|1.                                                         | TITLE PAGE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|---------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|2.                                                         | FOREWORD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|                                                          
|3.                                                         | OVERVIEW OF OCR COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|                                                          
|                                                           | Organizational StructureComplaint Investigations and ResolutionsCompliance Reviews and Other Proactive InitiativesMonitoringTechnical Assistance                                                                                                                                        
|Organizational Structure                                  
|                                                          
|Complaint Investigations and Resolutions                  
|                                                          
|Compliance Reviews and Other Proactive Initiatives        
|                                                          
|Monitoring                                                
|                                                          
|Technical Assistance                                      
|                                                          
|4.                                                         | STRATEGIC PRIORITIES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                                                          
|                                                           | Putting Reading FirstMoving English Language Learners to English ProficiencyPromoting Innovative Programs and Informed Parental ChoiceEncouraging Safe SchoolsAccountability*Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act* Rulemaking*Brown v. Board of Education 50th* Anniversary Commission
|Putting Reading First                                     
|                                                          
|Moving English Language Learners to English Proficiency   
|                                                          
|Promoting Innovative Programs and Informed Parental Choice
|                                                          
|Encouraging Safe Schools                                  
|                                                          
|Accountability                                            
|                                                          
|*Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act* Rulemaking       
|                                                          
|*Brown v. Board of Education 50th* Anniversary Commission 
|                                                          
|5.                                                         | OTHER EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|                                                          
|                                                           | Regulations and Policy GuidanceMagnet Schools Assistance ProgramEqual Opportunity in Vocational EducationHigher Education AgreementsExamples of OCR Case Resolutions                                                                                                                    
|Regulations and Policy Guidance                           
|                                                          
|Magnet Schools Assistance Program                         
|                                                          
|Equal Opportunity in Vocational Education                 
|                                                          
|Higher Education Agreements                               
|                                                          
|Examples of OCR Case Resolutions                          
|                                                          
|6.                                                         | MAKING A DIFFERENCE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                                                          
|7.                                                         | APPENDIX A:  FY 2004  COMPLAINT RECEIPTS BY OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICES                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                                                          
|8.                                                         | APPENDIX B: OFFICES AND ADDRESSES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

**Office for Civil Rights**
  James F. Manning*Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary*

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in 
  whole or in part is granted. The publication's citation should be: U.S. Department 
  of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 
  2004, Washington, D.C., 2005.

To order copies of this publication, write:

ED Pubs
Education Publications Center
U.S. Department of Education
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398

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

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service 
is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), 
should call 1-800-437-0833.

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

This publication is also available on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/ocr.
Any updates to this publication will be available at this Web site.

On request, 
  this publication is also available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large
  print, audiotape or computer diskette. For more information, please contact
  the Department's Alternate Format Center at 1-202-260-9895 or 1-202-205-8113.

2004 was a special year in America’s longstanding efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for all people. It marked the 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in *Brown
    v. Board of Education*, which declared racially segregated schools to be unconstitutional. 2004 also marked the 40th Anniversary of the *Civil
    Rights Act of 1964*, which prohibits racial and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including educational institutions, and the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in *Lau
    v. Nichols*, which affirmed the educational rights of language minority students. These historic milestones helped bring about extraordinary achievements in efforts to eradicate racial segregation, eliminate educational discrimination, and ensure that all students have the opportunity to reach their full educational potential.

|“*The Civil Rights Act of 1964* gives all Americans another reason 
      to be proud of our country. The work of equality is not done because the 
      evil of bigotry is not finally defeated. Yet the laws of this nation and 
      the good heart of this nation are on the side of equality.” President 
        George W. Bush
        Remarks Commemorating the 40th Anniversary
    of the *Civil Rights Act of 1964*, July 1, 2004
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This report, which covers the activities of the U.S. Department of Education's
  Office for Civil Rights (OCR) from Oct. 1, 2003, to Sept. 30, 2004, demonstrates
  how OCR's compliance program continues in the tradition of these civil rights
  legacies. From investigating the misidentification of minority students in
  special education, to ensuring accessibility of college campuses for students
  with disabilities, to facilitating access of women to equal academic and athletic
  opportunities, OCR has vigorously pursued its statutory civil rights enforcement
responsibilities.

These and other reported accomplishments also demonstrate how the fair, effective
  and efficient enforcement of the civil rights laws can support the goals of
  the *No Child Left Behind Act* by advancing both **excellence** and **equity**.
  After long decades, the pernicious achievement gap is beginning to close. Reading
  and math test scores are rising across the country, with disadvantaged and
minority students leading the way.

|“And while our schools are no longer segregated by law, they are 
      still not equal in opportunity and excellence. Justice requires more than 
      a place in a school. Justice requires that every school teach every child 
      in America.” President George W. Bush
        Grand Opening, *Brown v. Board of Education* 
        National Historic Site, May 17, 2004
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In safeguarding the rights of all students to equal access to high quality
  education, we ensure their future and our nation's future. We need to stay
the course. Our children deserve no less.

Respectfully submitted,

James F. Manning
Delegated the Authority of 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED) 
is responsible for enforcing five federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability and age by recipients 
of federal financial assistance. These laws are:

- Title VI of the *Civil Rights Act of 1964*(prohibiting discrimination based 
on race, color and national origin);
- Title IX of the *Education Amendments of 1972* (prohibiting sex discrimination);
- Section 504 of the *Rehabilitation Act of 1973* (prohibiting disability discrimination);
- *The Age Discrimination Act of 1975* (prohibiting age discrimination); and
- Title II of the *Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990* (prohibiting disability 
discrimination by public entities, e.g., public elementary and secondary school 
systems, postsecondary schools, and vocational education programs, whether or 
not they receive federal financial assistance).

In addition, OCR enforces the *Boy Scouts of America Equal
    Access Act*. This 
  law addresses equal access for the Boy Scouts of America and other designated 
  youth groups to meet in public schools that receive federal funds from the Department 
  of Education.

These civil rights laws represent a national commitment to end discrimination 
  in education programs. Since most educational institutions receive some type 
  of federal financial assistance, these laws apply throughout the nation.

Coverage of these civil rights laws extends to:

- 14,559 school districts;1
- 4,168 colleges and universities;2
- 5,059 institutions conferring certificates below the associate degree level, 
such as training schools for truck drivers and cosmetologists;3 
and
- thousands of other entities, such as libraries, museums, and vocational rehabilitation 
agencies.

Consequently, these civil rights laws protect millions of students attending 
or seeking to attend our educational institutions. In certain situations, the 
laws also protect persons who are employed or seeking employment at educational 
institutions. Overall, these laws protect:

- nearly 54.5 million students attending elementary and secondary schools;4 
    and
- nearly 16.5 million students attending colleges and universities.5

Enforcing these laws is critical to carrying out the mission of the U.S. Department 
of Education—ensuring equal access to education and promoting educational 
excellence throughout the nation.

In FY 2004, OCR's budget was $88,305,000, with full-time equivalent (FTE)
  staff  of 655. See Figure 1 on historical
  funding  and FTE.

### Figure 1: 
  U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil RightsAppropriations, FTE & 
  Workload Data FY 1994– FY 2004



1 U.S. Department of Education, 
  National Center for Education Statistics (2003). *Digest of Education Statistics 
  2003* (NCES-2005025), Washington, D.C.: Author, Table 85, p. 103.

2Ibid, Table 247, p. 311.

3Ibid, Table 365, p. 422.

4U.S. Department of Education, 
  National Center for Education Statistics (2003). *Projections of Education 
  Statistics* to 2013 (NCES-2004013), Washington, D.C.: Author, Table 1, p. 
  45.

