and the principal or designee from 

the student’s home school. A student’s release from the alternative school is contingent upon the 

student’s behavior, attendance record, participation in counseling, completion of assigned days, 

and academic progress during his or her assignment at the alternative school. A student may be 

granted early release only if the alternative school has reached the maximum teacher-student 

ratio in the regular program or the special education program. When this situation is 

encountered, the home schools are asked to consider accepting early release of a student, which 

also must be approved by the Alternative Evaluation Committee. OCR’s review of the District’s 

SAMS report and discipline referrals confirmed that students did return to their home school 

following an alternative school placement. 

Referrals to Law Enforcement: The District maintains an agreement with the Lee County 

Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) in which it receives the services of school resource officers 

(SRO), who are police officers at TMS and THS. According to the District’s website, the 

District employs eighteen full-time security officers and approximately thirty-five part-time 

officers.9 Two of the eighteen full-time officers are certified SROs and seven of the officers are 

certified School Safety Officers (SSO). The District School Board policy, EBC Security,10

outlines the duties of SROs, SSOs, and Campus Enforcement Officers (CEOs):

 A School Resource Officer (SRO) is a “fully trained officer with a minimum age of 

twenty-three and at least three years of law enforcement experience prior to assignment. 

The officer is qualified to work for any local law enforcement agency in the state. The 

officer is responsible for school safety administration/planning, enforcement activities, 

classroom instruction in areas of expertise and counseling referral of students.”

 A Campus Enforcement Officer (CEO) is “essentially a School Safety Officer who is 

commissioned by the district and has law enforcement authority. The officer has 

authority to carry weapons and make arrests. The officer is responsible only for 

enforcement and safety related activities and is not trained for school safety planning, 

classroom teaching or counseling related duties.”

 A School Safety Officer (SSO) is “assigned duties of safety and physical security under 

the supervision of a School Resource Officer, Campus Enforcement Officer, or school 

administrator. The officer does not have weapon-carrying or arrest authority. The officer 

conducts routine patrols, secures buildings and check for safety hazards.”

The District provided OCR a list of all individuals who are responsible for administering 

discipline on its campuses and the list only indicated that teachers, counselors and administrative 

staff are responsible for administering discipline. The list did not identify any SRO, CEO, or 

SSO who was responsible for administering or enforcing the District’s discipline policies. The 

administrators confirmed to OCR that they have school security officers at the District and noted 

 

9

“Safety and Security” page on http://www.tupeloschools.com.

10 The policy is available in at 

http://tupelo.msbapolicy.org/DistrictPolicies/ViewsAdmin/SelectedDocumentReadOnly/tabid/5911/Default.aspx?do

cId=66422.
Page 10 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

they would contact the SRO for incidents requiring assistance, specifically with regard to any 

“major disciplinary infractions,” (e.g., weapons, alcohol, drugs or assault) because it is the 

SRO’s decision to handle any law enforcement issues. The District’s Discipline Codes for 

middle and high school students indicate that all cases of non-negotiable infractions will be 

reported to the Tupelo Police Department. The administrators OCR interviewed stated that they 

did not know if there was a written policy concerning the process for referring students to law 

enforcement; however, the administrators informed OCR that the SAMS report does include 

information about when a student received a law enforcement referral. 

Disciplinary Recordkeeping 

The District utilizes an electronic information and records management system known as SAMS. 

According to the District, SAMS stores the District’s students’ discipline records, including all 

referrals to the office for disciplinary action and documentation concerning students who have 

been referred to the Lee County Juvenile Detention Center. Information about classroom 

discipline is not entered into SAMS.

