Listen to this blog.

Summary

• Generations of discriminatory practices have produced higher poverty and unemployment rates in Wards 7 and 8 than in other District areas.

• Economic disenfranchisement has deepened gaps in access to high-quality education resources.

• As a result, students in Wards 7 and 8 struggle more with academic proficiency.

• Some believe formalizing high-quality education as a civil right could ensure better resources and equitable opportunities.

• Others have legal and practical concerns for such a measure. Court challenges and lack of clear mechanisms, they contend, raise questions about the effectiveness of the approach.

---

Education attainment is a powerful tool for upward mobility. It has the ability to push individuals to new socioeconomic levels and help communities thrive. In the 1950s and 1960s, leaders in the American civil rights movement keenly understood that, and so made the right of equal access to high-quality education a top priority. 

Through court cases and demonstrations, they fought passionately to dismantle the discriminatory barriers obstructing education opportunities for marginalized groups, particularly Black Americans. Their efforts yielded historic reforms, opening new possibilities for millions. 

But despite that broad, tremendous progress, there’s still work to be done. Resourcing disparities continue to disadvantage those historically marginalized communities, even here in the District of Columbia. The D.C. State Board of Education has wondered: Could making high-quality education a civil right help eliminate achievement and attainment disparities in the District?

Harmful historical disparities persist.

It’s an unavoidable reality: Students residing and attending school east of the Anacostia River, predominantly Black, remain the District’s most resource disadvantaged. 

Though developments in recent years have infused much welcomed commercial vitality in Wards 7 and 8, decades of economic disenfranchisement have proven hard to shake. Generations-long discriminatory practices, like redlining and disinvestment^1,2  , have undoubtedly harmed the communities financially. East of the Anacostia River, households still earn far less than their counterparts in Wards 1 through 6. Unemployment, too, is aberrantly high, nearly double. 

Today, as a result, more than 40% of children in Wards 7 and 8 live below the poverty line, and more than 90% of the communities’ District of Columbia Public Schools are designated Title I. Title I schools (those where 40% or more of the student population lives below the federal poverty level) receive financial support from the U.S. Department of Education. They remain, however, highly susceptible to chronic funding problems, largely because of something referred to as the “death spiral.” 

The phenomenon occurs because schools’ budgets are mostly funded through a per-pupil formula. When per-pupil funding is reduced or enrollments decline, Title I schools find themselves in precarious financial situations. To make margins work, schools must often defer, reduce or outright eliminate investments in the quality academic, extracurricular and technological services commonly found in well-resourced schools. In a lot of cases, the crunch induces teachers to seek employment elsewhere and parents to pursue alternatives to their neighborhood schools.

Not only are a majority of DCPS schools in Wards 7 and 8 Title I, nearly half of all DCPS Title I schools are concentrated in these communities. And concerningly, some tell-tale signs of the “death spiral” are showing. About a quarter of Ward 7 and 8 DCPS schools have experienced two consecutive years of enrollment decline. Their teacher retention rates also lag DCPS schools at-large and even Title I schools west of the river.

These disparities continue to stymie students’ achievement.

The sacrifices that under-resourcing have forced many Ward 7 and 8 schools to make should not be reduced to simply line items in a budget. They have materially impinged local students’ academic mastery and further disadvantaged them in comparison to their generally better-resourced, generally white peers.

Assessments indicate that students in Wards 7 and 8 have lower English and mathematics proficiency than students in every other Ward in Washington, DC. Most recent data reports that about 4 in 5 students in both wards aren’t reading at grade level, and 9 in 10 aren’t meeting math benchmarks. Students east of the Anacostia River are also not graduating at the same rate as their District peers. In 2023, the average 4-year graduation rate of high schools in Wards 7 and 8 was about eight points lower than that of schools in Wards 1 through 6.

These gaps can have serious implications. Impeding educational achievement can lead to fewer chances for higher education, reduce employment opportunities and limit access to high-paying jobs. Uncorrected, gaps could very well reinforce generational disparities across a broad range of socioeconomic measures.

Addressing gaps is imperative, but is making high-quality education a civil right the policy tool for the job?

The civil rights movement of the late 20^th century did much to expand education opportunities for historically marginalized, discriminated communities, especially Black Americans. In the decades since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Black Americans’ representation in professional and managerial workforces has grown over 200 percent.

The State Board has been interested to know how continuing to push the frontier of civil rights – that is to say, whether formalizing high-quality education as a civil right in Washington, DC – could ameliorate disparities in the District. During its November 20^th public meeting, with testimony from education and legal experts, the State Board explored the potential utility as well as pitfalls of such a measure.

Some assert that establishing an enforceable right would ensure that all school-aged kids could attend a high-quality school. A high-quality school would, as University of Virginia law professor Kimberly Robinson said, “deliver the well-qualified teachers, up-to-date and essential resources, a robust course of study, and facilities that enable students to center learning.” Such assurances, as another panelist estimated, would uniformly improve District of Columbia public schools and meet the needs of students as well as expectations of parents.

The District’s at-large representative and vice president, Jacque Patterson, has been the measure’s main proponent on the State Board. “Our students,” Representative Patterson said, “should not allow us to allow the status quo. Every student in DC deserves a high-quality education.” “We have a system that results in one in four children not grade proficient in reading and one in five not proficient in Math,” he added. “There [are] no teeth in [current] accountability systems.” Ward 3 representative to the State Board, Eric Goulet, expressed support for the measure, though wanted any official measures to be pursued cautiously.

Some, however, are skeptical, largely because of legal implications. Jessica Giles, executive director of advocacy group Education Reform Now, characterized the measure as “aspirational,” but worried that it “would ultimately be challenged in court.” Eboni-Rose Thompson, Ward 7 representative and State Board president, was troubled by the prospect of court proceedings. Because District of Columbia courts are presided over by federal judges, she expressed concern that future interpretations might be unfavorable and conflict with the measure’s intent. Ward 5 representative Robert Henderson went so far as to question whether a judge would award families school vouchers as legal remedies.

Aside from legal concerns, others wondered how mandating high-quality education be a civil right would actually improve academic achievement. Ward 8 representative Carlene Reid was curious of the material actions such a measure would pursue to provision public schools with the tools and services to be properly high-quality. President Thompson, too, wondered how it would fix specific issues, like illiteracy among adults.

Marja Plater, counselor for the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, who was supportive of the measure, acknowledged in her testimony the potential for unintended consequences. Some that she advised considering are whether it would “create unfunded mandates on already underfunded public schools” and whether it could “exacerbate existing disparities.”

The work to ensure equitable, high-quality education must continue, and all plausible strategies should be given consideration.

Education undoubtedly has the potential to transform individuals’ lives. Ensuring that every District child, regardless of race or income, has the tools and opportunities to succeed should be paramount to city leaders. But that work cannot be accomplished until the District’s most historically underserved communities are resourced properly, on par with the more affluent. That is the most potent means by which to close gaps in education achievement and attainment – those critical ingredients for higher education and high-paying jobs.

It’s unclear that designating high-quality education a civil right would have a meaningful, material effect in closing gaps. But regardless of this specific measure’s efficacy, merely asking the question illustrates an important point: Solving the District’s most complex education issues requires input from all stakeholders and earnest deliberation of thoughtful proposals.