5Ibid, Table 10, p. 57.

OCR is composed of a headquarters office, located in Washington, D.C.,
  which provides overall leadership, policy development and coordination of enforcement
  activities, and 12 enforcement offices around the nation. The enforcement offices
  are responsible for the investigation and resolution of complaints of discrimination,
  the conduct of compliance reviews, and the provision of technical assistance.
  The majority of OCR's staff are assigned to the enforcement offices, which
  are located in Boston, New York, Philadelphia (Eastern Division); Washington,
  D.C., Atlanta, Dallas (Southern Division); Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City
  (Midwestern Division); and Denver, San Francisco, Seattle (Western Division).

One important way OCR carries out its responsibilities is by investigating
  and resolving complaints. Persons who believe there has been a violation of
  the civil rights laws enforced by OCR may file a complaint with the appropriate
  enforcement office. OCR's process provides a forum for resolution of complaints
  of discrimination alleging violations of the civil rights laws.

OCR's primary objectives are to promptly investigate the complainant's allegations
  of discrimination and to accurately determine whether the civil rights laws
  have been violated. OCR is committed to providing timely relief to students
  who are denied equal access to educational opportunity. OCR will resolve 80
  percent of resolved complaints within 180 days. In FY 2004, OCR received 5,044
  complaints and resolved 4,968, some of which had been filed in previous years.
  OCR resolved 91 percent of these complaints within 180 days, significantly
  exceeding its goal of 80 percent. Timeliness is critical to students and parents
  in the resolution of civil rights issues and a very useful measure of the efficiency
  and effectiveness of our complaint resolution process.

|“The University is pleased to have been a part of the Early Complaint 
      Resolution process, and is equally pleased that the process had a positive 
      outcome. We appreciated the professional manner of the Office for Civil 
      Rights staff.”
Aug. 27, 2004, letter from a
        University Legal Counsel
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During FY 2004, OCR revised its *Case Resolution Manual* and renamed it the
  *Case Resolution and Investigation Manual*. The new name and revised content
  reflected a shift to an investigative approach, which stresses full investigation
  of complaints. If these methods fail, OCR issues violation letters and enters
  into negotiations to correct those violations. It is only after OCR has advised
  recipients of their failure to comply with the civil rights laws and has determined
  that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means that, as a last resort,
  OCR seeks compliance through the administrative hearing process or refers cases
to the U.S. Department of Justice.

As in most years, the majority of complaints OCR received in FY 2004 alleged
  discrimination on the basis of disability (52 percent). We also find that other
  egregious types of discrimination persist. For example, in FY 2004, OCR received
  a complaint alleging that the principal of a junior high school was placing
  black and white students in segregated classrooms. OCR initiated an investigation
  and determined that classes indeed were segregated by race. During the investigative
  process, OCR learned that the new district superintendent had also reviewed
  the situation and determined that no legitimate, nondiscriminatory educational
  justification existed for the segregated classrooms. The district entered into
  a voluntary agreement with OCR to develop and implement a race-neutral method
for assigning students to classrooms.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of complaint receipts by jurisdiction.

Pie chart showing FY 2004. 5,044 Reciepts. Disability (2,624) 52%. Sex (283) 6%.  Race/National Origin (946) 19%. Other (537) 10%. Multiple (583) 12%. Age (71) 1%.

Appendix A shows FY 2004 complaint receipts 
  by OCR enforcement offices and Appendix B lists the contact information for 
  each enforcement office.

In addition to resolving complaints, OCR initiates compliance reviews
  and takes other proactive steps to focus on specific compliance problems that
  are particularly acute or national in scope. In general, targeted compliance
  reviews and proactive initiatives maximize the impact of OCR's resources and
  complement the complaint resolution process. These strategic activities benefit
  large numbers of students through policy or program changes by recipients designed
  to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws.

OCR initiated 53 compliance reviews in FY 2004 and brought 29 reviews to
  successful resolution, some of which had been started in previous years. Compliance
  review sites are selected based on various sources of information, including
  information provided by parents, education groups, media, community organizations,
  the public and, in certain circumstances, survey data to the extent it is supported
by other sources of information.

More than half of the compliance reviews initiated in FY 2004 (28) involved
  a nationwide enforcement initiative to eliminate barriers to access for postsecondary
  students with disabilities. Areas of focus for these compliance reviews at
  both public and private postsecondary institutions included (but were not limited
  to) accessibility to residence halls, classrooms and academic buildings, and
  parking facilities. OCR also continued its efforts to review school districts'
  misidentification of minority and English language learner students in special
education.

Of the 29 compliance reviews closed in FY 2004, 15 involved reviews of state
  departments of education to ensure that Title IX coordinators were designated
  and trained and that Title IX nondiscrimination policies and other information
were published in accordance with regulations.

Figure 3 shows the number of reviews initiated and resolved by compliance issue.

|OCR Compliance Reviews by Issue
      FY2004                                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**Compliance Issue**                                                                                                                                     
|Ability Grouping                                                                                                                                         
|Accessibility                                                                                                                                            
|Admission to Vocational Education Programs (Title IX)                                                                                                    
|High Stakes Testing (Section 504)                                                                                                                        
|Limited English Proficient Students and Special Education/Services for
       Students with Limited English Proficiency                                  
|Minorities and Special Education                                                                                                                         
|Procedural Requirements (Title IX)                                                                                                                       
|Racial Harassment/Sexual Harassment                                                                                                                      
|* Includes compliance reviews carried over from previous years. 
      Also, several reviews contain more than one compliance issue.***Figure 
      3***

To maximize its effectiveness in enforcing the civil rights laws, OCR
  monitors complaint and compliance review resolution agreements to ensure that
  the commitments made in these agreements are carried out. During FY 2004, OCR
  conducted 2,084 monitoring activities. Following are some examples that show
  OCR's impact on both individual students and groups of students when schools
  and colleges carried out their resolution agreement commitments.

- A school district refused to allow a student with a disability to transfer
  to another school but allowed school transfers for students without disabilities.
  Pursuant to a resolution agreement with OCR, the district revised its transfer
  policy so that the policy applies equally to all students.

|“I wish to thank you for your immense professionalism, cooperation, 
      technical guidance, and expert management of this review throughout its 
      duration. I personally derived invaluable knowledge and insight on the important 
      role of your office in the continuing pursuit of equity and quality programs 
      for public school children.”
July 1, 2004, letter from a school district official 
after OCR completed compliance review
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- A school district was not exiting English language learner (ELL) students from
 its alternative language programs. The district later exited approximately 6,500
 ELL students in one school year alone after it implemented its agreement with
 OCR. These students are increasingly successful in passing the state's high
 school competency examination and now have higher grade passing rates than students
 whose primary home language is English.
- The number of participation opportunities for female athletes increased by 70
 percent at a university after it implemented its agreement with OCR.
- Students with diabetes were excluded from field trips in a school district.
 Also, staff was insufficiently trained to monitor and administer medications
 as needed during the school day and in extracurricular activities. These students
 are now joining their classmates on field trips, and the school district has
 adequately trained staff to serve the needs of students with diabetes.

