|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 SchoolsAccountabilityTItle IX Initiatives*Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act* Rulemaking
|Putting Reading First                                     
|                                                          
|Moving English Language Learners to English Proficiency   
|                                                          
|Promoting Innovative Programs and Informed Parental Choice
|                                                          
|Encouraging Safe Schools                                  
|                                                          
|Accountability                                            
|                                                          
|TItle IX Initiatives                                      
|                                                          
|*Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act* Rulemaking       
|                                                          
|5.                                                         | OTHER EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                                                          
|                                                           | Equal Opportunity in Vocational EducationHigher Education Desegregation AgreementsExamples of OCR Case Resolutions                                                                                                                                 
|Equal Opportunity in Vocational Education                 
|                                                          
|Higher Education Desegregation Agreements                 
|                                                          
|Examples of OCR Case Resolutions                          
|                                                          
|6.                                                         | LOOKING AHEAD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|                                                          
|7.                                                         | APPENDIX A: OFFICES AND ADDRESSES                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|                                                          
|8.                                                         | APPENDIX B:  FY 2005 COMPLAINT RECEIPTS BY OCR ENFORCEMENT OFFICES                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                          
|9.                                                         | APPENDIX C:  SAMPLE OF OCR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE AT WWW.ED.GOV/OCR                                                                                                                                                           

**Office for Civil Rights**
  Stephanie  Monroe*Assistant Secretary*

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in 
  whole or in part is granted. The publication's citation should be: U.S. Department 
  of Education, Office for Civil Rights, *Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 
  2005*, 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 1-877-576-7734.

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 1-202-260-0852 or 1-202-260-0818.

It is my pleasure to present our *Annual  Report to Congress* for FY 2005, which marked the 25th anniversary  of the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education (ED).  In this report, the Office for Civil Rights  (OCR) is providing a summary of its FY 2005 accomplishments.  Also, in recognition of our 25th  anniversary, we are highlighting some of the significant cases that OCR has  resolved over the years.

The last quarter century was eventful and  challenging for OCR.  Major U.S. Supreme  Court decisions, such as *Grove City*, *Fordice*, *Gratz,* and *Grutter*,  guided OCR’s civil rights enforcement responsibilities, while legislation, such  as the *Civil Rights Restoration Act of  1988* and the *No Child Left Behind Act  of 2001*, provided clarification of those responsibilities.  During this time, OCR resolved tens of  thousands of discrimination complaints and compliance reviews affecting  millions of our nation’s students through its vigorous enforcement of the civil  rights laws, while also providing technical assistance to millions of teachers,  administrators, parents, and students to encourage voluntary compliance.

|**The  task of educating our children requires us to take the long view, looking to  the future while learning from the past.   And the past has a lot to teach us....**
      ***Margaret  Spellings,******Secretary  of Education, 2005***
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCR operates today in a changed world.  In comparison to the library facilities,  primitive filing systems, word processing equipment, and telephones in use when  ED was established in May 1980, OCR’s staff now use state-of-the-art computer  and telecommunications equipment and a Case and Activity Management System with  integrated document management functions.   In 1980, OCR was under federal court order to process its complaints in  a timely fashion; in 2005, no longer under court order, OCR resolved almost 92  percent of its cases within 180 days.   To help the public understand how OCR handles complaints and compliance  reviews, the *Case Resolution and Investigation Manual*, updated in May  2005, clearly sets forth the procedures used by OCR to investigate and resolve  cases of alleged discrimination.  You  can find the manual on OCR’s informative Web site, www.ed.gov/ocr.

While OCR has successfully brought its  enforcement efforts into the 21st century, many of the discrimination issues  OCR has addressed over time still persist.   For example, OCR continues to work with schools to ensure that  scientifically based reading programs are used so minority students and  students with limited English proficiency are not misidentified and misplaced  in special education classes; that students with disabilities receive a free,  appropriate public education, and schools and colleges and universities provide  program accessibility; and that recipients of ED financial assistance comply  with the procedural requirements under sex discrimination regulations.

We have included in  this 25th‐anniversary *Annual Report to Congress* a few quotations and  case resolution stories from previous years to provide a flavor of the  continuing nature of OCR’s endeavors over the years, as well as information on  OCR’s substantive achievements in FY 2005 and the challenges facing us.

Respectfully  submitted,

Stephanie Monroe
  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 prohibiting discrimination on the bases of race, color, national  origin, sex, disability, and age by recipients of federal financial assistance.   These laws are:

- Title VI of  the *Civil Rights Act of 1964* (prohibiting discrimination based on race,  color or national origin);
- Title IX of  the *Education Amendments of 1972* (prohibiting sex discrimination in  education programs);
- 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, whether or not they receive federal  financial assistance, such as elementary and secondary education systems and  institutions, institutions of higher education and vocational education [other  than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, and other health-related  schools], and libraries).

In  addition, OCR enforces the *Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act*.  This law addresses equal access for the Boy  Scouts of America and other designated youth groups.  The act applies to any public elementary school, public secondary  school, or state or local education agency that has a designated open forum or  limited public forum and that receives funds from the U.S. Department of  Education.

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

Coverage  of these civil rights laws extends to:

- 17,468  public elementary and secondary education agencies;1
- 4,216  colleges and universities;2  and
- thousands  of institutions conferring certificates below the associate degree level, such  as training schools for truck drivers and cosmetologists, and other entities,  such as libraries, museums, and vocational rehabilitation agencies.3

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:

- more than  48.3 million students attending public elementary and secondary schools; 4  and
- more than  17.3 million students attending postsecondary degree-granting institutions,  such as 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 2005, OCR’s budget was $89,375,000,  with full-time equivalent (FTE) staff of 640.   See Figure 1 on historical funding and FTE.

