ArticlePDF Available

An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

As the primary agency responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws in the educational context, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issues policy guidance to help ensure that school districts and universities understand their legal obligations. These policy guidance documents have direct connections to topics studied by educational researchers (e.g., disproportionality in special education, race conscious admissions policies in higher education, transgender student inclusion, etc.). However, we do not have an empirical understanding of how this guidance is used by the research community. Nor do we have a strong grasp on the extent to which this guidance is explicitly informed by research. It is important to acquire an empirical understanding of the bidirectional relationship between research and educational policy in the context of civil rights enforcement in order to determine areas of strength and those in need of improvement. Specifically, this study poses the following research questions: 1) How often and in what ways do scholars explicitly use OCR policy guidance to inform their research? What are the characteristics of this research? 2) Conversely, how often and in what ways does OCR explicitly use research to inform policy guidance? What are the characteristics of research cited in OCR guidance?
Content may be subject to copyright.
education policy analysis
archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
Arizona State University
Volume 28 Number 104 July 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341
An Examination of the Bidirectional Relationship Between
Federal Civil Rights Guidance and Research
Maria M. Lewis
&
Sarah Kern
Pennsylvania State University
United States
Citation: Lewis, M. M., & Kern, S. (2020). An examination of the bidirectional relationship between
federal civil rights guidance and research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(104).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4975
Abstract: As the primary agency responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws in the
educational context, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
issues policy guidance to help ensure that school districts and universities understand their
legal obligations. These policy guidance documents have direct connections to topics
studied by educational researchers (e.g., disproportionality in special education, race
conscious admissions policies in higher education, transgender student inclusion, etc.).
However, we do not have an empirical understanding of how this guidance is used by the
research community. Nor do we have a strong grasp on the extent to which this guidance
is explicitly informed by research. It is important to acquire an empirical understanding of
the bidirectional relationship between research and educational policy in the context of
civil rights enforcement in order to determine areas of strength and those in need of
improvement. Specifically, this study poses the following research questions: 1) How often
and in what ways do scholars explicitly use OCR policy guidance to inform their research?
What are the characteristics of this research? 2) Conversely, how often and in what ways
does OCR explicitly use research to inform policy guidance? What are the characteristics
of research cited in OCR guidance?
Keywords: education policy; civil rights; research use; education law
Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 1/20/2020
Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 4/22/2020
Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 4/28/2020
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 2
Un examen de la relación bidireccional entre la orientación y la investigación de los
derechos civiles federales
Resumen: Como la agencia principal responsable de hacer cumplir las leyes federales de
derechos civiles en el contexto educativo, la Oficina de Derechos Civiles (OCR) del
Departamento de Educación de EE. UU. Emite una guía de políticas para ayudar a
garantizar que los distritos escolares y las universidades entiendan sus obligaciones legales.
Estos documentos de orientación política tienen conexiones directas con temas estudiados
por investigadores educativos (por ejemplo, desproporcionalidad en educación especial,
políticas de admisión con conciencia racial en la educación superior, inclusión de
estudiantes transgénero, etc.). Sin embargo, no tenemos una comprensión empírica de
cómo esta guía es utilizada por la comunidad investigadora. Tampoco tenemos una
comprensión sólida de la medida en que esta guía está explícitamente informada por la
investigación. Es importante adquirir una comprensión empírica de la relación
bidireccional entre la investigación y la política educativa en el contexto de la aplicación de
los derechos civiles a fin de determinar las áreas de fortaleza y las que necesitan mejoras.
Específicamente, este estudio plantea las siguientes preguntas de investigación: 1) ¿Con
qué frecuencia y de qué manera los académicos usan explícitamente la guía de políticas de
OCR para informar su investigación? ¿Cuáles son las características de esta investigación?
2) Por el contrario, ¿con qué frecuencia y de qué manera la OCR utiliza explícitamente la
investigación para informar la orientación política? ¿Cuáles son las características de la
investigación citadas en la guía de OCR?
Palabras clave: política educativa; derechos civiles; uso de investigación; ley de educación
Um exame da relação bidirecional entre orientação federal sobre direitos civis
e pesquisa
Resumo: Como principal agência responsável pela aplicação das leis federais de
direitos civis no contexto educacional, o Departamento de Educação dos EUA, o
Escritório de Direitos Civis (OCR) emite um guia de política para ajudar a garantir
que os distritos escolares e As universidades entendem suas obrigações legais. Esses
documentos de orientação política têm conexões diretas com tópicos estudados por
pesquisadores da educação (por exemplo, desproporcionalidade na educação especial,
políticas de admissão racialmente conscientes no ensino superior, inclusão de
estudantes trans, etc.). No entanto, não temos um entendimento empírico de como
este guia é usado pela comunidade de pesquisa. Também não temos um entendimento
sólido da extensão em que este guia é explicitamente informado pela pesquisa. É
importante obter uma compreensão empírica da relação bidirecional entre pesquisa e
política educacional no contexto da aplicação dos direitos civis, a fim de determinar
áreas de força e áreas de necessidade de aprimoramento. Especificamente, este estudo
faz as seguintes perguntas de pesquisa: 1) Com que frequência e de que maneira os
estudiosos usam explicitamente o Guia de Políticas de OCR para informar suas
pesquisas? Quais são as características desta pesquisa? 2) Inversamente, com que
frequência e de que maneiras o OCR usa explicitamente a pesquisa para informar a
direção da política? Quais são as características da pesquisa citada no guia de OCR?
Palavras-chave: política educacional; direitos civis; uso de pesquisa; Lei da educação
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
3
An Examination of the Bidirectional Relationship Between Federal Civil
Rights Guidance and Research
Educational researchers have a keen interest in the impact of their research. One potential
way for researchers to make an impact is by informing educational policy formation and
implementation at the federal, state, and local level. To better understand existing structures and
networks, and ways to maximize the influence of research on policy, a body of research has
specifically examined “research use” in policy (e.g., Horn, Marin, Garces, Miksch & Yun, 2018;
William T. Grant Foundation, n.d.). This research on the interplay between research and policy is
integral to improving the impact of research in the policy arena, which is vast and complex.
One underexplored area of the relationship between research and policy is within the
context of civil rights enforcement activities. As the primary agency responsible for protecting
federal civil rights in the educational context, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) issues policy guidance to help ensure that school districts and universities understand
their legal obligations (Lewis, Garces, & Frankenberg, 2019).1 Concurrently, educational researchers
continue to produce an ever-growing body of policy-relevant research, particularly germane to civil
rights enforcement and policy guidance (e.g., disproportionality in special education, race conscious
admissions policies in higher education, transgender student inclusion). Related to this expertise,
researchers have an opportunity to be involved in various activities organized by OCR, including
conferences (U.S. Department of Education, 2012; 2016k) and listening sessions (Testimony of
Catherine Lhamon, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2018). During the 2015 fiscal year, OCR
hosted 25 policy-related listening sessions with various stakeholders (U.S. Department of Education,
2016f) and during the 2016 fiscal year, that number nearly tripled, with 72 policy-related listening
sessions (U.S. Department of Education, 2016k). However, across federal civil rights laws, we do
not have an empirical understanding of how research explicitly informs OCR policy guidance. Nor
do we have a strong grasp on the extent to which this guidance is explicitly used by researchers. It is
important to acquire an empirical understanding of the bidirectional relationship between research
and educational policy in the context of civil rights enforcement in order to determine areas of
strength and those in need of improvement.
Under the Obama administration, OCR engaged in unprecedented efforts to make guidance
more user friendly, including through the use of research (Lewis et al., 2019). Additionally, the
Trump administration has rescinded a number of Obama era guidance documents. As such, the
guidance issued under the Obama administration is important both politically and in substance.
Given the significance of this federal policy activity and the existence of policy-relevant research,
this study examines the bidirectional relationship between research and OCR guidance issued under
the Obama administration. Specifically, this study poses the following research questions: (1) How
often and in what ways do scholars explicitly use OCR policy guidance to inform their research?
What are the characteristics of this research? (2) Conversely, how often and in what ways does OCR
explicitly use research to inform policy guidance? What are the characteristics of research cited in
OCR guidance? Through an overview of guidance and a description of related research, this article
aims to provide insight to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. In turn, this article seeks to
improve existing efforts to protect the civil rights of marginalized students.
1 OCR also engages in other enforcement activities, including the Civil Rights Data Collection, complaint
investigations, and technical assistance.
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 4
Conceptualizing the Bidirectional Relationship
Similar to researchers who have identified ways to promote research use by practitioners
(e.g., Schneider, 2015, noting the importance of “visibility,” “acceptability,” “feasibility,” and
“transportability”), researchers have sought to conceptualize the ways with which policymakers rely
upon research. According to the literature, policymakers rely upon research for different purposes,
including “instrumental,” “political,” “conceptual,” “imposed,” or through the research process,
itself (Tseng, 2012, p. 7). Weiss (1979) identified six models of research use in policy. The
“knowledge-driven model” views the relationship between research and policy as a “linear view that
research findings may be communicated to impel action” (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007, p. 285).
The “problem-solving model” is a “second linear model that begins with the end users of research
and the problems they face, before tracking back in search of useful findings” (p. 285). The
interactive model is “modelled as a set of non-linear less predictable interactions between
researchers and users, with research impact happening through complex social processes of
‘sustained activity’” (p. 285). The political model views research as a tool to fuel “adversarial
systems” (p. 285). The tactical model relies upon research for strategic reasons, to justify actions in
the face of pressure or to support inaction. The enlightenment model is much more nuanced,
viewing impact as more of a progression (p. 285). In recognition of these various models, this study
acknowledges the complexities of the intersection of education research and policy, particularly civil
rights guidance.
As not only knowledge producers but also consumers, constituents, stakeholders, and
experts in the field of education, researchers are uniquely situated to engage in the broader policy
discourse. While there may not be a designated body of research that examines “policy use in
research” per se, we can point to various words or phrases, such as policy-oriented research or
policy-informed research, or references to “scholars as policy actors” (Welner, 2012, p.7). Moreover,
as reviewers, we might ask authors to consider the broader policy context in which their work is
situated (Lewis, Burke, & Decker, forthcoming) which may have direct ties to the significance,
implications, or timeliness of a particular study. Policy contextualization and knowledge of the law,
in particular, can help researchers better understand the institutional factors that may inform
research questions, design, analysis, and implications.
While less is known about policy use in research, at least from an empirical perspective,
according to Levin (2004), “efforts to strengthen the impact and value of research in education need
to pay attention to all three contexts production, use, and the linkages between them” (p. 13).
Similarly, within the context of law, scholars have called for a “synergistic relationship” (Superfine,
Goldman, & Richard, 2019, p. 544) between law and social science research and researchers have
acknowledged the “wide gaps in understanding between the legal and research communities”
(Marin, Yun, Garces, & Horn, 2019, p. 2). Grounded in this literature, a bidirectional framing of the
relationship between research and policy within the civil rights context allows us to investigate the
inherent interdisciplinarity of education policy work, from both the “research use side of the
relationship and the “policy use” side of the relationship.
Literature Review
This study is situated at the intersection of two areas of inquiry: (1) educational inequities
that implicate civil rights and (2) the relationship between research and education policy. Together,
these two broad areas of inquiry form the foundation for a study on the relationship between
research and OCR guidance.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
5
Educational Inequality
In regards to the first area of research, consistent with OCR’s enforcement activities,
scholars have sought to identify and address inequities related to important issues such as student
discipline (e.g., Gregory, Skiba, Noguera, 2010), diversity in higher education and k-12 schools (e.g.,
Garces & Jayakumar, 2014), the impact of policies and practices related to transgender students (e.g.,
Lewis & Eckes, 2019), the use of seclusion and restraint (e.g., Gagnon, Mattingly, & Connelly, 2017),
sexual assault (e.g, Harper, Maskaly, Kirkner, & Lorenz, 2017), bullying and harassment (e.g., Meyer,
2015), meeting the needs of English Learners (e.g., Jiménez-Castellanos & García, 2017), resource
allocation (e.g., Malen, Dayhoff, & Croninger, 2017), and special education identification (e.g.,
Sullivan & Osher, 2019). This list of topics is by no means exhaustive, nor is the accompanying list
of references. On the contrary, each topic is representative of individual bodies of research that
touch on the nuances of vast inequities that exist in education research, policy, and practice. For
present purposes, we merely aim to demonstrate that a large and burgeoning area of research exists
that is germane to OCR’s role in enforcing federal civil rights in the educational context.
