Mr. Richard Melching
Superintendent
Evergreen School District No. 416
13501 NE 28th Street
P.O. Box 8910
Vancouver, Washington 98668

Re: Evergreen School District No. 114, OCR Reference No. 10991047

Dear Superintendent Melching:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigation of the above-referenced complaint against Evergreen School District No. 114. In the complaint, it is alleged that the district discriminated against a student, on the basis of race, by failing to take prompt and effective action to address racially discriminatory remarks which were directed at him by other students.

OCR is responsible for enforcing title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education.

The issue investigated for the above allegation was whether the district discriminated against the student, on the basis of race, in violation of 34 CFR 100.3(a) and (b). Based on a review of all the evidence obtained in our investigation, we have determined that the findings do not establish a violation of Title VI with respect to this issue. In conducting the investigation and making our conclusions, we reviewed and analyzed documents provided by the complainant and the district, as well as information obtained during OCR interviews with the complainant and Image Elementary School staff. The reasons for OCR's conclusions are set forth below, in which the student is referred to as Student A.

1. Student A is a 10-year-old African-American male student who attended the 3rd grade at Image Elementary School during the 1998-99 school year. Image Elementary School is a public school offering grades kindergarten through 6.

2. The district Board Policy No. 3200, 'Civil and Legal Rights and Responsibilities, Conduct, Due Process, and Sanctions, 'states that acts of harassment and verbal abuse are violations of district student conduct rules, and are sufficient cause for discipline, suspension, or expulsion. The Image Elementary School Student Handbook states that harassment and racial slurs are '...serious infractions and are unacceptable at Image School.'

3. It is the position of the student's parent that from November 1998 to January 1999, two caucasian male students (Student B and C) called Student A racial epithets two to three times a week. It is the parent's position that Student A repeatedly notified his teacher of the incidents, but that she took no action. It is also the parent's position that in December 1998, Student C gave a picture of a helicopter to Student A and told him that the helicopter had a gun to shoot African-Americans. In addition, the student's parent stated to OCR that on February 26, 1999, Student C called Student A a racial epithet as they were boarding the afternoon school bus. The parent also stated that Student B called Student A a racial epithet on March 1, 1999.

4. The teacher's position is that she is aware of only one incident involving a racially offensive remark, which occurred on December 17, 1998. On that occasion, the teacher recalled that Student A called Student B a derogatory name, and then Student B called Student A a racial epithet. Student A notified the teacher of the incident, and both students were referred to the associate principal for discipline. In her testimony, the teacher stated that students sometimes call each other derogatory names, but the names are not racially offensive. She further stated that when this occurs, she discusses the consequences of inappropriate statements and name-calling with the class, and uses student exercises and literature to reinforce the discussion.

5. The school associate principal notified Student A's parent by telephone on the same day as the incident on December 17, 1998. During this telephone conversation, the associate principal and the parent agreed that both students did not understand the severity of their statements and should be counseled. The associate principal counseled both students on the inappropriateness of their behavior, and returned them to the classroom. It is the position of both the school principal and associate principal that other than the incident involving Student A and Student B on December 17, 1998, they are unaware of any racially offensive statements or behavior involving Student A.

6. It is the position of both the principal and the associate principal that any use of offensive language at the school is taken very seriously and will not be tolerated. Both stated that the use of such language in the classroom is to be reported directly to the principal's office, and that students are immediately counseled regarding the inappropriateness of this behavior. It is the position of the principal and the associate principal that both Student A and Student B were in tears after being counseled regarding the incident on December 17, 1998, and appeared to understand the seriousness of the situation.

7. The student's parent did not raise any concern with OCR regarding the manner in which the district responded to the incident on December 17, 1998. In addition, the student's parent was unable to provide any additional information, and OCR's investigation did not identify any witnesses or other evidence to corroborate the alleged incidents described in finding No. 3, above were reported to the teacher. The evidence was not sufficient to establish that other incidents occurred as alleged regarding Student A, or that such incidents were reported to the teacher.

8. It is the position of the parent that during January 1999, a student at Covington Middle School student called Student A a racial epithet and wrote a derogatory name on Student A's name tag during a junior vocational program involving Student A's class. The student's parent did not notify the district of this incident, and the teacher's position is that she was unaware of this alleged incident. OCR's investigation did not identify any evidence to corroborate that district staff were aware of the incident.

9. The racial composition of Student A's classroom is 18 caucasian, 1 African-American, 1 Arab American, and 3 ethnic Russian students. During the 1998-99 school year, the district has not received any formal or informal complaints on the basis of race regarding Image Elementary School.

Analysis and Conclusion

The regulation implementing Title VI at 34 CFR 100.3(a) states, in part, that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination. 34 CFR 100.3(b)(1) states, in part, that a recipient under any program to which this part applies may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on ground of race, color, or national origin provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different, manner from that provided to others under the program.

Under Title VI, school officials have an obligation to address certain discriminatory conduct by students toward other students where a school district knows, or has reason to know, that such discriminatory conduct occurred on the basis of race, color or national origin. In analyzing the facts in this case, OCR reviewed whether the district had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged race-based incidents and, if so, whether the district took appropriate actions in response to these incidents.

The evidence obtained in this investigation did not establish that the district had notice that other students subjected Student A to racial slurs or other racially derogatory remarks other than the incident occurring on December 17, 1998. OCR found that in response to the incident on December 17, the district took prompt action to notify the student's parent and to counsel the students regarding their behavior. Because the district took appropriate action to address the incident on December 17, 1998, and because the evidence did not otherwise establish that any other racial incidents were known by district officials, OCR is unable to conclude that the district violated Title VI with regard to Student A.

The conclusions contained in this letter are limited to the allegation raised by the complaint. They should not be construed to cover any other issues regarding compliance with Title VI that may exist and are not discussed herein.

I wish to thank you for the cooperation extended to my staff during the investigation and resolution of this case. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Steve Riley, equal opportunity specialist, at (206) 220-7931.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Jackson
Director, Seattle Office
Western Division

cc: Larry Ransom
Attorney