By: RaShawnda Murphy Williams
On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a final rule rescinding parts of its Title VI regulations. The rescinded provisions addressed policies that disparately impacted students based on race, color, or national origin. The Department stated that the change aligns its regulations with Title VI’s prohibition of intentional discrimination, not disparate-impact liability.
However, North Carolina public schools should continue monitoring policies and practices for racial disparities. They should also maintain carefully developed nondiscrimination, discipline, access, and data-review practices.
What the Final Rule Changes
Title VI provides that no person in the United States may, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under a federally funded program or activity. The U.S. Department of Education continues adhere to Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination by schools on those grounds.
Before the July final rule, Department of Education’s Title VI regulations included provisions allowing the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) to address practices that had a discriminatory effect even without proof of purposeful discrimination. In practical terms, this meant OCR could assess whether a facially-neutral policy, or a policy that is not discriminatory on its face, disproportionately harmed students based on race, color, or national origin and, in appropriate circumstances, require the school to justify or revise the practice.
The Department has now rescinded those disparate-impact provisions and stated that it will focus Title VI enforcement on intentional discrimination. The rule took effect immediately.
This change follows Executive Order 14281, issued in April 2025, which directed federal agencies to eliminate disparate-impact liability to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Department of Justice had already removed disparate-impact liability from its own Title VI enforcement regulations in December 2025.
What Has Not Changed
The most important message for school leaders is that the provisions of Title VI remain in force. Institutions receiving federal funds may not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. OCR may still receive and investigate complaints alleging intentional discrimination.
Schools should continue to adhere to practices that are mindful of constitutional equal-protection claims based on intentional discrimination by public-school entities; Title VI claims alleging intentional discrimination; other federal statutes that may apply to a particular program, student population, or funding stream; state constitutional, statutory, regulatory, contractual, and local-policy obligations; and school board duties to adopt lawful policies, apply them consistently, train employees, investigate complaints, and maintain defensible records.
While the Department’s new rule narrows a federal administrative enforcement tool; it does not erase the statutory prohibition on intentional discrimination.
Practical Effects for Schools
Discipline and student conduct
Pronounced racial disparity data regarding disciplinary practices can still be a warning sign that a policy is being applied inconsistently, that staff training is insufficient, that decision-makers are relying on subjective criteria, or that an intentional discrimination allegation may gain factual support.
A school should continue to examine:
- Whether conduct definitions are sufficiently clear to put students on notice of what conduct is prohibited;
- Whether similarly situated students receive consistent consequences;
- Whether administrators document the basis for disciplinary decisions;
- Whether policy exceptions are defined and consistently applied;
- Whether complaint and appeal procedures are clear, accessible, and applied consistently; and
- Whether staff are trained on nondiscrimination, bias, procedural fairness, and documentation.
Access to advanced programs and opportunities
Admissions, screening, placement, gifted-program eligibility, career-and-technical education, advanced coursework, extracurricular participation, and school-choice processes have historically demonstrated disparate impact based upon race, ethnicity, or national origin. The new Department rule regulations do not make outcome data irrelevant, nor does it protect a school whose policy or practices were adopted, administered, or selectively applied with discriminatory intent.
Schools should retain records explaining program eligibility criteria, recruitment methods, screening procedures, appeals, waivers, and individual placement decisions. Decision-makers should be able to articulate legitimate, consistently applied, educationally grounded reasons for the criteria they use.
English learners and national-origin discrimination
Title VI’s prohibition of national-origin discrimination remains in effect. Schools should be especially cautious about treating the regulatory change as a basis for reducing attention to language access, family communication, or equal participation in educational programs.
For example, a district that does not provide meaningful access to essential information for families with limited English proficiency may still face claims that its practices intentionally discriminate or otherwise violate applicable legal duties. The program, funding source, and facts determine the details, but schools should continue complying rather than retreating from their obligations.
So, What Should North Carolina Public Schools Do Now?
1. Review Title VI policies and training materials
Identify policies, procedures, staff training, websites, grant assurances, and complaint forms that describe Title VI disparate-impact requirements. While school boards should revise statements reflecting their responsibilities under Title VI, they should work to preserve clear prohibitions on intentional discrimination and clear internal complaint procedures.
2. Preserve data monitoring
Continue monitoring discipline, advanced-course participation, special programs, student access, and other indicators that may reveal inconsistent implementation. Data does not, by itself, establish Title VI violations under the new regulations, but it remains useful for identifying operational concerns, supporting board oversight, and responding credibly to questions from families, regulators, and the public.
3. Document decision-making
When a decision involves student access, discipline, placement, or program eligibility, document the policy basis, relevant facts, decision-maker, and any individualized considerations. Consistent, contemporaneous documentation can best protect schools against allegations that they selectively applied a neutral policy.
4. Confirm obligations outside Title VI
Review grant terms, settlement agreements, corrective-action plans, state requirements, charter agreements, accreditation standards, local requirements, and board policies. An institution may have obligations beyond those provided by Title VI’s regulatory framework.
5. Avoid overcorrection
The Department’s rule does not require schools to discontinue equity reviews, cease collecting demographic data, or eliminate programs designed to promote lawful access and nondiscrimination. Schools should make governance choices deliberately, based on their educational mission, legal obligations, operational realities, and the communities they serve.
The Bell Ringer
For North Carolina schools, the right response is precision—not complacency. Title VI still prohibits intentional discrimination; other legal and contractual obligations remain; and disparities can still reveal compliance, governance, and litigation risks. Boards and school leaders should update legal descriptions in their policies while maintaining disciplined data review, consistent decision-making, effective training, and careful documentation.