U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

PROTECTING 

CIVILRIGHTS,

ADVANCING

EQUITY

Report to the President and 

Secretary of Education

Under Section 203(b)(1) of the 

Department of Education Organization Act

FY 13–14
U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

Catherine E. Lhamon

Assistant Secretary

April 2015

This report is submitted under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act 

of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96–88, which provides: “The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights shall make 

an annual report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress summarizing the compliance 

and enforcement activities of the Office for Civil Rights and identifying significant civil rights or 

compliance problems as to which such Office has made a recommendation for corrective action 

and as to which, in the judgment of the Assistant Secretary, adequate progress is not being made.” 

20 U.S.C. §3413(b)(1).

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. The 

report’s citation should be: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

Protecting Civil Rights, Advancing Equity: Report to the President and Secretary of Education, 

Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY 13–14, 

Washington, D.C., 2015.

This report is also available on the Office for Civil Rights website at http://www.ed.gov/ocr. Any 

updates to this report will be available at this website.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MESSAGE FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Executive Summary/Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Office for Civil Rights: Evolving to Meet Changing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Policy Guidance: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Amplifying the Impact of OCR Policy and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Civil Rights Data Collection: Measuring The Equity Health of Public Schools Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

TITLE VI: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Ensuring Access to Equal Educational Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Combating Discriminatory Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Ensuring Equal Opportunities for English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Protecting the Equal Rights of All Students to Attend Public School Regardless 

of Immigration or Citizenship Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Preventing Discriminatory Assignment to Special Education Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Combating Bullying and Harassment on the Basis of Race, Color, and National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Supporting Schools, Districts, and Colleges that Voluntarily Pursue Racial Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Eliminating Retaliation for Exercising Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

TITLE IX: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Sexual Harassment: Eradicating Sexual Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Sexual Harassment: Combating Bullying and Harassment on the Basis of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Preventing Discrimination Based on Pregnancy or Parental Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ensuring Equal Access to Athletic Opportunities and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Eliminating Retaliation for Exercising Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

SECTION 504 AND ADA TITLE II: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Combating Disparities in School Discipline and Curbing Restraint and Seclusion 

in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Ensuring a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ensuring Equal Access to Comparable Educational Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Providing Necessary Academic Adjustments for Postsecondary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Safeguarding Accessibility to Appropriate Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Ensuring Accessibility of Programs, Services, and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Combating Bullying and Harassment on the Basis of Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Eliminating Retaliation for Exercising Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

OTHER STATUTES OCR ENFORCES: THE AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT AND 

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

LOOKING AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDIX: INDEX OF CASES RESOLVED WITH AGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

MESSAGE FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

Catherine E. Lhamon

For nearly five decades, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

has stood as a guardian of civil rights in educational institutions nationwide. We have taken 

seriously our charge to remove barriers to students’ full participation in every facet of 

educational life. Our progress is palpable: Today, for example, more students of color are 

graduating from high school and attending college than ever before, educational and athletic 

opportunities and attainment for girls and women are far greater than they were when 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) was enacted, and all students with 

disabilities are now assured a free appropriate public education, compared to the era when 

the quality of their education varied greatly in the absence of legal protections. 

Though we have come far, the unfortunate reality is that discrimination remains prevalent 

even more than four decades after the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 and Title IX, and more than half a century from the enactment of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964. For every success story, civil rights challenges in schools persist nonetheless. Too 

often, students are harassed or sexually assaulted on campus because of their gender or gender identities, are not allowed to 

participate equitably in sports because of their disability, are unfairly suspended from school because of their race, or suffer 

other forms of discrimination. 

As the contents of this report illustrate, we in OCR use every tool at our disposal to continue our significant forward progress 

to realize our nation’s federal civil rights promises for every student in every school. OCR received nearly 10,000 civil rights 

complaints in each of the past two fiscal years—the highest numbers in OCR history. Breaking all previous records, we also 

resolved nearly 20,000 cases during this period. During fiscal years (FY) 13–14, we launched 68 proactive investigations 

independent of any complaint and resolved 44 such investigations. We issued 11 policy guidance documents covering critical 

civil rights issues in education. We released data from our first universal Civil Rights Data Collection since 2000, covering 

approximately 97,000 public schools and about 49 million students nationwide. We responded to thousands of public inquiries 

and requests for technical assistance, and we collaborated with other offices within the Department and with other agencies 

to amplify the impact of our work and accomplish common goals. Additionally, we increased transparency in our work, posting 

more than 500 new resolution agreements on our website and publicly releasing lists of institutions under investigation for 

civil rights violations. 

This report chronicles stories of our nation’s students, of injustices faced and justice delivered. The distressing facts behind 

these cases illustrate precisely why we continue our critical work. 

This report also tells the story of OCR. As these pages detail, our talented staff achieve terrific results on behalf of students 

notwithstanding dismaying obstacles: The number of OCR staff has steadily declined with time, falling to a critical all-time 

low, even as OCR’s overall caseload has dramatically increased. Through efficiency, innovation, and dedication, this office has 

continued to fulfill its mission. What we have achieved has been possible only through the skill and unwavering commitment 

of our expert staff, for whom I am so grateful. And the students who rely on them deserve to see OCR’s staff numbers 

increase significantly so students may realize full assurance of their civil rights in schools. 

I look forward to the privilege of continuing to work with our extraordinary staff to protect civil rights and advance educational 

equity for all students. 

Sincerely,

Catherine E. Lhamon

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/HIGHLIGHTS

During FY 13–14, OCR increased the quantity, quality, 

transparency, and reach of its policy and enforcement 

efforts; implemented and improved the Civil Rights Data 

Collection; and strived to ensure equal access to educational 

resources for all students. 

OCR wrote and released 11 comprehensive policy guidance

documents in FY 13–14 to notify schools and other 

recipients of their legal obligations and to help them comply 

with the law. These documents addressed urgent and 

complex questions related to schools’ obligations to respond 

promptly and effectively to sexual violence and unequal 

school discipline policies or practices and to promote 

equitable access to resources on the basis of race or 

national origin, the rights of immigrant and undocumented 

students and of pregnant and parenting students to enroll 

in and attend school, the use of race in voluntary efforts to 

increase diversity and reduce racial isolation, the obligation 

of charter schools to adhere to federal civil rights laws, 

equitable athletic opportunities for students with disabilities, 

and the prohibition against retaliation under civil rights laws. 

OCR emphasized the importance of data by releasing a 

new, expanded Civil Rights Data Collection that made 

equity indicators in nearly every public school and district in 

America transparent. OCR worked to make the data known 

to the public through presentations, technical assistance, 

and the media, and staff intensified efforts to improve the 

data collection system and to work with districts to ensure 

data quality now and in the future. 

OCR increased the breadth, depth, and transparency of its 

enforcement activities while maintaining the quality and 

pace of its resolutions. In FY 2013, OCR received 9,950 

complaints, initiated 30 compliance reviews and directed 

inquiries, and resolved 10,128 cases overall.1 In FY 2014, 

OCR received a record-high 9,989 complaints, initiated 38 

compliance reviews and directed inquiries, and resolved 

9,407 cases total. See the Appendix for the total number of 

resolution agreements in FY 13–14 by jurisdiction, statute, 

and type of investigation.

During the same time frame, OCR instituted a number of 

key operational improvements, including developing a 

pre-complaint online screening process, expanding the use 

of online voluntary surveys in investigations, and expediting 

review of single-issue disability complaints. To boost 

transparency, OCR instituted a new policy of publicizing 

lists of schools under investigation by OCR, including a list 

of colleges subject to pending sexual violence cases, and 

of uploading nearly every resolution agreement and letter 

reached during FY 2014 and beyond onto its website. As 

a result, schools and the public can now access more than 

500 resolutions on OCR’s website that provide examples of 

what schools are doing to come into compliance with civil 

rights laws.
6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: 

EVOLVING TO MEET CHANGING NEEDS

For nearly 50 years, OCR has played a significant role in the 

history of the United States. It continues to enforce civil 

rights in our nation’s schools, which serve almost 80 million 

students annually. 

Mission and Scope

To advance the U.S. Department of Education’s mission of 

promoting student achievement and to prepare students 

for global competitiveness, OCR’s purpose is to foster 

educational excellence and ensure equal access by enforcing 

federal civil rights laws and implementing regulations that 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, disability, and age in all programs or activities 

that receive federal financial assistance. 

“I believe in my heart that education is the civil 

rights issue of our generation.”

—Secretary Arne Duncan, 

May 2014

»

Federal Civil Rights Laws Under 

OCR’s Jurisdiction

OCR’s charge is to enforce and implement the following laws 

(see Figure 1):

► Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race, 

color, and national origin discrimination in all programs or 

activities receiving federal financial assistance);

► Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

(prohibiting sex discrimination in all education programs 

or activities receiving federal financial assistance);

► Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of disability in programs, 

services, and activities receiving federal financial 

assistance);

► Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age 

discrimination in all programs or activities receiving 

federal financial assistance); 

► Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19902

(prohibiting disability discrimination in state and local 

government services—whether or not programs receive 

federal financial assistance); and

FIGURE 1: The Office for Civil Rights Enforcement Jurisdiction Timeline

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Boy Scouts of America Equal Access 

Act of 2002

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 7

► Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (2001) 

(prohibiting public elementary and secondary schools, 

local educational agencies, and state educational 

agencies from denying any group officially affiliated with 

the Boy Scouts of America or certain other youth groups 

equal access to school facilities for meetings).

These and other civil rights laws extend to a wide range 

of federal recipients, including all state educational 

agencies; approximately 16,900 local educational agencies; 

approximately 7,200 postsecondary institutions, including 

proprietary schools and community colleges; 80 state 

vocational rehabilitation agencies and their sub-recipients; 

as well as other institutions that receive U.S. Department of 

Education financial assistance, such as libraries, museums, 

and correctional institutions. More than 79 million individuals 

are beneficiaries of the financial assistance these institutions 

and agencies receive on behalf of the Department. 

Structure and Functions

OCR is headed by an Assistant Secretary, appointed by the 

President of the United States with the advice and consent 

of the U.S. Senate. The senior staff supporting the Assistant 

Secretary include a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, a Senior 

Counsel on Policy, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic 

Operations and Outreach, a Chief of Staff, an Executive 

Officer, and two additional senior counsel. 

OCR is composed of a headquarters office and 12 

enforcement offices throughout the country (see Figure 2). 

The Headquarters and DC Metro enforcement offices 

are located in Washington, DC, and the remaining 11 

enforcement offices are in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, 

Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, 

Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle.

HI

Guam

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands

Puerto 

Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

American Samoa

FIGURE 2: OCR Regional Offices

Seattle

WA

Denver

CO

Kansas 

City

MO

Dallas

TX

Atlanta

GA

Chicago

IL

Cleveland

OH San 

Francisco

Philadelphia

PA

Boston MA

Washington, DC

(Metro) 

OR

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ

AK

NM

OK

KS

MI

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

IN

AR

MS AL

TN

KY

WV

VT

NH

ME

VA

NJ

DE

NC

SC

LA

FL

WI

NV

NY

New York

CT

RI

CA

OCR REGIONAL OFFICE STATE, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY

HQ Washington, DC (Metro) DC, VA, NC, SC

Atlanta, GA GA, TN, AL, FL

Boston, MA MA, ME, VT, NH, RI, CT

Chicago, IL IL, IN, IA, WI, MN, ND

Cleveland, OH OH, MI

Dallas, TX TX, AR, LA, MS

Denver, CO CO, WY, UT, AZ, NM

Kansas City, MO MO, SD, NE, KS, OK

New York, NY NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

Philadelphia, PA PA, DE, MD, WV, KY

San Francisco, CA CA

Seattle, WA WA, OR, ID, MT, NV, AK, HI, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands

»
8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

OCR’s core activities include responding 

to civil rights complaints filed by 

the public and conducting proactive 

investigations to enforce federal civil 

rights laws, monitoring institutions’ 

adherence to resolution agreements 

reached with OCR, issuing policy guidance 

to increase recipients’ understanding 

of their civil rights obligations and 

students’ awareness of their civil rights, 

responding to requests for information 

from and providing technical assistance 

to the public, and administering and 

disseminating the Civil Rights Data 

Collection. Notable accomplishments 

in these activities during FY 13–14 are 

detailed throughout this report.

Securing Civil Rights Compliance through Effective Case 

Monitoring

Resolution agreements are effective to the extent that they are 

implemented. To ensure that parties follow through with their 

commitments, OCR actively monitors cases that have resolution 

agreements until the institution meets all provisions. In FY 13–14, OCR 

engaged in 4,321 monitoring activities. Additionally, OCR closed 1,178 

cases in FY 13–14 that were previously under monitoring. 

When a case is in monitoring, OCR’s role is to scrutinize the recipient’s 

implementation of the resolution agreement to ensure that the 

institution effectively implements its commitments and that the 

recipient is in compliance with the statute(s) and regulation(s) at 

issue. OCR may conduct onsite visits as part of its monitoring, as well 

as conduct individual interviews and focus groups as part of the onsite 

monitoring activities. This monitoring function is a significant and 

important tool in OCR’s overall enforcement scheme and is essential 

to OCR’s mission of ensuring compliance with civil rights laws and 

ensuring equal access to educational excellence for all students. Handling More 

Complaints with 

Fewer Staff

OCR’s staffing level has consistently 

declined over the life of the agency even 

though complaint volume has significantly 

increased. Figure 3 depicts OCR’s full 

time employee (FTE) levels from 1980 

to 2014. OCR’s staffing level at the end 

of FY 2014 was 544 (FTE), marking an 

all-time low in staff levels since 1980, 

when the Department of Education (ED) 

separated from what had until then been 

the Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, establishing an OCR within 

ED. The number of staff in OCR today is 

almost 15% below its staffing level 10 

years ago (640); about 30% below its 

staffing level 20 years ago (788); and 

more than 50% below its staffing level 34 

years ago (1,148). 

The chart also shows how the number 

of complaints has risen over time. The 

ever-increasing level of complaint receipts 

generates a large share of workload for 

OCR staff. 

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,500

2,700

3,900

5,100

6,300

7,500

8,700

9,900

11,100

12,300

13,500

Staff Level 

(FTE) 1,148 913 815 788 712 640 585 544

Complaints 

Receipts 3,497 2,199 3,384 4,981 4,897 5,533 6,933 9,989 Staff Level (FTE)

Complaints

FIGURE 3: OCR Staff Level (FTE) and Complaints Received, FY 1980–2014 

»

»

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 9

In FY 2013, OCR received 9,950 complaints and resolved 

10,128 total cases. In FY 2014, OCR received 9,989 

complaints, and resolved 9,407 total cases (see Figure 4).

Estimates are that this record level will continue and modestly 

increase through at least FY 15–16. By comparison, in FY 

1985, OCR received just 2,199 complaints—nearly 80% fewer 

than what OCR now receives in a typical year—and had 913 

FTEs, compared to 544 FTEs at the end of FY 2014. Even 

examining the last several years, from FY 2009 to FY 2014, 

annual complaint receipts increased by more than 55%. 

Race and

National Origin

22%

(4,632)

Sex

27% 

(5,845)

Disability

46%

(9,941)

Age

5%

(1,173)

FIGURE 4: Percentage of Complaints Received in 

FY 13–14 by Type of Alleged Discrimination

(both raw numbers and percentage)*

*Raw numbers do not add up to 

19,939 because some complaints 

cover more than one statute.

OCR’s staff-to-complaint ratio has become dangerously 

imbalanced, jeopardizing OCR’s capacity to fulfill its mission 

effectively. OCR continues to aspire to the highest levels of 

performance, and the students whose rights OCR serves 

deserve fuller staffing for OCR to satisfy its mission.

Becoming More Efficient

Recognizing the need to become more efficient in order to 

address increasing workload and fewer staff, OCR has, in 

recent years, taken aggressive measures to improve efficiency 

in operations. 

► Pre-Complaint Online Screening Process: In FY 2013, OCR 

developed a pre-complaint online screening process to 

help potential complainants understand the scope of OCR’s 

authority and to reduce the number of complaints filed 

that do not fall under OCR’s jurisdiction. For complaints 

outside OCR’s jurisdiction, the system refers complainants 

to other agencies, as appropriate. Although anyone 

may file a complaint even after going through the online 

screening process, this additional mechanism saves time 

and resources by reducing the number of complaints filed 

with OCR over which OCR lacks jurisdiction. 