- Visually impaired students now have access to information resources
      and technical staff at a major university. The university is providing
      various publications in alternative formats and orientation on the use
      of assistive technology to students with disabilities.
- After conducting a survey at its high school to assess the interests and abilities
 of its students, a school district added interscholastic girls' softball and
 volleyball teams. The new teams were provided the necessary equipment and supplies,
 and a facility was made available for the softball team.
- Mobility-impaired students in one of the nation's largest school districts did
 not have access to magnet programs at 21 schools. The school district will soon
 complete renovations, including ramps, elevators, visual alarms, computerized
 card catalogs and signage, which will allow access of such students to more
 than 300 magnet programs.
- American Indian students are no longer subject to discriminatory disciplinary
 procedures after a school district established a record-keeping system to ensure
 discipline is administered in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. The district
 is also using a multicultural committee composed of parents and representatives
 of the local American Indian community to review disciplinary actions.
- A student using a wheelchair was excluded from physical education and recreation
 because of conditions at her elementary school's track. The district made the
 track accessible, and she now can participate in athletic activities.
- To come into compliance with Title IX regulatory requirements, a college that
 did not provide financial assistance on an equitable basis to its female athletes
 more than doubled the amount of such assistance during implementation of its
 agreement with OCR.
- A school district had only two certified teachers for delivering services
      to ELL students, whose enrollment was increasing at a substantial rate.
      After implementing its agreement with OCR, the district now has 73 certified
      teachers for delivering such services.
- Several state departments of education designated Title IX coordinators, adopted
 and disseminated nondiscrimination policies, and implemented grievance procedures
 to address complaints of sex discrimination.

OCR provides information and other support services—known as technical assistance—to
 a variety of interested parties, including schools, colleges and community groups.
 Assistance to educational institutions helps them comply with federal civil
 rights requirements, while assistance to parents, students and others informs
 them of their rights under the law. OCR provides technical assistance through
 a variety of methods, including on-site consultations, conferences, training,
 community meetings and publishing and disseminating materials . Following are
 some examples of OCR's FY 2004 technical assistance activities.

In cooperation with the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, the Intercultural Development Research Association’s South Central Collaborative for Equity and the Interwest Equity Assistance Center, OCR hosted the third and final Regional American Indian Symposium in Denver in FY 2004. This symposium was a follow-up to the *No
    Child Left Behind:* Providing Educational Opportunity for American Indian and Alaskan Native Students conference hosted by OCR in Washington, D.C., in FY 2003. The Denver symposium included presentations on achieving accountability, reading readiness, teacher quality, school choice, parental involvement and OCR enforcement procedures. More than 250 people representing 29 tribes, 24 public school districts, seven Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, six state offices and parents of Indian students from the states of Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico attended the conference. Information was provided to attendees on *No
Child Left Behind* programs and resources that support state and district-level efforts to raise the academic achievement of American Indian and Alaskan Native students.

|“By ensuring a quality education for every child, we meet an important 
      duty to the next generation. We’re giving young people the confidence 
      and skills they need to succeed in higher education, and to fill the jobs 
      of the 21st century. Education is the gateway to a more hopeful future, 
      and we will make sure that gate is open to all Americans.”
President George W. Bush 
Radio Address to the Nation, Aug. 21, 2004
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In FY 2004, OCR participated in the second National Charter School Summit,
  held in Dallas, Texas. The summit provided an opportunity for states, the federal
 government, and technical assistance providers to address common strategies
 for successfully serving students with disabilities in charter schools. More
 than 200 educators and administrators attended the summit.

OCR continued its collaboration with the Higher Education Leadership Partners
 (HELP), a consortium of public and private colleges and universities, state
 education and rehabilitation agencies, and consumers in Virginia that focuses
 on disability and higher education. OCR worked extensively with the Virginia
 Association of Higher Education and Disabilities on issues relating to transition
 and retention, such as documentation and alternative or accessible formats for
 textbooks.

During FY 2004, OCR conducted several technical assistance presentations
  as part of an initiative to help migrant parents enhance their involvement
  in their children's education. These activities informed limited English speaking
  migrant parents about the civil rights laws and how they protect students and
  parents. Information also was provided on the importance of the *No Child
  Left Behind Act* in ensuring that each child succeeds at school. For example,
  OCR conducted three presentations, organized through the Tri-Valley Opportunity
  Council and the Texas Migrant Council, that reached 115 limited English speaking
  migrant parents in Indiana and Minnesota. Also, at the request of the Hispanic
  Parents Coalition of Adams County in Denver, OCR staff made a presentation
  in Spanish to approximately 100 limited English proficient parents who have
  children enrolled in the school district. OCR discussed the district's obligations
  under the civil rights laws for providing services to national origin minority
  students with limited English proficiency and parents' rights under the *No
  Child Left Behind Act.*

As a result of compliance reviews of two state departments of education,
  OCR was invited to provide training to the state and district Title IX coordinators
  for both states, including an overview of the requirements of Title IX and
  the responsibilities of Title IX coordinators. As a result of the training,
  a number of recipients have revised their Title IX procedures and updated information
on their Web sites and in their publications.

In response to Executive Order 13166, which mandates improved access to federal
  programs and activities for persons with limited English proficiency, the Department
  contracted for telephone language assistance services so that those customers
  can readily communicate with OCR staff. The message on the OCR Hotline now
  instructs customers to press 9 if they want foreign language or alternate format
  assistance. The call is then rerouted to an OCR representative to provide appropriate
assistance.

OCR also translated several pamphlets, including our most requested publication, *How
    to File a Discrimination Complaint with the Office for Civil Rights,* into
    Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Hmong, Korean, Punjabi, Urdu and Vietnamese.
    These publications will be added to OCR's electronic civil rights reading
room on OCR's Internet Web site.

State vocational education agencies are responsible each year for conducting
  comprehensive civil rights compliance reviews of selected sub-recipient schools
  and programs and for reporting to OCR about these compliance reviews. Throughout
  the year, OCR provides technical assistance in response to questions from state
  agencies concerning the compliance determinations and remedies resulting from
  these reviews. In addition, OCR provides an annual four-day training conference
  to state agency coordinators of vocational education civil rights compliance
  activities. The training conference (offered with a choice between two locations
  and dates) is designed to provide in-depth training on the procedures and techniques
  state agencies should use in conducting their civil rights compliance program
  and reporting to OCR. In addition, the conference provides detailed guidance
  about legal requirements and investigative techniques relative to specific
  civil rights issues. The 2004 conference included sessions on program accessibility
  reviews, Title IX coordinator duties, and misidentification of minority students
  in special education. The conference also fosters information sharing and collaboration
among representatives of the participating state agencies.

In addition to these kinds of proactive initiatives, OCR responds to inquiries
  and requests from the public. Calls and letters requesting assistance come
  from other federal agencies, state agencies, local school districts, community
  groups, parents and students.

The Office for Civil Rights has aligned its resources to ensure accomplishment
  of the goals and objectives of the *No Child Left Behind Act.*Following
  is a discussion and examples of OCR's activities in support of the *No Child
  Left Behind Act* and other high priority activities.

In *No Child Left Behind*, the president and Congress set a
  goal that all children will read on grade level by the third grade. The Department
  has determined that, to reach this goal, reading instruction must be based
  on sound scientific research. Research shows that reading difficulties and
  behavior problems are among the most common reasons for referring students
  for special education. Pre-referral interventions focusing on reading problems
  have been demonstrated to reduce the number of children who are placed in special
  education programs.

|“We will no longer accept or excuse schools that do not effectively 
      teach the basics. We will insist on high standards and accountability because 
      we believe that every school should teach and every child can learn.” 
      President George W. Bush
        Radio Address to the Nation, Jan. 3, 2004
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCR's experience, including previous investigations, and survey data have
  shown that minority and limited English proficient students in particular may
  be misidentified in certain special education categories. Students inappropriately
  identified and then placed in special education programs often do not receive
  the same curriculum content as regular education students and may face barriers
  in their later efforts to obtain a regular high school diploma, pursue postsecondary
education, or prepare for employment.