### Figure 1: 
  U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil RightsAppropriations, FTE & 
  Workload Data FY 1995– FY 2005



1 U.S. Department of Education,  National Center for Education Statistics (2005). *Digest of Education  Statistics Tables and Figures 2004–05*,Washington, D.C.:  Table 86.

2 Ibid, Table  244.

3 Ibid, Table  355.

4 U.S. Department of Education, National  Center for Education Statistics (2005). *Projections of Education Statistics* to 2014 (NCES-2005074), Washington, D.C.: Table 1, p. 45.

5 Ibid, 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 investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination,  conducting compliance reviews, monitoring corrective action agreements, and  providing technical assistance.  The  majority of OCR’s staff is assigned to the enforcement offices, which are  located in Boston, New York, Philadelphia (Eastern Division); Washington, D.C.,  Atlanta, Dallas (Southern Division); Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City  (Midwestern Division); and Denver, San Francisco, Seattle (Western  Division).  Appendix A lists the  enforcement offices and contact information.

Image map of Headquarters and 12 enforcement offices around the nation.

One of the most important ways OCR carries out its  responsibilities is by investigating and resolving complaints.  People who believe there has been a  violation of the civil rights laws enforced by OCR may file a complaint with  the appropriate enforcement office.

In resolving complaints, OCR’s primary objectives  are to investigate promptly the allegations of discrimination and to determine  accurately whether any civil rights laws have been violated.  In FY 2005, OCR received 5,533 complaints  and resolved 5,365, some of which had been filed in previous years.  Appendix B shows FY 2005 complaint receipts  by OCR enforcement offices.

Timeliness is critical to students and parents in  the resolution of civil rights issues and is a useful measure of the efficiency  and effectiveness of our complaint resolution process.  OCR’s goal is to have 80 percent of resolved  complaints resolved within 180 days of being filed.  In FY 2005, OCR resolved almost 92 percent of its resolved  complaints within 180 days.

During FY 2005, OCR continued using an investigative  approach that stresses full investigation of complaints.  If OCR’s investigation finds areas of  noncompliance with the civil rights laws, OCR enters into negotiations with  recipients to correct the violations and reach a voluntary resolution  agreement.  It is only after OCR has  advised recipients of their failure to comply with the civil rights laws and  has determined 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 for judicial enforcement.

As in most years, the  majority of complaints OCR received in FY 2005 alleged discrimination on the  basis of disability (52 percent).

Figure 2 shows the percentage of complaint receipts by jurisdiction.

Pie chart showing FY 2005 Complaint Caseload by Jurisdiction, 5,533 Reciepts. Disability Discrimination 52% (2,893); Sex Discrimination 6% (319); Race/National Origin 18% (1,012); Other Complaints 9% (521); Multiple Allegations 13% (706); Age Discrimination 1% (82).

*Other includes mostly complaints over which OCR had no jurisdiction or that were referred to another agency. ***Figure 2***

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 or that may not have been raised by complaints.   It has been OCR’s experience that targeted  compliance reviews and proactive initiatives increase the impact of OCR’s  resources, complement the complaint resolution process, and can benefit larger  numbers of students than sole reliance on complaint resolutions, which may  involve only one student per case.

|**The  review your office conducted was quite helpful in ensuring that our district is  in compliance and that we are consistent in disseminating information about  Title IX to students, families, staff and administrators in our schools and in  the broader community.**
      ***Comment  from school official to OCR, 2005***
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCR initiated  73 compliance reviews in FY 2005 and successfully resolved 66, 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, members of the public and in certain circumstances, by  statistical data to the extent it is supported by other sources of information.

In FY 2005, 39  of the 73 compliance reviews initiated by OCR focused on the responsibilities  of elementary and secondary school districts and postsecondary institutions to  ensure they meet Title IX procedural requirements, such as designating a Title  IX coordinator, adopting and disseminating a nondiscrimination policy, and  putting in place grievance procedures to address complaints of discrimination  on the basis of sex.

OCR initiated  11 compliance reviews in FY 2005 focused on eliminating barriers for  postsecondary students who have physical disabilities, including such issues as  accessibility of residence halls, classrooms, academic buildings, and parking  facilities.   Continuing a nationwide  initiative under Title VI, Section 504 and Title II to address the misidentification  of minority students in special education, OCR initiated 10 compliance reviews  in FY 2005 examining whether minority students were being denied important  educational benefits because of inappropriate inclusion in or exclusion from  special education.

Special  education programs also are essential to ensure that students with  disabilities, including those who also have limited English proficiency (LEP),  receive an appropriate education.  In FY  2005, OCR conducted seven compliance reviews in school districts around the  country to determine whether LEP students were being inappropriately included  in or excluded from special education because of their limited English  proficiency and to ensure that such students are provided the services they  need so they can participate meaningfully in the districts’ educational  programs.

Some of the 66 compliance reviews OCR resolved in FY  2005 included:  24 involving Title IX  procedural requirements; 19 involving special education misidentification of  minority students; and 12 involving physical accessibility of postsecondary  education facilities.

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

|OCR Compliance Reviews by Issue
      FY2005                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**Compliance Issue**                                                                                            
|Accessibility                                                                                                   
|High Stakes Testing                                                                                             
|Limited English Proficient Students and Special Education/Services for Students with Limited English Proficiency
|Magnet Schools Assistance Program                                                                               
|Minorities and Special Education                                                                                
|Procedural Requirements (Title IX)                                                                              
|Sexual Harassment                                                                                               
|Student Benefit/Treatment                                                                                       
|**Total**                                                                                                       
|* Includes compliance reviews carried over from previous years. 
      ***Figure 
      3***                    

To ensure accountability and effectiveness in  enforcing the civil rights laws, OCR monitors complaint and compliance review  resolution agreements to ensure the commitments made by school districts,  colleges, universities, and other appropriate entities, in those agreements are  carried out.  During FY 2005, OCR  monitored 1,838 resolution agreements.   Following are some examples of cases monitored in FY 2005 demonstrating  OCR’s impact on both individual students and groups of students.