The Discipline Codes and Student Code do not include a specific infraction called “zm-noncriminal behavior,” for the three schools, but the District reported on its SAMS discipline report 

1,582 infractions of zm-non-criminal behavior during the 2010-2011 school year11 and 4,028

infractions during the 2011-2012 school year.12 The District explained that the “zm” referred to 

infractions that were entered into the SAMS report on a monthly basis and that the SAMS system 

required a behavior to be coded as non-criminal behavior in order to reflect that the student was 

assigned ISS as a sanction. However, a review of the comprehensive discipline report indicated 

that students received sanctions other than ISS for the recorded non-criminal behavior 

infractions, including Saturday school detention, administrative discipline,13 OSS, and alternative 

school. The behaviors for zm-non criminal behavior infractions included verbal altercation, 

missed detention, physical altercation, tardy, skipping class and disruptive behavior.

OCR identified additional inconsistencies in the District’s administration of its discipline 

policies. OCR reviewed the SAMS report and discipline referral forms from all three target 

 

11 During the 2010-2011 school year, the TPSD reported 654 infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at THS; 833 

infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at TMS; and 95 infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at the 6th Grade 

Center.

12 During the 2011-2012 school year, the TPSD reported 1,337 infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at THS; 

2,079 infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at TMS; and 612 infractions of zm-non criminal behavior at the 6th

Grade Center. 

13 The THS administrators gave varying definitions of the sanction of “administrative discipline.” The former THS 

principal stated “administrative discipline” is discipline where the student is warned, the parent is contacted, and a 

plan of action is developed for the student; whereas, one THS Assistant Principal stated “administrative discipline” 

was a warning without progressing up the discipline ladder and another THS Assistant Principal stated he “didn’t 

use that term.” The current THS principal stated that “administrative discipline” was used when the sanction was a 

parent meeting or when a student served half day of ISS, which did not fit in any other category on the SAMS 

report. The TMS Principal informed OCR that “administrative discipline” was not always punitive and stated, a 

circumstance when “administrative discipline” was used was when a student threatened to harm himself. The school 

did not penalize such a student but documented the incident and provided an intervention. However, the SAMS 

report indicates “administrative discipline” was used in many other circumstances, such as when the school 

temporarily or permanently took away a student’s laptop for misuse or inappropriate content.
Page 11 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

schools. The District indicated that students were allowed to present statements or other witness 

statements, and the referral forms and attachments and SAMS report reviewed by OCR included 

a space for this information. However, the documents did not uniformly note that students 

presented statements prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Also, while the THS student 

referral forms included a notation for “previous action(s) taken by teacher,” OCR found that 

generally this was left blank. At the 6th Grade Center and TMS, referral forms included a space 

to note the type of communication to parent (note, phone call or meeting) and OCR’s review

found there was little to no documentation on the referral form that parents were contacted 

regarding discipline actions. 

Staff Training related to Discipline 

Most of the staff from the three schools targeted in OCR’s investigation indicated that they did 

not recall any “formal training” regarding the District’s discipline policies and procedures, but 

they recalled discussions of the Code of Conduct as it relates to discipline during staff/faculty 

meetings. According to some teachers, they had training when they attended the “new teachers’ 

orientation.” 

Discipline Data Analysis 

During the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, at the three target schools, African-American 

students comprised 48% and 49%, while White students comprised 47% and 46% of the total 

enrollment for the target schools. Although African-American students and White students each 

represented roughly half of the total enrollment, respectively, the majority of disciplinary 

referrals were for the African-American students (81% for African-American students, compared 

to 17% for White students during the 2010-2011 school year; and 78% for African-American

students, compared to 19% for White students during the 2011-2012 school year). 

Next, OCR compared the number of individual student referrals for first offenses by race. 

African-American students constituted 68% of all students referred for discipline at least once in 

2010-2011 and 67% in 2011-2012. White students constituted 28% of individual students 

referred for discipline at least once in 2010-2011 and 30% in 2011-2012. OCR determined that 

the difference between total enrollment and total referrals (including referrals for first time 

offenses) is statistically significant. 