In April 2003, OCR launched a nationwide initiative to conduct compliance
  reviews in school districts around the country on the issue of the misidentification
  of minority students in special education. The initiative also focused on ensuring
  that national origin minority students are not referred for evaluation or placed
in special education programs based on their limited English proficiency.

Therefore, OCR emphasized the importance of implementing high quality research-based
  reading programs to reduce the number of students who are misidentified and
  inappropriately placed in special education. Through its investigative outreach
  and technical assistance activities, OCR helps ensure that all children have
equal access to high quality education.

Additional reviews on these issues were initiated in FY 2004. The reviews
  focus on school districts' possible misidentification of minority students
  and ELL students as disabled and whether their placement in special education
programs is appropriate.

For example, in some of our reviews resolved in FY 2004, school districts
  were found in noncompliance with applicable requirements of the Section 504
  and Title II implementing regulations with respect to pre-referral interventions,
evaluation, and placement in the least restrictive environment.

In a resolution agreement, the district agreed to provide staff training
  and resource support for interventions, implement a system of record-keeping,
  and actively monitor the intervention process in the schools. It further agreed
  to develop guidelines, monitor and provide training in the areas of referral,
  evaluation, and eligibility determination. The district agreed to review the
  placements of all students currently identified as Educable Mentally Handicapped
  (EMH) and Emotionally Handicapped (EH), reevaluate if appropriate, and exit
  with transition services those students who do not meet eligibility criteria.
  The district also agreed to develop guidelines regarding least restrictive
  environment and relevant placement criteria and to assess the variations among
  the district's schools. It will review placements of all EMH and EH students
  currently in separate special education classes for more than 50 percent of
  the instructional day and, where appropriate, initiate changes in placement.

During FY 2004, OCR also provided technical assistance to state departments
  of education and local school districts on reducing referrals to special education
  by implementing research-based reading programs. For example, OCR met with
  representatives of the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE), the New
  York University Equity Assistance Center, and the Northeast Regional Resource
  Center to provide technical assistance on misidentification of minority students
  to five school districts identified by NJDOE.

One of the key strategies in *No Child Left Behind* is to ensure
  that English language learners meet rigorous standards. In addition to initiating
  eight compliance reviews on ELL issues in FY 2004, the OCR enforcement offices
  continued to work with districts to help them develop evaluation plans to ensure
  that language acquisition programs are research-based and that ELL students
  are meeting performance standards.

|“[The school district] appreciates OCR’s continued technical
       assistance in developing and implementing a system of support and oversight
       of plans and procedures to ensure that [limited English proficient students]
       have equal and meaningful access to district educational opportunities.” 
       Statement of school superintendent contained
        in the district’s Dec. 13, 2003, monitoring report
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCR also completed monitoring several resolution agreements, including a
  school district that was the subject of a compliance review. The district made
  improvements in providing access for ELL students to subjects other than English,
  especially at the upper content levels. The district also improved counseling
  and services for ELL students with disabilities and achieved better communication
with parents.

In FY 2004, OCR also resolved a complaint alleging that a school district
  did not meaningfully communicate school-related information to parents of national
  origin minority students with limited English proficiency in a language they
  could understand, as required by Title VI. The district agreed to develop a
  plan for communicating with LEP parents, establish methods for notifying LEP
  parents of school-related activities, translate school documents into languages
  spoken by LEP parents, and recruit and hire interpreters to serve LEP parents.



*Transition from High School to College*

OCR continued its nationwide technical assistance initiative to help students
  with disabilities make the transition from high school to college, making presentations
  at a number of conferences around the country and hosting interactive group
  discussions for colleges, parents, students and high school guidance counselors.
  OCR conducted several “There Are No IEPs in College” workshops throughout the
year and co-sponsored an international conference on transition.

*Single-Sex Education*

OCR published a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the *Federal Register* on
 March 9, 2004, that would amend the Title IX regulations to provide additional
 flexibility for school districts interested in providing single-sex classes
 and schools consistent with Title IX. The proposed amendments would establish
 new exceptions, for nonvocational schools at the elementary and secondary education
 level, to the general prohibition against single-sex classes and would establish
 new substantive and procedural requirements to ensure nondiscrimination in the
 operation of single-sex classes under these new exceptions. Also, under the
 proposed amendments, the requirements applicable to local education agencies
 that operate a single-sex nonvocational school would change in that they would
 be permitted to provide either a substantially equal single-sex or coeducational
 school, rather than be required to offer a single-sex school to students of
the excluded sex.

*Information for Parents and Recipients*

OCR uses technology to deliver timely, accessible information to parents,
  students, teachers, and education decision makers and to improve access to
  OCR information appropriate to customer needs through its interactive, Web-based,
  contact information system (http://www.ed.gov/ocr).
  Approximately half of OCR's complaints are filed using the agency's online
  complaint form. The Department has made certain types of records, created on
  or after Nov. 1, 1996, available electronically on the Internet.

OCR's former biennial Elementary and Secondary Schools Survey has now been merged
 with the Department's Educational Data Exchange Network (EDEN), a central repository
 of information on K-12 programs, including *No Child Left Behind Act* data.
 2004 civil rights data is being collected through the Supplemental Survey Tool
 Civil Rights Data Collection. The Supplemental Survey is primarily a Web-based
 collection, and a large majority of school districts are now providing civil
 rights data to the Department using the Web for the first time. In addition,
 the 2004 civil rights data collection is the first use of the Supplemental Survey
 Tool, which will assist EDEN in developing a data system that has the capability
 to collect data from school districts and schools and integrate civil rights
 and other data with the EDEN database, including essential *No Child Left
 Behind* data.

Harassment could deny a student the right to an education free of discrimination
  and could threaten a student's physical or emotional well-being, influence
  how well a student does in school and make it difficult for a student to achieve
  his or her career goals. Also, in cases where harassment is so severe, pervasive,
  and objectively offensive that it interferes with benefits protected by law,
  the courts have made it clear that such harassment is illegal and requires
  recipients to take effective action to stop harassment and prevent its recurrence.

*Racial Harassment*

OCR found that a school district failed to take appropriate action when notified of incidents of racial harassment. These incidents included a racially motivated fight involving 15 students; racially derogatory remarks directed at African American students; and a white student calling a Pakistani student a “terrorist.” The district agreed to revise and disseminate its grievance procedures and conduct training on recognizing harassment and investigating allegations of racial harassment.

|“And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we 
      cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same 
      time.” President George W. Bush
        Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 2005
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### *Sexual Harassment*

OCR received a complaint that a school district did not take prompt and effective
 action when notified that a student was sexually harassed by a teacher. Following
 OCR's investigation, the district agreed to reimburse the family for counseling
 the student has received to assist in overcoming any effects of sexual harassment
 and to cover co-payment fees if additional counseling is required. The teacher
 was disciplined and required to take training on sexual harassment. The student
 also will be allowed to take a class normally taught by the teacher as an independent
 study assignment with another teacher.

*Disability Harassment*

In another OCR complaint resolution, a mother withdrew her son from classes
 because she felt the school was not trying to prevent harassment directed at
 him for being disabled. As a result of assurances from the district that it
 would monitor the situation, the student agreed to return to the school.

*Post-September 11 Harassment*

OCR continued efforts to assist communities in avoiding incidents of harassment
  and violence aimed at students, teachers or other persons perceived to be Arab
  Americans or of Middle Eastern or South Asian origin. For example, one of the
  enforcement offices worked closely with the Council on American-Islamic Relations
  and was recognized by the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a
national Sikh civil rights organization, for its outreach activities.