- Pursuant  to a resolution agreement with OCR, a school district is now providing girls with  locker room facilities equivalent to boys and ensuring equivalent practice  facilities, coaching and practice time, competition uniforms, and trainer  availability to both male and female athletes during practices and scheduled  games.

|**. . . [T]he diligence and professionalism  of [the OCR investigator’s] efforts to resolve this matter...were exemplary and  will provide this child with greater opportunity for success.**
      ***Letter  from an assistant superintendent
      to OCR, 2005***
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Students  with disabilities, who were enrolled at a college and who were clients of the  state’s vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency, had not received requested  academic adjustments and, as a result, were not able to participate effectively  in the college’s academic programs.   Consistent with the OCR resolution agreement, the college worked with  the state VR agency to develop a process for   1) sharing responsibility for ensuring academic adjustments are provided  to students with disabilities; 2) submitting required documentation of services  in a timely manner; and 3) designating a campus liaison to coordinate services  for VR students with disabilities.
- In  response to an OCR complaint resolution agreement, a school district issued  letters of apology to the parents of Latino students who were discriminated  against in school disciplinary actions, provided nondiscrimination training to  its staff, reviewed policies and procedures to ensure nondiscriminatory  treatment in future student discipline incidents, and sent a notice to all  parents in the district on how to bring discrimination concerns to the  attention of district authorities and how to use the district’s complaint  procedures.

- A  school district discriminated against students with disabilities by organizing  its bus transportation schedule in a way that resulted in shortened school days  for students with disabilities.  OCR  ensured the school district changed its bus schedule to allow for a full school  day for these students, who also were provided compensatory educational services  for instructional time missed due to the previous early dismissals.

|**Although we would never say we are happy to be subject of a complaint, we genuinely appreciate the pleasant and professional demeanor with which you and your colleagues conducted your site visit. We also appreciate your willingness to talk about ways [we] might be able to address some other accommodation challenges that our institution is facing. Thank you.**
      ***Comment  by a university official to OCR, 2005***
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- A  large urban school district agreed to make magnet school programs at 19  elementary schools and two high schools accessible to students with mobility  impairments.  OCR determined the  district made substantial renovations at the 21 schools by installing ramps,  elevators, visual alarms, computerized card catalogs and signage, and by making  boys’ and girls’ restrooms accessible.
- A  community college discriminated against a student who uses a wheelchair by  applying eligibility criteria for attending an annual student government  conference different from the criteria applied to students without  disabilities. OCR monitored an agreement in which the college agreed to provide  reasonable accommodations for the student, who attended the conference.

Technical  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 information and other support services through a variety of methods,  including on-site consultations, conferences, training, community meetings, and  publication and dissemination of materials to many interested parties,  including students, parents, teachers, administrators, schools, colleges,  universities, and community groups.   Appendix C lists a sample of the technical assistance publications  available on OCR’s Web site (www.ed.gov/ocr).

|**We  are grateful to [OCR] for assisting us in this complex matter, which had proved  intractable for two years.... [T]he students and I cannot thank you enough for  all your work, which has opened the door for them to a more equal educational  opportunity....**
    ***Comment  from an OCR complainant, 2005***
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



OCR has aligned its resources with the goals and objectives in President Bush’s *No Child Left Behind Act* related to OCR’s mission.  This section focuses on OCR activities in support of *NCLB* and other high priority activities.

Research shows reading difficulties and behavioral  problems are among the most common reasons for referring students for special  education evaluation and, ultimately, for their placement in special education  programs.  OCR’s experience, including  its previous investigations, has shown minority students and students with  limited English proficiency, in particular, may be misidentified and placed in  certain special education categories.

Students inappropriately placed in  special education programs may not receive the same curriculum content as other  students and may face barriers in their later efforts to obtain a regular high  school diploma, pursue postsecondary education, or prepare for employment.  Similarly, students who need special  education services, but who are not identified, evaluated, and provided such  services, also face significant barriers to future success.

Research also shows classroom interventions  addressing reading problems can reduce the number of children who are  inappropriately referred for evaluation and placed in special education  programs.  In working with school  districts, OCR emphasizes the importance of implementing high-quality  research-based reading programs, both in order to reduce the number of students  who are inappropriately referred for special education evaluation and placed in  special education programs and to ensure students who need, but are not  receiving, special education are provided the services they require.

|**Education  is a civil right.  To deny that right is  to cancel all other rights.  An educated  child is a child who can grow up to be a full participant in society, voting,  finding meaningful work, getting involved in the community, and working to  achieve his or her own American dream....**
    ***Rod Paige,******Former Secretary of Education, 2002***
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For many years now, OCR has been  conducting compliance reviews in school districts around the country on the  issue of misidentification of all students, particularly minority students, in  the provision of special education services.   The initiative also focuses on ensuring national origin minority students  are not identified, referred for evaluation, and placed in special education  programs based on their limited English proficiency.

For example, in a FY 2005 compliance  review of a school district, OCR determined the district discriminated  against national-origin minority students with limited English proficiency  (LEP) and American Indian students by inappropriately placing them in special  education programs because of their English language skills.  The district agreed to meet effectively the  educational needs of its LEP and American Indian students and to ensure LEP and  American Indian students are appropriately identified and appropriately placed  in special education programs.

Also in FY 2005, OCR  successfully resolved a compliance review of a school district with an  agreement ensuring  several hundred students identified as cognitively disabled and learning  disabled are evaluated appropriately and provided education programs and  services appropriate to their needs. The  district agreed to:  correct problems  in its assessments and consideration of adaptive behavior for students who may  be eligible for special education services; ensure consistent consideration of  evaluation data; and review the eligibility and placement of those students who  have been affected by shortcomings in these areas.  Students who no longer receive special education or whose  placement is changed as a result of the revaluations will receive remedial or  other appropriate transitional services, as needed.