The Relationship between Research and Policy
Although it seems there is an ever-present appeal for evidence-based practice, the
relationship between research and policy is not always clear (Tseng, 2012). Policymakers and
researchers are often thought of as two separate communities (Perna, 2016). Scientific research is
utilized by policymakers in a number of different ways, most often in an indirect conceptual way,
making it difficult to see the connection (Huston, 2008; Tseng, 2012). Nonetheless, researchers have
been keenly interested in the relationship between research and public policy for decades (Weiss,
1978).
Research use in policy. According to Tseng (2012), researchers are concerned about
research quality and dissemination. Increasing the impact of research requires a concerted effort;
findings must be communicated in a manner that is comprehensible to a broader audience that may
or may not have expertise in education or research. In traditional scholarly publication venues,
researchers’ reach is limited by constraints such as accessibility, including the time associated with
the publication process and the fact that highly revered research among scholars is often hidden
behind paywalls. On the demand side, it is important to consider who utilizes research (such as
policymakers, intermediate organizations, etc.), how research is defined (by researchers,
policymakers, etc.), how it is obtained, and how it is decoded and translated by its consumers.
(Tseng, 2012). Relationships are key to the research-policy connection. The role of relationships is
also significant because research might find its way to policymakers through indirect means. For
example, organizations may act as “intermediaries” between researchers and policymakers
(Lubienski, Scott, & DeBray, 2011).
The research community must “embrace, or at least accept, the unique challenges and
inescapably political nature of the knowledge enterprise, especially when engaging with non-
researcher audiences” (Pfleger, Wilson, Welner, & Bibilos, 2018, p. 3). As evidenced by the number
of policy guidance documents that have been rescinded since the Trump Administration took office,
civil rights enforcement is similarly entangled with politics.
Research use in law. With roots in important cases such as Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), connections between social science and law, are not new. Existing research explores the role
of research in law, in particular (e.g., Lewis & Bray, 2019; Horn et al., 2018). Less directly,
researchers can change public discourse or public opinion related to issues at the heart of legal cases
(Welner, 2012). More directly, researchers can influence education law through expert testimony
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 6
(e.g., Welner & Kupermintz, 2004), amicus briefs (e.g., Horn et al., 2018), and state or federal
legislative hearings (e.g., Perna, Orosz, & Kent, 2019). For example, in a recent study, Perna, Orosz,
& Kent, (2019) utilized critical discourse analysis to review congressional hearings related to the
Higher Education Act. Within the context of amicus briefs, researchers have identified strengths and
limitations of the existing relationships between research and case law. For example, educational
research examines the role of research in cases related to diversity in higher education (e.g., Horn et
al., 2018) and k-12 schools (e.g., Frankenberg & Garces, 2007). Moreover, Lewis and Bray (2019)
found that research played a limited role in a recent Supreme Court decision that examined the
quality of education to which students with disabilities are entitled under federal special education
law. Recognizing disciplinary and professional “divides”, Marin, Yun, Garces, and Horn (2019)
surveyed “knowledge producers” to get their perspective on the use of research in law. When
considering extra-legal resources, respondents indicated that peer-reviewed research should at least
moderately influence jurisprudence. Methodologically, survey respondents tended to prefer
“methodologically-derived” findings, favoring quantitative methods over qualitative methods (p. 12).
These studies provide the foundation for the “research use” side of the relationship between peer-
reviewed research and OCR guidance.
Policy use in research. While educational research discusses the relationship between
research and policy, most of the literature focuses on research-informed policymaking or engaging in
research that will inform policy; less is known about policy use in educational research or policy-
informed research. Nonetheless, policy informs research in significant ways. For example, in 2017,
Educational Administration Quarterly released a special issue on the Every Student Succeeds Act
(Fernandez, LeChasseur & Weiner, 2017). Similarly, following affirmative action bans in California,
Florida, Texas, and Washington, Garces (2013b) studied the direct impact of these policy decisions
and the related implications for diversity in higher education. Zatta and Pullin (2004) discussed the
implications of state and federal policy related decisions regarding alternative assessments for
students with disabilities (Zatta & Pullin, 2004). As another example most directly related to the
present study, Koss, Wilgus and Williamsen (2014), discussed the ways in which restorative justice
“could enhance institutional responsiveness and provide options that in some cases may better
achieve the underlying goals of Title IX, the DCL, and the field of student conduct management”
(p. 243). As these examples illustrate, research is essential to understanding the implications of
policymaking. Within the context of civil rights enforcement, policy-informed research has the
potential to identify the ways in which policy choices may constrain or enhance the everyday work
of educational leaders. Moreover, policy use in educational research may serve as proxy for
researchers’ policy literacy or the ways in which they see connections between their research and the
broader policy context in which their work is situated. A systematic examination of policy use in
research seems to be limited, although some researchers have identified the need for research to be
informed by practice (e.g., Yohalem & Tseng, 2015).
The literature reviewed in this section is intended to be illustrative. The body of research
implicated by this study is vast, thereby supporting the significance of a study situated at the
intersection of two important large areas of research inquiry. While research exists regarding equity
and diversity and the relationship between research and education policy, we are not aware of any
research that examines the relationship between research and OCR policy guidance, in particular.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
7
Policy Context
In contrast to policy more broadly, which is primarily discretionary, OCR operates in
accordance with mandates set forth in federal law. Preventing, identifying, and remedying
discrimination should be the primary catalyst for OCR action. Given the large body of research
germane to civil rights in education, research can play a meaningful, supportive role in the issuance
of civil rights guidance (Lewis et al., 2019).
OCR is responsible for enforcement of numerous federal civil rights laws in the educational
context, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The inherent
vagueness of these laws requires policy interpretation by the enforcing body (Worthington, 2017).
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, OCR has the authority to issue “interpretive rules” and
“general statements of policy” (5 U.S.C. §553(b)(3)(A)) that result in policy guidance.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes a document outlining best
practices for federal agencies distributing policy guidance (U.S. Department of Education, 2019).
OCR issues two types of policy guidance applicable to this study. The first type of guidance is a
“significant guidance document.” This type of guidance covers possible conflicts with actions of
other agencies, the impact of modifications to financial programs, and novel legal issues resulting
from legal mandates. The second, simply referred to as “guidance,” is an “agency statement of
general applicability and future effect,” that provides the agency’s policy or interpretation on a
statute, regulation, or technical issue. Between January 20, 2009, and January 19, 2017, OCR released
forty guidance packages. Each guidance package contained one or more documents (e.g. dear
colleague letters (DCLs), questions and answers (Q&As), and frequently asked question (FAQs)),
totaling seventy-seven documents. Illustrative examples of covered topics include: addressing and
preventing sexual violence, inclusive policies for transgender students, the use of seclusion and
restraint, racial discrimination in student discipline, supporting English Learners, civil rights in
juvenile justice facilities, bullying and harassment, and the civil rights obligations of charter schools.
Under the Obama administration, OCR revamped the structure of guidance. By avoiding
overly technical language and through the use of examples, OCR sought to issue guidance of
practical use to the public (Lewis et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2012). At the same
time, OCR placed a stronger emphasis on research, as evidenced by its release of the most
comprehensive set of Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) survey data in the history of its
collection. According to OCR,
the 2009-10 survey covered 85 percent of the nation’s K-12 students, while the 2011-
12, 2013-14, and 2015-16 surveys were universal collections covering nearly every
public school and district in the nation. In the past eight years, OCR has revamped and
expanded the CRDC to be more widely accessible to the public (instead of primarily a
resource within government)…(U.S. Department of Education, 2016a, p. 2).
Therefore, under the Obama administration, OCR engaged in unprecedented efforts in support of
both research and policy clarification.
In a recent essay, Lewis, Garces, and Frankenberg (2019) stated that OCR’s policy guidance
under the Obama administration was responsive to or informed by “(1) developments in the law, (2)
findings from OCR’s other activities (i.e., complaint investigations, Civil Rights Data Collection,
compliance reviews, and technical assistance), and (3) findings from researchers or external experts”
(p. 52). Although the authors did not conduct an in-depth analysis of research use in OCR guidance,
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 8
the article provided examples to illustrate OCR’s use of research or external experts, thereby serving
as an important inspiration for the research questions posed in the present study.
Research Design and Methods
As part of a larger project on the relationship between research and OCR’s enforcement
activities, this study involved a thorough review of (1) all guidance issued under the Obama
administration from January 20, 2009, to January 19, 2017, and (2) all peer-reviewed research
mentioning OCR guidance during the same time period. This timeframe covers the duration of the
Obama administration. Based on the “comprehensive” and “practical approach” of the Obama
administration (Lewis et al., 2019, p. 52), combined with changes under the Trump administration,
this timeframe makes for a clean dataset for political and substantive reasons.
For the purpose of this study, we operationalized the definition of research as follows:
articles published in peer- reviewed scholarly journals with relevance to education. This definition
allowed us to maintain a uniform basis for comparison of the bidirectional relationship. For our
primary analysis, we selected to exclude law review articles given differences in purpose, intended
audience, methods, etc. Moreover, since law review articles rely heavily on legal analysis, they are
more likely to make connections to OCR’s work, thereby making them a less interesting publication
venue to analyze in the present study. The decision to exclude law review articles was also informed
by a preliminary review of the guidance documents, which revealed a limited emphasis on law review
articles. We did, however, included peer-reviewed journals that address legal issues.
While we recognize our definition of research may present some limitations, the decision to
define research in this manner stems from the need to use a definition that permits a feasible
examination of the bidirectional relationship between research and policy. Although we could have
included other forms of research such as government reports, policy briefs, and non-government
research reports within our definition of research, it would be impossible to retrieve a similarly
comprehensive set of resources when looking for sources that cite OCR guidance. This uniform
definition allows for practical and meaningful comparisons.
First, on the “research use in policy” side of the bidirectional relationship, we reviewed all
guidance documents produced by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
between January 20, 2009, and January 19, 2017. The guidance documents were found on the
Department of Education website. Seventy-seven documents were found for this time period.
Before focusing on the documents citing research, we reviewed and coded all documents for types
of resources cited (research, legal references, etc.). This provided us with an overview of the types of
sources that OCR relies upon to issue guidance. Out of all 77 documents, only six documents
contained references to peer-reviewed research published in scholarly journals.
The six documents were coded to capture (1) topic of the guidance document, (2) the civil
rights law from which OCR drew its authority to issue the guidance (e.g., Title IX), (3) dimension(s)
of identity addressed in guidance (race, sex, disability, etc.) and (4) how the research was used. We
also coded for the types of sources in each individual policy guidance document citing research in
order to allow for comparison between research citations and other sources of authority within
individual documents. For each individual study cited, we coded for characteristics such as methods,
publication venue, discipline, and whether or not the publication venue is open access.
Second, on the “policy use in research” side of the study, we reviewed the ProQuest
Multiple database (inclusive of 46 scholarly databases) and the SAGE database with the search terms
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
9
"Office for Civil Rights" or "Office of Civil Rights"2 AND “guidance” OR “dear colleague” in any
part of the article from January 2009 to December 2017. The search yielded 719 peer-reviewed
articles published in scholarly journals. We reviewed each abstract and references to determine if the
article pertained to information in OCR guidance documents. Articles which did not utilize OCR
produced guidance were excluded. Also excluded were book reviews, commentaries, or journal
introductions and articles with generic references to OCR. After applying the exclusion criteria, 90
articles remained. We coded each article to capture (1) the topic of the article, (2) which OCR
guidance document was referenced, (3) dimension(s) of identity addressed in the article (e.g., race,
sex, disability, etc.), (4) how the OCR guidance was utilized, (5) methods used, (6) publication venue,
(7) discipline, and (8) whether or not the journal was open access. Figure 1 summarizes the methods
for this study.
Findings
Our
findings
revealed
2 Although the proper name is Office for Civil Rights, it is a common mistake to refer to the Office as the
Office of Civil Rights. As such, we included this term in our search.
Figure 1. Summary of Research Design and Methodology
Guidance Citing Research
OCR Guidance, 20092017
(40 packages, 77 documents)
Coded for all references by type
Exclude guidance that doesn't cite
peer-reviewed research
6 guidance documents
General Coding Categories
(1) Topic of guidance (2) Civil rights
law
(3) Dimension of identity (4) How
research was used
Characteristics of Research cited in
Guidance
(1) Methods (2) Venue (3) Discipline
(4) Open acccess?