*Promoting Safe Schools*

OCR participated in several state initiatives aimed at preventing harassment,
  intimidation and bullying in the schools. In partnership with the Washington
  State Office of Public Instruction, OCR delivered eight presentations throughout
  the state on identifying strategies to promote harassment-free school environments.
  The sessions were widely attended by school district Title IX coordinators,
  school counselors, principals and other administrative staff seeking information
  to promote safe schools.

Pursuant to the *President's Management Agenda* and building
  on the Department's *Culture of Accountability Report* and *Strategic
  Plan*, in 2003, OCR formed a team to examine its primary line of business—the
  case resolution process. OCR's Team developed a set of recommendations to reengineer
  the case resolution process in order to promote consistency and high quality,
  enhance efficiency, and improve customer service. In July 2003, the Department's
  Executive Management Team accepted OCR's recommendations. Throughout FY 2004,
  OCR developed and undertook a comprehensive series of strategies designed to
  implement the recommendations. Significant strategies are discussed below.

*Case Management System*

The Case Management System (CMS) is an automated tool that OCR uses to track
  OCR's complaint and compliance review investigations and proactive activities
  such as significant technical assistance. CMS is a primary data source for
  measuring progress in achieving agency objectives. Moreover, the document management
  part of the CMS reduces reliance on paper complaint files for documenting OCR's
  case resolution activities and provides users the ability to perform a variety
  of functions involving particular cases, such as indexing of party and witness
interviews and evidentiary documents.

*Customer Service*

OCR adopted improved customer satisfaction in the case resolution process as
 one of its performance indicators under the *Government Performance and Results
 Act*. The office developed a new set of customer service standards, addressing
 such areas as courtesy, promptness, fairness, and consideration of customers'
 time and needs. These standards are prominently displayed in all OCR offices
 and on OCR's Web site. OCR is emphasizing the importance of customer service
 in relevant OCR publications as they are reprinted and in communications about
 the case resolution process with our customers through training for OCR staff.
 To evaluate the success of our efforts, OCR began an ongoing survey of customer
 satisfaction in 2004. The survey responses will help OCR assess the effectiveness
 of our standards and their implementation and enable us to ensure that we provide
high quality service.

*Casework Tools*

2004 also brought the rollout of the internal automated casework tools system.
  Casework tools are documents that have been identified as meeting specific
  agency standards for high quality and that can be adapted for use by our staff
  to save time on specific case related activities. Population of the casework
  tools database is reviewed on an ongoing basis. Identification of casework
  tools that meet high quality standards and that help all of OCR staff be more
  efficient is an important step in the process of improving the way we conduct
civil rights investigations.

*OCR Policy Repository*

In FY 2004, OCR also established an internal automated Policy Repository.
  The Policy Repository is yet another resource to ensure consistency and high
  quality, improve efficiency, and enhance customer service. When fully implemented,
  the repository will consist of a searchable current policy document collection
with ensured content integrity that substantially reduces duplication.

*Case Processing Standards*

OCR also developed new case planning and monitoring standards in FY 2004.
  These standards are simple but important principles that apply to all OCR cases.
  They are intended to enhance quality, efficiency and customer service in OCR's
  overall case resolution process.

*The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act*, part of the *No
    Child Left Behind Act*, addresses equal access to meet in public schools
    that receive federal funds from the Department. The law covers the Boy Scouts
    and other youth groups listed in Title 36 of the *U.S. Code* as a
    patriotic society. During FY 2004, OCR completed drafting a "Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking", which was published in the *Federal Register* on
    Oct. 19, 2004, and provided for a 45-day public comment period. While OCR
    received no complaints alleging violations of the act during FY 2004, one
    of the five complaints submitted the previous year was resolved in FY 2004.

In 2001, President Bush signed legislation that established the *Brown
    v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission* for the purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark May 17, 1954, decision in *Brown
    v. Board of Education*, which declared racially segregated schools to be unconstitutional. OCR was primarily responsible for organizing and managing the commission. Over the past three years, the commission disseminated information about the *Brown* decision through lectures, town hall meetings, writing contests and public service announcements. The programs included:

|“*Brown* promised access to school for all children, regardless 
      of their skin color. Today, *No Child Left Behind* aims to go beyond 
      that question of access: Now that everyone can walk into the schoolhouse 
      door unimpeded and unafraid, we have to make sure that they receive a high-quality 
      education.” 
      Rod Paige
        Secretary of Education, March 25, 2004
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The Latino Pursuit for Excellence in U.S. Public Schools: *Mendez* (1946)
  and *Brown*;
- Today and Beyond, Advocating Equality for All: The Impact of Women Civil
  Rights Activists on *Brown*; and
- Making the Spiritual Practical:  The Impact of the Faith Community on *Brown*.

On May 17, 2004, at the opening of the *Brown v. Board of Education*National
  Historic Site in Topeka, Kan., President Bush said, “On this day, in this
  place, we remember with gratitude the good souls who saw a great wrong, and
  stood their ground, and won their case. And we celebrate a milestone in the
  history of our glorious nation.”

OCR also pursues compliance by federal fund recipients by promulgating
  regulations implementing the civil rights laws, by developing clear policy
  guidance interpreting those laws, and by broadly disseminating this information
  to educational institutions, parents, students, and others. Effective civil
  rights enforcement in education requires that educational institutions understand
  the legal and regulatory requirements and that students, parents, and other
  members of the public understand their rights. To meet these goals, OCR issues
  guidance in many different media, including through the Internet, and updates
  and augments that guidance regularly to ensure that OCR guidance reflects current
  developments in civil rights law and educational practice.

*Race-Neutral Alternatives*

In the 2003 *University of Michigan* decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court held
  that diversity may be a compelling interest and institutions must undertake “serious
  good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives” before using
  racial preferences to achieve student body diversity. In FY 2003, OCR began
  an initiative to provide technical assistance and public education regarding
race-neutral approaches to achieving student body diversity.

OCR's continuation of this initiative seeks to foster innovative thinking
  about using race-neutral means to produce diversity in educational institutions
  and to help create a positive climate in which such race-neutral alternatives
  can be considered. OCR released a report entitled “Achieving Diversity: Race-Neutral
  Alternatives in American Education” on March 26, 2004. The report, a revised
  and expanded version of OCR's 2003 report, “Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary
  Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity,” catalogs many of the race-neutral
  approaches that K-12 schools, public and private colleges, and graduate and
professional schools are implementing across the country.

For example, the report describes partnerships between colleges and public
  schools that facilitate mentoring; state partnerships with the College Board
  to improve educational achievement among students attending low-performing
  schools; use of socioeconomic criteria for student assignment and university
  admissions; partnerships between community colleges and traditional research
  institutions that encourage students to transfer into research institutions;
  and class-rank plans guaranteeing university admission to high school seniors
who graduate within a specified percentage of their class.

*Title IX Administrative Requirements*

In April 2004, OCR issued a Dear Colleague Letter to the chief state school
  officers and state and local education agencies to remind them of certain
  requirements of the Title IX regulations. The regulations require recipients
  to designate a Title IX coordinator, adopt and disseminate a nondiscrimination
  policy, and implement grievance procedures to address complaints of discrimination
  on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. A similar letter
was issued in August 2004 to postsecondary institutions.

*Rights of All Students*

OCR issued a Dear Colleague Letter in September 2004 to local education
  agencies and postsecondary institutions clarifying the rights of all students,
  including students of faith, to be free from race, national origin, and sex
  discrimination in cases where such discrimination may be commingled with religious
  discrimination. The letter makes clear that, although OCR does not have jurisdiction
  over religious discrimination, OCR will exercise its jurisdiction to enforce
  the Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination, regardless
  of whether the groups targeted for discrimination also exhibit religious characteristics.
  Thus, for example, OCR aggressively investigates alleged race or ethnic harassment
against Arab Muslim, Sikh and Jewish students.