► Resolving Single-Issue Disability Complaints through 

Expedited Case Review: In the past few years, OCR has 

resolved some single-issue disability complaints—which 

compose over 40% of the complaints filed with OCR in 

FY 13–14—more quickly using expedited case review 

procedures, to the extent feasible. This streamlined process 

has reduced staff travel time and costs while providing 

quick relief to complainants.

► Streamlining Investigations through Online Surveys: OCR 

expanded the use of online communication and voluntary 

surveys to obtain information in investigations, saving time 

and resources needed for travel and conducting individual 

interviews while significantly increasing the number of 

individuals from whom OCR can receive information. 

► Significant Improvements to the Civil Rights Data 

Collection: OCR enhanced the Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) online data collection tool and, as a result, reduced 

data reporting errors as well as the staff time needed to 

address the errors. OCR achieved these improvements by 

streamlining the user interface so schools and districts 

could enter data more easily, clarifying instructions and 

developing new technical assistance materials, and making 

other updates.

► Responding to Requests for Information: OCR has 

also experienced a surge in requests for information, 

stakeholder and public engagement, and technical 

assistance. Each year, OCR receives over 1,000 Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) requests, over 5,500 hotline 

calls, over 1,000 media inquiries, and hundreds of requests 

for technical assistance. In response, OCR has worked to 

implement technological efficiencies that have allowed 

staff to address each inquiry more quickly and effectively. 

OCR is also using technology to disseminate information 

more broadly. 

OCR Response to the Public: OCR processed 1,081 

FOIA requests in FY 2013 and 1,150 FOIA requests 

in FY 2014. Additionally, OCR handled 5,852 hotline 

calls in FY 2013 and 6,650 in FY 2014.

»

»

► Responding to the Call for Greater Speed and 

Transparency: Schools’ and communities’ interest in 

more policy guidance and increased, faster, and more 

transparent civil rights enforcement from OCR has 

increased significantly over the past two fiscal years. In FY 

2014, OCR began a practice of posting nearly all resolution 

agreements on its website so that schools, parents, and 

students can see what steps recipients are taking to 

achieve compliance. In addition, OCR now institutes time 

limits for negotiating the terms of voluntary resolution 

agreements with recipients—a change that can lead to 

speedier resolutions. 
10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

POLICY GUIDANCE: AN OVERVIEW 

During FY 13–14, OCR issued 11 policy guidance 

documents. Addressing issues ranging from retaliation to 

sexual violence to the administration of school discipline, 

these policy guidance materials serve an important 

function: to notify schools and other recipients of federal 

funds of their legal obligations and the ways OCR enforces 

federal civil rights laws, helping them to comply with the 

law. In some instances, the guidance OCR issues directly 

responds to emerging trends in discriminatory behavior, 

as reflected in the Civil Rights Data Collection, requests 

OCR receives for technical assistance, and complaint 

investigations. Also, when precedent-setting cases in the 

courts clarify specific elements of application of the law, 

OCR utilizes Dear Colleague letters and accompanying 

supplementary materials to help ensure that the general 

public understands how the decisions apply to schools, 

districts, and educational institutions of higher learning. 

When appropriate, OCR issues guidance jointly with other 

civil rights offices, such as the Civil Rights Division at the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Educational institutions 

may use OCR’s policy guidance to help adjust their own 

policies and practices to enhance civil rights protections for 

students and avoid committing civil rights violations, which 

may eliminate the need for OCR enforcement. And students, 

families, and communities may utilize this guidance to better 

understand students’ civil rights. 

Below is a list of the guidance that OCR released during FY 13–14:

STATUTE ISSUE / RELEASE DATE DESCRIPTION

Title VI, Title IX, 

and 

Section 504/Title II

Prohibition against retaliation

April 24, 2013

Clarifies the basic principles of retaliation law and describes OCR’s methods of enforcement for 

claims of retaliation.

Applicability of civil rights laws to charter 

schools

May 14, 2014

Provides a reminder that charter schools are subject to the same federal civil rights obligations to 

which all other public schools are subject and highlights some of the legal requirements related to 

admissions, school discipline, students with disabilities, and English learners.

Title VI Voluntary use of race to achieve diversity

September 27, 2013 (released jointly with the 

Department of Justice)

Provides information about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

and reiterates OCR’s and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) support for the voluntary use of 

race to achieve diversity in education.

Nondiscriminatory discipline

January 8, 2014 (released jointly with the 

Department of Justice)

Addresses the requirement for nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline and provides 

information describing how schools can meet their obligations under federal law to administer 

school discipline without discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

Voluntary use of race to achieve diversity

May 6, 2014 (released jointly with the 

Department of Justice)

Provides information about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend 

Affirmative Action and reiterates OCR’s and DOJ’s support for the voluntary use of race and 

ethnicity to achieve diversity in education.

Equal access to education regardless of 

immigration or citizenship status

May 8, 2014 (released jointly with the 

Department of Justice)

Discusses schools’ enrollment procedures and the obligation to enroll all students of school age 

regardless of their race, color, national origin, immigration, or citizenship status.

Resource equity

October 1, 2014

Discusses the requirement that students have equal access to educational resources without regard 

to race, color, or national origin.

Title IX Rights of pregnant and parenting students

June 25, 2013

Addresses the specific requirements of Title IX applicable to pregnant and parenting students, 

including information on strategies and practices that educators may use and programs schools can 

develop to address the educational needs of students who become pregnant or have children. 

Addressing and preventing sexual violence

April 29, 2014

Clarifies in FAQ guidance the legal requirements under Title IX articulated in the April 4, 2011 Dear 

Colleague letter on Sexual Violence and the January 19, 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance.

Section 504/Title II Equal access to extracurricular athletics for 

students with disabilities

January 25, 2013

Details the specific Section 504 regulations that require students with disabilities to have an 

equal opportunity for participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities and 

discusses the provision of separate or different athletic opportunities.

Rights of students with hepatitis B

June 12, 2013 (released jointly with the 

Department of Justice and the Department of 

Health and Human Services)

Discusses the latest recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

regarding the participation of students with hepatitis B in health-related schools, and how these 

recommendations relate to the federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, race, 

color, and national origin.

Title VI, Title IX, 

and Section 504/Title II

Title VI

Title VI

Title VI

Title VI

Title IX

Section 504/Title II
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 11

AMPLIFYING THE IMPACT OF OCR POLICY AND 

ENFORCEMENT

OCR amplifies its work through a number of interand intra-agency equity initiatives and public events, 

thereby extending the reach of its enforcement and 

policy activities.

OCR played a key role in driving forward public 

engagement, policies, and enforcement measures 

to curb sexual assault on college campuses in its 

contributions to the White House Task Force to 

Protect Students from Sexual Assault, which President 

Obama convened in January 2014. The first Task 

Force report to the President, issued in April 2014, 

included the creation of NotAlone.gov, a resource hub 

for students, parents, and stakeholders that includes 

prevention strategies, resources, OCR’s legal guidance 

on sexual harassment and violence, OCR resolution 

agreements related to sexual violence, and easy-tofollow information on OCR and its complaint process 

(see Figure 5). In FY 13–14, OCR resolved 90 cases 

related to sexual violence, inclucing 25 resulting in a 

resolution agreement, and changed past practice to 

begin making transparent the schools OCR investigates 

related to sexual violence.

Since 2011, OCR has been an active partner in the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative (SSDI). SSDI 

brings a number of federal agencies together to 

promote positive school discipline approaches and 

alternatives to exclusionary discipline. In January 2014, 

OCR and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) 

jointly released first-ever public policy guidance on 

school discipline together with a larger school discipline 

guidance package that includes a best practices guide 

and a list of federal school discipline resources (see 

page 20 of this report). 

In FY 2013, OCR proposed for public comment new 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) elements related to 

school violence that not only support the President’s 

Now Is The Time initiative in response to the tragedy 

at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, 

Connecticut, but also will help communities to better 

monitor public safety trends in their local schools. 

Starting with the 2013–14 CRDC collection, data related 

to school violence (including incidents involving use of 

weapons) will be included and publicly available at the 

school level for those districts that report these data 

(the data are optional for 2013–14, and required for 

2015–16).

FIGURE 5: Life Cycle of an OCR Complaint (created for NotAlone.gov)*

Write it up

• Explain what happened

• Identify the harmed party

• Identify the responsible party

1

Don’t hold it inside

Tell school and criminal justice officials 

what happened. 

If your school does not respond 

appropriately, file a complaint 

with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

2

• in person

• online

• by mail

3

File it 

with the Office for Civil Rights 

Let OCR evaluate

They will determine if it

 is appropriate for them 

to investigate 

(e.g., if it has jurisdiction over the 

allegation of discrimination.)

4

6

Let OCR resolve

They will require your school to 

correct issues they find

Let OCR investigate

OCR may ask you and 

your school more questions about 

what happened to you

5

Get action to resolve

Don’t hold it inside

7

*Adapted from design by Christina S. Kang, licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License.

»
12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

OCR’s enforcement, policy development, and data collection 

work contributed to My Brother’s Keeper (MBK), a crossagency initiative that the President announced in February 

2014 to support more positive outcomes for all students, 

including men and boys of color. OCR’s landmark resolutions 

in the area of school discipline (see page 21 of this 

report) cement a core MBK—and civil rights—principle that 

students of color should not be subject to discriminatory 

school discipline. The discipline guidance package referenced 

above provided communities across the nation with valuable 

information as they work to achieve discipline reform in their 

schools. OCR’s resource equity guidance (see page 19

of this report) also furthered recommendations from the 

MBK initiative, calling for equitable access to educational 

resources for all students. OCR’s Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) data (see page 14 of this report) on preschool 

suspensions and expulsions informed the initiative’s early 

education recommendation calling for a ban on exclusionary 

discipline in preschool.

OCR also contributed data to the Excellent Educators for 

All Initiative, a 50-state strategy announced in July 2014 to 

enforce the statutory provision in Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requiring states to 

take steps to ensure that students of color and low-income 

students are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or 

out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other students. 

The Initiative created state profiles using various data points 

related to teacher equity, including several collected through 

the CRDC, to aid states in drafting state plans required under 

Title I of the ESEA.

On July 2, 2014, OCR commemorated the 50th Anniversary 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by organizing a public event 

attended by political and civil rights leaders, youth, and 

the media. OCR Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon 

and Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Outreach Massie Ritsch joined with several of the original 

Freedom Riders, as well as young civil rights leaders, to 

ride school buses from Washington, DC, to Richmond, VA, 

where Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe welcomed them at 

the State Capitol. Assistant Secretary Lhamon keynoted the 

event with remarks on our nation’s progress in satisfying the 

civil rights promises of the Act, joined by U.S. Congressman 

Bobby Scott, State Senator Henry Marsh, and Freedom Rider 

Reginald Green.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 13

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION: 

MEASURING THE EQUITY HEALTH OF PUBLIC 

SCHOOLS NATIONWIDE

The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a biennial survey 

of the nation’s public schools that OCR requires with the 

purpose of collecting data on leading civil rights indicators 

related to access and barriers to educational opportunity at 

the pre-K through 12th grade school levels. The CRDC is a 

longstanding and important aspect of OCR’s overall strategy 

for administering and enforcing the civil rights statutes for 

which it is responsible. While OCR does not rely on CRDC 

data alone in determining whether schools have violated 

the law, since 1968, OCR has conducted the CRDC for use 

in its monitoring and enforcement efforts regarding equal 

educational opportunity. Information compiled through 

the CRDC includes student enrollment and educational 

programs and services data that are disaggregated by race/

ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. The 

CRDC is also a tool for other Department offices and federal 

agencies, policymakers, researchers, educators, school 

officials, parents, students, and the public, so that they may 

analyze student equity and opportunity.

“The CRDC survey is an incredibly rich resource, a 

survey of every public school in the United States. 

I encourage you to dig into it aggressively to 

report local stories on educational equity, or the 

lack thereof.”

—Secretary Arne Duncan, 

May 2014

Enhancing Usability

Civil rights data provide the raw information that helps 

OCR, educators, administrators, policymakers, researchers, 

parents, students, and communities to ascertain the 

equity health of schools. In the past two fiscal years, OCR 

has worked to make the CRDC more accessible, usable, 

and understandable for the general public as well as for 

researchers and analysts. In March 2014, OCR posted the 

data from the 2011–12 CRDC—the first universal collection 

of data from all schools and districts in the country since 

the 2000 CRDC. The 2011–12 CRDC provides school-level, 

in-depth, disaggregated data about important indicators of 

educational opportunity for about 49 million public school 

students in approximately 97,000 schools across 16,500 

districts, which is more than double the number of districts 

in the 2009–10 collection. 

In FY 2014, OCR worked to disseminate information about 

the CRDC to schools and the public in order to improve the 

quality of the data OCR receives and to promote its usage 

to ensure civil rights satisfaction in schools. This broader 

public dissemination had significant impact: OCR saw an 

increase of 61% in visitors per month in FY 2014 on its 

CRDC website, and an increase of 153% in page views from 

the previous year, with a total of 2.25 million page views 

of the CRDC in FY 2014. OCR also released a series of issue 

briefs to highlight major themes in the 2011–12 CRDC data 

in a manner accessible to the public.

Improving Quality

In FY 2013, OCR completed the first phase of a multi-year 

effort to improve the data tool used to collect information at 

the school level by working with the Department’s National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the University 

of Chicago to determine how to increase the data quality 

and reduce burden on local educational agencies (LEAs) 

in complying with data collection requirements in future 

collections. 

In FY 2013, OCR and NCES improved the clarity of the 

instructions for the CRDC and developed new technical 

assistance materials, targeting more than 2,000 districts 

(approximately 12% of districts) to support them as they 

prepared to collect and submit their 2013–14 data. 

Building on the work to make the CRDC data widely 

accessible, OCR also began development of pre-submission 

analytic reports to assist districts in resolving possible 

reporting errors and to provide them with a visually 

intuitive depiction of their 2013–14 data before they submit 

it. In FY 13–14, OCR added new tip sheets, FAQs, and 

guidance documents to the CRDC website to assist LEAs 

in preparations for upcoming data submissions, with over 

12,000 downloads of documents related to the 2013–14 

collection—a fourfold increase from the previous data 
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

collection. In addition, outreach to LEAs and improved 

technical assistance materials resulted in LEAs taking early 

steps to prepare for the 2015–16 CRDC, with over 19,000 

downloads of technical assistance documents relevant to 

the 2015–16 CRDC. 

Progress on School Discipline

CRDC data reveal that exclusionary discipline 

practices have had a disproportionately negative 

impact on students of color and students 

with disabilities and are causing a reduction in 

instructional time for disciplined students. The CRDC 

data provide useful information for educators to 

rethink their approaches to the issue, resulting in 

systemic changes that are increasingly taking root 

in various parts of the country. 

During the period in which new CRDC data has been 

released (2012–2014), several states and districts—

such as California, Maryland, Massachusetts, the 

District of Columbia, Fairfax County (VA), Beaverton 

(OR), Denver (CO), Philadelphia (PA), Chicago (IL), 

and Broward County (FL)—have begun to change 

policies and practices to focus more on alternative 

measures to suspension and expulsion.

FIGURE 6: Preschool Students Receiving Suspensions, by 

Race and Ethnicity

White

Two or More Races

Hispanic/Latino

Black or 

African American

Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander

Asian

American Indian or 

Alaska Native

100%

90%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1%

2%

29%

18%

43%

4%

3%

25%

28%

0.1%

1%

1%

42%

4%

20%

26%

0.1%

0.1%

1%

48%

Enrollment Out-of-school suspension 

(single) Out-of-school suspension 

(multiple)

4%

»

»

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Figure reflects 99% of schools offering preschool, 

including over 1 million preschool students, nearly 5,000 students suspended once, and over 2,500 

students suspended more than once. Preschool suspensions and expulsions were collected for the first 

time in 2011–12.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011–12.

CRDC Data at a Glance

The CRDC provides the building blocks for understanding 

school-by-school distinctions in the provision of equitable 

educational opportunities, including the degree to 

which students have equitable access to resources and 

opportunities or are subject to discipline, bullying, or 

harassment. In the 2011–2012 CRDC, two key factors 

allowed for strongly reliable depictions of statewide trends 

and interstate disparities: the inclusion of every public school 

and district in the nation, and a 99% compliance rate from 

the approximately 97,000 public schools reporting their data 

in the CRDC. This was the first time since 2000 that the 

entire universe of public schools and districts was surveyed. 