Research Citing Guidance
Peer-reviewed research, 20092017
Exclude research that doesn't cite
OCR guidance, articles with a non-
research based format, articles with
only transitory OCR guidance
references
90 articles
General Coding Categories
(1) Topic of article (2)OCR guidance
referenced (3) Civil rights law
(4) Dimension of identity (5) How
OCR guidance was used
Characteristics of Research Citing
Guidance
(1) Methods (2) Venue (3) Discipline
(4) Open Access?
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 10
interesting trends in the connections between peer-reviewed research and OCR guidance. This
section will present findings related to each side of the bidirectional relationship, followed by a
discussion of any overlap or disconnect between the two sides.
OCR Guidance Citing Research
Before delving into the guidance citing research, it is helpful to provide an overview of all
references cited in OCR guidance issued under the Obama administration. Overall, OCR relied
upon or cited a range of types of resources. Table 1 provides a summary of references cited in all
OCR guidance issued under the Obama administration.
Type
References
Peer-reviewed Research
69
Books/Unpublished Research
5
Non-Government Report/Research
40
Government Based Research/Reports
108
Laws (Statutes, Regulations, Case law)
1030
Guidance (policy documents issued by OCR and
the Department of Education)
125
Other (references to website only, guidance from
other agencies, manuals, guidebooks, and memos)
40
Legal references comprised the largest group of reference types, with 1,030 references. The
second most common type of reference was policy guidance documents issued by OCR or the
Department of Education more broadly (125). The third most frequent reference type was
government-based research or reports, with 108 occurrences. Following this category was peer-
reviewed research, with 69 references. The three lowest frequencies were non-government
reports/research (40), books/unpublished reports (5), and other types of references, including
websites, guidance from other agencies, manuals, etc. (40). While peer-reviewed research accounted
for about 4.9% of the total references cited in the guidance, when we combine the categories that
together create a broad category of research (peer-reviewed research, government reports, non-
government reports, and books/unpublished research), the percentage increases to 15.6% of the
overall references. Overall, between 2009 and 2017, OCR released six documents referencing
research, as defined by this study. Each document and the overarching guidance package it
originated from are summarized below. The remainder of the findings section will focus on the
policy guidance documents that explicitly referenced peer-reviewed research. Within individual
documents, research played varying roles.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
11
Extensive use of research. Some documents relied heavily on research, including citations
to various studies within footnotes or endnotes and recurrent use of research throughout a
document. On October 1, 2014, OCR issued guidance addressing resource equity in schools and its
connection to civil rights protections (U.S. Department of Education, 2014f). Related to the Obama
administration’s “Excellent Educators for All” initiative, this guidance provided school leaders with
information on the legal requirements for educational resources under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, and touched on important topics such as academic programs, technology, and safe
schools for all students regardless of race, color, national origin or zip code. The “Dear colleague
letter: Guidance to ensure all students have equal access to educational resources” (U.S. Department
of Education, 2014a) included in the guidance package utilized fifteen years of OCR civil rights data
from every public school in the U.S. This DCL directly referenced peer-reviewed research more than
fifty times, constituting the most in depth use of all OCR guidance reviewed (e.g., student
achievement [Dobbie & Fryer, 2011]; teacher quality [Boyd, et. al, 2008]; teacher quality [Clotfelter,
Ladd & Vigdor, 2010]; student achievement [Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012]; racial funding
disparities [Baker & Green, 2005]).
Research was used extensively to support primary claims regarding the relationship between
racial disparities and school discipline. More specifically, this letter utilized research to: (1) Show how
the effect of school quality is different from the effect of poverty of a neighborhood and the
provision of wrap-around services; (2) Show schools offer differentiated programming that supports
career readiness; (3) Support the value of art and music programs; (4) Show advanced courses
correlate with higher achievement regardless of entering status; (5) Correlate extracurricular
activities and student achievement; (6) Present evidence demonstrating that schools that serve
students of color often have less advanced and gifted program offerings; and (7) Show school
districts with more students of color have facilities in disrepair, less resources for technology, and
less qualified staff.
Although less so than the resource allocation document, another document provided
multiple references to research. OCR’s guidance package on racial discrimination in special
education, released on December 12, 2016, addressed all schools, including charter schools, and
reminded them of their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Department
of Education, 2016i). Specifically, the DCL included in the guidance package zeroed in on the right
to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (U.S. Department of Education, 2016d). This letter
utilized research in an extensive manner, as both support and bases for propositions, with multiple
references in the document to several pieces of research. Specifically, research was used to
accompany discussion regarding implicit bias and “complex factors” that may contribute to the
referral and identification processes (Coutinho et.al, 2002; Flores et. al, 2010; Hibel et. al, 2010;
Morgan et. al, 2013, 2015; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015).
Moderate use of research. Unlike the DCLs on equitable resources and special education
identification, the DCL on discrimination in school discipline (U.S. Department of Education &
U.S. Department of Justice, 2014) utilized research in a moderate manner. This letter explained that
federal law prohibits discrimination in discipline in public school districts under Title IV of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Unlawful discrimination based on race occurs in two ways: “first, if a student is
subjected to different treatment based on the student’s race, and second, if a policy is neutral on its
face meaning that the policy itself does not mention race and is administered in an evenhanded
manner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a
particular race” (p. 7).3 The guidance document was intended to help schools “avoid and redress”
3 This framework is also included in the Dear Colleague Letter on resource allocation.
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 12
racial discrimination when disciplining students. A set of recommendations was included in the
guidance package (U.S. Department of Education, 2014e) to illustrate ways to be compliant with
federal laws.
Research cited in this letter was used in a moderate fashion, to provide support and
introduce some concepts, but there were only singular references to each piece of research. The
cited research provided additional analysis of discipline data from the CRDC (see e.g., Gregory &
Thompson, 2010; Rocque, 2010; Skiba et. al, 2011; Skiba et. al, 2002). This letter and guidance
package were withdrawn by the Department of Education in December, 2018.
Limited use of research. Three guidance documents made limited use of research, citing
research in one or two instances. On December 15, 2015, OCR released a guidance package
including a DCL addressing voluntary youth service organizations (U.S. Department of Education,
2015c). In contrast to the DCLs listed in the previous sections, the DCL on youth service
organizations was brief and did not provide illustrations for implementation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015a). It presented responses to questions from school districts on single-sex
programming provided by outside organizations. This guidance discussed Title IX responsibilities
regarding single-sex programming, ways to determine how an organization qualifies as a “voluntary
youth service organization”, and how to comply with federal laws. In this guidance, research is
utilized in a limited manner. Specifically, research provided support for one sentence about the
connection between parent/community involvement and student/school performance (Kirby &
DiPaola, 2011).
Consistent with the Obama administration’s initiatives in support of equal access for women
in education, on June 15, 2016, OCR also issued guidance related to equity in career and technical
education (U.S. Department of Education, 2016g). Under the Perkins Act, schools must be sure that
all students, regardless of gender, have access to high-quality secondary and postsecondary career
and technical programs. The DCL included in the guidance package (U.S. Department of Education,
2016b) addressed the continued gender disparities in career and technical education and the legal
obligations of schools. Specifically, the letter provided requirements for participation in non-
traditional fields, and examples of issues that may arise for schools. This letter utilized research in a
limited manner to provide insight into ambient bias that may affect gender equity in education
(Cheryan et al., 2014), stating in a footnote that “scientific studies reveal the unexpected importance
of a classroom’s symbolic features, such as objects and wall décor, in influencing student learning
and achievement in that environment. Symbols inform students whether they are valued learners
and belong within the classroom, with far-reaching consequences for students’ educational choices
and achievement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016b, p. 7).
Reflecting a similarly limited role of research, on July, 26, 2016, OCR released a letter and
integrated substantial resource guide that was responsive to complaints of discrimination against
students with ADHD and provided information on the obligations of schools under Section 504
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016e). The DCL broadly covered the legal obligations of schools
to students with ADHD under Section 504. Specifically, the guidance informed schools that they
must evaluate students that need special education or services, differentiated services based on the
individual needs versus stereotypes about disabilities, and reiterated that schools must provide due
process in ADHD cases. This document utilized research in a limited manner to provide
information on evaluating students with ADHD (Arcia, et. al, 2000), and racial disparities in
diagnosis of ADHD (Morgan et. al, 2013).
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
13
Characteristics of research cited in guidance. In terms of the characteristics of research
cited in guidance, there was a methodological trend that favored quantitative research (Table 2).
Specifically, quantitative research comprised 68% (47/69) of all peer-reviewed research cited in OCR
guidance. The next most frequently used methodological approach were meta-analyses or literature
reviews, which accounted for 10% (7/69) of the peer-reviewed research cited in OCR guidance.
Other types of articles were less frequent: qualitative research (4/69), policy analysis (1/69), mixed
methods (2/69), and intervention studies (5/69).
Table 2
Characteristics of Peer-reviewed Research Cited in OCR Guidance
Research Design
Discipline of Journal
Quantitative
47
Education
33
Literature Review or
Meta-Analyses
7
Psychology/Behavioral
Health
11
Qualitative
4
Economics
10
Undetermined/Inaccessible
2
Law
3
Conceptual
1
Education policy
3
Policy or Legal Analyses
1
Sociology
3
Mixed Method
2
Business Management
2
Intervention
5
Medicine
2
Policy analysis
1
Technology
1
The 69 peer-reviewed articles represented a wide range of publication venues. A number of
disciplines were represented, including economics and finance, education, law, medicine, and
sociology. Only three peer-reviewed articles were published in a venue that is publicly accessible, one
of which is an educational research journal (Education Policy Analysis Archives [EPAA]). Four articles
were published in the American Educational Research Association’s journals: Educational Researcher
(1), American Educational Research Journal (1), Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis (1), and Review of
Educational Research (1). Other high-profile education journals were represented in the list of
publication venues, including Peabody Journal of Education (1), Teachers College Record (2), American Journal
of Education (2), and Sociology of Education (1). The most cited journals were the Economic of Education
Review (4) and Social Education (4). All eight of the references to these two journals were in the same
guidance document, the 2014 on equal access to educational resources. There were also some more
content specific journals in the sample such as Journal of Aesthetic Education (1), Journal of Labor
Economics (2) and Journal of Educational Administration (2). A summary of the most cited publication
venues is provided in Table 3.
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 14
OCR guidance not citing research. A particularly noteworthy finding was that most
guidance documents did not cite peer-reviewed research. The topics of these documents cut across
the field of education. Several documents provided clarification on recent court decisions regarding
diversity in education. For example, OCR discussed the use of race conscious admissions policies as
a means to achieve diversity in higher education and utilizing race as a factor to achieve diversity in
k-12 schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b, 2014b, 2016j). Other topics include those
focused on balancing the physical health and safety of students with civil rights in schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013c, 2014e, 2015b, 2016c). Notably, there were a number of guidance
documents regarding students with disabilities that did not reference research (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013a, 2014c, 2014d, 2016c). Moreover, topics that received much media attention, i.e.
sexual violence and transgender students, also did not reference research. Overall, while there were
some guidance documents that cited research, most guidance documents did not make explicit
connections to peer-reviewed research.
Summary across guidance documents. Table 4 provides an overview of the sources cited
across the six guidance documents. In only one of the guidance documents (resource allocation) was
research the most frequent type of resource cited. This particular document relied upon resources
more often than the other guidance documents. Overall, laws tended to comprise a large portion of
the resources across the six guidance documents.
Table 3
Most Frequently Cited Peer-Reviewed Publication Venues in OCR Guidance
Publication
Frequency
Social Education
4
American Journal of Education
3
Economics of Education Review
3
Journal of Community Psychology
2
Journal of Education Finance
2
Journal of Educational Administration
2
Pediatrics
2
Professional School Counseling
2
Table 4
Overview of OCR Guidance Citations
Peer-
reviewed
Research
Books/
Unpublished
Research/Other
Non-
Government
Report/Research
Government
Based
Research/Reports
Laws*
Guidance**
Other***
Equal Access to
Educational
Resources
50
3
33
14
37
6
3
School Discipline
Policies/Practices
11
0
1
5
28
2
2
Youth Service
Organizations
1
0
1
2
12
2
0
Gender Equity in
Career and
Technical Education
1
0
1
6
56
6
0
ADHD
1
0
0
8
73
12
7
Preventing Racial
Discrimination in
Special Education
5
0
3
1
58
10
0
Note: *(Statutes, Regulations, Case law)
**(Policy documents issued by OCR and the Department of Education)
***(References to websites only, guidance from other agencies, manuals, guidebooks, and memos)
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research 15
It is worth noting that some guidance documents included a caveat regarding the use of
research. For example, in the DCL on racial discrimination in special education, a footnote indicates
that “the cited publications throughout this guidance are provided for informational purposes only.