Target Schools – Enrollment and Referrals 

2010-2011 school year 2011-2012 school year

# % # %

Enrollment

African-American 1803 48% 1828 49%

White 1736 47% 1687 46%

Total (target schools) 3718 3700
Page 12 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

Disciplinary Referrals

African-American 6291 81% 7440 78%

White 1322 17% 1760 19%

Total 7807 9493

Referrals for First Offenses

African-American 1065 68% 1173 67%

White 437 28% 526 30%

Total 1558 1760

Figure 5.

The information in Figure 5 illustrates there is a statistically significant disproportionate 

representation of African-American students who were referred for discipline. 

First Offense by Schools

AfricanAmericanWhite Total

# % # % #

2010-2011

6

th Grade 

Center

188 67% 87 31% 279

TMS 300 68% 123 28% 438

THS 577 69% 227 27% 841

Total 1065 68% 437 28% 1558

2011-2012

6

th Grade 

Center

227 62% 124 33% 369

TMS 322 72% 116 26% 449

THS 624 66% 286 30% 942

Total 1173 67% 526 30% 1760

Figure 6.

First Infractions (Offense):

OCR identified the first infraction of each student at each of the target schools. OCR ensured 

that the students who were compared by race/ethnicity were similarly situated, i.e., students with 

similar conduct/behavior. OCR identified and focused on the SAMS report’s five common 

violations that received the highest number of referrals for which students were referred for 

discipline at each of the target schools. The results of OCR’s analysis of first infractions are 

outlined below:
Page 13 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

Five Most Common Violations on School Property

AfricanAmericanWhite Total African-American White Tot

al

# % # % # # % # % #

School Years 2010-2011 2011-2012

6

th Grade Center

Proactive 

Counseling

43 53

%

36 45

%

81 Proactive

 Counseling

59 54% 38 35% 110

Defiance/

disobedience

26 79

%

7 21

%

33 Defiance/

disobedience

32 56% 25 44% 57

Excessive Tardy 14 56

%

10 40

%

25 Non-crim

behavior

19 58% 14 42% 33

Fight 15 75

%

5 25

%

20 Excessive 

Tardy

9 41% 12 55% 22

Non-criminal 

behavior

12 60

%

8 40

%

20 Fight 9 69% 4 31% 13

TMS

Disruptive 

behavior

62 70

%

23 26

%

89 Non-criminal 

behavior

153 82% 31 17% 186

Non-criminal 

behavior

68 78

%

16 18

%

87 Other 

misbehavior

60 59% 38 38% 101

Other 

misbehavior

49 62

%

27 34

%

79 Disruptive 

behavior

38 58% 25 38% 65

Excessive 

tardiness

28 47

%

31 52

%

60 Defiance/diso

bedience

18 69% 4 15% 26

Defiance/

disobedience

25 81

%

6 19

%

31 Disorderly 

conduct

11 79% 3 21% 14

THS

Excessive tardy 109 59

%

60 32

%

185 Non-criminal 

behavior

113 71% 39 24% 160

Other 

misbehavior

91 59

%

57 37

%

155 Other 

misbehavior

93 58% 59 37% 159

Non-criminal 

behavior

105 75

%

28 20

%

140 Excessive 

tardy

80 58% 52 38% 138

Truancy 44 71

%

16 26

%

62 Truancy 79 69% 32 28% 115

Profanity/vulgar 28 74

%

9 24

%

38 Dress Code 50 61% 29 35% 82

Figure 7.

OCR noted that “proactive counseling” was listed as one of the most common infractions, 

although it likely refers to infractions that resulted in “proactive counseling,” not the infractions 

themselves. The District’s Discipline Codes indicate that counseling may be added to any step in 

the applicable discipline ladders. 
Page 14 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

OCR further found that African-American students were sanctioned with ISS and OSS at a 

statistically significant disproportionate rate compared to White students.