To highlight some of the issues that affect the everyday 

lives and the futures of students around the country, OCR 

developed reports that take the CRDC data and translate 

them into comprehensible graphs and charts. In March 

2014, OCR issued four comprehensive Data Snapshot briefs 

addressing school discipline, early childhood education, 

college and career readiness, and teacher equity. Each 

snapshot document (also translated into Spanish) provides 

educators, administrators, policymakers, and researchers 

with data revealing nationwide trends in educational equity 

that provide a useful starting point for states, districts, and 

schools to analyze their own data and trends. 

School Discipline

The 2011–12 CRDC reveals that students of certain racial or 

ethnic groups and students with disabilities are disciplined at 

far higher rates than are their peers, beginning in preschool

(see Figure 6). The CRDC data also show that an increasing 

number of students are losing important instructional time due 

to exclusionary discipline, such as suspensions and expulsions.

► In preschool, black children are being suspended at a 

disproportionately high rate. Black children represent 

18% of preschool enrollment, but 42% of preschool 

children suspended once.

► Black students are suspended and expelled at a rate 

three times greater than that of white students. On 

average, 5% of white students are suspended, compared 

to 16% of black students. 

► American Indian and Native Alaskan students are 

also disproportionately suspended and expelled,

representing less than 1% of the student population but 

2% of out-of-school suspensions and 3% of expulsions.

► Girls of color are generally suspended at higher rates 

than white girls. Black girls are suspended at higher rates 

(12%) than girls of any other race or ethnicity and most 

boys; American Indian and Native Alaskan girls (7%) are 

suspended at higher rates than that of white boys (6%) 

or girls (2%) (see Figure 7).
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 15

FIGURE 7: Students Receiving Out-of-School Suspensions, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander

Black/African 

American

Hispanic/Latino 

of any race

Two or more races

White

25% Boys

15%

20%

5%

10%

0%

13%

3%

7%

20%

9% 11%

6%

7%

1% 3%

12%

4% 5%

2%

Girls

Note: Data reflects 99% of CRDC schools and a total of 290,000 American Indian/Alaska Native females, 300,000 American Indian/Alaska Native males, 1.1 million Asian males, 1.2 

million Asian females, 120,000 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander males and females, 3.7 million black females, 3.8 million black males, 5.6 million Hispanic females, 5.9 million 

Hispanic males, 630,000 males of two or more races, 640,000 females of two or more races, 12 million white males, and 12 million white females.

Note: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011-12.

► Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) are more than 

twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension 

(13%) as are students without disabilities (6%). 

▫ Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American Indian and 

Native Alaskan boys with disabilities (served by IDEA) 

receive an out-of-school suspension, compared to 

12% of white boys with disabilities (served by IDEA).

▫ Twenty percent (20%) of American Indian and Native 

Alaskan girls with disabilities (served by IDEA) receive 

an out-of-school suspension, compared to 6% of 

white girls with disabilities (served by IDEA).

► Although black students represent 16% of student 

enrollment, they represent 27% of students referred 

to law enforcement and 31% of students subject to 

a school-related arrest. In comparison, white students 

represent 51% of student enrollment but 41% of students 

referred to law enforcement and 39% of students subject 

to a school-related arrest.

► Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) represent 

a quarter of students arrested and referred to law 

enforcement, even though they are only 12% of the 

overall student population.

Additionally, the CRDC reveals that students with disabilities 

are subject to physical and mechanical restraint and 

seclusion at rates that far exceed those of other students, 

and black students with disabilities are subject to mechanical 

restraint at even higher rates (compared to their enrollment) 

than other students with disabilities.3 Students with 

disabilities (served by IDEA) represent 12% of the student 

population, but 58% of students placed in seclusion or 

involuntary confinement and 75% of students physically 

restrained at school to immobilize them or reduce their 

ability to move freely. Black students represent 19% of 

students with disabilities served by IDEA, but 36% of the 

students who are restrained at school through the use of a 

mechanical device or equipment designed to restrict their 

freedom of movement.

Early Childhood Education 

A child’s early education, including preschool4 and 

elementary school, can set the foundation for his or her 

future success. The 2011–12 CRDC collected early childhood 

education-related data such as preschool access and 

discipline, as well as student retention, in elementary school. 

The data tell us:

► Public preschool access is not yet a reality for much of 

the nation. About 40% of districts do not offer preschool 

programs (see Figure 8). 

► Part-day preschool is offered more often than full-day.

57% of districts that operate public preschool programs 

offer only part-day preschool.

► Access to preschool is limited. Just over half of the districts 

that operate public preschool programs explicitly make such 

programs available to all students within the district. 

► Kindergarten retention disparities: Native Hawaiian, 

other Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Native 

Alaskan kindergarten students are held back a year at 

nearly twice the rate of white kindergarten students. Boys 

represent 61% of retained kindergarteners. 

► Preschool children being suspended: Black children 

make up 18% of preschool enrollment, but 42% of 

preschool children receiving an out-of-school suspension. 

Boys receive more than three out of four out-of-school 

preschool suspensions.
FIGURE 8: Percent of School Districts Operating Public 

Preschool Programs

16 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Note: Figure reflects public preschool programs operated by, or on behalf of, public school 

districts. The CRDC does not collect information related to the quality of public preschool 

programs. Figure represents 16,503 school districts.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 

2011–12.

College and Career Readiness

Access to high-level math and science courses is crucial to 

a student’s ability to prepare for college and the workforce. 

The CRDC tracks information on courses provided, access to 

gifted and talented programs, and student retention rates. 

It also reveals strengths and deficits nationwide in student 

access to college and career preparatory coursework and 

opportunities, as well as disparities in which students are 

successful in advanced mathematics and science courses 

and Advanced Placement (AP) courses and tests

(see Figure 9).

FIGURE 9: Advanced Placement Enrollment, Exam Taking, and Receipt of a Qualifying Score, by Race and Ethnicity

2%

5%

0.5%

1%

21%

16%

54%

100%

90%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2%

10%

0.5%

1%

9%

59%

18%

2%

12%

0.4%

1%

9%

60%

17%

1%

13%

0.4%

0.5%

4%

67%

14%

Enrollment in 

high school

Students enrolled 

in at least one 

AP course

Students 

taking at least 

one AP exam

Students with a 

qualifying score on at 

least one AP exam

Black/African American

Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander

Asian

American Indian/Alaska Native

Hispanic/Latino of any race

Two or more races

White

»

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Data in this chart represents 98.9% of high schools in the CRDC universe. Overall high school enrollment is 16 million students, 

enrolled in at least one AP course is 2.5 million students, taking at least one AP exam is 1.75 million students, and with a qualifying score on at least one AP exam is 980,000 students.

Note: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011-12.

The data depict limited access to college and career 

preparatory courses for students of color.

► High-level math and science courses are widely 

unavailable. Nationwide, only 50% of high schools offer 

calculus courses, and only 63% offer physics courses. 

► Access to other core courses is also limited. Nationwide, 

between 10% and 25% of high schools do not offer more 

than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of 

high school math and science education—such as Algebra 

I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry. 

► Black, Latino, American Indian, and Alaska Native 

students have even less access to high-level courses.

A quarter of high schools with the highest percentage 

of black and Latino students do not offer Algebra II; a 

third of these schools do not offer chemistry. Fewer than 

half of American Indian and Native Alaskan high school 

students have access to the full range of math and 

science courses in their high schools. 

► Overall, students of color are disproportionately underenrolled in gifted and talented programs. Black and 

Latino students represent 26% of the students enrolled 

in gifted and talented education programs, compared to 

black and Latino students’ 40% enrollment in schools 

offering gifted and talented programs. White and AsianAmerican students make up 70% of the students enrolled 

in gifted and talented education programs, compared to 

55% enrollment in schools offering gifted and talented 

programs.

Offering 

preschool

40%

60%

Not offering 

preschool
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 17

► Disparities in Advanced Placement (AP) course 

enrollment and testing exist across all demographics.

▫ Black and Latino students make up 37% of students in 

high schools, 27% of students enrolled in at least one 

AP course, and 18% of students receiving a qualifying 

score of 3 or above on an AP exam (see Figure 9).

▫ English learners represent 5% of high school students, 

2% of the students enrolled in at least one AP course, 

and 1% of the students receiving a qualifying score of 

3 or above on an AP exam. 

▫ Students with disabilities served by IDEA represent 

12% of high school students, 2% of students enrolled 

in an AP course, and 1% of the students receiving a 

qualifying score of 3 or above on an AP exam. 

► American Indian and Native Alaskan English learners 

have less access to English language instruction 

programs. Eighty-one percent (81%) of American Indian 

and Native Alaskan English learners are enrolled in English 

language instruction programs, compared to 92% of their 

Latino and black peers. 

Teacher Equity

Research indicates that students’ race and family income 

often predict their access to excellent educators. Low-income 

students and students of color are more likely than their 

wealthier and white peers to attend schools whose teachers 

are least experienced and have fewer credentials. Nationally, 

according to the CRDC, black students are four times as likely 

as white students to be enrolled in a school with more than 

20% first-year teachers, and Latino students are more than 

twice as likely.

The CRDC: Informing Teacher Equity 

Nationwide

In July 2014, the U.S. Department of Education 

released the details of its Excellent Educators for All 

Initiative to ensure that economically disadvantaged 

students and students of color have the same access 

to high-quality teachers that their more economically 

advantaged peers and white peers have. One 

component of the Department’s strategy is the use 

of CRDC data to inform states’ analysis of teacher 

distribution across schools.

»

»

Highlights of the data on teacher equity include:

► Access to experienced teachers: Black, Latino, and 

American Indian and Native Alaskan students attend 

schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers 

at a higher rate (3% to 4%) than white students (1%). 

English learners also attend these schools at slightly 

higher rates (3%) than non-English learners (2%). 

► Teacher salary disparities: Nearly one in four districts 

with two or more high schools report a teacher salary gap 

of more than $5,000 or more between high schools with 

the highest and high schools with the lowest black and 

Latino student enrollments. 

► Access to certified teachers: Although most teachers 

are certified, nearly half a million students nationwide 

attend schools where 60% or fewer teachers meet all 

state certification and licensure requirements. Nearly 7% 

of the nation’s black students—totaling over half a million 

students—attend schools where 80% or fewer teachers 

meet state certification and licensure requirements.

► Access to school counselors: Nationwide, one in five 

high schools lacks a school counselor (see Figure 10).

High schools with 

counselors

High schools without 

counselors

20%

80%

FIGURE 10: Percent of High Schools with Access to Counselors

Note: Represents data from 99.97% of responding CRDC high schools offering grades 10 or 11 

(25,055 high schools). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011–12
18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

TITLE VI: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, 

OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and 

activities operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, 

or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In the education arena, Title VI’s protections apply to all public 

elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities—public or private—that receive federal financial assistance. Its 

protections extend to all aspects of these institutions’ programs and activities. When enforcing Title VI, OCR works to ensure 

equal access to education services and benefits and to prevent acts of retaliation against those who report Title VI violations. 

Policy Guidance: During FY 13–14, OCR issued five guidance documents or packages that address Title VI: (1) how states, 

schools, and districts can develop practices and strategies to administer student discipline without discriminating on the 

basis of race, color, or national origin; (2) the ability of colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity to achieve diversity 

in education after the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin5 decision; (3) the effect of the decision in Schuette v. Coalition to 

Defend Affirmative Action,6 leaving the ability articulated in Fisher intact; (4) acceptable admissions practices for elementary 

and secondary educational institutions to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in accordance 

with Plyler v. Doe;7 and (5) the requirement that students have equal access to educational resources without regard to race, 

color, or national origin.

Enforcement: In the last two fiscal years, OCR received over 4,600 Title VI-related complaints and launched 32 systemic, 

proactive investigations that, collectively, address a broad range of Title VI-related issues in institutions across the nation8

(see Figure 11). As described more fully below, OCR has worked on Title VI allegations such as the denial of access to 

college- and career-preparatory educational opportunities; discriminatory discipline; barriers to education for English 

learners, immigrants, and noncitizens; racially biased admissions practices; and bullying and harassment.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Other 

STEM/CCR

Retaliation

Resource Equity and Comparability 

Recruitment

Racial Harassment 

Minorities in Special ED

Graduation Requirements 

Financial Assistance/Retention

Extracurricular Activities 

English Learners

Employment

Discipline

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Desegregation

Assignment of Students

Admissions 173

584

358

414

161

56

51

12

36

34

8

1,172

1,176

134

71

1,516

1

FIGURE 11: Number of Title VI Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue, FY 13–14

»

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title VI Issues, FY 2013–14 = 4,632

Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore the total number STEM refers to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. 

of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received. CCR refers to College and Career Readiness.

Technical Assistance: Educators as well as parents and students must have the knowledge and skills to identify, prevent, 

and address discrimination, or get help when it does occur. Every year, OCR provides technical assistance to schools and 

communities around the country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights issues. In FY 13–14, OCR engaged in 216 

technical assistance events on Title VI-related issues. These events included presentations on the implications of Fisher

on admissions practices of various schools and districts, overviews of OCR’s discipline guidance package, and technical 

assistance on issues faced by English learners.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 19

Ensuring Access to Equal 

Educational Opportunity

OCR works to ensure that schools and districts satisfy their 

Title VI obligation to give students of every race, color, and 

national origin an equal opportunity to pursue college and 

careers by providing access to high-rigor academic courses 

and programs (see Figure 12).

Policy

On October 1, 2014, OCR released a Dear Colleague letter 

and fact sheet on the responsibility of schools to provide 

students with equal access to educational resources without 

regard to race, color, or national origin. The guidance 

provides superintendents and other district officials with 

information regarding the requirements on educational 

resources, how OCR investigates resource disparities, and 

what states, districts, and schools can do to meet their 

obligations to all students. Under Title VI, states, districts, 

and schools must not intentionally treat students differently 

based on race, color, or national origin in providing 

educational resources. In addition, they must not implement 

policies or practices for providing educational resources that 

disproportionately affect students of a particular race, color, 

or national origin without legally sufficient justification. 

Enforcement 

OCR’s efforts under Title VI to ensure equal access to 

educational opportunities led to resolutions of 67 complaints 

in FY 13–14 involving student access to resources, curricula, 

and opportunities that foster college and career readiness. 

More than 20% of OCR’s compliance reviews launched in

FY 13–14 were in this area. Illustrative cases include: 

► Cleveland Metropolitan School District (OH): In January

2014, OCR concluded an investigation that found seats

going unfilled in science, technology, engineering, and

math-focused (STEM) schools in this district that offer

extraordinary opportunities such as allowing high school

students to learn from experts with NASA and the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, job shadow at

General Electric, and take courses in industrial design. Yet, 

the district was not advertising the course availability in 

Spanish, the home language of 80% of the district’s

English learner students. OCR reached an agreement with

the district committing the district to ensure that English

learner students and their families have equal access to

the high-rigor course offerings the district makes available.

► Elk Grove Unified School District (CA): OCR’s

investigation found that the district’s policies and

procedures for identifying gifted and talented (GATE) 

FIGURE 12: Students with Access to the Full Range of Math and 

Science Courses, by Race and Ethnicity

Students with access to 

the full range of courses

90%

80%

60%

70%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

47%

81%

68%

57%

67%

70% 71%

White

Two or More Races

Hispanic/Latino

Black or 

African American

Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander

Asian

American Indian or 

Alaska Native »

Note: Figure reflects data for 99% of CRDC high schools, including approximately 200,000 

American Indian/Alaska Native students, 743,000 Asian students, 75,000 Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander students, 2.5 million black students, 3.3 million Latino students, 340,000 students 

of two or more races, and 8.5 million white students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011-12.

students and enrolling students in honors and Advanced 

Placement (AP) courses resulted in an unlawful adverse 

impact on black students. As a result, in July 2014, OCR 

resolved this case after the district agreed to establish 

and implement modified eligibility and selection criteria 

for the district’s GATE program and to provide OCR with 

an analysis of the changes with data to be disaggregated 

by school, grade level, and race. Changes to program 

administration affect more than 62,000 students districtwide, including the district’s change of prerequisites for 

42 courses in the program’s first year of implementation.

