Negotiating Equity: Do Office for Civil Rights Resolution Agreements Negotiations Achieve Solutions to Inequity?

• In Event: Enforcing Equity in PK-12 Schools: An In-Depth Examination of the Office for Civil Rights

Abstract

Purpose
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) the authority to withhold federal funds when schools are non-compliant with civil rights legislation (Frankenberg & Taylor, 2015). Before losing funding, districts can negotiate and enter into resolution agreements (RAs) with OCR whereby they agree to make changes to address non-compliance. RAs, thus, can be powerful policymaking tools to promote equity and opportunity in schools. Despite their importance, little research has investigated how RAs are negotiated to understand whether the process creates opportunities for school districts to block the inclusion of substantial policy changes in RAs.

Organizationally, OCR faces challenges that threaten its efforts when negotiating RAs, such as partisan influence and resource constraints (Siegel-Hawley et al., 2023; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). District leaders opposed to federal intervention from OCR or who face budgetary constraints may attempt to limit RAs to contain only minor policy changes. Such factors could influence negotiations and result in RAs that nominally address violations while keeping structural barriers to full compliance intact. This exploratory qualitative case study seeks to understand how RAs are negotiated and whether these negotiations can blunt RAs enough to achieve only superficial compliance.

Conceptual Framework
The politics of regulation (Levi-Faur, 2011; Rabkin, 1980) will be used to frame this study and analyze these data. The politics of regulation has been used to understand the structural and political limitations that prevent full regulation of firms and other organizations.

Data and Methods
This exploratory qualitative case study analyzes data from 15 qualitative interviews and from policy documents for negotiating RAs. The case is bounded by an examination of individuals involved in RA negotiations in K-12 school districts for cases involving systemic discrimination. Interview participants include OCR staff, school district leaders, and attorneys representing school districts who are experienced RA negotiations. Documents used in the analysis were those discussed by participants as being relevant to how OCR or districts carried out negotiations.

Preliminary Results
The negative publicity and burden of a long-lasting OCR investigation can motivate district leaders to negotiate a RA. OCR attorneys acknowledge that a district’s limited financial resources, however, can prevent the inclusion of substantial policy changes in RAs. Provisions requiring implicit bias training, for example, may be limited to a single training instead of recurring for multiple years. District leaders similarly expressed a desire to reach compliance within the constraints of their district’s budget. Participants also discussed how the variation in district leadership and OCR staff can influence the outcomes of RA negotiations.

Significance
This investigation examines how one of OCR’s main enforcement tools – RAs – are negotiated by agency staff and local school districts. Once completed, this study will provide insight into whether RAs can be used to effectively carry out the agency’s mission of enforcing civil rights. The findings will contribute to the growing body of literature on OCR and hold practical implications for OCR enforcement activities.

Author

• Victor Cadilla, North Carolina State University