In addition, the letter reminds educational institutions that they must formulate,
  interpret, and apply their rules in a manner that respects the legal rights
  of students and faculty, including those court precedents interpreting the
concept of free speech.

*Extracurricular Activities*

OCR issued a joint Dear Colleague Letter with the Civil Rights Division of
  the U.S. Department of Justice reminding the chief state school officers and
  school districts that extracurricular activities must be operated in a nondiscriminatory
  manner. The letter makes clear that such practices as allocating awards or
  honors on the basis of race (for example, racially separate homecoming queens
  and kings, most popular student) or assistance in facilitating racially separate
  proms are inconsistent with federal law and should not be tolerated. Further,
  the letter states that the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department
  of Justice will act promptly to remedy such violations where they occur, through
  litigation, if necessary.

The Magnet Schools Assistance program (MSAP), administered by the Department's
  Office of Innovation and Improvement, provides financial assistance to school
  districts that are seeking to improve educational programs and to reduce, prevent
  or eliminate minority group isolation. The program provides three-year grants
  for the enhancement or establishment of magnet schools. The assistant secretary
  for civil rights is required to certify that applicant school districts will
  meet nondiscrimination assurances specified in the MSAP statute. OCR also assesses
  whether applicants' MSAP plans are consistent with Title VI of the *Civil
  Rights Act of 1964*.

During FY 2004, OCR provided technical assistance and certified new three-year
  awards for 50 school districts. OCR concluded that one district could not meet
  the nondiscrimination assurances required under the MSAP statute. OCR also
  reviewed and certified the annual reports of two districts already receiving
  MSAP assistance. As necessary, OCR also provided technical assistance to several
  MSAP recipients in complying with civil rights statutes as well as program
  goals.

Under OCR's Vocational Education Programs Guidelines, state
  vocational education agencies are responsible for conducting civil rights reviews
  and other compliance activities with their subrecipient schools and programs
  and reporting to OCR about these activities. State vocational education agency
  reports are submitted biennially to OCR. In FY 2004, OCR responded to more
  than 30 state agency reports by providing suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness
  of agencies' compliance and enforcement activities in improving student access
  to vocational education programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
  sex, and disability. During the two years covered by these reports, state agencies
  conducted more than 300 compliance reviews, 80 percent of which resulted in
  corrective action and improved opportunities for students.

OCR also conducts a four-day training conference each year for state agency
  civil rights staff on the procedures and techniques state agencies should use
  in conducting their civil rights compliance reviews and reporting to OCR. Training
  also is provided about program requirements and investigation techniques applicable
  to various complex civil rights issues.

In *United States v. Fordice* the U.S. Supreme Court set out
  standards for determining whether states that previously operated racially
  segregated higher education systems have met their affirmative duty to dismantle
  those systems and their vestiges under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
  Constitution and Title VI. After the decision, OCR negotiated and entered into
  agreements to eliminate such vestiges in Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
  Maryland, and Virginia.

During FY 2004, OCR continued to monitor the implementation of its higher
  education agreements with the seven states. The states made progress in enhancing
  the facilities of their historically black institutions. For example, Prairie
  View A&M and Texas Southern are continuing to enhance their facilities
  and also strengthen high demand academic programs. Florida made significant
  progress in the graduation of minority students from its two-year community
  colleges and increased the number of minority associate degree recipients who
  enroll in the state university system. It also increased funding for need-based
  and merit scholarships at its vocational schools, two-year colleges, and four-year
  universities.

Across the country, OCR’s enforcement program is having a profound influence 
  on the lives of students at all education levels. Following are some examples.

*Making Academic Adjustments for Students with Disabilities*

A student with neurological disorders was denied a request for academic adjustments in 
order to reduce distractions while taking examinations. The college resolved the complaint by designating a location for administering examinations for all students who, because of their disability, need a separate facility to take examinations. The college also agreed to post a sign to ensure students are not interrupted while taking examinations.

|“I wish to express my appreciation to the people that handled my
       son’s case.... [T]hey assured me that they would make sure my
       son’s
        accommodations would be followed. I knew they really cared. Thank you
       for  having these kinds of people available to care for kids who have
       come out  on the short end of the stick. I’m eternally grateful.” Oct.
          27, 2003, letter from 
        complainant after OCR completed investigation
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Extending Housing to Older Students*

A 40-year-old student was informed that university housing was reserved
  for students up to 22 years of age. The university resolved the complaint by
  providing housing to the student.

*Disciplining Students Without Regard to Race or National Origin*

The parent of an African American student alleged that her son was given
  a detention for being late to school while two white students, who also were
  tardy on the same date, received no sanction. OCR learned that the students
  involved were on their way to school in the same car when it ran out of gas.
  While the school was alerted immediately of the situation by the parents of
  the white students, it received no notice regarding the African American student.
  After sharing the information and discussing the circumstances, the assistant
  principal advised the parent that her son did not have to serve the Saturday
  School detention and that all records related to the incident would be expunged
from the student's file.

In one school district, OCR found that Hispanic students were required to
  attend a meeting and sign contracts accepting more severe disciplinary sanctions
  than those normally imposed. White students with similar school conduct records
  were not required to attend. In response to OCR's findings, the district sent
  a notice to all parents in English and Spanish about using the district's discrimination
  complaint procedures. Parents of the students who attended the meeting also
  received letters expressing regret and outlining steps the district will take
to prevent a recurrence.

*Protecting Students from Disability Harassment*

OCR found that a district failed to take action when informed that a disabled
  student was harassed during football games. The district resolved the complaint
  by developing grievance procedures addressing disability harassment and later
  trained staff and students on the new procedures. The district's disability
harassment policy and procedures are now contained in student and staff handbooks.

*Assigning Students Without Regard to Race*

A class complaint alleged that African American students were discriminatorily
  assigned to low level ability grouped classes. In investigating the complaint,
  OCR found the district's placement criteria were inconsistently applied resulting
  in a majority of African American students placed in low ability groups without
  sufficient educational justification. The district agreed to revise its ability
grouping procedures so that students are assigned in a nondiscriminatory manner.

OCR's investigation of a complaint against another school district found
  intentional segregation of African American kindergarten students. Before each
  school year, the school principal selected approximately 20 African American
  children from the pool of new kindergarten students and established an all
  African American class taught by the district's only African American kindergarten
  teacher. School administrators offered no legitimate nondiscriminatory educational
  justification for the establishment of the racially segregated class or its
  assignment to the school's sole African American teacher. Instead, OCR was
  informed the class was established in response to requests from African American
  parents and as an attempt to prevent “white flight.” The district made commitments
  to immediately assign students on a basis other than the race of the student
or teacher.

|“Once again I am writing to give you the status of my son and to
      thank  you for all you have done to make his life a success. In the fall,
      he finished  all of his class requirements. This semester he is interning
      at a newspaper... 
      He completed his courses with a 3.1 GPA. He has never gotten anything below
       a B- since his freshman year! His overall GPA went from a 0.9 at the end
       of freshman year.... You gave him the chance to achieve this success,
        and we are forever grateful.... He has found his way in life, and
        you  gave him the opportunity to do this. Thank you, thank you, thank
        you. We  can’t say it enough.”
        Jan. 25, 2004, letter from parent whose
        complaint was resolved by OCR several years ago
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Eliminating the Effect of a School Attendance Policy on Students with Disabilities*

A district's policy allows for adding three extra points to a student's average
  grade per quarter if a student has perfect attendance. The complainant alleged
  her daughter was adversely affected by this policy because of her asthma. Although
  the district questioned whether the daughter was disabled, it had not conducted
  an evaluation. The district agreed to evaluate the student to determine whether
  she had an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and,
  if so, whether reasonable modifications could be made to give the student an
equal opportunity to benefit from the attendance policy.