In-School Suspension - Referral Incidents by Race

School Years AfricanAmericanWhite Total

# % # % #

2010-2011

6

th Grade Ctr 237 76% 74 24% 311

TMS 716 81% 129 15% 887

THS 1035 87% 135 11% 1196

Total 1988 83% 338 14% 2394

2011-2012

6

th Grade Ctr 489 84% 92 16% 584

TMS 1276 79% 260 16% 1608

THS 659 83% 118 15% 796

Total 2424 81% 470 16% 2988

Figure 8.

Students Assigned ISS at Least Once, by Schools

2010-2011

6

th Grade Ctr 101 77% 30 23% 131

TMS 164 75% 49 22% 220

THS 289 78% 68 18% 370

Total 554 77% 147 20% 721

2011-2012

6

th Grade Ctr 148 79% 36 19% 187

TMS 230 77% 61 21% 297

THS 220 76% 61 21% 289

Total 598 77% 158 20% 773

Figure 9.

Out of School Suspension – Disciplinary Referral Incidents

2010-2011

6

th Grade Ctr 78 87% 11 12% 90

TMS 305 88% 33 10% 345

THS 422 89% 48 10% 476

Total 805 88% 92 10% 911

2011-2012

6

th Grade Ctr 124 85% 22 15% 146

TMS 394 80% 74 15% 494

THS 357 86% 50 12% 415

Total 875 83% 146 14% 1055

Figure 10.
Page 15 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

Students Assigned OSS at Least Once

AfricanAmericanWhite Total

# % # % #

2010-2011

6

th Grade Ctr 51 84% 9 15% 61

TMS 118 81% 22 15% 145

THS 159 81% 31 16% 196

Total 328 82% 62 15% 402

2011-2012

6

th Grade Ctr 72 84% 14 16% 86

TMS 134 82% 27 16% 164

THS 157 80% 36 18% 197

Total 363 81% 77 17% 447

Figure 11.

Further, OCR observed an increase in the total number of ISS and OSS assignments for AfricanAmerican students from the 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 school years. Specifically, the number of 

ISS for African-American students increased from 554 to 598 and the number of OSS for 

African-American students increased from 328 to 363. 

Referral to Alternative School

OCR reviewed the District’s alternative school referrals for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school 

years, and determined that African-American students were disproportionally referred to a 

statistically significant extent compared to white students each school year. In 2010-2011, 49 

African-American students were referred from the 6th Grade Center, TMS and THS, compared 

to 9 White students. In 2011-2012, 105 African-American students from the three schools were 

assigned to the alternative school compared to 25 White students. White students were referred 

to alternative school for the following offenses: possession, use, or sale of drugs, fighting, 

disorderly conduct, non-criminal behavior, off school property arrest, and “alternative school 

placement after suspension.” African-American students were referred to alternative school for 

the same offenses, as well as assault, bullying, weapon possession, and gang activity. AfricanAmerican students constituted 83% in 2010-11 and 80% in 2011-2012 of the students assigned to 

the alternative school. For both years reviewed, African-American students were referred 

disproportionately to the alternative school to a statistically significant degree as compared to 

referrals for White students. 

Expulsions

The District’s Discipline Codes list expulsion as the final step in the discipline ladders for 

numerous offenses, including use, sale or possession of drugs, drug paraphernalia, look-alike 

drugs, or alcohol on or near school grounds at school functions; intoxication; defacing or 

otherwise injuring property that belongs to the school district; assault, harassment, intimidation 

or threatening of other students; use or possession of dangerous objects or materials; improper 

behavior at school; habitual violation of school rules; gang or gang-like activity/association; and 
Page 16 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

sexual misconduct, harassment or improper touching. At the middle and high school levels, the 

current Discipline Codes provide for “non-negotiable” expulsions for selling/distributing 

unlawful drugs or alcohol, weapons, “look-a-like’ weapon, theft, and breaking/entering and/or 

major destruction of school property. 

The District did not provide any information to OCR in the investigation regarding expulsions in 

the 2010-11 and 2011-2012 school years. The District reported 6 expulsions for the 2011 CRDC 

collection. All of the expelled students were African-American students. 