Their citation is not intended to suggest endorsement by the Department or the Federal government
of the authors’ conclusions” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016d, p. 11) Providing a bit more
detail, the DCL on resource allocation specifically states:
This letter cites to leading scholarship in the field of education in the endnotes to
demonstrate the importance of the resources discussed to the quality of education
that students receive and to document the disparities in access to these resources
across the Nation. These citations, however, are intended to illustrate the problems
we face rather than to provide an exhaustive account of the state of the research.
OCR weighed information gleaned from research alongside the experience of decades
of OCR enforcement of civil rights protections in our schools to determine which
resources to prioritize in this letter. As with all investigations, OCR retains discretion
to investigate complaints of discrimination in access to resources not discussed in this
letter and will consider the fact-specific contexts of all complaints in evaluating
allegations of discrimination, including evidence that in a particular school or district,
the relationship between resources, the quality of education, and student outcomes
may not follow typical patterns (U.S. Department of Education, 2014d, p. 2).
These statements reinforce OCR’s primary role as an enforcement agency while also highlighting the
ways in which research may provide meaningful support and context to this role.
Research Citing OCR Guidance
Ninety peer-reviewed research articles were found to reference OCR guidance. The articles
addressed a myriad of significant topics, including but not limited to: sexual assault/sexual
harassment/sexual violence (26 articles); bullying (9 articles); LGBTQ students (8 articles);
participation in athletics for students with disabilities (8 articles); the use of technology to meet the
needs of students with disabilities (7 articles); school diversity and segregation (6 articles); student
discipline (5 articles); and special education eligibility and identification (4 articles). Other topics,
such as single sex education or access to advanced courses for English Learners, appeared less
frequently.
For the purpose of this study, research was coded under a dimension of identity, as dictated
in federal civil rights laws (race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or disability) if it was a main focus the
article or if it provided any discussion of OCR’s work related that dimension of identity. As such,
depending on the research topic, some articles cut across more than one civil rights law or
dimension of identity and are represented more than once in the figures presented in this section.
Race, ethnicity, and national origin. Thirty-four of the 90 articles that cited OCR
guidance included information on topics related to race, ethnicity, and/or national origin. Figure 2
reveals the range of topic areas referencing race, ethnicity, or national origin. Articles in this category
did not cluster around any one topic area. The majority of articles in this section relied on OCR
guidance as the reference to the legal framework for purposes of explaining compliance with federal
policy, or simply as the status of the law. Most of these references were found in either the
introduction to the article or as part of the literature review.
Some articles referenced data presented in OCR guidance. Information from the 2014 DCL
on the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline was used mainly to illustrate the
discrepancy in expulsion and suspensions among black and white students. In one article, it was
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 104 16
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
17
used specifically to show discipline disparities experienced by black girls (Annamma, Anyon, Joseph,
Farrar, Greer, Downing, & Simmons, 2019). Barret and Katsiyannis (2015) utilized the 2014 DCL to
underscore their discussion of recidivism among black and white students.
Lastly, the use of OCR guidance took a more critical perspective in a few articles. For
example, Williams and McDermott (2014) looked at guidance in the context of the political climate
and examined whether the timing and delivery of OCR’s 2011 guidance on race-conscious policy
was tied to the administration’s reluctance to address race directly. In their reference to OCR’s
guidance on race, McDermott, Frankenberg and Diem (2014) commented that the Obama
administration took some time to issue clarifying guidance after a related Supreme Court decision,
which may have exacerbated existing resistance to integration policies.
Race/
Ethnicity/
National
Origin
Bullying in School Corporal Punishment Immigrant Children Black
Males in an Urban Charter School • Civil Rights Enforcement • Integration
Residential Diversity • Special education in urban neighborhood and
charter Schools • Parental choice and policy outcomes • Single-sex education
Bullying depicted in children’s literature • Sex discrimination in post-
secondary education case studies for training Sexual harassment/bullying
outcomes in high school • Differentiation between bullying and harassment
• Bullying prevention • Policies impacting transgender students• Section 504
students • School behavior management • School diversity policy • Race and
juvenile delinquency recidivism • Bystander intervention • LGBTQ student
victimization/School discipline • Black girls/School discipline • Special
education and mathematics Comparative analysis of US and UK school
discipline
35
Figure 2. Topics of Articles Addressing Race/Ethnicity/National Origin
Sex. More than half (57) of the total research articles that cited OCR guidance documents
(90) were categorized under sex. Not surprisingly, many involved a direct response to the 2011 DCL
requirements for sexual misconduct policies under Title IX (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Another significant guidance document, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence
(U.S. Department of Education, 2014h), was issued because OCR continued to receive requests for
clarification under Title IX. This guidance addressed fourteen areas of concern to assist educational
institutions in meeting their obligations to students and the federal regulations. The articles citing
these documents covered an array of topics, including reporting policies, adjudication, best practices,
prevention, due process concerns, sexual assault nurse examiners. Again, guidance was most often
referenced as the legal framework within the introduction or background of an article. What differs
about the articles in this section is that many were practice-oriented and provided information on
how to comply with the guidance. OCR’s guidance was referenced as “the” legal framework for
policies and practices related to sexual misconduct in education. For example, Koss, Wilgus, and
Williams (2014) discussed the use of restorative justice approaches to improve compliance with the
2011 DCL.
It is worth noting that some articles took a critical posture in their analysis of OCR’s
approach to Title IX, often focusing the lack of clarity in the then-new regulations and the resulting
confusion among administrators. For example, Cantalupo (2014) noted “OCR’s own guidance and
an April 2011 ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ (DCL) regarding sexual violence never explain how one would
go about initiating an investigation or where one might file a complaint, even while referring to OCR
investigations” (p. 231). Others focused on whether the 2011 guidance on sexual assault went far
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 18
enough to protect students (see e.g. Eisenberg, Lust, Mathiason & Porta, 2017; Harper, Maskaly,
Kirkner, & Lorenz, 2017). Articles under the umbrella of sex discrimination also addressed concerns
related to inclusive policies and practices and general climate issues impacting LGBTQ students. To
illustrate, Palmer and Greyak (2017) studied victimization among LGBTQ students and interactions
with school discipline and the criminal justice system.
Sex
Title IX policy on campus sexual misconduct • Title IX policy
on campus gender equity/athletics • Bullying in schools •
Bullying/Sexual Harassment combined • Transgender rights •
Campus rape reforms • Sexual orientation in a principal
preparation program • Needs of gender diverse students •
Supporting students’ gender diversity • Higher education’s
responses to sexual assault • Restorative justice and campus sexual
misconduct • Sexual misconduct adjudication and due process •
Rape prevention on campus • Abuse of college students with
disabilities • Disincentives to reporting gender-based violence •
Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence • Sexual consent
communication in films • Cultural competency, sexual
victimization, and student behaviors for new faculty • Reduction
of campus sexual assault • State legislative agendas regarding
sexual assault in higher education • Sexual assault/sexual
orientation/reporting • Sexual objectification and sexual assault •
Sexual assault nurse examiners
56
Figure 3. Topics of Articles Addressing Sex
Disability. Forty-four articles were categorized under disability in this study. Discussion of
legal obligations and the civil right of students as defined by OCR guidance were prominent article
topics. Whereas many articles in the race, ethnicity, national origin, and sex categories had a critical
stance, the majority of articles in this category addressed OCR guidance in a practical fashion,
focusing on compliance with federal law. As with the previous categories, most references to OCR
guidance were found in the background portions of the articles, setting out the status of the legal
landscape on disability in education. For example, Yell, Katsiyannis, and Houchins (2016) provided
an overview of court cases, administrative decisions, and guidance related to bullying and
harassment of students with disabilities.
Articles outlining compliance under this section also were more specific in nature than other
categories; much research was aimed at precisely how school administrators could meet obligations
as set out by OCR guidance. Edyburn (2013) and Barron (2011) explored OCR guidance on the use
of emerging technologies and accessibility in the field of special education. DeMartini (2016) and
Yell, Losinski, and Katsiyannis, (2014) discussed the obligations of school districts with respect to
the participation of student with disabilities in extracurricular activities. Other topics included the
legal requirements for schools under specific guidance. As an example, Zirkel, Granthom, and
Lovato (2012) explored a 2012 DCL on Section 504 obligations in the context of school nurses.
They found that OCR’s interpretation of Section 504 obligations differed from that under the
Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
19
Disability
Bullying • E-readers in the classroom • Access to resources •
Technology in special education • Accessibility issues • Disabilities
and extracurricular activities • Deaf/Blind college students •
Analysis of Practice Position Statement • e-readers for individuals
with print disabilities • Athletics and Students With Disabilities •
Bullying and Harassment of Students With Disabilities •
Bullying/Speech-Language Pathologists • Children With ADHD •
Section 504/School nursing • Technology accessibility • Case
reviews • Universal design for learning
44
Figure 4. Topics of Articles Addressing Disability
Intersectionality. Forty-three articles covered more than one dimension of identity. The
intersectional nature of the subject matter addressed in these articles could not be attributed to race,
ethnicity, national origin, sex, or disability, separately. This is not surprising, given that multiply
marginalized students are subject to the same interlocking systems of power, discrimination, and
oppression that affect U.S. society in general (Crenshaw, 1991). For example, a number of articles
that covered topics in both the race and sex category involved bullying in schools and its relation to
sexual harassment, with reference to DCL on peer harassment issued in October, 2010 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Another example of intersectionality is best illustrated in Marsh
and Noguera’s 2017 study on the effects of labeling on black male students.
The use of guidance in research. Research referenced OCR guidance in a variety of ways,
representing a spectrum of policy use, from passing references to serving as the focal points for
articles. Some research used data cited in OCR guidance documents to emphasize the significance of
a particular issue. To illustrate this method of policy use, one article on the topic of racial disparities
in student discipline stated:
First, the process starts with self-awareness as teachers recognize their own cultural
lens and biases. This is an important place to start because, according to a recent
‘‘Dear Colleague’’ Letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil
Rights and U.S. Department Justice’s Civil Rights Division (2014), Black students
without disabilities were three times as likely as their White peers without disabilities
to be expelled or suspended from school… (Marsh & Noguera, 2017, p. 472)
In contrast to this specific use of policy guidance, there were also instances when OCR guidance was
used to support a general idea about the rights of students. One article turned to OCR guidance to
support the assertion that “the United States is a nation that guarantees the educational rights of all
children regardless of their backgrounds, including national origin (U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights, 2011)” (Kanno & Kangas, 2014, p. 849). Other articles used OCR guidance
as a guiding framework for understanding or analyzing a specific issue. A few articles even asked
study participants or individuals analyzing case studies to answer questions directly related to OCR
guidance. To illustrate, one case study asked participants to review the DCL on harassment and
bullying and determine whether the scenario presented for analysis conforms with the requirements
of the letter (Martin & Beese, 2016). The issuance of a specific guidance document also served as the
impetus for some of the articles that were reviewed for this study (e.g., Block, 2012). In these
instances, the articles often served as important opportunities to present the appropriate legal
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 20
framework and its implications for policy and practice. Reflecting a more limited use, some studies
used guidance merely as a reference, without directly referring to the guidance in the content of the
article.
Characteristics of research citing guidance. Similar to research cited in guidance,
research citing guidance represented a range of methodological approaches, disciplines, and
publication venues. Unlike research cited in guidance, research citing guidance favored qualitative
research methods (28). The second most common category was conceptual pieces, with 19.
Quantitative research methods were employed in 12 of the articles. Close in frequency, with 11, were
legal or policy analyses. The remaining designs were: literature review/meta-analyses (8), mixed
methods (6), best practices (5), and intervention studies (1).
Represented disciplines were similarly diverse, with the most common being education
journals. The next closest was psychology or behavioral health, with 11 articles. In terms of
publication venue, the most common was the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (6), followed by the
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership (4), the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (4),
Trauma, Violence and Abuse (4). Some additional general and special interest journals, including policy-
specific journals were represented more than once (e.g. American Educational Research Journal, Education
Policy, Journal of Disability Policy Studies). Seven of the journals were open access journals.