In FY 2005, OCR continued to work with states and  school districts to ensure that LEP students receive appropriate language  services, language acquisition programs are research-based, and LEP students  meet performance standards.

|It  is refreshing to have someone listen and really care about what is being said....  My greatest respect goes out to you and the organization you work for.
      ***Note from an OCR
    complainant, 2005***
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, a state education agency agreed to  revise its guidance to local school districts on their responsibilities to LEP  students and their parents and on identifying and assessing students who may  require alternative language services.   The state will provide annual training to school district staff  regarding Title VI obligations to LEP students and will establish a statewide  training program for school district professionals who have not yet satisfied  all of the state’s certification standards related to the instruction of LEP  students.

In a compliance review, OCR determined a school  district was not conducting periodic evaluations of its English language  learners program sufficient in content or scope to identify needed program  modifications.  The district signed an  agreement with OCR to evaluate the program in areas such as identification and  assessment, instructional services and delivery, program participation,  staffing, instructional materials and resources, exit criteria, and segregation.  In conducting its program evaluation, the  district also will consider whether its program is effectively developing LEP  students’ English language proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, and  comprehension and whether students are showing academic progress in other  subject areas.

In fulfilling its compliance agreement with OCR,  a school district hired a consultant from the parent organization of Project  Talk, a U.S. Department of Education academic excellence program, to assist in  refining identification and assessment processes for LEP students, designing  appropriate alternative language program services, providing staff development  opportunities, and encouraging parent involvement.  Among the changes to the district’s program resulting from the consultant’s  assistance was the creation of a two-way Spanish-English immersion  instructional program for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which  benefits both LEP students and their native English-speaking peers.

*Magnet Schools Assistance Program*

The Magnet Schools Assistance program (MSAP),  administered by the Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement, provides  financial assistance to school districts 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 grant applicant school districts will meet nondiscrimination assurances  specified in the MSAP statute. OCR also assesses whether grant applicants' MSAP  plans are consistent with Title VI of the *Civil Rights Act of 1964*.

|**Americans  can proudly say that we have overcome the institutionalized bigotry that****Dr.  King fought.  Now our challenge is to  make sure that every child has a fair chance to succeed********in life.   That is why education is the great civil rights issue of our time.**
      ***Remarks by******President  George W. Bush, 2002***
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During FY 2005, OCR provided technical  assistance and certified new three-year awards for two school districts.  OCR also reviewed and certified the annual  reports of 50 districts already receiving MSAP assistance.  In addition, OCR provided technical  assistance to several MSAP recipients in complying with civil rights statutes,  as well as program goals.

Providing  timely, accessible information for parents, students, teachers, and education  decision- makers is another important priority. OCR uses technology to improve  customers’ access to OCR information through its Web site (www.ed.gov/ocr).

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. Civil rights data for 2004 was  collected through the Supplemental Survey Tool Civil Rights Data Collection.  The 2004 Data Collection is the first use of the Supplemental Survey Tool,  which will assist EDEN in developing a data system with the capability to  collect district- and school-level data from school districts and integrate  civil rights and other data with the EDEN database, including essential *No Child Left Behind Act* data.

The Civil Rights Data Collection is primarily Web-based.  For  the 2004 Civil Rights Data Collection, the initial year of the Web-based data  collection, approximately two-thirds of the districts reporting (4,000 out of  6,000) were successful in using the new Web-based tool to report their data  (the other districts opted to use more traditional media, such as CD-ROMs or  paper forms, to report their 2004 data.)   The overall response rate to the 2004 Data Collection, 95  percent of all surveyed districts and 100 percent of large and  intermediate districts, is consistent with the response rate for  previous OCR surveys.  The  information obtained from this Data Collection will help school administrators  and researchers evaluate schools and aid parents in making informed choices.

*Postsecondary  Accessibility Reviews*

OCR  has initiated a number of accessibility reviews focused on eliminating barriers for postsecondary  students who have physical disabilities.   For example, OCR reviewed a college’s on-campus student housing and  science laboratory programs and identified  numerous accessibility concerns in both areas.   In response to OCR’s findings, the college has successfully modified  four apartments to make them accessible and created accessible parking spaces  and an accessible route to the building.   Further building modifications will be initiated to make the science  laboratory facilities accessible.

OCR conducted a compliance review of a college  to determine whether its programs and activities were readily accessible to and  usable by persons with mobility impairments.   Based on OCR’s findings, the college agreed to make structural and  parking modifications at two of its campus centers, implement comprehensive  procedures to ensure that individuals with mobility impairments have physical  access to the college's programs and activities, and train college staff on these procedures.

OCR  also supports those provisions of the *No  Child Left Behind Act* focusing on safe schools.  Harassment in schools can deny students the right to an education  free of discrimination, threaten students’ physical or emotional well-being,  influence how well they do in school, and make it difficult for students to  achieve their career goals.   Preventing  and remedying harassment in schools is essential to ensuring a safe environment  in which students can learn.