► Lee County Public Schools (AL): OCR’s investigation of

this rural district revealed that, although the district’s

student population was 22.5% black, one of its four high

schools served more than 90% black students—and

that high school had never, until 2008, offered a single

AP course. When the high school did begin offering one

AP course, it did so with minimal instructional support,

offering the course online only. In contrast, the district’s

other three high schools, which were heavily populated

with white students, offered a wide range of AP and other

high-rigor courses. In September 2013, OCR negotiated

a resolution agreement requiring the district to offer

comparable high-rigor courses to all high school students

regardless of their race or national origin, to ensure an

equitable pathway for all students beginning in elementary

school to prepare them to take such courses in high
20 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

“Today, the Office [for] Civil Rights sent a 

strong message that equity matters ... The Dear 

Colleague letter is a reminder that federal law 

requires more than good intentions to ensure the 

equitable provision of educational resources for 

students of color.” 

—Education Trust, about OCR’s resource 

equity guidance, October 2014

school, to permit students to transfer to schools with more 

course options or utilize distance learning opportunities, 

and to conduct a self-evaluation to determine the 

effectiveness of these measures. 

► Manchester School District (NH): OCR investigated the 

district to determine whether the district discriminated 

against black and Latino students by denying them access 

to advanced courses. In a resolution agreement signed in 

April 2014, the district, which serves over 15,000 students, 

agreed to identify barriers to increased enrollment of 

black, Latino, and English learner students in the district’s 

higher level learning opportunities and identify strategies 

to increase their participation, as well as monitor the 

effectiveness of any implemented strategies. 

Combating Discriminatory 

Discipline

In many educational institutions, students of color are 

disciplined more harshly and more frequently than other 

students, resulting in serious, negative educational 

consequences, particularly when such students are excluded 

from school. Although discipline decisions are inherently 

context-specific decisions about classroom management and 

school culture, a district’s discipline policies, procedures, and 

practices must comply with the requirements of Title VI.

Findings from the most recent Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC), which describe the 2011–12 school year, reveal stark 

discipline disparities (see Figure 13). OCR has continued its 

vigorous enforcement activities to ensure that students are 

not disciplined more frequently or more severely because of 

their race, color, or national origin.

Policy

On January 8, 2014, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and 

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the release of a firstof-its-kind school discipline guidance package to assist states, 

districts, and schools in developing practices and strategies to 

enhance school climate and ensure that school policies and 

practices respect students’ civil rights. The package included 

FIGURE 13: Students Receiving Suspensions and Expulsions, by Race/Ethnicity

100%

90%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2%

5%

0.5%

0.5%

24%

16%

51%

3%

1%

0.2%

0.2%

22%

32%

40%

3%

2%

0.4%

2%

23%

33%

36%

Enrollment In-school suspension

Out-of-school suspension (single)

Out-of-school suspension (multiple)

Expulsion

3%

1%

0.3%

2%

21%

42%

31%

3%

1%

0.3%

3%

22%

34%

36%

White

Two or More Races

Hispanic/Latino 

of any race

Black or 

African American

Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander

Asian

American Indian or 

Alaska Native

»

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Totals: Enrollment is 49 million students, in-school suspension is 3.5 million students, single out-of-school suspension is 1.9 million 

students, multiple out-of-school suspension is 1.55 million students, and expulsion is 130,000 students. Data reported in this figure represents 99% of responding schools.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011-12.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 21

a Dear Colleague letter from the Departments explaining 

how schools can meet their obligations under federal law to 

administer school discipline without discriminating on the 

basis of race, color, or national origin. 

“This Administration is moving aggressively to 

disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline in order to 

ensure that all of our young people have equal 

educational opportunities.”

—Attorney General Eric Holder,

 March 2014

Enforcement 

In FY 13–14, OCR launched nine proactive investigations 

related to racial disparities in discipline. Additionally, in FY 

13–14, OCR received more than 580 complaints brought 

by parents, students, or other individuals concerned about 

possible civil rights violations involving School Discipline 

systems. Illustrative resolutions in this area include: 

► Christian County Public Schools (KY): OCR’s 

investigation found that black students were 

disproportionately overrepresented in referrals for 

disciplinary action, including in-school suspensions, outof-school suspensions, and referrals to school resource 

officers. OCR’s investigation also revealed that the 

majority of the violations listed in the district’s disciplinary 

code were undefined, which gave administrators 

broad discretion in assigning sanctions and failed to 

give students and parents adequate notice of the 

consequences for particular violations. In January 2014, 

the district reached a resolution agreement with OCR 

that included broad-based remedies and commitments 

to improve the district’s disciplinary system so that 

all students throughout the district receive equitable 

treatment. Among other remedies, the district agreed to 

ensure to the maximum extent possible that misbehavior 

is addressed in a manner that does not require removal 

from school, to collaborate with experts on researchbased strategies designed to prevent discrimination in 

the implementation of school discipline, to review and 

revise disciplinary policies and practices accordingly, to 

review school resource officer interventions and practices 

annually, and to establish a discipline review team to 

randomly review a percentage of disciplinary actions at 

each school on an ongoing basis to ensure these to be 

non-discriminatory. 

► Christina School District (DE): OCR’s investigation of 

Christina School District uncovered black students being 

disciplined more harshly than white students for similar 

behaviors. For example, where a black kindergartener 

received a five-day out-of-school suspension for pulling a 

fire alarm, a ninth grade white student received a one-day 

out-of-school suspension for a similar offense. When a 

black student with no prior disciplinary history and a white 

student who had been disciplined for smoking twice before 

(both 11th graders) were caught with tobacco, the black 

student received a one-day out-of-school suspension; the 

white student received detention only. The district entered 

into a resolution agreement with OCR in December 2012, 

committing the district to reform its disciplinary practices 

to prevent such discrimination for its more than 17,000 

students and to correct the records of students who were 

treated differently and unlawfully on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin. Under the agreement’s terms, the 

district will develop and implement strategies for teaching, 

encouraging, and reinforcing positive student behavior and 

analyze its discipline data and revise its disciplinary policies 

to ensure equity in discipline administration. 

► Tupelo Public School District (MS): OCR’s investigation, 

which focused on three schools in the district with the 

largest number of discipline sanctions, revealed that, in 

school years 2010–11 and 2011–12, black students at 

the three schools in the district constituted 81% and 78% 

of discipline referrals respectively while making up 48% 

and then 49% of enrollment. Additionally, the district’s 

discipline codes permitted the exercise of discretion, 

as terms such as “improper behavior at school” and 

“other misbehavior as determined by the administration” 

were not defined in the codes. Without clear definitions 

or explanations of these offenses, students and their 

parents and guardians did not have adequate notice of 

the specific behavior(s) that may result in the imposition 

of discipline. Per a resolution agreement reached in 

September 2014, the district committed to ensure fair 

disciplinary practices for students in the district by 

requiring all school staff to employ a range of corrective 

measures before referring students to disciplinary 

authorities and/or law enforcement, except in documented 

circumstances showing threats to safety or disruption to 

educational environment; by reviewing and revising its 

student discipline policies, practices, and procedures to 

remove ambiguities that could lead to the discriminatory 

administration of discipline; by establishing a discipline 

review team to randomly evaluate a certain percentage of 

discipline actions to ensure that they were conducted in 

a non-discriminatory manner; and by annually assessing 

the impact of these changes and making necessary 

modifications to ensure that instituted reforms work as 

intended.
22 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

“[F]ederal civil rights investigations ... routinely 

turn up evidence of school districts invoking 

harsher punishments against minority students 

than their non-minority classmates, even when 

the behaviors being punished are identical.”

—The New York Times, about OCR’s school 

discipline investigations, March 2014

Ensuring Equal Opportunities for 

English Learners 

Students whose first language is not English (English 

learners or EL students) may require language supports 

in order to meaningfully participate in school. Title VI 

requires that state education agencies (SEAs) and districts 

take affirmative steps to address language barriers so 

that EL students may participate meaningfully in their 

schools’ educational programs. A district must effectively 

implement a sound educational approach in its programs 

for EL students. Title VI also requires schools to adequately 

communicate with limited English proficient (LEP) parents 

about important school-related information in languages 

they can understand. OCR has sought to ensure that limited 

English proficiency is not an obstacle for students or their 

LEP parents to access educational opportunities. 

Enforcement 

In FY 13–14, OCR received 161 complaints alleging 

discrimination against English learner (EL) students 

and launched seven proactive and systemic 

investigations relating to EL programs and services. 

Illustrative cases include: 

► BASIS DC Public Charter School (DC): In November 2013, 

OCR resolved a case in which it found that there were 

multiple students at BASIS who did not speak English at 

home, yet who were never assessed to determine 

whether they were EL students. OCR also found that the 

school failed to allocate adequate staff and resources to 

its EL program. Some teachers were unaware of their 

obligations to serve EL students, and some teachers 

believed that the Reading Lab teacher was providing EL 

services, even though she was not. Pursuant to its 

resolution agreement with OCR, BASIS committed to 

conduct English proficiency examinations for all students 

who speak languages other than English at home, provide 

EL training to all school staff responsible for working with 

EL students, and conduct individualized assessments of 

all EL students currently attending the school.

Multi-Jurisdictional Policy Guidance: 

Protecting Charter School Students 

To inform thousands of new public charter schools 

that opened their doors over the past 14 years, 

as well as existing charter school, of their legal 

obligations, OCR released new guidance in May 

2014 confirming that the same federal civil rights 

laws that apply to other public schools apply equally 

to public charter schools. The guidance highlights 

critical subjects that have arisen in charter schools, 

including their obligations to avoid discrimination 

in admissions practices and the administration 

of discipline, to provide a free appropriate public 

education for students with disabilities, and to take 

affirmative steps to assist English learners. This 

guidance applies to public charter schools across all 

of OCR’s enforcement areas.

» ► Hazleton Area School District (PA): In April 2014, after 

OCR initiated an investigation to assess whether EL 

students in the Hazleton Area School District had access 

to equal educational opportunities and whether the 

district adequately notified LEP national origin minority 

parents and guardians about school activities that are 

called to the attention of other parents, OCR resolved a 

case with the district. OCR found that the district did not 

consistently identify students whose home language is 

other than English, did not sufficiently provide required 

instructional time for elementary school EL students, 

and did not have an effective system to identify LEP 

parents and to ensure that interpreters were available 

when needed. Per the agreement, the district is 

ensuring that students whose primary home language is 

not English are promptly assessed for English language 

proficiency; additionally, the district is developing and 

implementing policies and procedures to ensure that 

LEP parents are notified, in a language they understand, 

of school activities that are called to the attention of 

other parents.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 23

► Orleans Parish School Board (LA): In July 2014, OCR 

successfully resolved an investigation of the school 

board regarding allegations of discrimination against 

Vietnamese- and Spanish-speaking LEP families in 

three district charter schools. The voluntary resolution 

agreement obligates the district to implement a 

comprehensive language assistance plan and to provide 

annual staff training regarding Title VI obligations to notify 

LEP parents of school programs and activities that are 

called to the attention of other parents. 

► Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J (OR): In February 

2014, in response to OCR’s compliance review regarding 

whether EL students are denied equal educational 

opportunities in the district’s programs and services, the 

district expressed interest in voluntarily resolving this 

case. The district committed to, among other remedies, 

implement a policy to ensure that all EL students 

participate in the EL program until they meet the district 

EL plan’s criteria to exit the program. In addition, to 

ensure that LEP parents can make informed decisions 

regarding their children’s education, the district agreed to 

implement a process by which district staff may obtain, 

in a timely manner, language assistance services for 

communication with parents. 

Protecting the Equal Rights of All 

Students to Attend Public School 

Regardless of Immigration or 

Citizenship Status

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that citizenship or 

immigration status of students, parents, or guardians cannot 

be used to bar students from public schools (Plyler v. Doe, 

1982). OCR works to ensure that schools’ enrollment policies 

and practices are consistent with Title VI’s prohibition against 

discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 

Policy

On May 8, 2014, OCR released an updated version of 

its Dear Colleague letter concerning the responsibility of 

districts to provide all children with equal access to public 

education at the elementary and secondary level, pursuant 

to Title VI. The guidance explained that in Plyler, the U.S. 

Supreme Court held that denying “innocent children” 

access to a public education “imposes a lifetime of hardship 

on a discrete class of children not accountable for their 

disabling status.”9 The guidance clarifies that districts may 

not require information from students or their parents—

such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers—that 

have the purpose or result of denying the students access 

to public schools on the basis of their or their parents’ 

immigration or citizenship status. 

Enforcement 

Remedies OCR has secured in resolution agreements 

reached with educational institutions regarding immigrationrelated discrimination include revising policies to clarify that 

state-issued identity documents are not required for parents 

to enroll their children in school, disseminating these policies 

to parents and the community, and providing annual training 

to staff on new policies. Illustrative cases include: 

► Jefferson Parish Public School System (LA): In July 2014, 

OCR and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reached 

a comprehensive agreement with Jefferson Parish Public 

School System (JPPSS) to ensure that all students can 

enroll in school regardless of their own national origin or 

immigration status or that of their parents or guardians. 

Among other remedies, the school system, which serves 

over 45,000 students, agreed to conduct an internal 

review of all enrollment and registration materials and 

policies before the beginning of the 2014–15 school year 

to ensure they do not chill or discourage the participation, 

or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or 

their parents’ actual or perceived citizenship and/or 

immigration status. 

► Kentwood Public Schools (MI): In July 2013, OCR 

resolved an investigation of Kentwood Public Schools 

when the district revised its policy to clarify that forms 

of photo identification other than a driver’s license or 

state ID, such as a passport or an employment ID, can 

be used to establish identification and residency for 

purposes of enrollment in the district’s schools. The 

new policy also provided for an appeal to the Assistant 

Superintendent of Student Services for anyone being 

denied enrollment because of his or her inability to render 

proof of residency. OCR’s investigation had confirmed 

that the district formerly had a policy requiring parents 

or guardians to provide a state-issued, unexpired driver’s 

license or state ID to enroll their children in school. To 

ensure compliance with the law, the district also arranged 

to train relevant staff about these policy changes and to 

issue notices to the community to inform parents and 

guardians about these reforms. 
24 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Preventing Discriminatory 

Assignment to Special Education 

Services 

Under Title VI, OCR works to ensure equal access to 

education services and benefits and to prevent racially 

discriminatory assignment to special education.

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR resolved 13 complaints involving 

discriminatory placement of students in special education. 

Illustrative cases in this area include: 

► Schenectady City School District (NY): In October 2013, 

OCR resolved an investigation of Schenectady City School 

District that had been initiated to examine whether the 

district discriminated against black and Latino students on 

the basis of race, national origin, or disability in the prereferral and referral of these students for special education 

evaluation. Over the course of the investigation, OCR 

identified more than two dozen teachers in the district with 

racially diverse classrooms who referred only non-white 

students for evaluation by the special education evaluation 

teams, notwithstanding progress reports and/or discipline 

records that reflected similar or even greater concerns 

regarding their white students. The district entered into 

a resolution agreement in which it committed to review 

specific special education records for current students to 

assess whether eligibility and placement decisions were 

appropriate, annually train all teaching staff about issues 

relating to overrepresentation of black and Latino students 

in special education and appropriate student interventions 

to facilitate effective placement, and ensure that buildinglevel teams and special education personnel evaluate EL 

students in their dominant language. 

► Sun Prairie Area School District (WI): In November 2013, 

OCR entered into a resolution agreement with Sun Prairie 

Area School District after conducting an investigation 

concerning the overrepresentation of black students 

in special education. OCR found that although black 

students were 10% of all students in the district, in the 

2012–13 school year they were 24.2% of all students 

in special education. Additionally, OCR’s review of the 

special education files revealed documentation that did not 

support the eligibility determinations for some students, 

including white students determined not eligible for special 

education despite documentation suggesting that the 

students met the criteria for special education, and black 

students found eligible for special education, despite an 

absence of documentation establishing that the students 

met the applicable criteria. The resolution agreement 

requires the district to provide training to all teaching 

staff to increase awareness about the overrepresentation 

of black students in special education. The district also 

agreed to maintain and use data gathered during the 

implementation of the agreement to annually evaluate 

the effectiveness of its screening, intervention, and 

evaluation processes.