Table 5
Characteristics of Peer-reviewed Research Citing OCR Guidance
Research Design
Discipline of Journal
Qualitative
28
Education
39
Conceptual
19
Medicine/Health
5
Quantitative
12
Multi
1
Policy or Legal Analyses
11
Psychology/Behavioral Health
11
Literature Review or
Meta-Analyses
8
Sociology
7
Mixed Method
6
Sports Management
1
Best Practices
5
Interpersonal Violence
6
Intervention Study
1
Trauma Studies
6
Disability Studies
3
Law (peer-reviewed)
3
Other
8
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
21
Table 6
Peer-Reviewed Publications Most Frequently Citing OCR Guidance
Publication
Frequency
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
6
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership
5
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
4
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
4
American Educational Research Journal
3
Journal of Disability Policy Studies
3
Psychology of Violence
3
Table 6 cont.
Peer-Reviewed Publications Most Frequently Citing OCR Guidance
Publication
Frequency
Educational Policy
2
Journal of Special Education Technology
2
College Student Affairs Journal
2
NASN School Nurse
2
NASSP Bulletin
2
Violence Against Women
2
Youth Justice
2
Summary of research citing OCR guidance. Research citing guidance covered a myriad
of topics that cut across race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, and disability. As evidenced by the
examples presented in the previous section, researchers employed diverse methods of policy use in
the articles reviewed for this study. Moreover, research was published in venues representing the
cross-disciplinary work of OCR.
Overall Summary of Bidirectional Relationship between Research and OCR Guidance
Connections between research and policy appeared in both research and OCR policy
guidance. On the “research use in policy” side of the relationship, guidance citing research touched
on broad topics such as students with disabilities, gender equity, resource allocation, youth service
organizations, and student discipline. Overall, there were six guidance documents (out of 77) that
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 22
cited peer-reviewed research. Explicit, policy-connected research addressed issues such as students
with disabilities (charter schools, bullying, ADHD, Section 504, extracurricular activities, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, technology), Title IX and sexual violence, transgender students,
English Learners, immigration, student discipline, and harassment. Seventeen out of the 40guidance
packages or their included documents were cited in the literature reviewed for this study. Notably,
only two guidance documents both cited research and were cited by researchers. The Appendix
summarizes the use of research in OCR guidance and the use of OCR guidance in research.
As for the characteristics of research, research cited in guidance tended to favor quantitative
methods while research citing guidance tended to favor qualitative research. Education journal
articles were the most common discipline represented in both directions. Interestingly, when
considering the most common publication venues, there was not a lot of overlap between the
research cited in guidance and the research citing guidance.
Discussion
Returning to the idea of impact, introduced at the beginning of this article, existing literature
examines various policy-related avenues that educational researchers may utilize to influence law and
policy. These options include serving as an expert witness (e.g., Welner & Kupermintz, 2004),
actively engaging in policy discourse (Pfleger et al., 2018), building relationships with intermediary
organizations (Debray, Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014), participating in the amicus brief process in
court cases (Garces, 2013a; Lewis & Bray, 2019), and indirectly shaping public opinion (Welner,
2012). However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between
research and civil rights guidance, particularly from a bidirectional perspective. Research
demonstrates that “any given policy decision is the result of many forces, with research sometimes
included- but power, communications and politics often determine the research that makes it this
far” (Pfleger et al., 2018, p. 16). As researchers seek to bridge the gap between research and policy,
specifically in the legal context, OCR guidance is an empirically underexplored dimension of the gap.
Potential Disciplinary Barriers and Professional Norms
As we analyze our findings, the six models of research use in policy, as identified by Weiss
(1979), are worth revisiting. To summarize, the models were as follows: the “knowledge-driven
model,” “the problem-solving model,” the political model, the tactical model, and the enlightenment
model (Nutley et al., 2007). In the present study, we cannot say with certainty why certain research
was cited in some instances but not others. However, our findings reinforce the complex
interactions between research and policy, as identified in the framework for this study.
While research was cited in OCR policy guidance, the use varied across documents and only
six out of 77 cited peer-reviewed research. It is worth noting that this number would have been
greater if we had used definition of research that extends beyond peer-reviewed research, including
government-inititated research and non-government reports or policy briefs, which tend to be more
easily accessible to the public. As demonstrated in the literature, there is a threshold issue with
access to peer-reviewed publications (Daly & Finnigan, 2014). Although some publication venues,
such as EPAA, provide the public with free access, many publications remain behind a paywall.
Related to publication access is the process, itself, which tends to be long and inconsistent with the
needs of policymakers (Yohalem & Tseng, 2015). Some journals have begun to take this into
consideration, but efforts to improve the timeliness of the publication process are still a work in
progress.
From a disciplinary standpoint, OCR, as opposed to other divisions within the U.S.
Department of Education, represents a legal perspective, which may come with different disciplinary
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
23
norms and perspectives. As such, the use of social science research could be considered somewhat
nontraditional to those who are guided by their legal training. An overall look at all resources cited in
the OCR guidance reviewed for this study hints that this may be the case. Legal references such as
statutes, regulations, and case law appeared approximately 15 times more often than peer-reviewed
research. This number is even greater if you combine legal citations with policy guidance documents.
Depending on the disciplinary background of individuals crafting guidance, there is a possibility that
OCR policymakers, like judges (Morgan & Pullin, 2010; Welner & Kupermintz, 2004), have a
difficult time sifting through relevant educational research because it is not their primary area of
expertise. An interactive model of research use (Nutley et al., 2007; Weiss, 1979) would be ideal to
address some of these potential disciplinary barriers.
Of course, the use of research may also depend on the purpose or impetus for the issuance
of a particular guidance document. For example, if the purpose of the guidance is to clarify or
reiterate a legal standard based on recent developments in case law, perhaps policymakers see less of
a need to identify relevant research. Related to the purpose could be a concern that the guidance
may be more likely to be perceived as being guided primarily by research rather than being guided by
the law, thereby making it more susceptible to being challenged in court or rescinded by a future
administration. In this regard, the use (or nonuse) of research may be viewed as tactical (Nutley et
al., 2007). For example, when the 2016 transgender guidance was rescinded, OCR argued that the
guidance did not “contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the
express language of Title IX, nor did they undergo any formal public process” (U.S. Department of
Education and Department of Justice, 2017, p. 1). However, in addition to legal resources, social
science research has a rich history in law; within the educational context, its use in OCR policy
guidance is merely an extension of an already robust and growing use of research in law through
other means, such as amicus briefs, expert testimony, etc. (e.g., Garces, 2013a; Lewis & Bray,
2019;Superfine, Goldman, & Richard, 2019).
Both research and law are complex and in a constant state of evolution. As an illustration, in
the last few years, multiple OCR guidance documents have been rescinded, including some
mentioned in this article. Policy-informed research and research-informed policymaking requires
ongoing maintenance. Keeping track of this activity and its relationship to your research as a “policy
actor” (Welner, 2012, p. 7) should not be oversimplified.
The Perception of Research: Purpose, Function, and Methodological Approaches
It is important to acknowledge that research is not used in a vacuum and there is a political
dimension to the process (Lubienski, DeBray, & Scott; 2014). As Tseng (2012) stated, “rather than
viewing politics as a nuisance to be set aside, it behooves us to increase our understanding of how
the political and policy process works and how it influences research acquisition, interpretation, and
use” (p. 8). Bound by a presidential administration, specifically the Obama administration, this
study’s design acknowledges the political nature of policymaking, including the issuance of OCR
policy guidance. As stated previously, the Obama administration engaged in novel efforts to
integrate research into OCR’s work. In OCR’s 2009-2016 report titled “Achieving Simple Justice,”
OCR described their work under the Obama administration as follows:
One of the Obama Administration’s highest priorities has been to deliver that simple
justice by safeguarding students’ access, and reducing discriminatory barriers, to
educational opportunity. Over the past eight years, the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has significantly contributed to this
priority through vigorously enforcing federal civil rights laws, collecting
comprehensive data on equity and opportunity gaps in schools, issuing timely civil
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 24
rights policy guidance, and enhancing the public’s awareness of civil rights and of
OCR’s work (U.S. Department of Education, 2016a).
As evidenced by this study, the research-policy gap is intertwined with other forces and sources of
debate. According to the literature, there is a “general perception that educational research is low
quality” (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002, p. 5). Of the research-policy connections that did exist
in this study, from a methodological perspective, policymakers relied more heavily on quantitative
research methods, while researchers citing guidance tended to favor qualitative research. This
inconsistency and lack of consensus is reflected in the scholarship as well. According to Feuer,
Towne, and Shavelson (2002),
Educational researchers themselves are often their own harshest critics (e.g., Kaestle,
1993). They are often joined by a chorus of social and physical scientists, engineers,
and business leaders who lament weak or absent theory, accumulations of anecdote
masquerading as evidence, studies with little obvious policy relevance, seemingly
endless disputes over the desired outcomes of schooling, low levels of replicability,
large error margins, opaqueness of data and sources, unwillingness or inability to
agree on a common set of metrics, and the inevitable intrusion of ideology at the
ground level (p. 5).
Within law in particular, authors similarly argue that there are “wide gaps in understanding between
the legal and research communities about the rigor and value of social science in legal decision-
making” (Marin, Yun, Garces, & Horn, 2019 p. 2).
On the “policy use” side, our findings demonstrate similar issues related to the functional
value of research. While some researchers are considering the broader policy context in which their
work is situated, many are not. Although we cannot definitively state why this occurred, we theorize
that some researchers might consider their work to lack policy implications due to methodological
considerations such as generalizability (e.g., Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). However,
publication venues appear to be interested in research with connections to policy. In fact, some
education journals’ mission statements explicitly mention implications for policy as a desirable, if not
required for publication. For example, Peabody Journal of Education: Issues of Leadership, Policy, and
Organizations, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, and Journal of
Education Policy, the American Journal of Education appear to have an interest in policy-related research.
Not surprisingly, some of these journals appeared in both directions of our study. Making explicit
connections to policy guidance has the potential to improve upon existing efforts to promote the
“knowledge-driven model” where “research findings can be communicated to impel action (Nutley
et al., 2007, p. 285).
As for publication venue, the most commonly occurring publication venues (cited in
guidance and citing guidance) did not have much overlap. Although a source of much debate within
the research community, there are metrics that we often turn to in order to judge publication quality
and impact, including but not limited to impact factor. The present study presents important
implications for this broader discourse. For example, Social Education, the flagship journal for the
National Council for the Social Studies was the most cited publication venue in OCR guidance.
Although this journal is not indexed, nor does it have an assigned impact factor, this study provides
evidence of this journal’s impact on policy. As such, this study raises considerations for the ways in
which we assess impact in the field of educational research.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
25
Limitations
This study has a few limitations worth noting. First, our definition of research is confined to
peer-reviewed research. While this presents some limitations, this definition not only captures the
primary forum where researchers publish their work, it also allows for an examination of the
bidirectional relationship between research and policy guidance. Consequently, this definition was
critical to bound the study. Here, we focus specifically on explicit references to research and policy
guidance. To capture the more nuanced connections between research and OCR policy guidance,
future research could explore existing networks and policy-based relationships between authors of
guidance and researchers. This research design would align more closely with the enlightenment and
interactive models of research use (Nutley et al., 2007; Weiss, 1979). On the consumer side, future
research could involve interviews or surveys with policymakers who participated in the creation of
policy guidance. On the production side, future research could aim to better understand how cited
authors disseminate and distribute their research findings. Research might also seek to undercover
researchers’ understanding of OCR, policy guidance, and the role that research should play in policy
guidance. The present study serves as a foundation for these follow-up studies.
Another consideration is the inclusion criteria related to the year of publication. Given
publication timelines, our research design may not have captured all research citing guidance,
particularly later guidance. However, there is almost a year in between the last guidance issued in
2017 and research publication parameters (December 31, 2017). As a result, our design for this study
provided enough time for researchers to at least add reference to even the last OCR guidance
documents of the Obama administration. Research will likely continue to cite OCR guidance issued
under the Obama administration, including the time period outside the scope of the present study,
which may be explored in future research examining the longevity and impact of Obama era
guidance.
Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice
As an initial exploration into the relationship between research and OCR policy guidance,
the present study reveals some implications for researchers, policymakers, intermediary
organizations, and practitioners. As indicated earlier in this article, the Obama administration
engaged in unprecedented efforts to create user-friendly guidance, including through the inclusion of
research (Lewis et al., 2019). Nonetheless, even within the guidance documents citing research, we
identified areas of improvement. Although researchers may have played an implicit role in the
issuance of these guidance documents, explicit references to research allow for consumers to consult
research to inform the implementation of the requirements set forth in the guidance. While we
recognize that there are many ways that researchers may influence policy guidance, our findings
nonetheless revealed some important missed opportunities.
Under the Trump administration, OCR has rescinded multiple guidance documents,
spanning issues such as race-conscious admissions policies, inclusive policies for transgender
students, student discipline, and sexual assault. These topics, as well as other topics under the
purview of OCR, are the subject of a large body of research. As OCR continues to identify future
actions, it is important for researchers to be aware of policy activity and play an active role in
informing future actions. This study demonstrates that in recent history, OCR has explicitly turned
to research to support its policy guidance and as researchers, we can work to build upon these
explicit connections.
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 26
The social science research community is already actively engaged in efforts to influence
policy. Within the context of law in particular, researchers are mobilizing around cases of national
significance related to race conscious admissions policies in higher education and diversity in k-12
schools (Brief of American Social Science Researchers, 2013; Brief of 531 social scientists and
scholars, 2018; Brief of the American Educational Research Association et al., 2013). Moreover, in
issuing guidance, OCR seeks input from multiple stakeholder groups (Testimony of Catherine
Lhamon, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2016f, 2016k, 2018). Researchers should continue to
be involved and increase their involvement in these discussions. Furthermore, it is critical for
researchers to continue to engage in research with an eye toward implications for OCR policy
guidance. Similarly, the research community should study the implications of policy guidance so that
OCR can better understand the potential impact of a decision to rescind guidance.
Relationships are key to bridging the gap between research and policy. According to Pfleger,
Wilson, Welner, & Bibilos (2018), “a key element of such public scholarship calls upon researchers
to join with others to more directly communicate research with policy-makers and practitioners,
fostering democratic public problem solving in ways that resonate with broad concerns” (p. 17).
Tseng (2012) argues that the communication of research requires translation, an act that may be
done by researchers, intermediaries, or through a joint effort in which intermediaries serve as
“relationship brokers, bringing researchers and decision-makers together to focus on core problems
of practice or policy” (p. 12). Similarly, Marin, Yun, Garces & Horn (2019) argue that “identifying
and networking those knowledge producers who are already inclined to work with legal practitioners
and matching them with one anotherthat is, connecting communities who already share a more
common understandingcould meet the goal of narrowing the gap between producer and
practitioner communities” (p. 19). These ideas will be important to consider within the realm of
research and OCR policy guidance as well.
The present study revealed important areas of improvement for policymakers. “Research use
is contingent, interactive, and iterative. It involves people individually and collectively engaging with
research over time, bringing their own and their organization’s goals, motivations, routines, and
political contexts with them” (Tseng & Nutley, p. 165). The data reviewed for this study showed
opportunities for policymakers to increase the breadth and depth of explicit connections to research,
including diversifying topics, publication venues, and methodological approaches.
In the context of civil rights enforcement, policy guidance serves as a communication tool
with direct connections to local policies and practices. Practitioners can look to policy guidance not
only to understand civil rights obligations but also to identify research that may be useful to the
implementation of policies and practices that identify to identify, address, and prevent civil rights
violations.
Conclusion
Understanding and strengthening the relationship between research and policy is important
for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. There are opportunities for growth on both the
policy side and the research side of the relationship. Educational researchers could place greater
emphasis on the policy context in which their work is situated and make explicit connections to this
context. Policymakers could build upon their explicit use of high quality, cutting edge research. To
bridge the current divide, it is important to “build relationships and trust, shore up capacity, create
conditions for evidence integration, and develop partnerships” (Tseng & Nutley, 2014, p. 168). In
the context of the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, a synergistic relationship
between research-informed policy guidance and policy-informed research promotes equal access and
opportunities for historically marginalized students.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
27
References
Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution
of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(37), 1-42.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n37.2012
Annamma, S. A., Anyon, Y., Joseph, N. M., Farrar, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., & Simmons, J.
(2019). Black girls and school discipline: The complexities of being overrepresented and
understudied. Urban Education, 54(2), 211242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916646610
Arcia, E., Frank, R., Sanchez-LaCay, A., & Fernáindez, M. C. (2000). Teacher understanding of
ADHD as reflected in attributions and classroom strategies. Journal of Attention Disorders, 4(2),
91-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/108705470000400203
Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2005). Tricks of the trade: State legislative actions in school finance
policy that perpetuate racial disparities in the post-Brown era. American Journal of
Education, 111(3), 372-413. https://doi.org/10.1086/428886
Barron, P. (2011). E-readers in the classroom. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and
Pedagogy, 22(1), 133-138.
Block, J. A. (2012). "Prompt and equitable” explained: How to craft a Title IX compliant sexual
harassment policy and why it matters. College Student Affairs Journal, 30(2), 61-71.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New
York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in highpoverty
schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy
Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20377
Brief of American Social Science researchers as amici curiae in support of respondents, Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013).
Brief of 531 social scientists and scholars on college access, Asian American studies, and race in
support of defendant, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard
College, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB (2018).
Brief of the American Educational Research Association et al., as amici curiae in support of
respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013).
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Cantalupo, N. C. (2014). Institution-specific victimization surveys: Addressing legal and practical
disincentives to gender-based violence reporting on college campuses. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 15(3), 227241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521323
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize
student achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 4-12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548677
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in
high school a cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3),
655-681. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2010.0023
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., Best, A. M., & Forness, S. R. (2002). Gender and sociodemographic
factors and the disproportionate identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students
with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 109-125.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290202700202
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6) 1241-1299.
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 28
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2014) Beginning the journey: Research evidence from the schoolhouse door to
Capitol Hill. In K. Finnigan & A. Daly (Eds.) Using research evidence in education: From the
schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 1-6). New York, NY. Springer.
DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter
school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175-206.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132
DeMartini, A. (2016). Student-athletes with disabilities have the right to participate. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(2), 4951. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2016.1119550
Dobbie, W., & Fryer Jr, R. G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement
among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children's Zone. American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics, 3(3), 158-87. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.3.158
Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base.
Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000107
Eisenberg, M. E., Lust, K., Mathiason, M. A., & Porta, C. M. (2017). Sexual assault, sexual
orientation, and reporting among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
0886260517726414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726414
Fernandez, E., LeChasseur, K., Weiner, J. (Eds.) (2017). Implications and consequences of ESSA:
Exploring the changing landscape of federal policy and educational administration [Special
issue]. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 699-845.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17735843
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational
research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008004
Flores, G. & The Committee on Pediatric Research (2010). Technical Report-Racial and Ethnic
Disparities in the Health and Health Care of Children. Pediatrics, 25(4), 979-1020.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0188
Frankenberg, E., & Garces, L. M. (2007). The use of social science evidence in Parents Involved and
Meredith: Implications for researchers and schools. University of Louisville Law Review, 46(703),
703-751.
Gagnon, D. J., Mattingly, M. J., & Connelly, V. J. (2017). The restraint and seclusion of students
with a disability: Examining trends in US school districts and their policy implications. Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, 28(2), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317710697
Garces, L. M. (2013a). Reflections on a collaboration: Communicating educational research in
Fisher. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 174175. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13486626
Garces, L. M. (2013b). Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans in different graduate
fields of study. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 251-284.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212470483
Garces, L. M., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2014). Dynamic diversity: Toward a contextual understanding of
critical mass. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 115-124.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14529814
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two
sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Gregory, A., & Thompson, A. R. (2010). African American high school students and variability in
behavior across classrooms. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3), 386402.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20370
Harper, S., Maskaly, J., Kirkner, A., & Lorenz, K. (2017). Enhancing title IX due process standards
in campus sexual assault adjudication: Considering the roles of distributive, procedural, and
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
29
restorative justice. Journal of school violence, 16(3), 302-316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1318578
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education?. Sociology of
Education, 83(4), 312-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710383518
Horn, C. L., Marin, P., Garces, L. M., Miksch, K., & Yun, J. T. (2018). Shaping educational policy
through the courts: The use of social science research in amicus briefs in Fisher I. Educational
Policy, 1-28. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818773902.
Huston, A. C. (2008). From research to policy and back. Child Development, 79(1), 112.
http://doi.org 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01107.x
Jiménez-Castellanos, O., & García, E. (2017). Intersection of language, class, ethnicity, and policy:
Toward disrupting inequality for English language learners. Review of Research in Education,
41(1), 428-452. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16688623
Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English Language
Learners’ limited access to advanced dollege-preparatory courses in high school. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214544716
Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542-562.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159539
Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct: Restorative
justice approaches to enhance compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 15(3), 242-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521500
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n56.2004
Lewis, M.M. & Bray L. (2019). Research use in Endrew F.: A call for amicus briefs as a means to
Influence special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 131-137.
Lewis, M. M., Burke, M., & Decker, J. R. (forthcoming). The research-to-policy gap: A
systematic review of special education research. American Journal of Education.
Lewis, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2019). Storytelling, leadership, and the law: Using amicus briefs to
understand the impact of school district policies and practices related to transgender
student inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 46-88.
Lewis, M. M., Garces, L. M., & Frankenberg, E. (2019). A comprehensive and practical approach:
Building a broader understanding of the Office for Civil Rights’ Role in Education.
Educational Researcher, 48(1), 51-60.
Lubienski, C., DeBray, E., & Scott, J. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and
utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329
Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge
production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, 22(1), 1-3.
Malen, B., Dayhoff, J., Egan, L., & Croninger, R. G. (2017). The challenges of advancing fiscal
equity in a resource-strained context. Educational Policy, 31(5), 615-642.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815613445
Marin, P., Yun, J. T., Garces, L. M., & Horn, C. L. (2019). Bridging divides: Understanding
knowledge producers’ perspectives on the use of research in law. The Journal of Higher
Education, 1-25.
Marsh, L. T., & Noguera, P. A. (2017). Beyond stigma and stereotypes: An ethnographic study on
the effects of school-imposed labeling on black males in an urban charter school. The Urban
Review, 50(2), 447-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0441-x
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 30
Martin, J., & Beese, J. A. (2016). Pink is for girls: Sugar and spice and everything niceA case of
single-sex education. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19(4), 86101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664762
McDermott, K. A., Frankenberg, E., & Diem, S. (2014). The “post-racial” politics of race: Changing
student assignment policy in three school districts. Educational Policy, 29(3), 504554.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813510775
Meyer, E. J. (2015). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., & Cook, M. (2015).
Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal
evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278-292.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157
Morgan, P. L., Staff, J., Hillemeier, M. M., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2013). Racial and ethnic
disparities in ADHD diagnosis from kindergarten to eighth grade. Pediatrics, 132(1), 85-93.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2390
Morgan, J. M., & Pullin, D. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and strategies for
bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 515-524.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10383334
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public
services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1
Okonofua, J. A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young
students. Psychological science, 26(5), 617-624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570365
Palmer, N. A., & Greytak, E. A. (2017). LGBTQ student victimization and its relationship to school
discipline and justice system involvement. Criminal Justice Review, 42(2), 163187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016817704698
Perna, L. W. (2016). Throwing down the gauntlet: Ten ways to ensure that higher education research
continues to matter. The Review of Higher Education, 39(3), 319-338.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0016
Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., & Kent, D. C. (2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in
congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1),
111-145. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218788824
Pfleger, R. H., Wilson, T. S., Welner, K. G., & Bibilos, C. (2018). Measuring opportunity:
Redirecting education policy through research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(73), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3525
Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter?. American Journal of
Education, 116(4), 557-581. https://doi.org/10.1086/653629
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources
of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-
342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Karega Rausch, M., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is
not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in
school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.
Sullivan, A. L., & Osher, D. (2019). IDEA’s double bind: A synthesis of disproportionality policy
interpretations. Exceptional Children, Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918818047
Superfine, B. M., Goldman, S. R., & Richard, M. S. (2019). Toward a synergistic model for
improving the use of research in court-driven educational reform: Examining Gary B. v.
Snyder and Literacy Improvement in Detroit. Educational Researcher, 48(8), 543-548.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19874067
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
31
Testimony of Catherine Lhamon. (2014). Hearing on “Sexual Assault on Campus: Working to
Ensure Student Safety” before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/correspondence/testimony/20140626-sexual-
violence.pdf
Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1-16.