*Racial Harassment*

OCR  investigated a complaint alleging racial harassment by an assistant football  coach in a school district.  OCR found a  racially hostile environment had developed when a student on the football team  was called a racially derogatory term by the assistant coach, in the presence  of another student, and when another member of the coaching staff, in front of  other students, used racially derogatory terms in reference to a student’s  parent.  In response to OCR’s findings,  the district agreed to:  develop and  provide training for members of the athletic department regarding racial  harassment and what to do about it; publish a notice to the school community regarding  racial discrimination and harassment and a description of the school’s  complaint process; send a notice to all students and parents of students on the  football team expressing regret about the incident, confirming the district’s  commitment to preventing harassment, outlining the steps taken in response, and  inviting students or parents to report similar incidents to school  administrators or counselors; and send letters of regret to the two students  most affected by the harassment.

|**The  “American Dream” isn’t guaranteed.   We’ve got to go out and earn it.   After putting our best foot forward, victory should not be snatched away  by incidents of discrimination...what lies at the core of civil rights  enforcement is the notion that personal responsibility plus opportunity yields  success.  That prosperity can come to  those who’ve put their best foot forward.   That it’s the business of enforcement officials to ferret out  discrimination so that [these] obstacles don’t impede their progress... .**
    ***Michael L. Williams,******Former  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1991***
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Racial  and Disability Harassment*

OCR  received a complaint alleging a special education student enrolled in a school  district had been subjected to harassment based on race and disability.  OCR’s investigation found the student and  other minority students with disabilities were subjected to derogatory  name-calling by other students.  As part  of its corrective action agreement, which will be monitored by OCR, the  district provided information about harassment to district students and  conducted training for regular and special education teachers, administrators,  and other staff at the school addressing appropriate responses to racial and  disability harassment, as well as notice and reporting requirements.
   *Sexual  Harassment*

OCR  received a complaint from a parent who alleged a school district failed to  respond to allegations that her son was retaliated against and harassed at  school and during school-sponsored activities for participating as a witness in  a sexual harassment complaint filed with the district.   The school district agreed to revise its  procedures to prohibit retaliation for participating in a sexual harassment  investigation, resolve promptly and equitably allegations of sexual harassment  brought to its attention, and notify staff, students, and parents of these  procedures.

In another case, a complainant alleged a college failed  to take appropriate action after she complained a fellow student was sexually  harassing her.   She further alleged the  college retaliated against her by denying her financial aid because she filed a  sexual harassment complaint at the college and refused to sign an  agreement.  OCR negotiated an early  complaint resolution in which the college agreed to provide financial aid,  guidance, and tutoring to the complainant. The college also accepted OCR’s  offer to train staff on Title IX and how to address sexual harassment.

*Sexual  Harassment in Special Education Classes*

OCR received a complaint from an individual who alleged  her daughter was subjected to sexual harassment in her special education  classes. In response to OCR’s investigation, the school district revised its  policies and procedures to address sexual harassment complaints, provided  training to staff at each of the district’s schools and reviewed its policies  and procedures regarding discrimination on the basis of sex and disability,  sexual harassment, and the role of staff in these procedures.   The district also publicized these policies  and the grievance procedures to parents in a newspaper advertisement, a letter  to parents, and a special edition of the district’s newsletter.

*Case  and Activity Management System*

OCR’s Case and Activity Management System (CAMS) builds on  the existing Case Management pilot that concluded at the end of FY 2004.  CAMS includes case management capabilities  for maintaining, managing, and tracking OCR's complaint, compliance review, and  proactive activities, such as significant technical assistance.  In addition, a new Activities Management  module was being developed in FY 2005, which will allow for automated tracking  of other OCR activities carried out by the Program Legal Group in OCR  headquarters, including such items as legal and policy guidance, case support,  data collection and analysis, information dissemination, and program coordination  with other ED components and federal agencies.

CAMS  also includes an integrated document management function, which will enable  collaboration and electronic storage of service deliverables, ranging from  those used by OCR field offices, such as case record association, case-work  tools, and electronic storage of case related documents, to those documents  pertinent to non-case related activities, such as legal documents, research,  reports, regulations, legislation, briefing materials, religious exemptions,  Memoranda of Understanding, and Assurances of Compliance.  In addition, the document management  function will house an updated central repository for documents on OCR policy  and compliance standards, case-work tools, technical assistance tools, and training  materials to be used by all OCR components.

*Athletics*

In OCR’s 1979 Intercollegiate Athletics Policy  Interpretation, the Department established a three-part test that OCR applies  in determining whether an institution is effectively accommodating student  athletic interests and abilities.  An  institution is in compliance with the three-part test if it has met any one of  the following three parts of the test:   1) the percent of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate  to the percent of male and female students enrolled at the school; 2) the  school has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation  opportunities which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and  abilities of members of the underrepresented sex; or 3) the school’s present  program is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of  the underrepresented sex.

|**...[O]ur  nation must work to ensure that all American children have an equal chance to  succeed and reach their full potential.**
        ***Remarks  by******President  George W. Bush, 2003***
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On  March 17, 2005, OCR issued “Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate  Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test—Part Three.” Accompanying the Additional  Clarification was a “User’s Guide to Student Interest Surveys under Title IX”  and a related technical report.  The  Additional Clarification and User’s Guide provide further guidance on  recipients’ obligations under the three-part test and are designed to help  recipients understand the flexibility afforded under the test.  The Additional Clarification outlines  specific factors that guide OCR’s analysis of the third option for compliance  with the three-part test.  The User’s  Guide contains a sample survey instrument to measure student interest in  participating in intercollegiate varsity athletics.

*Single-Sex Education*

In  March 2004, ED published a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the *Federal Register* requesting public  comment on proposed amendments to the Title IX regulations that would provide  additional flexibility for school districts in providing single-sex classes and  schools.   OCR received approximately  5,860 comments on the proposed amendments.   During FY 2005, OCR continued the process of analyzing the comments and  drafting final regulatory amendments.

*Procedural  Safeguards*

In April  2004, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague” letter reminding all school districts to  designate a Title IX coordinator, adopt and disseminate a nondiscrimination  policy, and put grievance procedures in place to address complaints of  discrimination on the basis of sex, as required by the regulations implementing  Title IX.  A similar Dear Colleague  letter was sent to postsecondary education institutions in August 2004.  Following up, in FY 2005, OCR initiated 39  and resolved 24 compliance reviews on institutions’ compliance with Title IX  procedural requirements.