Combating Bullying and 

Harassment on the Basis of 

Race, Color, and National Origin 

Bullying and harassment are harmful to students and the 

learning environment and are too pervasive in our nation’s 

schools. OCR works to protect the right of all students to 

learn in environments free from discriminatory bullying and 

harassment. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 1,172 complaints on this issue. 

Illustrative cases include: 

► Adams County 14 School District (CO): While 

investigating a complaint, OCR found a climate of hostility 

against Latino students and staff and found that the 

district failed to communicate with LEP parents in a 

language they could understand. In one incident uncovered 

during OCR’s investigation, district staff reported to 

OCR that a limited English proficient (LEP) elementary 

school student went to an English-speaking teacher on 

the playground to tell the teacher that he fell and hurt 

his head. The teacher on the playground did not speak 

Spanish and dismissed the student’s complaint when he 

did not explain his injury in English. Over an hour later, 

when the student returned to a Spanish-speaking teacher’s 

classroom, he told the teacher that his head was hurt, 

in Spanish, and the teacher sought medical attention. 

OCR also substantiated allegations that Latino staff were 

scrutinized far more harshly than non-Latino staff, leading 

to multiple resignations among Latino personnel. To foster 

systemic change to confront the issues underlying these 

and other incidents, OCR entered into a comprehensive 

resolution agreement with the district in April 2014. In 

the agreement, the district agreed to publish a letter in 

both English and Spanish to the staff and community, 

explaining the allegations and findings in the complaint 

and identifying the steps the district would take to 

come into compliance with federal civil rights laws, and 

to conduct climate surveys related to race, color, and 

national origin harassment.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 25

► Indiana State University (IN): In November 2012, OCR 

resolved a complaint against Indiana State University 

after a student alleged that the university was aware 

of and failed to respond to discrimination on the basis 

of national origin and sex when a professor subjected 

her to inappropriate sexual comments. According to 

the complainant, the professor’s behavior included 

unwelcome invitations for her to sleep at his house and 

unwanted touching on two separate occasions. Under 

the terms of the resolution agreement, the university 

agreed to issue a public statement emphasizing that the 

university does not tolerate harassment on the basis of 

race, national origin, and sex and to revise its policies and 

procedures around race- and sex-based harassment. 

► Napa Valley College (CA): In December 2012, OCR 

resolved substantiated claims that a clinical supervisor 

discriminated against a non-native-English-speaking 

nursing student, contributing to the creation of a hostile 

environment for the complainant based on national origin 

by making disparaging remarks about the student’s 

accent in front of the class and intimidating the student. 

OCR also found that the college failed to respond in a 

timely way when the student brought these issues to its 

attention. To comply with Title VI, the college entered into 

a resolution agreement with OCR, committing to conduct 

a climate survey; to provide annual notice to students 

and employees of its procedures for responding to alleged 

harassment; and to send out a statement to all students, 

faculty, and staff in the Associate Degree in Nursing 

program declaring that the college does not tolerate 

harassment based on race, color, or national origin, 

including status as a non-native English speaker. 

► Chase County Unified School District (KS): In May 2014, 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging discrimination on 

the basis of race and disability. To address issues raised 

in this complaint, the district entered into a resolution 

agreement with OCR in which it committed to evaluate 

whether the student was owed any compensatory 

services for the class time he missed when he was 

suspended, identify an individual to serve as the 

complainant’s son’s primary contact in the event he 

needs to report harassing conduct, and train staff on race 

and disability discrimination and harassment.

Supporting Schools, Districts, 

and Colleges that Voluntarily 

Pursue Racial Diversity

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court followed its prior 

holdings that obtaining the educational benefits of student 

diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify 

the use of race in university admissions. Diverse learning 

environments help students sharpen their critical thinking 

and analytical skills, prepare students to succeed in an 

increasingly diverse and interconnected world, break down 

stereotypes and reduce bias, and enable schools to fulfill 

their role in opening doors for students of all backgrounds. 

In determining whether institutions of higher education 

that use race as a factor in their admissions practices are 

in compliance with Title VI, OCR examines institutions’ 

actions under criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court, 

including four narrow-tailoring criteria necessary for the 

lawful use of race in higher education admissions programs: 

Colleges and universities must use an individualized review 

process for their applicants, colleges and universities must 

have considered race-neutral alternatives to their admissions 

policies, a college or university’s admissions program 

must not place an undue burden on any racial group, 

and a college or university must subject its procedures to 

periodic review to determine whether the use of race is still 

necessary to achieve a diverse student body.

Policy

The policy guidance OCR jointly released with the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2011 regarding ways for 

K-12 and postsecondary institutions to pursue diversity, and 

for K-12 schools to also reduce racial isolation, remains in 

effect. Additionally, OCR released two Dear Colleague letters 

in FY 13–14 explaining the continued viability of the 2011 

guidance following recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that 

explored the question of race in the context of education or 

the political process. 

On September 27, 2013, OCR and DOJ released a Dear 

Colleague letter clarifying a college or university’s ability to 

voluntarily pursue racial diversity in light of the June 2013 

U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas 

at Austin. The letter explains that the decision preserved 

the legal principle that colleges have a compelling interest in 

achieving the educational benefits that flow from a racially 

and ethnically diverse student body and can lawfully pursue 

that interest in their admissions programs, and that OCR 

guidance released in 2011 on the voluntary use of race 

to achieve diversity in postsecondary education remains 
26 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

in effect. OCR and DOJ also released an accompanying 

Questions and Answers document explaining that Fisher

did not invalidate the use of race as a factor in higher 

education admissions, change the standard of scrutiny that 

courts must apply when evaluating admissions programs, or 

alter what colleges and universities must do to tailor their 

admissions programs narrowly to remain in accordance with 

the U.S. Constitution. 

On May 6, 2014, OCR and DOJ released an additional Dear 

Colleague letter explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

holding in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action,

et al. leaves intact the Court’s prior holdings recognizing 

that institutions of higher education and elementary and 

secondary schools may use all legally permissible methods 

to achieve their diversity goals. The letter also stated that 

the 2011 and 2013 guidance documents, regarding the 

voluntary use of race to achieve diversity in postsecondary 

education and the legal effect of Fisher, respectively, remain 

in effect.

Enforcement 

OCR investigates and resolves a broad range of cases 

involving challenges to the use of race or national origin to 

help achieve diversity at the K-12 and postsecondary levels 

and in combating racial isolation at the K-12 level. Illustrative 

cases include: 

► University of Virginia (VA): In March 2013, OCR’s 

investigation found the University of Virginia (UVA) to 

employ an individualized, holistic admissions review 

process in which multiple readers consider a prospective 

student’s academic qualifications, personal characteristics, 

and race and national origin, among other factors. OCR 

investigated a complaint that alleged the university 

discriminated against white and male applicants by 

considering race and gender as factors in admissions to 

achieve diversity. OCR found that UVA reviewed applicants 

as individuals and did not use formulas or numerical 

targets. OCR’s investigation of specific application 

decisions corroborated UVA’s descriptions of the process. 

OCR’s investigation also concluded that the university’s 

admissions process did not unduly burden applicants of 

any racial group; applicants of different races are not 

judged by different criteria in the application review 

process. Applicants of different races are not judged by 

different criteria in the application review process. OCR 

reviewed the race-neutral alternatives the university 

considered and confirmed that the university will continue 

to consider race-neutral alternatives through periodic 

reviews of its admissions process.

► University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (NC):

In November 2012, OCR closed its investigation of a 

complaint alleging that the university’s consideration of 

race and national origin as factors to achieve diversity 

in its undergraduate classes violates Title VI. OCR found 

that the university employed a holistic and individualized 

approach in weighing 40 selection criteria falling into eight 

categories including “academic performance,” “academic 

program,” “standardized testing,” “extracurricular activity,” 

“special talent,” “essay,” “background,” and “personal.” 

Extensive interviews of administration and staff, along 

with review of numerous admissions applications and 

accompanying notes, confirmed the absence of numerical 

quotas or formulas in making admissions decisions and 

showed that the various factors were weighed differently, 

based on the totality of qualifications of each applicant. 

OCR’s investigation also concluded that the university’s 

admissions process did not unduly burden applicants 

of any racial group. In addition, the university was able 

to prove that race-neutral models were not as effective 

in promoting diversity and that such diversity indeed 

benefited students of every race. Finally, the university 

provided evidence of its periodic review of its need to 

consider race in admissions.

Eliminating Retaliation for 

Exercising Civil Rights 

Retaliation is prohibited under each of the civil rights laws 

that OCR enforces, including Title VI. Retaliatory acts against 

any individual who exercises his or her rights under Title 

VI are considered to be discrimination and are unlawful. 

Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any 

individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or 

privilege secured by the statutes that OCR enforces. 
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 27

Policy

In April 2013, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter that 

clarified the basic principles of retaliation law and described 

OCR’s methods of enforcement for claims of retaliation. 

Once an individual complains formally or informally to a 

school about a potential Title VI or other civil rights violation 

or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, 

the school is prohibited from retaliating because of the 

individual’s complaint or participation. 

Multi-Jurisdictional Policy Guidance: 

Protecting Students from Retaliation

In April 2013, OCR released its first-ever policy 

guidance on retaliation to clarify the basic principles 

of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of 

enforcement. The Dear Colleague letter explains that 

each of the federal civil rights laws that OCR enforces 

makes it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for 

the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege 

secured by these laws. The ability of individuals to 

oppose discriminatory practices and to participate in 

OCR investigations and other proceedings is critical to 

ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance 

with federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices 

are often only raised and remedied when students, 

parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such 

practices to school administrators without the fear of 

retaliation. Individuals should be commended when 

they raise concerns about compliance with the federal 

civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.

The guidance explains the steps that OCR takes if 

investigators find that a district, college, or university 

retaliated against a complainant or anyone who made 

a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner 

in an OCR investigation or proceeding. OCR seeks a 

resolution agreement with the institution to ensure 

that the individual who was retaliated against receives 

redress and to ensure that the institution complies 

with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. 

OCR will determine which remedies are appropriate 

based on the facts presented in each specific case.

»

Enforcement

OCR received 1,176 complaints of Title VI-related retaliation 

in FY 13–14. Although resolutions are based on the 

individual circumstances and facts of each case, common 

remedies include implementing policies and procedures 

regarding how the district must respond to complaints of 

race discrimination, including the district’s internal grievance 

procedures; providing faculty, staff, and administrators 

training on prohibitions of retaliation; and amending the 

educational records of the affected student as appropriate. 

Below is a case that illustrates some of OCR’s work 

in this area:

► Rutherford County School District (TN): In October 

2012, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a teacher 

called a student a “monkey” and then retaliated against 

him for filing a complaint with the school by writing a 

disciplinary referral for tardiness and giving him a zero 

on a class assignment. In addition, the complainant, 

who is the student’s mother, alleged that school officials 

subjected the student to racial discrimination and 

retaliated against him when they grabbed the student’s 

cell phone and forced him to unlock it so they could 

read his text messages aloud. During the course of the 

investigation, OCR found that a school official retaliated 

against the student by reading his text messages, but did 

not find violations with respect to the other allegations. 

To remedy the retaliation OCR found, the district agreed 

to train staff annually on Title VI’s prohibition against 

retaliation and to destroy any written records it created 

of the student’s text messages. 
28 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

TITLE IX: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs 

and activities operated by recipients of federal funds, including colleges, universities, and public school districts. OCR enforces 

Title IX to ensure that students have equal access to educational opportunity and can go to school without fear of sex 

discrimination. 

Policy Guidance: In FY 13–14, OCR released a guidance package on the rights of pregnant and parenting students under 

Title IX, including a Dear Colleague letter and a pamphlet titled Supporting the Academic Success of Pregnant and Parenting 

Students Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. OCR also released a Questions and Answers document that 

further clarifies the legal requirements under Title IX articulated in its April 4, 2011 Dear Colleague letter on sexual violence 

and the 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance.

Enforcement: In FY 13–14, OCR received over 5,800 Title IX–related complaints and launched 20 systemic, proactive 

investigations that, collectively, address a broad range of Title IX–related issues in institutions across the nation10

(see Figure 14), including sexual violence at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels; equal access to athletic 

opportunities; support for pregnant and parenting students; and bullying and harassment. 

56

533

140

179

54

55

60

81

43

188

652

854

3,609

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

FIGURE 14: Number of Title IX Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue, FY 13–14

Other 

Sexual/Gender Harassment/Sexual Violence

Retaliation

Procedural Requirements 

Pregnancy/Parenting 

Grading 

Financial Assistance/Scholarships

Employment

Dissemination of Policy

Discipline

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Athletics

Admissions

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title IX Issues, FY 2013–14 = 5,845

Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore the total number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

»

Technical Assistance: Educators, as well as parents and students, must have the knowledge and skills to identify, prevent, 

and address discrimination or get help when it does occur. Every year, OCR provides technical assistance to schools and 

communities around the country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights issues. In FY 13–14, OCR engaged in 278 

technical assistance events on Title IX–related issues. These events included presentations on the rights of pregnant and 

parenting students under Title IX and the responsibilities of schools to respond to sexual violence under Title IX.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 29

Sexual Harassment: Eradicating 

Sexual Violence 

In January 2014, President Barack Obama established the 

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual 

Assault (the Task Force), an interagency effort to prevent 

and address sexual assault on college and university 

campuses. In April 2014, the Task Force presented President 

Obama with its first report of recommendations on how to:

► Help schools identify the scope of the problem on their 

campuses

► Help schools prevent sexual assault

► Help schools better respond when a student is assaulted 

► Improve the federal government’s role as a partner in and 

enforcer of this effort 

Assistant Secretary Lhamon and other OCR senior staff 

members participated in the 27 listening sessions held 

by the Task Force to gather more information from 

stakeholders, including college and university administrators, 

students, and survivors. OCR has participated actively 

in many of the Task Force’s deliverables, including the 

Task Force’s 20-page report to the President about the 

prevalence of sexual assault and recommendations for 

preventing it on college campuses, and the creation of 

NotAlone.gov, a resource hub for students, parents, and 

stakeholders on prevention strategies, survivor resources, 

legal guidance, and information on how to file complaints 

with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED). OCR’s efforts in conjunction 

with the Task Force culminated in the release of a Questions 

& Answers document clarifying the duty of educational 

institutions to prevent and address sexual violence on 

their campuses; separate Memoranda of Understanding 

(MOUs) with the Federal Student Aid office (FSA) and DOJ 

designed to increase intra- and inter-agency collaboration 

and coordination on sexual assault and improve our service 

delivery to school communities; and a major OCR policy 

change to increase transparency by releasing a list of 

postsecondary institutions currently under investigation for 

their handling of Title IX sexual violence complaints. 

“No student should have to choose between 

getting an education and being treated with 

human dignity.”

—Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon, 

July 2014

Policy

In April 2014, in conjunction with the release of the first 

report of the Task Force, OCR released a Questions & 

Answers document about Title IX and sexual violence and 

a Know Your Rights fact sheet that further clarify the legal 

requirements under Title IX articulated in the April 4, 2011 

Dear Colleague letter on sexual violence and the January 

19, 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance. These 

documents further elucidate issues surrounding: 

► Confidentiality and a school’s obligation to respond to 

sexual violence

► Title IX training, education, and prevention 

► How Title IX intersects with a school’s obligations 

under the Clery Act and the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013

► A school’s obligation to designate a Title IX coordinator 

and disseminate a notice of nondiscrimination 

► Use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in 

proceedings regarding sexual assault 

► The application of Title IX’s protections to transgender 

students, noncitizens, and students with disabilities 

► A school’s obligation to provide interim relief to 

complainants 

Enforcement

During FY 13–14, OCR resolved 90 Title IX investigations 

related to sexual violence at the K-12 and postsecondary 

levels, including 25 resulting in a resolution agreement. 