Referral to Law Enforcement

As noted, the District’s current Discipline Codes for middle and high school students indicate 

that all cases of non-negotiable infractions will be reported to the Tupelo Police Department. 

The District did not provide any information to OCR in the investigation regarding referrals to 

law enforcement in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The District reported 24 

referrals for the 2011 CRDC collection. Twenty of the 24 students were African-American 

students. 

OCR also analyzed the total number of referrals at the target schools that resulted in 

referrals/detained by the Lee County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC), for offenses that occurred 

on school property. The District did not report any law enforcement referrals at the 6th Grade 

Center during either the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years. For the middle and high schools 

for both school years reviewed, African-American students were disproportionately assigned 

(80% or more of the total students) to the Lee County JDC. The 46 African-American students 

assigned to JDC constituted over 80% of the total number of students assigned to JDC from TMS 

and THS in the two school years. African-American students were referred to Lee County JDC 

for arrests for crimes occurring off campus, possession, use, or sale of drugs, theft, fighting, and 

assault. White students were also referred to Lee County JDC for arrests for crimes occurring off 

campus. Further, the total number of African-American students referred/detained by the Lee 

County JDC significantly increased from 20 students during the 2010-2011 school year to 26 

students during the 2011-2012 school year. 

Incidents of Discipline 

In addition to finding that African-American students were disciplined at a disproportionate rate 

compared to White students, OCR found specific incidents of different treatment in discipline 

with regard to first infractions in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years:

2010-2011 School Year

6

th Grade Center

 Nine students (5 African-American, 1 Hispanic, 3 White) were disciplined for the first 

offense of harass, intimidate, threaten. Under the Discipline Policy, “harassment, 

intimidation, or threatening of students or teachers” corresponds to steps 8 – 10 of the 

discipline ladder (step 8: 5 day OSS, step 9: up to 10 days OSS; and step 10: placement 
Page 17 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

in alternative school or recommendation for expulsion). Four African-American 

students received OSS for the offense, two students (1 White, 1 African-American) 

received detention, one White student received administrative discipline, one White 

student received proactive counseling and one Hispanic student received “suspend pend 

hearing/OSS.” The White students received the least severe punishments for 

substantially similar conduct. Further, the electronic discipline report stated the conduct 

of the one White student who received detention was “hitting another student,” while

African-American students received OSS for substantially similar conduct, including one 

African-American student who was disciplined with the infraction of physical altercation

for “hitting another student.” 

Tupelo Middle School

 Twenty students (16 African-American, 2 White, and 2 other students) were disciplined 

for the first offense of profanity. African-American students were the only students who 

received OSS for the first offense. White students received warnings and detention for 

substantially similar behavior. 

 Fifty-four students (12 White, 40 African-American and 2 other students) were 

disciplined for the first offense of zm-noncriminal behavior. All students were 

disciplined with ISS except for one African-American student who was disciplined with 

alternative school for the remainder of the semester for conduct identified as “student in 

fight on bus.” When OCR compared this incident to fighting and Bus: fighting, OCR 

found that only African-American students were disciplined with any of these infractions 

and received OSS in nearly every incident. Further, when OCR reviewed all infractions 

based on a description of the conduct (i.e., fighting, pushing, physical altercation), OCR 

found that African-American students received the most severe sanctions and were the 

only students to receive alternative school or ten or more days of OSS for the first 

infraction.

Tupelo High School

 One-hundred fifty-five students (57 White, 91 African-American and 7 other students) 

were disciplined for the first offense of other misbehavior. When comparing the 

students, OCR found one White student who received “proactive counseling” and the 

behavior was annotated as “rude to a teacher,” whereas two African-American students 

each received one day OSS for the same behavior “rude to a teacher.” 