For example, OCR conducted compliance reviews at  four school districts of varying sizes to determine their compliance with Title  IX procedural requirements and found noncompliance in all four districts.  In voluntary resolution agreements, each of  the districts agreed to provide notice of a Title IX coordinator, adopt and  disseminate an effective Title IX nondiscrimination notice, and adopt and  publish grievance procedures for the prompt and equitable resolution of  complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sex.

The *Boy  Scouts of America Equal Access Act,* part of the *No Child Left Behind Act,* addresses equal access for the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth  groups listed  in Title 36 of the *U.S. Code*.  The act applies to any public elementary  school, public secondary school, or state or local education agency that has a  designated open forum or limited public forum and that receives funds from the  U.S. Department of Education. On Oct. 19, 2004, ED published a “Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking” in the *Federal  Register,* inviting public comment on proposed regulations. Among other  things, the proposed regulations required that OCR collect assurances of  compliance with the law from applicants for funds made available through ED  that are covered by the *Boy Scouts Act*.

More than 3,000 parties submitted comments on  the proposed regulations. During FY 2005, OCR analyzed the comments and began  the process of drafting final regulations.   OCR also worked with other offices within ED and with the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) to develop a revised assurance of compliance form.  On Feb. 14, 2006, OMB approved OCR’s revised  assurance of compliance form, the Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights  Certificate, which now lists the *Boy Scouts Act* as well as other laws  enforced by OCR.

On March 24, 2006, ED published the final regulations in the *Federal  Register*.  The regulations will be  codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 108.  In July  2006, ED mailed out a “Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for  Civil Rights Stephanie Monroe to more than 17,000 state and local education  agencies.  The letter provided  background information on the *Boy Scouts Act* and the need for assurances  of compliance, enclosed a blank OCR Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights  Certificate form, and contained instructions on how to complete the form and  return it to OCR.  OCR began collecting  signed Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate forms shortly after the  issuance of the assistant secretary’s letter.

OCR also pursues compliance by federal fund recipients by:  promulgating regulations, as noted in earlier sections; developing policy guidance interpreting the laws and regulations; and broadly disseminating this information to educational institutions, parents, students, and  members of the public.  Effective civil rights enforcement in education requires that educational institutions understand the legal and regulatory requirements and that students, parents, educators, and other members of the public understand their rights.  To meet these goals, OCR makes its guidance widely available through different media, including through the Internet, and updates and augments that guidance periodically to ensure OCR guidance reflects current developments in civil rights law and educational practice.

Under  OCR's “Vocational Education Programs Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination  and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex and  Handicap,” state vocational education agencies are responsible for conducting  civil rights reviews and other compliance activities with their subrecipient  schools and programs and reporting biennially to OCR about these  activities.  In FY 2005, OCR responded  to more than 30 of these state agency reports.   OCR provided suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of agencies'  compliance and enforcement activities and for improving student access to  vocational education programs to ensure that no discrimination occurs on the  basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and disability.  During the period 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.

Throughout the year, OCR  provided technical assistance in response to questions from state agencies  concerning their compliance determinations and remedies resulting from these  reviews. In addition, OCR provided an annual four-day training conference to  state agency coordinators of vocational education civil rights compliance  activities. The training conference (offered at two locations on different dates)  was designed to provide in-depth training on selected civil rights issues, as  well as the procedures and techniques state agencies should use in conducting  their civil rights compliance program and reporting to OCR.

In the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court case *United States v. Fordice*, the Court set  forth standards for determining whether states that previously operated  racially segregated higher education systems had met their affirmative duty to  dismantle those systems and their vestiges under the 14th 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 2005, OCR continued to monitor  implementation of its higher education agreements with these seven states,  which continued to make progress in enhancing the programs and facilities of  their historically black institutions and in carrying out the other commitments  in their agreements.  Central State  University in Ohio began construction of a new multidisciplinary academic  building to house its academic and science programs.  Virginia State University and Norfolk State University each added  six academic programs and completed several enhancements of major  facilities.  In Texas, Prairie View  A&M University completed all but one of its facilities rehabilitation  projects, awarded 16 merit-based scholarships for the fall 2005 semester, and  established endowed chairs in the colleges of nursing and education.  Texas Southern University reported the  successful implementation of a B.S. degree program in computer science  technology and an M.S. degree in computer science, filled an endowed chair in  its School of Science, and fully endowed two chairs in its School of Business.

Monitoring reports from the Maryland  state government indicate it has made progress with respect to the provisions  of its higher education desegregation agreement.  OCR engaged the services of consultants to provide expert  opinions concerning areas such as the avoidance of unnecessary program  duplication and enhancement of programs and facilities at Historically Black  Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).   OCR  and the Maryland Higher Education Commission continue to communicate on the  state’s progress in carrying out the terms of the agreement.

Kentucky has completed many of its commitments under  its higher education desegregation agreement and worked with OCR to ensure that  a new dormitory building will be constructed at Kentucky State University.  With respect to Florida, OCR is currently  concluding its review and evaluation of the state’s reports.

Pennsylvania submitted its final report on the  implementation of its agreement with OCR following the close of the 2004–05  academic year.  After several on-site  visits to public institutions of higher education, OCR is in the process of  analyzing the report.

|**In the United  States, we make schools a national priority. We educate boys and girls,  Muslims, Christians, Jews, and people of all different faiths, children of  different races and cultures—all children, whether their families are wealthy  or poor.*********Remarks by******Mrs. Laura  Bush, 2005***
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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 of our  successes in FY 2005 as well as in prior years.