During these two years, OCR’s compliance reviews related 

to sexual violence made up 19% of the total number of 

compliance reviews; 9% of OCR’s complaints were Title IX 

sexual violence complaints. Illustrative cases include: 

► Los Angeles County Office of Education (CA): An 

OCR investigation revealed that an adult student with 

a cognitive disability reported to a school official that 

she had been sexually assaulted in the school bathroom 

by another student with an intellectual disability. OCR 

found that the school failed to promptly conclude its 

investigation within 30 days in accordance with district 

policy, based on the erroneous notion that the school 

had to wait for the conclusion of a police investigation, 

and failed to provide notice that could be easily 

understood to students, parents, and employees of the 

procedures for the resolution of complaints. Under the 

terms of the agreement in September 2014, the district 

agreed to designate a Title IX coordinator; establish 

interim procedures to provide appropriate responses 

in compliance with Title IX; provide notice to students, 

parents/guardians, and staff about these changes; hire 

an expert consultant to train the district’s Division of 
“Perhaps most important, we need to keep saying 

to anyone out there who has ever been assaulted: 

you are not alone. We have your back. I’ve got 

your back.”

—President Barack Obama, 

January 2014

30 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Special Education annually about effective procedures 

for responding to reports of sexual harassment or 

assault of persons with cognitive disabilities; and provide 

information to adult students with cognitive disabilities 

about appropriate social and relationship boundaries 

and how to recognize and avoid situations that could 

constitute sexual harassment. 

► Ohio State University (OH): In September 2014, OCR 

resolved a compliance review of Ohio State University 

regarding sexual harassment and assault. During the 

investigation, OCR found that Ohio State’s notice of 

nondiscrimination was compliant with Title IX but that 

its sexual harassment/violence policies and procedures 

were not. To remedy this, Ohio State entered into an 

agreement that covers over 63,000 students at Ohio 

State’s six campuses and incorporates the university’s 

recommendations and corrective actions relating to its 

internal investigation regarding an allegation of a sexually 

hostile environment within the marching band. OCR 

commended the university for having taken some steps 

to prevent and address sexual harassment and sexual 

violence, including the creation of a “one-stop-shop” 

Title IX website, the creation of a new Sexual Violence 

Consultation Team to coordinate handling of sexual 

violence cases filed with different university offices, and 

the creation of a new compliance/integrity office that 

houses the Title IX coordinator and deputy coordinators. 

► State University of New York (NY): In October 2013, 

OCR resolved a compliance review of the State University 

of New York’s (SUNY’s) handling of sexual violence 

complaints. During the course of the investigation, 

OCR reviewed 159 individual cases of alleged sexual 

harassment from four of SUNY’s individual campuses 

visited during the review and determined that the vast 

majority of these complaints involved reports of sexual 

violence incidents sufficiently serious to create a sexually 

hostile environment for the affected students. SUNY 

agreed, among other remedies, to seek input from the 

campus community, including from past complainants, 

regarding ways to improve SUNY’s prevention and 

responses to acts of sexual violence, and then to submit 

for OCR’s review both these recommendations and 

SUNY’s plans to implement any of the recommendations. 

Because SUNY is the largest comprehensive statewide 

system of public higher education in the United States, 

enrolling nearly 219,000 students, implementing the 

resolution agreement entails widespread distribution 

of Title IX coordinator contact information to staff 

and students; significant revisions to the SUNY-wide 

Discrimination Complaint Procedure; designation and 

comprehensive training of Title IX coordinators; and 

development, distribution, and analysis of annual climate 

surveys to gauge the SUNY community’s progress in 

creating a safe educational environment free from sexual 

hostility. 

► Tufts University (MA): In April 2014, OCR resolved a 

complaint against Tufts University after finding that the 

school violated Title IX by failing to provide a prompt and 

equitable response to complaints of sexual harassment/

violence, by allowing for the continuation of a hostile 

environment that denied a student access to the 

educational opportunities in her program, and by failing 

to designate a Title IX coordinator. After the investigation, 

OCR reached an agreement with the university that 

affected more than 10,000 students on the university’s 

three campuses. The university agreed to provide 

timely and effective interim relief for complainants, 

including academic adjustments and housing changes 

as necessary; to conduct periodic assessments of the 

campus climate in order to evaluate and improve the 

university’s implementation of its sexual assault policies; 

and to provide training on issues related to sexual assault 

to all members of the university community.

► University of Montana-Missoula (MT): In May 2013, OCR 

and DOJ reached an agreement with the University of 

Montana-Missoula regarding the university’s handling of 

allegations and reports of sexual assault and harassment 

at its Missoula campus. The joint investigation found that 

the University of Montana’s various sexual misconduct 

policies were inconsistent and confusing for students. 

To rectify this, the university’s Missoula campus, which 

enrolls approximately 10,000 students, agreed to revise 

the university’s policies, procedures, and investigative 

practices to provide a grievance procedure that ensures 

prompt and equitable resolution of sexual harassment 

and sexual assault allegations; adequately investigate and 

respond to allegations of retaliation by students who have 

alleged sexual assault; and take effective action to fully 

eliminate a hostile environment based on sex, prevent its 

recurrence, and address its effects. 

► West Contra Costa Unified School District (CA): In 

November 2013, OCR resolved a compliance review of 

West Contra Costa Unified School District, which was 

launched after a high-profile gang rape at a district high 
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 31

school. OCR’s investigation revealed that sexually 

harassing student-on-student behavior permeated the 

district’s elementary and secondary schools. OCR’s 

resolution agreement requires the district to protect all 

30,000 students in the district from sexual violence and 

harassment by designating a Title IX coordinator; revising 

and implementing easily-accessible and user-friendly 

grievance procedures for promptly and equitably 

addressing possible incidents of sexual and gender-based 

harassment; developing a comprehensive plan for 

educating students, parents, and employees to ensure 

that they are aware of Title IX’s prohibition against sex 

discrimination, including the right to be protected from 

sexual harassment, how to recognize it when it occurs, 

and how to report incidents; providing age-appropriate 

training to all students on what constitutes sexual and 

gender-based harassment; and implementing procedures 

for ensuring that an appropriate level of supervision of 

students by school staff exists at each school during 

times the students are on campus but not in class.

OCR’s resolution “restored my faith in humanity.”

—OCR sexual violence complainant, to NBC News, 

on OCR’s resolution agreement with district, 

 December 2013

Sexual Harassment: Combating 

Bullying and Harassment on the 

Basis of Sex

Bullying and harassment are harmful to students and the 

learning environment and are far too pervasive in our 

nation’s schools. OCR strives to protect students’ rights to 

learn in environments free from bullying and harassment. 

Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of 

discriminatory bullying or harassment based on a student’s 

sex, including allegations of both opposite-sex and samesex bullying or harassment, bullying or harassment based 

on students’ gender identity, and bullying or harassment 

based on a student’s failure to conform to traditional sex 

stereotypes. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 854 complaints related to this 

issue. Illustrative cases include: 

► Arcadia Unified School District (CA): In July 2013, DOJ 

and OCR resolved complaints alleging that the district was 

discriminating against a student based on sex by denying 

him equal access to the district’s education program and 

activities because he is transgender. DOJ and OCR shared 

with the district concerns about the district’s response to 

the family’s request that the student be permitted access 

to sex-specific facilities, including that the district had 

not considered reasonable alternatives that would have 

been less burdensome on the student during his sixthand seventh-grade years and the district’s unwillingness 

to recognize the student’s consistent and uniform 

gender presentation in the absence of an identification 

document. The district’s resolution agreement committed 

it to permit the student to use male-designated facilities 

at school and on school-sponsored trips and to otherwise 

treat the student as a boy in all respects. The district also 

agreed to take other actions to ensure that it continues 

to treat all students, including transgender students, 

in a nondiscriminatory manner, including by amending 

its policies and procedures, training staff, and ensuring 

appropriate support for the student and for other 

transgender students who request it.

► John Doe College11 (NY): In September 2014, OCR 

facilitated a resolution between the parties in a 

complaint alleging that the college discriminated against 

a transgender student by requiring her to use a faculty 

restroom rather than a women’s restroom, by continuing 

to note the student’s birth name on attendance rosters 

and in her college email address, and by failing to take 

corrective measures when staff harassed the student 

by using male pronouns to refer to her and by making 

inappropriate comments. The college committed to 

grant the student immediate equal access to all sexspecific facilities at the college consistent with her female 

gender identity and to change the student’s name on all 

school documents and in her email address. In addition, 

the agreement confirmed the college’s directive that 

staff address the student by her current name and use 

female pronouns to refer to her. The college also agreed 

to conduct training on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, queer/questioning)-related issues for faculty, 

staff, and students. 

► Ladue School District (MO): In March 2013, Ladue 

School District entered into a resolution agreement with 

OCR to resolve a complaint alleging that the district 

allowed female students at its high school to be subject 

to a sexually hostile environment after their names 

appeared on a list of girls’ names written by peers that 

included sexually derogatory statements. The agreement, 

which was entered into during the course of the 

investigation, required the district to take steps to correct 

the hostile environment. The resolution agreement 

required the district to issue and broadly distribute a 

statement that the district does not tolerate acts of 

harassment; to establish a student committee to provide 
Monitoring Civil Rights Compliance 

Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, entered into 

a resolution agreement with OCR in July 2012. As 

a result of information regarding how issues of 

harassment were addressed during academic year 

2013-14, learned during OCR’s monitoring of the 

university’s compliance with that agreement, the 

university subsequently committed to improving 

its campus-wide prevention education program 

by increasing collaboration between the Title IX 

coordinator and the director of the university’s 

multicultural, gender, and women’s center. The 

university is also establishing a Prevention Education 

Task Force to facilitate educational programs to 

encourage and support men on gender identity 

and related issues and to encourage and support 

collaboration between the university’s student body 

president and the President of Students Against 

Sexual Assault.

32 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

a forum for students to discuss matters concerning 

discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex; to 

develop and implement an annual Title IX high school 

climate survey; and to train students, administrators, and 

staff on sexual harassment issues.

► Washington Mathematics Science and Technology 

Public Charter School (DC): In July 2013, OCR 

resolved a complaint in which a parent alleged that the 

school failed to respond promptly and appropriately 

to complaints of peer sexual harassment regarding 

her son, a high school student. Under the terms of 

the agreement, the school agreed to provide interim 

measures to protect the student, including ensuring 

that the student and alleged harasser remained 

separate and providing daily check-ins with the student 

to help make sure that he felt comfortable while the 

school thoroughly investigated the incident. More 

broadly, the school agreed to undertake systemic 

changes, including issuance and dissemination of a 

statement that the school does not tolerate sexual 

harassment, training for staff on sexual harassment 

and gender-based harassment, and age-appropriate 

student education on sexual harassment and nonconformity with gender stereotypes. 

Preventing Discrimination Based 

on Pregnancy or Parental Status

The U.S. Department of Education’s regulation implementing 

Title IX specifically prohibits discrimination against a student 

based on pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination 

of pregnancy, or recovery from any of these conditions.12

The Title IX regulations also prohibit a school from applying 

any rule related to students’ parental, family, or marital 

status that treats them differently based on their sex.13

Policy

In June 2013, OCR released a Dear Colleague letter that 

clarified the specific requirements of Title IX applicable 

to pregnant and parenting students. The accompanying 

pamphlet also provided information on strategies that 

educators may use and programs schools can develop to 

address the educational needs of students who become 

pregnant or have children. The letter and pamphlet provide 

the following key information regarding pregnant and 

parenting students:

► Schools cannot exclude pregnant students (or students 

who have been pregnant) from participating in any part 

of an educational program, including extracurricular 

activities. 

► Schools must provide the same special services to 

pregnant students that they provide to students with 

other temporary medical conditions. 

► Schools must excuse a student’s absences because 

of pregnancy or childbirth for as long as the student’s 

doctor deems the absences medically necessary.

Although the pamphlet focused on secondary schools, the 

legal principles apply to all recipients of federal financial 

assistance, including postsecondary institutions, in order to 

ensure that pregnant and parenting students receive equal 

access to educational benefits across all levels. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 81 pregnancy discrimination 

complaints. Illustrative cases include: 

► Burlington School District RE-6J (CO): In February 

2014, OCR resolved a complaint against Burlington 

School District RE-6J after the district assigned pregnant 

students to an alternate Learning Lab, separate from 

their peers. The resolution agreement required the district 

to ensure equal educational opportunity for pregnant 

and parenting students and to take remedial steps that 

include convening a team for each pregnant student in 
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 33

the Learning Lab to individually assess the amount of 

compensatory services necessary for the student. 

► John Doe Schools14 (VT): In July 2014, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that John Doe Schools discriminated 

against a student by pressuring her to attend an 

alternative high school designed to serve pregnant 

and parenting students that did not afford educational 

opportunity comparable to opportunity in the district’s 

traditional high school. OCR facilitated an Early Complaint 

Resolution in which the district agreed to provide 

extra support for the student to recover academic 

credits and meet requirements for graduation, expand 

opportunities for pregnant and parenting students who 

attend alternative schools to participate in extracurricular 

programs, and hold regular meetings between the 

alternative school and district staff to ensure consistency 

in curricula and a smooth transition for students who may 

return to the district’s traditional high school.

► Mid-Michigan Community College (MI): In July 

2013, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that MidMichigan Community College’s nursing program policies 

discriminated against pregnant students. During the 

investigation, OCR found that the college’s Student Nurse 

Handbook stated that should pregnancy “interfere with 

progress,” students would “need to re-evaluate their 

choices.” Before the conclusion of the investigation, 

the college signed an agreement in which it committed 

to revise its nursing program policies relating to 

sex discrimination and harassment and pregnancy 

discrimination, and to provide training to staff to ensure 

nondiscrimination against pregnant students. 

► Virginia Military Institute (VA): OCR found Virginia 

Military Institute (VMI) in violation of Title IX because 

VMI’s marriage and parenthood policy rendered pregnant 

cadets ineligible to participate in VMI’s program. Under 

VMI’s policy, pregnant and parenting cadets were required 

to resign or face separation from the school. Working with 

OCR, VMI revised its marriage and parenthood policy to 

allow pregnant cadets to remain enrolled in VMI as long 

as they are able to perform their duties and to provide 

them with the same opportunity to take medical leave 

that cadets with other temporary medical conditions have. 

The new policy, which became effective in April 2014, 

also permits parenting cadets to remain at VMI as long as 

the cadets have made arrangements for their children’s 

custody, care, and support. 

Ensuring Equal Access to Athletic 

Opportunities and Benefits 

Since its passage, Title IX has dramatically increased 

academic and athletic opportunities for women and girls.

For example, between 1972 and 2011, girls’ participation 

in high school athletics increased from approximately 

250,000 to 3.25 million students.15 Although there has 

been indisputable progress since Title IX was enacted, sex 

discrimination unfortunately continues to exist, including in 

interscholastic and intercollegiate athletic programs.

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR resolved 3,665 complaints involving equal 

access to athletic opportunities and benefits for girls and 

women. Illustrative cases include: 

► Indianapolis Public School District (IN): In February 

2014, OCR reached an agreement in this compliance 

review with the Indianapolis Public School District that 

assessed whether the district provides boys and girls 

an equal opportunity to participate in its high school 

interscholastic athletics program. Data gathered 

during the investigation for the 2010–11 school year 

showed that total student enrollment at seven of 

the district’s high schools was 5,538 students, with 

2,744 boys (49.5%) and 2,794 girls (50.5%). Of the 

approximately 1,466 total participants in the district’s 

athletic program at these seven high schools, 945 were 

boys (64.5%) and 521 were girls (35.5%). Over the 

course of the investigation, OCR found that the district’s 

interscholastic athletics program failed to provide girls 

an equal opportunity to participate in high school 

interscholastic athletics, both through the failure to 

effectively accommodate students’ interests and abilities 

and through failure to provide equal access to practice 

and competitive facilities, locker rooms, equipment and 

supplies, and the scheduling of games and practice times 

at some high schools. Under the terms of the agreement, 

the district committed to develop, implement, and 

publicize a procedure for students to use in requesting 

the addition of new sports at the high schools, and to 

take prompt steps to remedy the inequities that OCR’s 

investigation revealed in benefits and services, including 

uniforms, competitive and practice facilities, and the 

scheduling of games and practice times, provided to 

female athletes.

► Portland Public Schools (ME): In September 2013, OCR 

resolved a compliance review of Portland Public Schools 

that examined whether the district was providing female 

students an equal opportunity to participate in its 

interscholastic athletics program. Over the course of the 
34 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

investigation, OCR determined that the district was not 

doing so. Additionally, the boys’ varsity baseball teams at 

the district high schools competed at Hadlock Stadium, 

a professional facility, whereas the girls’ softball team 

competed at local, poorer-quality fields. OCR negotiated 

a resolution agreement with the district under which the 

district agreed to create a girls’ volleyball team at both 

its high schools and to substantially upgrade the girls’ 

softball facilities, among other remedies.