Tseng V., & Nutley S. (2014) Building the infrastructure to improve the use and Usefulness of
Research in Education. In K. Finnigan & A. Daly (Eds.) Using research evidence in education:
From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 163-175). New York, NY. Springer.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Guidance on Schools’ Obligations to Protect Students from Student-on-
Student Harassment on the Basis of Sex; Race, Color and National Origin; and Disability. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Guidance on Addressing Sexual Harassment/Sexual Violence.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012) Report to the President and Secretary of Education: Helping
to Ensure Access to Education. Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-2009-12.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013a). Guidance on Schools' Obligation to Provide Equal Opportunity to
Students with Disabilities to Participate in Extracurricular Athletics. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2013b). Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in
Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201309.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013c). Guidance to Health-Related Schools Regarding Hepatitis B
Discrimination. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). Dear colleague letter: Guidance to ensure all students have equal access
to educational resources. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Dear colleague letter: Supreme Court ruling in Schuette v. Coalition
to defend affirmative action. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-schuette-
guidance.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2014c). Guidance on Bullying of Students with Disabilities. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014d). Guidance on Effective Communication for Students with Hearing,
Vision, or Speech Disabilities in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014e). Guidance Package to Enhance School Climate and Improve School
Discipline Policies/Practice. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves V ol. 28 No. 104 32
U.S. Department of Education. (2014f). Guidance to Ensure All Students Have Equal Access to Educational
Resources. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014g). Implementing CDC’s Ebola Guidance for Schools while Protecting
the Civil Rights of Students and Others. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014h). Questions and answers about Title IX and sexual violence.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Dear colleague letter: Voluntary youth service organizations.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). Guidance Addressing the Risk of Measles in Schools while Protecting
the Civil Rights of Students with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015c). Guidance on Voluntary Youth Service Organizations. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016a). Achieving simple justice: Highlights of activities, Office for
Civil Rights, 2009-2016. Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/achieving-simple-justice.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016b). Dear colleague letter: Gender equity in career and technical education.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016c). Dear colleague letter: Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance on the
Use of Restraint and Seclusion in Schools. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016d). Dear colleague letter: Preventing racial discrimination in special
education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016e). Dear colleague letter: Resource guide on students with ADHD.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education (2016f). Delivering justice. Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-
education-2015.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016g). Guidance on Gender Equity in Career and Technical Education.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016h). Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance about the Rights of
Students with Disabilities in Public Charter Schools. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016i). Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance on the Prevention of Racial
Discrimination in Special Education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016j). Questions and Answers about the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
33
U.S. Department of Education. (2016k). Securing educational opportunity. Author. Retrieved
from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-
education-2016.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2018, April 4). Secretary DeVos Hosts School Safety and Climate
Listening Sessions. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-
devos-hosts-school-safety-and-climate-listening-sessions.
U.S. Department of Education (2019). Significant guidance at the Department of Education.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significant-guidance.html
U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Dear colleague letter on the
nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/index.html
U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Dear colleague letter on transgender
students. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201702-title-ix.pdf
Weiss, C. H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In L. E. Lynn
(Ed.) Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 2381). Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5),
426-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916
Welner, K. G. (2012). Scholars as policy actors: Research, public discourse, and the zone of judicial
constraints. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 7-29.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211415253
Welner, K. G., & Kupermintz, H. (2004). Rethinking expert testimony in education rights litigation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 127-142.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026002127
Williams, S. M., & McDermott, K. A. (2014). Social science research and school diversity policy.
Educational Policy, 28(2), 325346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813513150
William T. Grant Foundation (n.d.). Research grants. Retrieved from
http://wtgrantfoundation.org/grants/research-grants
Worthington, S. S. (2017). Beacon or Bludgeon: Use of Regulatory Guidance by the Office for Civil
Rights. Brigham Young Education. & Law Journal, (1), 161-194.
Yell, M. L., Losinski, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2014). Students with disabilities participation in
extracurricular athletics: School district obligations. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2),
86-96.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Rose, C. A., & Houchins, D. E. (2016). Bullying and harassment of
students with disabilities in schools: Legal considerations and policy formation. Remedial and
Special Education, 37(5), 274284.
Yohalem, N., & Tseng, V. (2015). Commentary: Moving from practice to research, and back. Applied
Developmental Science, 19(2), 117-120.
Zatta, M. C., & Pullin, D. C. (2004). Education and alternate assessment for students with significant
cognitive disabilities: Implications for educators. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(16), 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n16.2004
Zirkel, P. A., Granthom, M. F., & Lovato, L. (2012). Section 504 and Student Health Problems: The
Pivotal Position of the School Nurse. The Journal of School Nursing, 28(6), 423432.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1059840512449358
Appendix
Table A-1
Bidirectional Use of OCR Guidance
Guidance
Guidance
cites
Research
Research
cites
Guidance
Guidance on Accommodating Students’ Athletic Interests and Abilities: Standards for Part Three of the “Three-Part Test" (4/20/2010)
Dear Colleague Letter, Question and Answers
No
No
Guidance on Use of Electronic Book Readers and Other Emerging Technologies (6/29/2010)
Dear Colleague Letter, Questions and Answers About Dear Colleague Letter
No
Yes
Guidance on Schools’ Obligations to Protect Students from Student-on-Student Harassment on the Basis of Sex; Race, Color and National
Origin; and Disability (10/26/10)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet
No
Yes
Guidance on Sexual Assault (4/04/2011)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet About Dear Colleague Letter, Know Your Rights
No
Yes
Guidance on Schools’ Obligation to Ensure Equal Access to Education in Enrollment Practices (5/6/2011)
Dear Colleague Letter, Questions and Answers, Fact Sheet
No
No
Guidance on Use of Electronic Book Readers and Other Emerging Technologies to Elementary and Secondary Education Officials
(Follow-Up to 2010 Guidance) (5/26/2011)
Dear Colleague Letter, Guidance on Use of Electronic Book Readers and Other Emerging Technologies, Frequently Asked Questions
No
Yes
Guidance on Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity or Avoid Racial Isolation (12/2/2011)
Dear Colleague Letter, Guidance for K-12 Schools, Guidance for Postsecondary Schools
No
Yes
Guidance on ADA Amendments Act Amended Legal Standards (1/19/2012)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
Yes
Notice of Interpretation of Section 504, New Construction and Alterations, (77 Fed. Reg. 14972, Mar. 14, 2012) (3/14/2012)
Notice, Frequently Asked Questions
No
No
Guidance on Schools' Obligation to Provide Equal Opportunity to Students with Disabilities to Participate in Extracurricular Athletics
(1/25/2013)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fast Facts About Dear Colleague Letter
No
Yes
Guidance on the prohibition against retaliation under Federal civil rights laws (4/24/2013)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
No
Guidance to Health-Related Schools Regarding Hepatitis B Discrimination (6/12/2013)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
No
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 104 34
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research
35
Table cont.
Guidance on Supporting the Academic Success of Pregnant and Parenting Students (6/25/2013)
Dear Colleague Letter, Pamphlet, Know Your Rights
No
No
Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Higher Education after Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
(9/27/2013)
Dear Colleague Letter, Questions and Answers
No
No
Guidance Package to Enhance School Climate and Improve School Discipline Policies/Practices (1/8/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter, Full Guidance Package
Yes
Yes
Questions and Answers about Title IX and Sexual Violence (April 2014) (4/29/2014)
Question and Answers, Know Your Rights About Title IX and Sexual Violence
No
Yes
Letter on Supreme Court ruling in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (5/6/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
No
Guidance for School Districts to Ensure Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools Regardless of Immigration Status (5/8/14) Dear
Colleague Letter, Questions and Answers About Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet About Dear Colleague Letter
No
Yes
Guidance on Charter Schools (5/14/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
No
Guidance to Ensure All Students Have Equal Access to Educational Resources (10/1/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet
Yes
No
Guidance on Bullying of Students with Disabilities (10/21/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet
No
Yes
Guidance on Effective Communication for Students with Hearing, Vision, or Speech Disabilities in Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools (11/12/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter, Frequently Asked Questions, Parent Fact Sheet
No
No
Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities (12/1/2014) Question
and Answers
No
No
Implementing CDC’s Ebola Guidance for Schools while Protecting the Civil Rights of Students and Others (12/8/2014)
Fact Sheet
No
No
Guidance on Protecting Civil Rights in Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities (12/16/2014)
Dear Colleague Letter
No
No
Guidance to Ensure English Learner Students Have Equal Access to a High-Quality Education (1/7/2015)
Dear Colleague Letter, EL Student Fact Sheet, LEP Parent Fact Sheet
No
Yes
Guidance Addressing the Risk of Measles in Schools while Protecting the Civil Rights of Students with Disabilities (3/18/2015)
Fact Sheet
No
No
Guidance on Obligation of Schools to Designate a Title IX Coordinator (4/25/2015)
Dear Colleague Letter, Letter to Title IX Coordinators, Title IX Resource Guide
No
Yes
Education Po licy Analysi s Ar chi ves V ol. 2 8 No. 104 36
Table cont.
Guidance on Voluntary Youth Service Organizations (12/15/2015)
Dear Colleague Letter
Yes
No
Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students (5/13/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter, Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students
No
Yes
U.S. Department of Education Release Joint Fact Sheet about Combatting Discrimination against Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and
Pacific Islander (AANHPI) and Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian (MASSA) students. (6/6/2016)
Fact Sheet
No
No
Guidance on Gender Equity in Career and Technical Education (6/15/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter
Yes
No
Office for Civil Rights Releases ADHD Guidance (7/26/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter, Know Your Rights
Yes
Yes
Questions and Answers about the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (9/30/2016)
Questions and Answers
No
No
Guidance on Helping Students with Diabetes (10/14/2016)
Helping the Student with Diabetes Succeed: A Guide for School Personnel
No
No
Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance on the Prevention of Racial Discrimination in Special Education (12/12/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet
Yes
No
Office for Civil Rights Releases a Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools
(12/28/2016)
Section 504 Resource Guide
No
Yes
Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (12/28/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter, Fact Sheet
No
No
Office for Civil Rights Releases Guidance about the Rights of Students with Disabilities in Public Charter Schools (12/28/2016)
Dear Colleague Letter, OSERS Frequently Asked Questions, OCR Frequently Asked Questions, Fact Sheet
No
Yes
Office for Civil Rights Releases Resources for Educators on Title VI and Religion (1/17/2017)
Know Your Rights, Fact Sheet
No
No
About the Authors
Maria M. Lewis
Pennsylvania State University
mml25@psu.edu
Maria M. Lewis, J.D., Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Policy
Studies at Penn State University. Her research is situated at the intersection of K12 education law
and policy, particularly as it relates to equity and civil rights.
Sarah Kern
Pennsylvania State University
srs185@psu.edu
Sarah Kern, J.D., is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Education Policy Studies at Penn
State University. Her research focuses on policy implementation in higher education.
education policy analysis archives
Volume 28 Number 104 July 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341
Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as
the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes
are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative
Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. EPAA is
published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State
University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain),
DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete,
ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS,
SOCOLAR (China).
Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter
feed @epaa_aape.