***Disability Cases***

*Denial of Services*

An  educational services commission operating after-school programs in more than 60  school districts in a state excluded students with certain types of  disabilities from its after-school programs.   In response to concerns raised by OCR, the commission revised its  procedures to ensure children who require a specialized medical, physical, or  behavioral childcare program are afforded access to the program.  In addition, the commission expanded its  training of caregivers to enable them to provide additional emergency medical care  to ensure a safe environment for these students.

|A  large urban school district agreed to eliminate a backlog of students awaiting  evaluations, reevaluations, and placements.  The agreement also included  other requirements, such as implementation of a computerized placement system  and hiring of additional professional staff to enable the district to provide  timely evaluations and placements.  Thousands of school children with  disabilities were affected by this agreement.
      OCR  case, 1989
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Provision  of Appropriate Special Education Services*

A  complaint filed on behalf of all students served by the special education  department of a large urban school district alleged systemic denial of  appropriate educational services.  With assistance  from OCR, the district developed a comprehensive special education program with  detailed action steps identifying responsible staff, evidence of completion,  and timelines. The district is developing a process for reviewing each  student’s educational program to ensure individual needs are addressed.

|An OCR compliance review of a school district determined many students with limited English proficiency were placed in special education programs segregated from other school programs.  Several schools that enrolled large numbers of LEP students were overcrowded, and inferior to other schools.  One school with a 96 percent Hispanic enrollment had no library, limited recreation areas, overcrowded classrooms and was rodent-infested.  The district agreed to implement a comprehensive alternative language program for LEP students, revise its special education referral, evaluation, and placement processes, and ensure that school facilities and resources would no longer be influenced by the racial or ethnic composition of a school’s student enrollment. OCR case, 1995
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Accessibility*

A  complaint alleged a large university was discriminating against  mobility-impaired persons on the basis of disability with respect to the  provision of on-campus accessible parking.   Based on OCR’s findings, the university agreed to create approximately  190 new accessible on-campus parking spaces, which will afford faculty,  administrators, students, and others with disabilities the opportunity to  attend on-campus classes, programs, theater productions, athletic events, and  other school functions.  
  A complainant alleged her  son, who uses a wheelchair, was carried on and off buses instead of being  provided a bus with a lift or a ramp when he participated in a school-sponsored  athletic event with the Special Olympics.   After both parties expressed interest in resolving the complaint through  OCR’s Early Complaint Resolution process, the school district agreed to ensure all future Special Olympic athletes will be  transported in accessible buses.

*Provision  of Non-Academic Services*

OCR successfully resolved a complaint alleging  students without disabilities were allowed to take the road test for obtaining  a state driver’s license from their driver education teachers, while students  with disabilities were required to take the road test through the state  department of public safety.  The state  agreed to change its policy so students with physical disabilities have the  opportunity to take the road test at their home schools, with necessary accommodations,  in the same manner as students without disabilities.

|A junior high school student with disabilities filed a complaint with OCR saying that his photograph, as well as those of other students with disabilities, was segregated in the school’s yearbook.  Pictures of students with disabilities were placed in a different location from the pictures of other students.  After contact by OCR, the school district agreed to integrate pictures of students with disabilities along with other student photos.
      OCR case, 1999
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Title IX Cases***

*Athletics*

OCR investigated a complaint alleging a  school district was not providing female students equal opportunities in its  athletics program.  OCR found  disparities in the provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive  facilities, equipment and supplies, and publicity opportunities and also  determined that a district employee engaged in retaliation and intimidation of  parents who had raised concerns regarding the district’s compliance with civil  rights laws. The district signed a comprehensive resolution agreement  negotiated by OCR resolving all of the compliance issues and providing for  continued OCR monitoring.

A complaint against a school district  alleged the high school weight-lifting coach treated girls in his  weight-lifting class differently than boys by requiring the girls to run an  extra lap and to do their exercises in the front of the classroom.  After OCR facilitated an agreement between  the parties through early complaint resolution, the school district agreed  girls will not be required to run an extra lap without reason, a conscious effort will be made to line up groups  of students without causing embarrassment, and sexual harassment training will  be provided to staff.

*Procedural Safeguards*

A complainant alleged a seminary failed  to designate an employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with Title  IX.  OCR determined the seminary had a  designated Title IX coordinator, but had failed to notify all of its students  and employees of the coordinator's office address and telephone number, in  accordance with the requirements of the Title IX regulations.  The seminary’s resolution agreement with OCR  corrected the violation.

|This OCR complaint alleged that during the 2001–02 school year, a district failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints that a male teacher sexually harassed the complainant’s daughter and other female students, which included: touching the girls in a sexual manner;  making offensive and sexually derogatory comments and jokes; and displaying sexually explicit photos.  OCR investigated and determined that the district took only limited measures in response to the reported harassment and that, while the harassment was eventually stopped by the resignation of the teacher, the district neither initiated steps to address the alleged harassment nor took measures to remedy any effects on students and prevent recurrence of the behavior.
OCR obtained a voluntary agreement from the district requiring that the district:  1) offer the parents of the students an opportunity to have their students evaluated to determine if they were negatively affected by the harassment and provide counseling as necessary; 2) provide in-service training and general assemblies about the prohibition against sexual harassment; 3) disseminate the district's Title IX sexual harassment policy and grievance procedures; and 4) document the investigation of all such complaints and  maintenance of reports.
OCR case, 2002
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|OCR received a complaint alleging that a community college restricted a noncredit automotive course to female students.  The course was identified in the college’s catalog as a “great mother/daughter activity.”  OCR’s investigation showed that all the other automotive technology classes enrolled only males.  The college agreed to change the title and course description of the basic car care course and to ensure other brochures, course descriptions, and counseling and appraisal materials were sex neutral.
        OCR case, 1991
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Title VI Cases***

*Segregated Homecoming  Activities*

A complaint alleged a high school was implementing  procedures for electing homecoming queens (one black and one white) and  homecoming representatives on the basis of race.  During an investigation, OCR confirmed the district’s written policies  required the high school student population to elect separate homecoming queens  and members of the homecoming court on the basis of race.  Pursuant to a voluntary compliance  agreement, the district developed and implemented nondiscriminatory policies  and procedures for the selection of homecoming queens districtwide.  OCR verified the revised policy contained  objective selection criteria unrelated to the race of the student and was  disseminated to all students and staff.