*Communicating with Parents Who Do Not Speak English*

A school district discriminated against parents of national origin minority
  students with limited English proficiency by failing to communicate information
  about their children in a language they could understand. The complaint was
  resolved based on the district's commitment to establish interpreter and translation
  services and other parent communication procedures. The procedures ensure that
  the district's communication of information to national origin minority parents
is as effective as its communication with parents who speak English.

*Communicating with Visually Impaired Students*

A complainant alleged that a university discriminated against a visually
  impaired student by sending him letters about his financial aid that he was
  unable to read. Under the agreement OCR negotiated, the university assigned
  an employee in the financial aid office to reformat outgoing correspondence
  to the complainant in a font size at least as large as that determined appropriate
  for written materials in the complainant's classes. The university also provided
  a page magnifier so that the complainant could review promptly any correspondence
  from the financial aid office that inadvertently is missed during the manual
review.

Another OCR investigation at a state university determined that visually
  impaired students did not receive requested alternate format textbooks in a
  timely manner. In several instances, the complainant had to withdraw from classes
  because textbooks were not available. The university made comprehensive commitments
  to ensure that visually impaired students have timely access to textbooks.
  This includes an improved tracking system so students know the status of their
requests.

*Eliminating Shortened School Day for Students with Disabilities*

Transportation scheduling resulted in a shortened school day for 140 students
  with disabilities. OCR's investigation showed that some students were denied
  as much as one hour of daily instruction. Under its resolution agreement, the
  district altered bus transportation schedules so that no student was denied
  access to a full school day. The district also provided compensatory services
for the students who were affected by previous transportation schedules.

*Providing Students with Disabilities Equal Access to a Childcare Program*

A parent requested a personal aide for her son, who has Tourette's syndrome
  and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), to permit his access to
  a childcare program. The school district did not act on the parent's request
  for an aide or consider another reasonable accommodation. This resulted in
  his termination from the program because of behaviors manifested by his disabilities.
  As a remedy, the district established a process for responding to all requests
  for accommodations and will apply the process to the student.

*Providing Necessary Services for Students with Disabilities*

A mobility-impaired student was forced to withdraw from driver's education
  because the district did not provide an automobile with hand controls and an
  instructor trained in their use. After discussing the matter with OCR, the
  district outfitted a car with hand controls and obtained the services of an
  instructor from the physical therapy department of a medical center, who trained
  the student in using the equipment. The district also informed OCR that the
  student's learning permit, which was suspended while she was not participating
  in the driver's education program, was reinstated. The complainant confirmed,
  after the district provided the accommodations, that his daughter was able
to participate in the road instruction portion of the driving course.

*Removing Discriminatory Pre-Admission Inquiries from Admission Applications*

An applicant was denied admission to a school district's adult and continuing
  education program based on a response to a question regarding disability on
  the admissions application. The district deleted the question from the application
and granted admission to the complainant.

|“For more than a decade, the female students at [the 
        high school] have been ignored, neglected, and lied to.... They were
         forced to settle for not less but nothing, while the boys sports programs
         were given anything they need. The response when you asked someone in
         charge was ‘we’ll look into it.’ The response when
         you  asked a parent of a female athlete was ‘there’s no
         hope’... 
        OCR solved years of frustration.... For the first time this year,
        our  girls will have adequate and equal facilities. We had been prepared
        to  settle for substandard just to get anything. God bless you.”
      E-mail message from parents 
        at a high school, Jan. 12, 2004
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Improving Athletic Facilities for Female Athletes*

A complainant alleged that a university was failing to treat female and male
  student athletes equally in the provision of practice and competitive facilities.
  OCR's on-site investigation revealed that the interior walls of the women's
  swimming pool had significant decay, which could present health and safety
  risks to the team's participants. The swimming facility was the only campus
  athletic facility that lacked adequate seating arrangements for spectators.
  The women's soccer field was the only competitive facility without a scoreboard.
  Also, the women's soccer team practiced on the same field used for competitions.
  The added wear and tear placed on the soccer field during practices affected
  the quality of the field available for competitions. The on-campus outdoor
  tennis courts were not available to the women's tennis team because of the
  courts' poor quality. As a result, the team had to practice during inconvenient
  evening hours at two off-site facilities. Also, the women's soccer field was
  inadequately watered and the women's softball field was never watered, which
  diminished the quality of the playing surfaces available to those teams. When
  reviewing the athletic program as a whole, OCR found that these disparities
  consistently disadvantaged the university's female athletes and were substantial
enough to deny them equal athletic opportunity.

Based on OCR's findings, the university agreed to repair and install spectator
  seating in the women's swimming facility and install an electronic scoreboard
  for the women's soccer field. The university ensured that the women's soccer
  team has access to a separate practice area that adequately met the team's
  practice needs. Under its agreement, the university also implemented a schedule
  for the equitable maintenance of all outdoor practice and competitive facilities
and will resurface or replace the on-campus outdoor tennis courts.

*Making Programs Accessible to Students with Disabilities*

An individual with a disability may not be excluded from an educational program
  because an institution's facilities are inaccessible or unusable by individuals
  with disabilities. OCR investigated a complaint on the accessibility of more
  than 1,500 portable trailers a district uses for regular classrooms. OCR substantiated
  that all of the trailers lacked ramps and accessible entrances , and also fell
  into the "new construction" provision of the Section 504 regulation.
  Additionally, we found that the programs housed in each of these trailers were
  used to provide educational programs which were not otherwise available in
  an accessible location. Therefore, all of the trailers were required to meet
  new construction accessibility standards. The district made commitments to
  either eliminate the portable trailers or make them accessible to students
with mobility impairments.

Students experienced serious problems because a university was not meeting
  accessibility standards. An undergraduate student had problems entering her
  dormitory and reaching the card readers to access vending machines. On one
  occasion, facilities staff bumped her scooter down the stairs to evacuate her
  from a building because they were unaware of how to transport the scooter.
  Another student who uses a wheelchair had to wait four months before the university
  installed a shower seat, hose, and handrails in his dormitory's bathroom. Students
  in wheelchairs had to be carried while trying to obtain services at the health
center.

OCR obtained a compliance agreement that ensured that the campus is fully
  accessible. The university agreed to a plan ensuring students with mobility
  impairments access to its programs and activities. Also, the university provided
  training to all administrators and its student life and disability services
  employees about Section 504 requirements for accessibility of existing facilities
and newly constructed or altered facilities.

*Ensuring Emergency Treatment for Students with Diabetes*

A mother of a student with diabetes alleged the district was in violation
  of the disability laws by not designating trained individuals to administer
  glucagon in the event the school nurse is not available at the time of an
  emergency. The district's policy permitted only registered nurses to administer
  injections but designates a partner nurse at each campus to fill in during
  an emergency. The resolution agreement required the district to provide specific
  information and guidelines on the use of the partner nurse. These include communication
  procedures between the school campus and partner nurse and a protocol for contacting
the parent and the emergency medical system and for monitoring response time.

*Assuring Students Are Not Placed in a Racially Segregated Educational Setting*

A complainant alleged a school discriminated against her son and approximately
  70 other third- and fourth-grade African American students by treating them
  differently on the basis of race. She alleged the students were taken from
  their classrooms, placed in a racially segregated setting, and given their
  test scores on the state's assessment test. The test results showed lower scores
  for African American students compared to white students. The vice principal
  confirmed that he talked to the African American students without any nonminority
  students being present. He stated the purpose of the meeting was to encourage
  African American students to improve their scores. The students were told if
they performed better in future tests, they would each be rewarded with a popsicle.