► Southeastern Louisiana University (LA): In March 

2014, OCR reached an agreement with Southeastern 

Louisiana University after conducting a compliance review 

investigating whether the university awarded athletics 

scholarships or grants-in-aid in a nondiscriminatory 

manner and provided male and female students an 

equal opportunity to participate in the university’s 

intercollegiate athletic programs. The university did not 

provide participation opportunities for male and female 

students in numbers substantially proportionate to their 

respective enrollments during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 

academic years. The agreement requires the university 

to conduct an assessment of the athletic interests 

and abilities of all its students and to address several 

deficiencies, including ensuring that the fields for the 

women’s soccer team are comparable to the fields used 

by the men’s soccer team. 

Eliminating Retaliation for 

Exercising Civil Rights

Retaliatory acts, which may include giving students failing 

grades, preventing students from participating in school 

activities, and threatening expulsion against any individual 

who exercises his or her rights under Title IX, are considered 

to be discrimination and are unlawful. Recipients of federal 

funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, 

coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the 

purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by 

Title IX. 

Policy

As page 27 of this report describes more fully, in April 2013, 

OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter that clarified the basic 

principles of retaliation law and described OCR’s methods 

of enforcement for claims of retaliation. Once a student, 

parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains 

formally or informally to a school about a potential Title 

IX or other civil rights violation or participates in an OCR 

investigation or proceeding, the school is prohibited from 

retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

in any way discriminating) against the individual because of 

the individual’s complaint or participation. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 652 complaints of retaliation 

under Title IX. Below is a case that illustrates some of OCR’s 

work in this area:

► Cartwright Elementary School District (AZ): In November 

2013, OCR resolved a complaint that a school did not 

respond in a timely and appropriate way to a student’s 

concerns about harassment by peers based on sex, race, 

and disability and that it disciplined her more harshly and 

ultimately withdrew her from enrollment in retaliation for 

bringing her concerns to the school’s attention. Under 

the terms of the resolution agreement, the district agreed 

to submit to OCR for review its policies and procedures 

relating to handling complaints of harassment and 

related penalties, addressing non-discrimination, and 

tackling retaliation; to train district staff on related issues, 

including prohibition against retaliation; and to reassess 

the student’s needs and reinstate her with proper 

educational and behavioral supports.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 35

SECTION 504 AND ADA TITLE II: DISCRIMINATION 

BASED ON DISABILITY 

OCR protects the rights of persons with disabilities, including students and parents, under two federal laws in the education 

context. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity 

operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States...shall, 

solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...” 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities, 

regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance. Title II states: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by 

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of 

a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”

Policy Guidance: During FY 13–14, OCR published two policy guidance documents relating specifically to students with 

disabilities, including guidance and fact sheets addressing equal access to extracurricular athletics for students with 

disabilities and guidance addressing the rights of students with hepatitis B in postsecondary medical, dental, nursing, and 

other health-related programs (see page 36). 

Enforcement: Of all complaints OCR receives, nearly half involve allegations of disability-based discrimination. In FY 13–14, 

OCR received more than 9,500 complaints alleging violations of disability laws and covering a broad range of issues16

(see Figure 15). Over this same period, OCR initiated 17 compliance reviews related to disability issues.

FIGURE 15: Number of Disability Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue, FY 13–14

1,285

471

176

120

1,746

3,770

2,850

1,112

561

198

87

280

360

865

239

86

76

12

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Other

Treatment of Postsecondary Students 

Testing

Restraint and Seclusion

Retaliation

Procedural Requirements 

Non-Academic Services

Minorities in Special Education

Graduation Requirements

Free Appropriate Public Education

Employment

Discipline

Disability Harassment

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Admissions and Recruitment

Accessibility (Technology) 

Accessibility (Programs/Facilities) 

Academic Adjustments

Total Number of Complaints Raising Disability Issues, FY 2013–14 = 9,941

Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore the total number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

»

Technical Assistance: In FY 13–14, OCR staff delivered over 400 technical assistance presentations across the country on 

disability rights issues. Topics included what constitutes a qualified student with a disability; the obligations of schools, 

districts, and institutions of higher learning to provide equal access to the full range of programs, services, and activities 

available to other students; how entities may formulate policies, practices, and procedures so as not to discriminate against 

students with disabilities; and how to remedy potential Section 504 or Title II violations, once identified.
Policy Guidance Protecting Students with 

Hepatitis B

In June 2013, the Departments of Justice, Education, 

and Health and Human Services sent a joint letter 

to the nation’s medical schools, dental schools, 

nursing schools, and other health-related schools 

regarding hepatitis B discrimination, expressing 

concern that some health-related schools may be 

making enrollment decisions based on an incorrect 

understanding of the hepatitis B virus. The letter 

updates schools on the latest recommendations 

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) regarding the participation of students with 

hepatitis B in health-related schools and emphasizes 

schools’ obligation to comply with federal laws 

prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, 

race, color, and national origin. Pointing out that the 

hepatitis B virus has not been passed from medical 

or dental school students to patients in the U.S. or 

other developed countries since 1991, the guidance 

explains that chronic hepatitis B in itself should not 

preclude the study or practice of medicine, surgery, 

dentistry, or other allied health professions.

36 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Combating Disparities in 

School Discipline and Curbing 

Restraint and Seclusion in Public 

Elementary and Secondary 

Schools

Data from the most recent Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) illustrate that students with disabilities (served by 

IDEA) are treated far more harshly than their peers without 

disabilities; for example, they are twice as likely to receive 

an out-of-school suspension (13%) as are students without 

disabilities (6%) (see Figure 16). Moreover, students with 

disabilities represent 12% of students in public schools 

but 58% of students placed in seclusion or involuntary 

confinement. They are also 75% of students physically 

restrained at school and make up 25% of students arrested 

and referred to law enforcement.

Resolution agreements in Section 504 discipline cases 

have included remedies requiring the institution to develop 

a protocol to ensure that manifestation determination 

reviews (MDR protocol) occur as required by Section 504,17

provide training to school and district staff, and monitor the 

implementation of the MDR protocol. Remedies in cases of 

inappropriate restraint or seclusion include implementation 

of new policies, dissemination of policies to staff and 

parents, and training for staff on these policies. Additionally, 

compensatory educational services may also be required, 

especially in cases where the student missed class time as a 

result of the action. OCR closely reviews proposed remedies 

in such cases to make the determination whether or not 

compensatory services are necessary. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR addressed school discipline involving 

students with disabilities via complaints and compliance 

reviews involving 426 districts in 48 states. Illustrative 

cases include:

► Riverview Gardens School District (MO): A parent 

alleged that the district discriminated against her son 

on the basis of disability (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder and Specific Learning Disability) by suspending 

him multiple times and causing him to miss more than 

10 days during the school year without conducting 

a manifestation determination review. In November 

2012, the district committed to develop new evaluation 

protocols and training for staff. 

► Durham Public Schools (NC): A complainant alleged 

that the district inappropriately disciplined students 

by physically restraining their movement while they 

were seated in chairs, even though the students’ 

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) did not call 

for restraints and the district’s policy prohibited the 

use of restraints except when a student posed a threat 

to self or others. Through the resolution agreement 

FIGURE 16: Students Receiving Out-of-School 

Suspensions, by Disability (IDEA) Status

15%

5%

10%

0%

6%

13%

Students without 

disabilities Students with 

disabilities 

(IDEA) »

Note: Data reflects 99% of CRDC schools, including 43.5 million students without 

disabilities and 6 million students with disabilities.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data 

Collection, 2011-12.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 37

reached in June 2014, the district, with over 32,000 

students, agreed to deliver student-specific remedies to 

the students who were physically restrained, including 

determining whether the students needed to be reevaluated, whether a modification or change to their 

current placement or services was warranted, whether 

the students’ discipline records should be expunged if 

they were disciplined because of their disability, and 

whether any compensatory services were required. 

Ensuring a Free Appropriate 

Public Education (FAPE)

Students with disabilities have the same right to K-12 

public education that students without disabilities have. 

In order to receive and benefit from that education, 

students with disabilities may need special education and/

or related aids and services. OCR works to ensure that 

public elementary and secondary schools, including charter 

schools, provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) 

to all qualified students with disabilities (generally, students 

with disabilities who are of school age), regardless of the 

nature or severity of their disabilities. Section 504 and Title 

II require public schools to provide appropriate education 

and aids and related services free of charge to students with 

disabilities and their parents or guardians. The “appropriate” 

component means that this education must be designed 

to meet the individual educational needs of the student as 

determined through appropriate evaluation and placement 

procedures. However, students with disabilities must be 

educated with students without disabilities to the maximum 

extent appropriate. 

Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA), a federal law that provides federal funds for special 

education, also has FAPE requirements. IDEA is administered 

by the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). To the extent that 

disability harassment adversely affects an elementary or 

secondary student’s education, it may also constitute a 

denial of FAPE under the IDEA, as well as a violation of 

Section 504 and Title II.18

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR resolved 3,725 cases involving allegations 

that FAPE was denied. Illustrative cases include: 

► Bay Village City School District (OH): In September 

2014, OCR resolved a complaint against Bay Village City 

School District alleging that the district discriminated 

against middle and high school students with disabilities 

who receive transportation related to their disabilities 

by subjecting those students to a shortened school day. 

The complaint indicated that students at the middle 

school were being dismissed from class approximately 

eight to ten minutes earlier than their peers. To ensure 

the students received a full day’s schooling, the district 

agreed to begin keeping daily logs showing the actual 

release times for students with disabilities who receive 

transportation related to their disabilities, and to 

designate an administrator at each school building to 

conduct random observation checks to ensure that 

students do not receive shortened school days.

► Fairfield City School District (OH): OCR negotiated a 

resolution agreement in August 2013 after a parent filed 

a complaint alleging that the district had failed to provide 

effective sign language interpreter services to a student 

with multiple disabilities, including autism. The complaint 

also alleged that the district failed to fully implement 

the student’s IEP. The agreement commits the district to 

convene the student’s IEP team to develop an IEP that 

is designed to ensure that the student receives FAPE; to 

provide services so that communication with the student 

is as effective as communication with peers without 

disabilities; and to create policies and procedures that 

address the identification, evaluation, and placement of 

students who the district knows have a physical or mental 

disability.

► Tacoma School District No. 10 (WA): In November 2013, 

OCR resolved this case after a visually impaired parent 

filed a complaint alleging that the district discriminated 

against him on the basis of his disability by failing to 

provide him with his son’s classroom progress reports, 

list of class assignments, and homework assignments 

in a format accessible to persons with visual disabilities. 

Under the agreement, the district pledged to take 

steps to ensure that its communications with parents 

who are blind or visually impaired are as effective as 

communications with parents without disabilities, 

including providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services 

when necessary, such as materials that may be accessed 

by screen readers.
38 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Ensuring Equal Access to 

Comparable Educational 

Opportunities

OCR works to ensure that schools and districts give students 

with and without disabilities an equal opportunity to 

pursue college or careers by providing access to high-rigor 

academic courses. Under federal law, schools must provide 

students with disabilities equal opportunity to access these 

courses.

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 1,746 complaints in this area. 

Illustrative cases include: 

► Rockdale County School District (GA): OCR investigated 

an allegation that Rockdale County School District 

discriminated against a student by subjecting him to 

different treatment when he was removed from a college 

readiness/preparatory program called Advancement 

via Individual Determination (AVID) and by informing 

the complainant that students with disabilities were 

not allowed in the program. In a resolution agreement 

signed in April 2014, the district agreed to conduct 

annual training for staff, apologize to the student, and 

invite that student, along with other students with 

disabilities, to participate in the AVID program without 

any preconditions for enrollment; to institute related 

policy corrections with OCR approval; to establish new 

outreach protocols advertising that the program does 

not discriminate; and to document student selection and 

retention to ensure nondiscrimination. 

► Shenendehowa Central School District (NY): A 

complaint alleged that the district discriminated against 

a student on the basis of his disability by applying a 

modified grading formula that reduced his grades. OCR 

determined that the district, in downgrading the grades 

of students with disabilities by 0.69, treated students 

differently on the basis of disability in violation of the law. 

Through the resolution agreement reached in January 

2014, the district agreed to cease its practice of adjusting 

the grades of students with disabilities downward and 

to restore unadjusted grade values to all students with 

disabilities whose grades had been adjusted downward. 

Providing Necessary Academic 

Adjustments for Postsecondary 

Students 

Students with disabilities who meet the academic and 

technical standards for admission to, or participation in, a 

postsecondary education program may receive academic 

modifications and auxiliary aids and services to ensure their 

equal opportunity to participate in the program. 

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 1,153 complaints regarding 

academic adjustments for postsecondary students. Below is 

a case that illustrates some of OCR’s work in this area: 

► University of Kansas (KS): The complainant, a student, 

alleged that the university discriminated against him on 

the basis of his learning disability by refusing to grant his 

request to substitute another course for a math class. 

The university entered into a resolution agreement with 

OCR in January 2013 that required the university to adopt 

and publish a new petition process that did not require a 

student to take (and possibly fail) the math course before 

the university considered whether to allow a student 

to make a course substitution based upon a disability, 

and to reconsider the complainant’s request for course 

substitution based on the revised process.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 39

Safeguarding Accessibility to 

Appropriate Technology 

Technology plays an increasingly important role in education 

at all levels. For example, schools and colleges commonly 

use computers in traditional classrooms, electronic book 

readers that supplement or replace paper textbooks, online 

classes, and online registration and class scheduling. Section 

504 and Title II require schools and colleges to ensure that 

the technology they use is fully accessible to individuals 

with disabilities or otherwise to provide equal access to 

the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the 

technology. 

OCR’s enforcement in this area follows legal principles 

articulated in OCR’s Dear Colleague letter issued on June 

29, 2010, and a supplementary Questions and Answers

piece released on May 26, 2011. As the use of technology in 

education increases, OCR’s enforcement efforts are ensuring 

that students with disabilities have the same opportunities 

that students without disabilities have in this fast-changing 

aspect of education delivery.

Enforcement 

In FY 13–14, OCR received 176 complaints related to 

technology access. Illustrative resolutions include:

► University of Montana-Missoula (MT): In March 

2014, OCR entered into a resolution agreement with 

the University of Montana-Missoula, which serves 

approximately 10,000 students, to ensure that the 

university’s electronic and information technologies 

were accessible to people with disabilities. These 

technologies include websites, online course registration, 

library database materials, videos, classroom clickers, 

discussion boards, and electronic textbooks. Among other 

provisions, the agreement requires that the university 

make its education and information technologies 

accessible to students with disabilities, create a new 

accessibility policy, and appoint a staff member to 

coordinate the new policy.

► Virtual Community School of Ohio (OH): In November 

2013, OCR announced a first-of-its-kind resolution with 

a virtual charter school. Over half of the school’s 1,200 

students identify as having a disability. Although the 

school advertised itself as an “ideal setting” for students 

with disabilities, OCR’s investigation identified compliance 

problems with the evaluation and placement procedures 

used by the school to identify students with disabilities 

under Section 504 and to determine their individual 

education needs and the services necessary to provide 

them an appropriate eduction. Additionally, the school’s 

website and online learning environment were not 

accessible, especially for students with visual disabilities. 

In the resolution agreement, the school committed to 

take actions to ensure that it provides FAPE to each 

qualified student with a disability and to ensure an 

accessible online learning environment.

► South Carolina Technical College System (SC): OCR 

conducted a compliance review to assess whether South 

Carolina Technical College System’s communications with 

persons who are blind, have low vision, or have other 

print disabilities are as effective as communications with 

persons without disabilities, as required by law. This 

included an examination of compatibility of the system’s 

websites with assistive technology used by current and 

prospective students with disabilities to access admissions 

applications (many of which could only be submitted 

online) and information about the system’s programs and 

services. Under a resolution agreement in March 2013, 

the system committed to develop a resource guide that 

provides information about web accessibility requirements, 

direct that the website and the websites of all the member 

colleges be accessible to students with disabilities, and 

annually review the websites and monitor steps taken to 

correct any identified accessibility problems. 