 Thirty-eight students (9 White, 28 African-American and 1 other student) were 

disciplined for the first offense of profanity. African-American students (7) were the 

only students who received OSS for the first offense of profanity. The most severe 

sanction any White student received was Saturday school. 

2011-2012 School Year 

6th Grade Center

 One hundred eight students (26 White, 78 African-American, and 4 other students) were 

disciplined for the first offense of bus sanction. The District’s Bus discipline policy 

states that students may enter the bus discipline ladder at any step, depending on the 

nature of the offense. The policy provides for a warning for step 1 and suspension from 
Page 18 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

the bus after step 1 for designated periods of time; the policy does not describe the 

specific ladder step for specific offenses. Five African-American students received a bus 

suspension and 103 students (26 White, 73 African-American, and 4 other students) 

received warnings. All five of the African-American students were disciplined for Bus: 

fighting/pushing/tripping and received suspensions ranging from one to three days. The 

discipline reports noted the conduct for these offenses were “hitting another student” or 

“fighting on a bus.” However, two White students were disciplined for sanctions other 

than fighting, receiving only a warning, but the conduct described in the discipline report 

indicated similar conduct to the African-American students who were suspended. One 

White student was disciplined for Bus: failure to remain seated and received a warning; 

however, the notes on the electronic discipline report stated “hitting another student.” 

Another White student was disciplined for Bus: disregard safety/respect and received a 

warning; however, the notes on the electronic discipline report stated “thumping another 

student.”

 Four students (1 White and 3 African-American) were disciplined for the first offense of 

zm-disorderly conduct. Two students (1 White and 1 African-American) received ISS 

and two African-American students received OSS. Only African-American students 

received OSS even though the conduct described in the electronic discipline report for all 

four students was similar.

Tupelo Middle School

 Fourteen students (3 White and 11 African-American) were disciplined for the first 

offense of zm-disorderly conduct. Eleven students (3 White and 8 African-American) 

received ISS; one African-American student received OSS; and two African-American 

students were suspended pending hearing/alternative school. While both White and 

African-American students were disciplined for this offense, African-American students 

received the most severe sanctions on their first infraction. 

Tupelo High School

 Two students (1 White and 1 African-American) were disciplined for the first offense of 

disorderly conduct. Both students were disciplined with OSS; however, while the 

discipline referrals indicated similar conduct, the White student received three days of 

OSS, and the African-American student received five days of OSS. 

Conclusion

OCR’s investigation revealed that the District’s separate Discipline Codes for different grade 

levels and the alternative school list the possible discipline violations and corresponding 

sanctions for each violation. However, the Codes provided administrators at all educational 

levels with a wide range of steps for the appropriate sanctions for many offenses that afforded 

the administrators broad discretion. Exclusionary discipline, including OSS, referral to 

alternative schools and expulsions, was an available option for many violations. The Codes also 

included offenses that permitted the subjective exercise of discretion on the part of the 

administrator, as terms such as “improper behavior at school” and “other misbehavior as 

determined by the administration,” were not defined in the Discipline Codes. Without clear 

definitions or explanations of these offenses, students and their parents and guardians do not 

have adequate notice of the specific behavior(s) that may result in the imposition of discipline. 
Page 19 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

OCR further noted that the current Discipline Codes for middle and high school students 

increased the sanctions for many offenses, including raising the first step penalty for fighting 

from OSS to referral to alternative school, and added new “non-negotiables” that provide for a 

minimum of 45-days at the alternative school and/or expulsion and reporting to law enforcement. 

OCR also observed that the Discipline Code required that students as young as 6th grade be 

referred to alternative school or for expulsion for the undefined “other misbehavior as 

determined by the school officials.” 