Under Title VI, no person on the basis of race shall be subject to segregation
  or separate treatment in any matter related to the receipt of any service or
  benefit. The district submitted assurances that it will not segregate African
  American students on the basis of race in any educational setting and will
  treat all similarly situated students the same. Also, the district agreed to
  write to parents, staff, and students explaining the incident and providing
assurance that this type of action will not occur in the future.

*Ensuring Opportunity for Students with Disabilities to Participate in School 
  Graduation*

A mother was informed that her son, because of his disability, would not
  be allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony the same as other students.
  Instead, the student would be seated with his parents and his diploma would
  be handed to him. The decision was based on the opinion of a special education
  teacher that the student would not be able to participate in the ceremony without
  difficulty. The complaint was resolved after the district reconvened the student's
  individual education program team to determine the full extent and manner in
which the student could participate in the graduation ceremony.

*Ending Racial Harassment of Minority Students*

A complaint alleged that a school district neglected to prevent and end racial harassment of African American and Hispanic students at a high school. The complainant stated that the district permitted a hallway where only white students were allowed to walk, discriminated in enforcing its dress code, and retaliated against the complainant for reporting incidents of racial harassment. OCR participated in detailed discussions and facilitated an agreement whereby the school district consented to conduct school and community forums to improve racial harmony and enforce disciplinary rules prohibiting racial harassment, including offensive conduct.

|“I am sorry to say that many of the parents will never know how you 
      have made a positive difference in the way their children will be treated 
      in the future. You are a piece of a puzzle that has been interlocked with 
      others so that children and their rights will be protected. I understand 
      this is your job, however it is your integrity I admire the most.”
      Aug 30, 2004, letter sent by 
        complainant to an OCR enforcement office
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress enacted the civil rights laws as a mandate to bring the formerly
  excluded into the mainstream of American education. These laws also are designed
  to carry out the U.S. Department of Education's commitment to assuring access
  to equal educational opportunity for every individual. 
 The federal civil rights laws have helped bring about profound changes in American
 education and improved the educational opportunities of millions of students.
 Many barriers that once prevented minorities, women and girls, and individuals
 with disabilities from freely choosing the educational opportunities and careers
 they would like to pursue have been eliminated.

While we applaud this progress, we recognize that there are persons who continue
 to be denied equal access to quality education. However, behind statistical
 data and research findings is a human face—a student hoping for a chance to
 learn and excel. This hope is expressed eloquently in the letter below from
 a college student with a disability. The statement serves as a reminder of the
 potential impact of the civil rights laws in making a difference in improving
individual lives.

|I am one of the millions of students who have a learning disability, dyslexia,
    and I also have health problems that make ordinary daily living a challenge....
    The life I live is hard but not impossible. I am not looking for pity
      or sympathy or platitudes. I do not want undeserved special treatment.
      I am not an exception, a freak, a statistical abnormality. I am a real
      person with real disabilities. The problems I live with are hard for you
      to see. I have no wheelchair, white cane or hearing aid. If you use your
      imagination, maybe you can picture my life, wanting to talk, to listen,
      to read, to learn, and not being able to. Now add to that the confusion
      of harsh, chronic pain and frequent loss of motor control. This is my condition,
      a condition compounded by stress and frustration.
    All I ask is a little respect in a world where people and institutions
      are allowed to discriminate against disabled persons in the interest of
      convenience and conformity. I can achieve anything, learn to do anything,
      but not in an environment of censure and bureaucratic red tape. I am asking
      for a chance, a fair chance, to get an education. I am willing to fight
      for my future. I should not be penalized by the attitudes of people who
      are allowed to sweep the disabled under a rug, refusing them their rights
      as individuals.
    I am presenting this matter to you so that you might better understand
      the position of disabled persons. We are fighting for our lives, every
      day, both literally and figuratively. We have to fight for justice, both
      for ourselves and for each other, because, whether our disabilities are
      visible or not, we are easy to ignore. I pray that you will help me complete
      my education and that you will work to ensure the rights of all disabled
      students....    
    Letter from a college student forwarded to OCR
        by a former member of the House of Representatives
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                     | Race / 
      National 
      Origin | Sex     | Disability | Age    | Multiple | Other   | Total    
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------- | ---------- | ------ | -------- | ------- | ---------
|Boston               | 41                                   | 20      | 212        | 3      | 52       | 22      | **350**  
|New York             | 66                                   | 23      | 231        | 8      | 38       | 74      | **440**  
|Philadelphia         | 61                                   | 21      | 223        | 13     | 49       | 34      | **401**  
|District of Columbia | 65                                   | 15      | 124        | 2      | 25       | 24      | **255**  
|Atlanta              | 156                                  | 28      | 333        | 8      | 58       | 69      | **652**  
|Dallas               | 118                                  | 31      | 292        | 1      | 63       | 58      | **563**  
|Chicago              | 94                                   | 41      | 240        | 12     | 80       | 36      | **503**  
|Cleveland            | 56                                   | 14      | 171        | 3      | 25       | 20      | **289**  
|Kansas City          | 70                                   | 20      | 145        | 6      | 48       | 29      | **318**  
|Denver               | 52                                   | 14      | 156        | 7      | 27       | 90      | **346**  
|San Francisco        | 117                                  | 37      | 344        | 6      | 74       | 60      | **638**  
|Seattle              | 50                                   | 19      | 153        | 2      | 44       | 21      | **289**  
|**National**         | **946**                              | **283** | **2,624**  | **71** | **583**  | **537** | **5,044**

|U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
    OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 
        20202-1100
        Customer Service #: (800) 421-3481 * TDD#: (877) 521-2172 * http://www.ed.gov/ocr                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|**Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
        Rhode Island, Vermont** 
        Office for Civil Rights,*Boston Office*
        U.S. Department of Education
        33 Arch Street, Suite 900
        Boston, MA 02110-1491
        Telephone: (617) 289-0111
        Fax: (617) 289-0150Email: OCR.Boston@ed.gov                                
|**New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands** 
      
      Office for Civil Rights,*New York Office*
      U. S. Department of Education
      32 Old Slip, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005-2500
      Telephone: (646) 428-3900
      Fax: (646) 428-3843Email: 
      OCR.NewYork@ed.gov                                                         
|**Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West 
      Virginia**
      Office for Civil Rights,*Philadelphia Office*
      U.S. Department of Education
      The Wanamaker Building
      100 Penn Square East, Suite 515
      Philadelphia, PA 19107-3323
      Telephone: (215) 656-8541 
      Fax: (215) 656-8605Email: 
      OCR.Philadelphia@ed.gov
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|**Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee**
      Office for Civil Rights,*Atlanta Office*
      U.S. Department of Education
      61 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 19T70
      Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
      Telephone: (404) 562-6350 
      Fax: (404) 562-6455Email: OCR.Atlanta@ed.gov                                                                           
|**Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas** 
      
      Office for Civil Rights,*Dallas Office*
      U.S. Department of Education
      1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1620
      Dallas, TX 75201-6810
      Telephone: (214) 661-9600
      Fax: (214) 661-9587Email: OCR.Dallas@ed.gov                                                                          
|**North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, 
      D.C.**
      Office for Civil Rights,*District of Columbia Office*
      U.S. Department of Education
      P.O. Box 14620
      Washington, DC 20044-4620
      Telephone: (202) 208-2545 
      Fax: (202) 208-7797Email: OCR.DC@ed.gov                                                        

|Last Modified: 11/01/2007
|-------------------------