Ensuring Accessibility of 

Programs, Services, and Facilities 

OCR works with recipients to ensure that persons with 

disabilities have physical access to the programs, services, 

and facilities of schools, colleges, and universities. Sections 

of old buildings may need to be renovated and new buildings 

properly constructed so that individuals with disabilities, 

including persons who use wheelchairs, can, among other 

things, enter and navigate, use facilities in, and park near 

the buildings.

Policy

In January 2013, to clarify that students with disabilities 

have the right under Section 504 to receive an equal 

opportunity to participate in extracurricular athletic 

programs, OCR issued guidance identifying school districts’ 

existing legal obligations and encouraging school districts 

to work with community organizations to increase athletic 

opportunities for students with disabilities, such as 

opportunities outside the existing extracurricular athletic 

program, in order to enable them to have the same access 

to health and social benefits related to athletics that others 
40 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

have. The guidance provides concrete examples of how 

districts may modify policies, practices, and procedures 

in support of students with intellectual, developmental, 

physical, and other disabilities. The guidance also notes that 

the law does not require that a student with a disability 

be allowed to participate in any selective or competitive 

athletics program offered by a school district, so long as the 

selection or competition criteria are not discriminatory.

Enforcement 

During FY 13–14, OCR received 638 complaints alleging 

violations in the accessibility of programs, services, and 

facilities. A key remedy in accessibility cases is to ensure that 

the program, service, and/or facility is accessible for students 

with disabilities. Illustrative cases include:

► Parma City School District (OH): In November 2012, OCR 

resolved a complaint against Parma City School District 

following OCR’s investigative findings that the district’s 

website was not accessible to and usable by persons with 

disabilities using assistive technology; that students with 

disabilities at one elementary school were provided with 

emergency-related services that were different from, and 

not as effective as, those provided to students without 

disabilities; and that some of the district’s schools and 

facilities were inaccessible to persons with disabilities. To 

remedy these issues, the district committed to provide 

a website that is accessible to and usable by persons 

with disabilities, including persons who use assistive 

technology (such as screen readers). The district also 

committed to develop an emergency procedures plan 

that includes students with disabilities in fire and other 

emergency evacuation drills and to provide proper 

signage and two-way communication devices in the area 

of refuge at one of the identified schools.

► Cumberland County Schools (NC): A parent filed an 

OCR complaint alleging that the district discriminated 

against her daughter and other students with mobility 

impairments on the basis of disability because the 

school’s playground equipment and stage in the cafeteria 

were inaccessible for students with mobility impairments. 

In January 2013, OCR negotiated an agreement with 

the district to develop a process for notifying parents 

and students of the inaccessible facilities and relocating 

programs and activities to accessible areas and to modify 

its play areas to make them physically accessible. 

Combating Bullying and 

Harassment on the Basis of 

Disability

Bullying and harassment that are based on a student’s 

disability and that interfere with or limit a student’s ability 

to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or 

opportunities offered by a school are prohibited under Title II 

and Section 504. Further, if the harassing behavior interferes 

with the student’s ability to access educational services, the 

situation, if uncorrected, may constitute a FAPE violation. 

OCR works with other offices in the Department, as well 

as with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), to address 

bullying and harassment of students with disabilities.

“While there is broad consensus that bullying 

cannot be tolerated, the sad reality is that 

bullying persists in our schools today, especially 

for students with disabilities. Basic decency and 

respect demand that our schools ensure that all 

their students learn in a safe environment.”

—Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon, 

October 2014

Policy

OCR’s 2010 Dear Colleague letter on bullying and 

harassment continues to inform local and state educational 

agencies about these issues. The guidance explains that the 

civil rights laws OCR enforces require that if an institution 

knows or has reason to know about student-on-student 

harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or 

disability, it must take immediate and effective action to 

eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and, where 

appropriate, address its effects on the harassed student and 

the school community. The policy guidance also provides 

examples of harassment and illustrates how a school should 

respond in each case. 

Enforcement 

In FY 13–14, OCR received 1,112 complaints of 

disability-based harassment. In resolving a number 

of these complaints, OCR facilitated agreements that 

entailed bringing together students, teachers, parents, 
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 41

school administrators, district leaders, and community 

organizations to address the underlying causes for the 

absence of school safety. Illustrative cases include: 

► Jefferson County Public Schools (KY): In August 2014, 

OCR resolved a complaint against Jefferson County Public 

Schools alleging that the district discriminated against a 

student on the basis of disability by failing to address a 

hostile environment created by disability harassment from 

a teacher. In a resolution agreement, the district agreed to 

issue a memo to staff explaining that different treatment 

of students on the basis of disability is a violation of the 

law, to revise its grievance procedures to provide for the 

prompt and equitable resolution of complaints, and to 

offer counseling services for the student. 

► John Doe19 School District (MD): In June 2014, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that the district failed 

to adequately address incidents of harassment based 

on a student’s disability (severe food allergy). In an 

Early Complaint Resolution, the district agreed to train 

teachers, cafeteria aides, and other district staff to 

recognize the symptoms of anaphylaxis and the dangers 

of cross-contamination and shared surfaces. This district 

also agreed to provide an additional training session on 

how to administer an EpiPen and what to do in the event 

of an emergency during district-sponsored after-school 

activities attended by students with life-threatening 

allergies. 

► Palo Alto Unified School District (CA): In December 

2012, OCR entered into a resolution agreement to 

resolve an allegation that the district failed to promptly, 

appropriately, and effectively respond to reports of 

ongoing and widespread harassment of a middle school 

student with an intellectual disability. To address these 

issues, the district agreed to disseminate a memorandum 

and give training to district administrators and a notice 

to staff, parents, and students regarding the district’s 

obligation to ensure a nondiscriminatory environment 

for students with disabilities; to revise its middle school 

handbooks to include disability as a basis that may give 

rise to a discrimination complaint; and to provide ageappropriate training for students regarding disabilitybased harassment.

Eliminating Retaliation for 

Exercising Civil Rights

Retaliatory acts against any individual who exercises his or 

her rights under Section 504 or Title II are considered to be 

discrimination and are unlawful. Recipients of federal funds 

are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, 

or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of 

interfering with any right or privilege secured by Section 504 

or Title II.

Policy

As this report describes more fully on page 27, in April 

2013, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter clarifying basic 

principles of retaliation law. For example, if an individual 

brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a 

school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate 

against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to 

retaliate against an individual because he or she made a 

complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR 

investigation or proceeding.

Enforcement

In FY 13–14, OCR received 2,850 complaints alleging 

retaliation under Section 504 and Title II. Below is a case 

that illustrates some of OCR’s work in this area:

► Birmingham City School District (AL): The complainant 

alleged that after she filed a complaint against the district 

regarding her oldest son’s Section 504 Plan, the district 

subjected her younger son to retaliation by refusing to 

allow him to make up class assignments, by issuing failing 

grades for all of his spring 2013 classes, by expelling him, 

by failing to provide him with the opportunity to appeal 

his expulsion, by barring the complainant from removing 

items from her son’s locker and then charging her for 

books that were located in the locker, and by encouraging 

another student’s family to file criminal charges against 

her son. Among other remedies achieved through the 

December 2013 resolution agreement, the district 

committed to replace the student’s failing grades with 

grades received during summer school and train district 

staff on the Section 504 prohibitions against retaliation. 
42 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

OTHER STATUTES OCR ENFORCES: THE AGE 

DISCRIMINATION ACT AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF 

AMERICA EQUAL ACCESS ACT

OCR also has jurisdiction over two additional civil rights laws: the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Boy Scouts of 

America Equal Access Act (2001).

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal 

financial assistance. This prohibition extends to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, 

colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and 

museums that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. Programs or activities that 

receive such funds must provide aids, benefits, or services in a nondiscriminatory manner. These include (but are not limited 

to) admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, 

discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, and housing. Though 

the Act does not limit protections against discrimination to a certain age group, it does allow for exceptions such as when 

colleges offer special programs that are geared toward providing special benefits to children and the elderly in a specific age 

range. 

► In FY 13–14, OCR received 1,173 complaints under the Age Discrimination Act and resolved 1,213 cases.20 Common 

remedies in OCR resolutions include provisions that require training for staff, updating and dissemination of 

nondiscrimination policies, and investigation by the institution into the specific incidents that resulted in the allegation of 

age discrimination.

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act 

OCR also enforces The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Under this Act, no public elementary school, public secondary school, or state or local education agency that provides an 

opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet at the school, before or after school hours, shall 

deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet or otherwise discriminate against any group officially affiliated with the Boy 

Scouts of America or any other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society. 

► In FY 13–14, OCR received 125 complaints under the Boy Scouts Act and resolved 135 cases.21 Many of the complaints 

filed under this statute sought enforcement of the requirement that institutions’ nondiscrimination policies include a 

statement about the Boy Scouts Act and its provisions.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 43

LOOKING AHEAD

The achievements detailed throughout this report represent important progress in the advancement of civil rights for this 

nation’s students. But we know from the sizable opportunity gaps revealed in the Civil Rights Data Collection and our 

burgeoning case docket that our work is far from complete. 

OCR has reached a pivotal moment in its history: As civil rights complaints and the demand for effective enforcement 

skyrocket, our ability to fulfill our mission to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence through 

vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws is being tested as never before. OCR’s staffing level has consistently declined while 

our complaint volume has dramatically increased. Public interest in more policy guidance and civil rights enforcement by OCR 

has visibly increased during this Administration. OCR has also experienced a surge in requests for information, stakeholder 

and public engagement, and technical assistance. OCR recognizes these developments as a positive sign that people are 

more aware of their civil rights—and have greater confidence in OCR as a protector of those rights. But they also create 

considerable challenges for the future. 

OCR will need to continue to utilize efficiency measures we’ve developed—and develop new ones as well—in order to 

accomplish our critical mission. 

Whereas we have reason to celebrate the progress we have made to date, we know that we must do more to deliver the 

federal civil rights promises that are every student’s right. We know that our society depends on a well-educated community, 

and that our students do not have time to squander before receiving the civil rights to which they are entitled. We must—and 

we do—operate in what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., called the fierce urgency of now. This is our challenge as an agency—and 

one that we vow to take on with every lever available to us.
44 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

APPENDIX: INDEX OF CASES RESOLVED WITH 

AGREEMENTS

Total number of resolution agreements in FY 13–14 by jurisdiction, statute, and type of investigation

STATE, DISTRICT 

OR TERRITORY

TITLE VI TITLE IX DISABILITY

TOTAL ACROSS 

TOTAL COMPLAINTS STATUTES

COMPLIANCE 

REVIEWS TOTAL COMPLAINTS

COMPLIANCE 

REVIEWS TOTAL COMPLAINTS

COMPLIANCE 

REVIEWS

AK 0

AL 6 5 1 7 7 20 20 33

AR 1 1 2 2 12 12 15

AS 1 1 1

AZ 7 7 6 5 1 42 42 55

CA 30 27 3 23 22 1 97 97 152*

CO 7 7 8 8 17 17 33*

CT 4 4 15 15 19

DC 2 2 2 2 12 12 16

DE 3 2 1 4 4 7

FL 5 5 6 6 39 39 50

GA 10 9 1 7 7 22 22 41*

HI 2 2 2

IA 1 1 1 1 4 4 6

ID 7 7 7

IL 7 7 2 2 15 15 24

IN 4 3 1 12 10 2 10 10 26

KS 4 4 2 2 21 21 27

KY 5 4 1 5 5 11 11 22*

LA 6 6 4 2 2 17 17 27

MA 8 7 1 10 9 1 30 30 48

MD 2 2 7 7 24 24 33

ME 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 6

MH 0

MI 2 1 1 8 8 37 37 47

MN 3 3 9 9 12

MO 6 6 5 4 1 33 32 1 46*

MS 1 1 5 5 6 6 12

MT 5 4 1 3 3 8

NC 8 8 4 4 42 42 54

ND 1 1 1

NE 1 1 4 4 5

NH 1 1 3 3 10 10 14

NJ 1 1 20 20 21

NM 1 1 4 4 5

NV 1 1 1 1 5 5 7

NY 28 26 2 27 26 1 52 51 1 139*

OH 8 7 1 6 5 1 48 47 1 63*

OK 8 7 1 1 1 12 12 21

OR 2 1 1 26 26 29*

PA 4 3 1 12 12 16 16 33*

PR 4 4 4

RI 5 5 5

SC 3 3 4 4 27 25 2 34

SD 1 1 2 2 2 2 5

TN 4 4 2 2 21 21 27

TX 4 4 9 9 67 67 81*

UT 1 1 1 1 9 9 11

VA 3 2 1 9 9 37 37 49

VI 0

VT 1 1 1

WA 2 2 3 3 17 17 23*

WI 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 6

WV 1 1 2 2 8 8 11

WY 1 1 5 4 1 6

Totals 208 186 22 221 209 12 956 950 6 1430**

** 1,310 cases resulted in resolution agreements during FY 2013 (734) & FY 2014 (576). However the total listed here reflects the fact that many cases included issues across multiple statutes. Additionally, there were 28 claims of 

age discrimination and 17 claims under the Boy Scouts statute that are included in this total. 

* Totals marked with an asterisk (*) include claims of discrimination by age or under the Boy Scouts statute. 
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY ► FY 13–14 45

Endnotes

1 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, 

administrative closure, a finding of no violation, an early 

complaint resolution, or a resolution agreement. 

2 42 USC § 12131(ADA). Pursuant to a delegation by the 

Attorney General of the United States, OCR shares in the 

enforcement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, which is a Federal law prohibiting disability 

discrimination in the services, programs, and activities 

of state and local governments (including public school 

districts), regardless of whether they receive Federal 

financial assistance. 28 C.F.R. 35.190(b)(2). To the extent 

that Title II provides greater protection than Section 504, 

covered entities must comply with Title II’s substantive 

requirements.

3 Mechanical restraint is the use of any device or equipment 

to restrict a student’s freedom of movement. Physical 

restraint is a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces 

the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, 

or head freely. Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a 

student alone in a room or area that the student is physically 

prevented from leaving.

4 For the CRDC, “preschool” means a program operated by a 

public school for children younger than kindergarten age, 

including early childhood programs or services. The CRDC 

does not include data on private preschool programs.

5 Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).

6 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 

1623 (2014).

7 Plyler v. Doe, 102 S. Ct. 2382 (1982).

8 In order to track accurately the extent to which OCR 

addresses each protected class such as race, disability, 

gender, and national origin, the figures shown here may 

entail one case being counted in multiple categories, 

especially where cases are cross-cutting. As such, the total 

aggregate numbers, when tabulating figures covering all 

protected classes, will exceed the actual number of cases 

resolved over FY 13–14.

9 Plyler v. Doe, 102 S. Ct. 2382 (1982).

10 In order to track accurately the extent to which OCR 

addresses each protected class such as race, disability, 

gender, and national origin, the figures shown here may 

entail one case being counted in multiple categories, 

especially where cases are cross-cutting. As such, the total 

aggregate numbers, when tabulating figures covering all 

protected classes, will exceed the actual number of cases 

resolved over FY 13–14.

11 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in 

this case because of privacy considerations.

12 34 C.F.R. § 106.40(b)(1). References to pregnancy include all 

the related conditions covered by the regulation.

13 Ibid., § 106.40(a).

14 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in 

this case because of privacy considerations.

15 “Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX.” United 

States Department of Justice. June 23, 2012. Accessed 

December 18, 2014. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/

documents/titleixreport.pdf.

16 In order to track accurately the extent to which OCR 

addresses each protected class such as race, disability, 

gender, and national origin, the figures shown here may 

entail one case being counted in multiple categories, 

especially where cases are cross-cutting. As such, the total 

aggregate numbers, when tabulating figures covering all 

protected classes, will exceed the actual number of cases 

resolved over FY 13–14.

17 Manifestation determination reviews are the process by 

which it is determined if a student’s behavior problem was 

or was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, or 

if the student’s conduct was the direct result of the Local 

Education Agency’s failure to implement the student’s IEP.

18 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in 

this case because of privacy considerations.

19 See http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/

disabharassltr.html. More information on FAPE under the 

IDEA is available at http://idea.ed.gov.

20 The number of resolved cases includes complaints received 

before FY 2013.

21 The number of resolved cases includes complaints received 

before FY 2013.
46 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov/ocr

Contact us: ocr@ed.gov or 1-800-421-3481