OCR’s file review also revealed that students engaging in similar misconduct did not receive the 

same discipline. During the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, at the three target schools, 

while African-American students comprised 48% and 49%, they disproportionately represented 

to a statistically significant extent compared to white students in disciplinary referrals (81%, then 

78%), ISS (77% for both school years), and OSS (82%, then 81%). In these two school years, 

OCR observed an increase in the total number of ISS and OSS assignments for AfricanAmerican students: the number of ISS increased from 554 to 598 and the number of OSS 

increased from 328 to 363. Moreover, while the District reported in OCR’s CRDC that it 

expelled only 6 students and referred only 24 students to law enforcement in these two school 

years, all of the expelled students and 20 of the 24 students referred to law enforcement were 

African-American students. African-American students from the three targeted schools also 

constituted 80% or more of the students assigned to the alternative school or referred to the Lee 

County JDC in these two school years. 

On September 15, 2014, the District entered into a voluntary resolution agreement (Agreement). 

Through the Agreement, the District commits to take specific actions to ensure that all students 

have an equal opportunity to learn in school. Provisions in the Agreement are intended to ensure 

that the District implements fair and equitable discipline policies and practices and creates an 

environment where all students feel safe and welcome. In addition, the District commits to 

provide teachers and administrators with the tools and training to support positive student 

behavior, thereby providing a range of options to prevent and address misconduct and ensure that 

the District’s disciplinary policies and practices are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. 

To ensure that these measures are effectively implemented within the District, the Agreement 

provides for expert consultation on research-based methods of preventing discrimination against 

African-American students; specialized professional development for administrators, teachers, 

and staff; and outreach to students, parents, and community stakeholders to ensure that they have 

an opportunity to participate in assessing and improving the District’s ability to provide a safe 

school environment and engage all students in its education program.

The Agreement requires the District to take specific steps to:

 Designate an individual to serve as the District’s Discipline Supervisor and be 

responsible for overseeing the implementation of the District’s policies concerning 

discipline in a fair and equitable manner;

 Require school staff to employ a range of corrective measures before referring a student 

to disciplinary authorities;

 Establish student, staff and parent committees to discuss matters concerning the equitable 

treatment of students in the implementation of the District’s discipline policies, practices 

and procedures;
Page 20 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

 Establish uniform standards for the content of student discipline files at all District 

schools;

 Review and revise its discipline policies, practices, and procedures that will ensure to the 

maximum extent possible that misbehavior is addressed in a manner that does not require 

removal from school;

 Review its policies and procedures for referring students to alternative school to ensure 

that the policies include clear entry criteria, guidelines on length of placement, guidelines 

for the provision of behavior supports and services, and provisions for the transition back 

to the home school environment;

 Ensure that the District has in place at each school a system to provide students who 

display behavior problems with support services designed to decrease behavioral 

difficulties;

 Provide training to all District students, teachers, administrators, school aides, and any 

other District personnel charged with supervising students, making disciplinary referrals 

or imposing sanctions;

 Conduct a comprehensive review of its use of law enforcement officials to assess the 

effectiveness of the use of these officials and provide law enforcement officials training 

that explains the District’s obligations under Title VI and the District’s student discipline 

policies, practices, and procedures; and

 Collect and evaluate data on an ongoing basis to assess whether the District is 

implementing its student discipline policies, practices, and procedures in a nondiscriminatory manner.

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

is appropriate to close the investigative phase of this compliance review. The District 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 

the District has fulfilled the terms of the Agreement and is in compliance with Title VI with 

regard to the issue in the review. OCR will not close the monitoring of the Agreement until it 

has determined that the District has complied with the terms of the Agreement and is in 

compliance with Title VI. Should the District fail to fully implement the Agreement, OCR will 

take appropriate action to ensure the District’s compliance with Title VI 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 the District written 

notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged 

breach. 

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, we will 

seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if 
Page 21 – Dr. Gearl Loden, Superintendent (06-11-5002)

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

privacy.

We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation shown by the District during the course of this 

review. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Ms. Patricia Sinanan or Ms. 

Emily Babb, at (214) 661-9600. 

Sincerely,

Taylor D. August

Director, Dallas Office

Office for Civil Rights