*Discrimination  by Instructor*

A graduate student in education filed a complaint against a  university alleging discrimination on the basis of race (Asian) and national  origin (Thai).  She alleged the  instructor of her statistics course treated her differently from other students  in the class and made offensive comments concerning her English language  proficiency.  Using OCR’s Early  Complaint Resolution process, the complainant and the university entered into  an agreement in which the university will permit the complainant to re-take the  statistics course at no cost to her with a different instructor.  In addition, the university developed a  policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin,  designated a university employee to investigate reports of such discrimination,  and established remedies to address cases in which discrimination is  documented.

*Disciplinary  Actions*

The parent of an African-American student filed a complaint with OCR  alleging the student was suspended for two days for fighting, while a white student  who engaged in the same behavior was not disciplined.  After OCR’s initial contact with the school district to discuss  the complaint, the district and complainant agreed the two-day suspension would  be expunged from the African-American student’s records and the complainant’s  son would participate in anger management counseling or training.

The mission of the Office for Civil  Rights is “ensuring equal access to education and promoting educational  excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil  rights.”  This responsibility is not one  to be taken lightly.  OCR is committed  to ensuring that all students, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex,  disability or age, receive access to education.

As a part of this commitment, OCR  must fairly and vigorously enforce civil rights laws to seek compliance by  education institutions nationwide.   While its primary function is to investigate and resolve allegations of  discrimination, OCR remains committed to helping institutions understand their  responsibilities under the laws it enforces.   Thus, OCR will continue to provide technical assistance to help schools  develop a better understanding of their legal obligations, as well as to help  parents, students, and educators know their rights.  OCR also will continue to initiate compliance reviews to evaluate  whether programs, procedures, and facilities are in compliance with federal  law.

In addition to these core  enforcement activities, OCR also is dedicated to implementing the objectives of the *No Child Left Behind Act*, as well as the President’s American  Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which focuses on increasing American  performance in math and science.  The  ACI also focuses on increasing the number of Advanced Placement classes  available to low-income and minority high school students.  OCR will advance the principles of the ACI  by ensuring discrimination does not contribute to the under-performance of, or  lack of participation by, students in math and science.

Assistant  Secretary for Civil Rights Stephanie Monroe, who is finishing her first six  months as assistant secretary, has completed comprehensive reviews of OCR’s  operations, procedures, and resources. She has visited the 12 regional offices  to meet with staff to analyze the issues facing employees active in the field  and will continue to work with all staff to ensure that OCR is functioning at  maximum capacity and producing work of the highest quality.

|President and Mrs. Bush believe that with a great teacher, every student can succeed—no matter what ZIP Code they live in, what language they speak, or what special needs they may have....
      ***Margaret  Spellings, 
    Secretary of Education, 2005***
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Secretary Monroe and the  OCR staff look forward to addressing the challenges that lie ahead.

|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) 786-0500
      Fax: (202) 208-7797Email: OCR.DC@ed.gov                                                         

|                     | Race / 
      National 
      Origin | Sex     | Disability | Age    | Multiple | Other   | Total    
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------- | ---------- | ------ | -------- | ------- | ---------
|Boston               | 55                                   | 18      | 227        | 2      | 56       | 24      | 382      
|New York             | 74                                   | 22      | 264        | 6      | 75       | 41      | 482      
|Philadelphia         | 58                                   | 21      | 222        | 5      | 60       | 32      | 398      
|District of Columbia | 82                                   | 17      | 230        | 5      | 52       | 39      | 425      
|Atlanta              | 158                                  | 34      | 303        | 12     | 68       | 87      | 662      
|Dallas               | 116                                  | 36      | 293        | 5      | 72       | 58      | 580      
|Chicago              | 94                                   | 25      | 256        | 11     | 75       | 49      | 510      
|Cleveland            | 44                                   | 33      | 172        | 5      | 30       | 26      | 310      
|Kansas City          | 74                                   | 28      | 160        | 9      | 39       | 18      | 328      
|Denver               | 74                                   | 15      | 206        | 4      | 35       | 49      | 383      
|San Francisco        | 101                                  | 38      | 361        | 9      | 90       | 66      | 665      
|Seattle              | 82                                   | 32      | 199        | 9      | 54       | 32      | 408      
|**National**         | **1,012**                            | **319** | **2,893**  | **82** | **706**  | **521** | **5,533**

Listed  below is a sample of publications available onOCR’s Web site, including those  most frequently requested by mail or downloaded from OCR’s Web site.

- *How to File a Discrimination Complaint with       OCR* (available in multiple languages), September, 2005

- *Ensuring Access to High-Quality Education* (available in multiple languages), September, 2004

- Dear       Colleague Letter dated March 17, 2005: “Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy:       Three Part Test—Part Three, March 17, 2005”

- Dear       Colleague Letter to Chief State School Officers dated April 14, 2005, “Helping the Student with Diabetes       Succeed:  A Guide for School       Personnel”

- *Students with Disabilities Preparing for       Postsecondary Education:* *Know Your Rights and Responsibilities,*revised       June 2006

- *Free Appropriate Public Education for       Students with Disabilities*, 1999

- *Auxiliary Aids and Services for       Postsecondary Students with Disabilities:        Higher Education’s Obligations Under Section 504 and Title II of       the ADA*,       1998

- *Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary       Education:  Innovative Approaches       to* *Diversity*, 2003

- *Achieving Diversity:  Race-Neutral Alternatives in American       Education*, 2004

- *Programs for English Language       Learners:  Resource Materials for       Planning and Self- Assessment*, 1999

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