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research 37
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves Vol. 28 No. 104 38
education policy analysis archives
editorial board
Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University)
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg,
Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University)
Madelaine Adelman Arizona State
University
Amy Garrett Dikkers University
of North Carolina, Wilmington
Gloria M. Rodriguez
University of California, Davis
Cristina Alfaro
San Diego State University
Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
R. Anthony Rolle
University of Houston
Gary Anderson
New York University
Ronald Glass University of
California, Santa Cruz
A. G. Rud
Washington State University
Michael W. Apple
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Jacob P. K. Gross
University of Louisville
Patricia Sánchez University of
University of Texas, San Antonio
Jeff Bale University of Toronto,
Canada
Eric M. Haas WestEd
Janelle Scott University of
California, Berkeley
Aaron Benavot SUNY Albany
Julian Vasquez Heilig California
State University, Sacramento
Jack Schneider University of
Massachusetts Lowell
David C. Berliner
Arizona State University
Henry Braun Boston College
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt
University of North Carolina
Greensboro
Noah Sobe Loyola University
Casey Cobb
University of Connecticut
Aimee Howley Ohio University
Nelly P. Stromquist
University of Maryland
Arnold Danzig
San Jose State University
Steve Klees University of Maryland
Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo
Benjamin Superfine
University of Illinois, Chicago
Linda Darling-Hammond
Stanford University
Jessica Nina Lester
Indiana University
Adai Tefera
Virginia Commonwealth University
Elizabeth H. DeBray
University of Georgia
Amanda E. Lewis University of
Illinois, Chicago
A. Chris Torres
Michigan State University
David E. DeMatthews
University of Texas at Austin
Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana
University
Tina Trujillo
University of California, Berkeley
Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center
for Education Research & Policy
Christopher Lubienski Indiana
University
Federico R. Waitoller
University of Illinois, Chicago
John Diamond
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Sarah Lubienski Indiana University
Larisa Warhol
University of Connecticut
Matthew Di Carlo
Albert Shanker Institute
William J. Mathis
University of Colorado, Boulder
John Weathers University of
Colorado, Colorado Springs
Sherman Dorn
Arizona State University
Michele S. Moses
University of Colorado, Boulder
Kevin Welner
University of Colorado, Boulder
Michael J. Dumas
University of California, Berkeley
Julianne Moss
Deakin University, Australia
Terrence G. Wiley
Center for Applied Linguistics
Kathy Escamilla
University of Colorado, Boulder
Sharon Nichols
University of Texas, San Antonio
John Willinsky
Stanford University
Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev
Eric Parsons
University of Missouri-Columbia
Jennifer R. Wolgemuth
University of South Florida
Melissa Lynn Freeman
Adams State College
Amanda U. Potterton
University of Kentucky
Kyo Yamashiro
Claremont Graduate University
Rachael Gabriel
University of Connecticut
Susan L. Robertson
Bristol University
Miri Yemini
Tel Aviv University, Israel
An examination of the bidirectional relationship between federal civil rights guidance and research 39
archivos analíticos de políticas educativas
consejo editorial
Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Armando Alcántara Santuario
(Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés),
Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado,
Chile), Carmuca Gómez-Bueno (Universidad de Granada), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella),
Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Antonia Lozano-Díaz (University of Almería), Antonio
Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo-
Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa
Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), César Lorenzo
Rodríguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Chile)
Claudio Almonacid
Universidad Metropolitana de
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Ana María García de Fanelli
Centro de Estudios de Estado y
Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET,
Argentina
Miriam Rodríguez Vargas
Universidad Autónoma de
Tamaulipas, México
Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega
Universidad Autónoma de la
Ciudad de México
Juan Carlos González Faraco
Universidad de Huelva, España
José Gregorio Rodríguez
Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Colombia
Xavier Besalú Costa
Universitat de Girona, España
María Clemente Linuesa
Universidad de Salamanca, España
Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad
y la Educación, UNAM, México
Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad
Autónoma de Barcelona, España
Jaume Martínez Bonafé
Universitat de València, España
José Luis San Fabián Maroto
Universidad de Oviedo,
España
Antonio Bolívar Boitia
Universidad de Granada, España
Alejandro Márquez Jiménez
Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la
Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM, México
Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad
de la Coruña, España
José Joaquín Brunner Universidad
Diego Portales, Chile
María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez,
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional,
México
Yengny Marisol Silva Laya
Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Damián Canales Sánchez
Instituto Nacional para la
Evaluación de la Educación,
México
Miguel Pereyra Universidad de
Granada, España
Ernesto Treviño Ronzón
Universidad Veracruzana, México
Gabriela de la Cruz Flores
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México
Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional
de San Martín, Argentina
Ernesto Treviño Villarreal
Universidad Diego Portales
Santiago, Chile
Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes
Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves
Instituto para la Investigación
Educativa y el Desarrollo
Pedagógico (IDEP)
Antoni Verger Planells
Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, España
Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV,
México
José Ignacio Rivas Flores
Universidad de Málaga, España
Catalina Wainerman
Universidad de San Andrés,
Argentina
Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco
Universidad de Colima, México
Education Po licy Analysis Archi ves Vol. 28 No. 104 40
arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas
conselho editorial
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editoras Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian
School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia),
Maria Margarida Machado, (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda,
(Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro),
Maria Lúcia Rodrigues Muller (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso e Science), Sandra Regina Sales
(Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro)
Almerindo Afonso
Universidade do Minho
Portugal
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz
Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Brasil
José Augusto Pacheco
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Rosanna Maria Barros
Universidade do Algarve
Portugal
Regina Célia Linhares Hostins
Universidade do Vale do Itajaí,
Brasil
Jane Paiva
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Maria Helena Bonilla
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Brasil
Alfredo Macedo Gomes
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Brasil
Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira
Universidade do Estado de Mato
Grosso, Brasil
Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Jefferson Mainardes
Universidade Estadual de Ponta
Grossa, Brasil
Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva
Universidade Federal do Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brasil
Alice Casimiro Lopes
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Jader Janer Moreira Lopes
Universidade Federal Fluminense e
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora,
Brasil
António Teodoro
Universidade Lusófona
Portugal
Suzana Feldens Schwertner
Centro Universitário Univates
Brasil
Debora Nunes
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Norte, Brasil
Lílian do Valle
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Geovana Mendonça Lunardi
Mendes Universidade do Estado de
Santa Catarina
Alda Junqueira Marin
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de
São Paulo, Brasil
Alfredo Veiga-Neto
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Flávia Miller Naethe Motta
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Dalila Andrade Oliveira
Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Brasil
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This study uses critical discourse analysis to explain how legislators determine the role and contributions of academic researchers in Congressional legislative hearings. The discursive practices that legislators use serve to construct the social identity of academic witnesses, characterize witnesses’ qualifications, solicit information from witnesses, frame comments from witnesses, and amplify and mitigate witness testimony. The findings make visible the ways that legislators use the power of their positions to depict academic witnesses as both experts who offer independent knowledge and experts who validate or confirm a legislator’s preferences and priorities. The results have implications for academics who seek to improve connections between research and policy, and academics who seek to further advance the production of knowledge of federal policymaking processes.
Article
Full-text available
While scholars develop research with clear implications for policy and practice, this work has been largely ineffective in influencing thought beyond the academy. In this article, we explore challenges researchers face in designing public scholarship to influence policy. To illustrate, we profile one such effort, the “Opportunity to Learn Index,” a national project designed to compare opportunities to learn in all 50 states, and we detail challenges related to method, analysis and presentation. This type of effort, we conclude, asks researchers to embrace unique challenges and the inescapably political nature of the knowledge enterprise, especially when engaging with non-researcher audiences.
Article
Full-text available
This study explores the ways in which school-imposed labeling in a “no-excuses” charter school that was explicitly designed for the purpose of benefiting Black students, impacts teachers’ perceptions of Black male students who were labeled as being high risk or struggling academically, and how these students perceive their own schooling experiences. A conceptual framework with the history of how and why Black masculinity is constructed as deviant and different in the context of U.S. schools, as well as the impact of labeling on Black male students’ learning and self-esteem are detailed. While centering the labeled-students’ experiences, we examine the interactions between key stakeholders (i.e., labeled-students, teachers/administrators, and non-labeled students) at the charter school and overall the findings speak clearly to how language of deficit and pathology impacted Black male students’ schooling experiences as they negotiate racial stigma as racialized bodies at a “no-excuses” public charter school.
Article
Gary B. v. Snyder, a federal class action lawsuit originally filed in September 2016, is one of the most recent and high-profile entrants into the line of cases involving large-scale education reform. In this case, seven students from traditional public schools and charter schools in Detroit sued various Michigan state officials, arguing that the U.S. Constitution includes a fundamental right of access to literacy and that the state had denied them this right. Although the federal trial court in Detroit that initially heard the case found that students were not denied their right of access to literacy by the state, the plaintiffs appealed the case, and it is now being considered in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the difficulties that have historically emerged with court-driven education reform, we examine the opportunities and challenges inherent in Gary B. to provide insight into the prospects of Gary B. and similar cases to effectively promote educational improvement. Grounded in this examination, we also present an argument for the utility of a new model for education litigation. We specifically argue that courts acting as agenda setters and working in concert with stakeholders to tailor reform to ground-level conditions is a model that is highly compatible with contemporary education research on effective models of systemic improvement. A court-mandated agenda for educational improvement must be structured in a way that engages stakeholder groups in implementation efforts precisely because improvement naturally involves dynamic, contextual conditions that cannot be completely accounted for in advance.
Article
Legal challenges continue to play central roles in critical higher education policy discussions. There are, however, wide gaps in understanding between the legal and research communities about the rigor and value of social science in legal decision-making—gaps that need to be addressed to improve the use of research in law. This study focuses on an underexamined viewpoint in the research use process—the producers of research—to examine their normative views about what sources should influence the law and how social scientists should participate in the development of amicus curiae briefs, an important venue through which social science research is introduced to the courts. Drawing from responses to a survey of scholars cited in Fisher, findings highlight the critical roles higher education researchers can play in the research use process. Findings also suggest that members of the social science and legal communities may need to consider a broader set of responsibilities in their work. If research is to be useful in informing solutions to intractable challenges in education and other areas of society, the relationships and understandings between the legal and social science communities must be strengthened.
Article
Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.
Article
Given the legal nature of special education, a particularly promising avenue for infusing research into practice is through court cases. Recent work has illuminated the influence of amicus briefs in court decisions. An amicus brief is a nonparty brief submitted by a person, group of people, or organization that provides insight and expertise on issues presented in a case. In this exploratory study, we examined how interest groups, through the amicus brief process, used research in a recent Supreme Court case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The case focused on a fundamental principle at the heart of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the definition of a free appropriate public education, an issue in which researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike should be interested. Our findings indicate that researchers and research played a limited role in the briefing process. We conclude with a discussion of potential reasons for the lack of research in the briefing process, as well as a call for the field to use amicus briefs as a means to influence special education policy and practice.
Article
Disproportionality research has been subject to multiple reviews, but there has been less critical examination of the policy dimension of this enduring educational problem. Given the relevance of federal policies, and interpretations thereof, to educators’ and scholars’ conceptualization of disproportionality and schools’ resultant policies and practices, we provide a brief overview of disproportionality scholarship before focusing on its policy dimensions. We describe the role of federal policy and resultant interpretations to how disproportionality is addressed and our approach to identifying and synthesizing these interpretations. We then analyze the themes apparent in these interpretations: requirements for states’ numerical analysis of “significant disproportionality,” parameters for school systems’ allocation of resources for early intervening services when significant disproportionality is found, and schools’ obligations for nondiscriminatory application of policies and procedures. Finally, we distill implications for school policies, practices, and procedures. We close with discussion of implications for how disproportionality is conceptualized and studied.
Article
Different from more traditional policy-making avenues, the courts provide an antipolitical arena that does not require broad agreement from various constituents for policy enactment. Seeking to guide court decisions on these policy issues, individuals and organizations have filed amicus briefs that increasingly include social science to support their arguments. The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Supreme Court case presents an ideal example to study the use of social science evidence in amicus briefs to shape educational policy. Findings from this study identify differences in the use of social science research that suggest many ways in which our current understanding of the efforts of actors to shape educational policy via the highest court in the nation is incomplete. This study also highlights why developing this understanding could be extremely useful to both the creation of educational policy and the use of antipolitical approaches to change such policy.
Article
Research has demonstrated significantly higher rates of sexual assault victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer (LGBQ) students than heterosexual students, and the overwhelming majority of assaults are not reported to any official system. Given the potential for support services to provide valuable assistance and promote well-being after an assault, the present study explores whether LGBQ students report assaults at similar rates to heterosexual students. As part of the 2015 College Student Health Survey, 10,646 male and female college students at 2- and 4-year colleges in Minnesota provided data regarding sexual assault victimization; reporting to a health care provider, campus authority, police, or social contact; and sexual orientation (two items, including write-in). Chi-square tests were used to detect associations between sexual assault victimization and five sexual orientation groups; and between sexual orientation and assault reporting (for 523 assault incidents). Almost 6% of students reported that they had experienced sexual assault in the previous 12 months. Significant differences in assault experience were seen by sexual orientation groups, for both males and females. For example, rates of sexual assault were 2.5 to over 5 times higher among bisexual and queer/pansexual/other females than among heterosexual females. Reporting of sexual assault to health care providers, campus authorities or police was rare for both heterosexual and sexual minority students, and there were no significant differences in reporting across sexual orientation. LGBQ students and heterosexual students appear to be similarly comfortable accessing health care providers, police, and campus resources, suggesting that these services are not overtly biased or unwelcoming to sexual minorities. However, rates of sexual assault were considerably higher among sexual minority groups, suggesting a need for primary prevention that is appropriate and sensitive to the experiences of LGBQ students.