The posted materials for the December 4 working session of the DC state board of education (SBOE) meeting contained a curious summary document about an SBOE working group that met twice in 2024 to discuss establishing education as a civil right here in DC. Some recent coverage suggested that codifying such a right would be voted on at SBOE’s regular December 11 meeting. But that vote didn’t happen, because there was literally nothing to vote on—which the summary document linked above outlines. 

As odd as all that is, the journey of this idea is even odder.

Establishing a civil right to education (and thus a path to a legal remedy when the education is deemed not “quality”) was apparently first raised at the SBOE’s April 3 working session by at large rep. Jacque Patterson. I found no posted materials for that meeting about it, however. At the May 15 public meeting, SBOE voted on a resolution that outlined the formation of a working group on this subject and the plan to present a resolution for a vote in September. 

But in September, SBOE instead extended the end date of the working group to the end of November. SBOE’s October 1 working session minutes mentioned the idea of a civil right to education briefly. In the meeting video, the discussion of this idea (starting at the 1 hour, 32 minute mark) weighed having a panel of experts from other states on what a civil right to education is; whether the panel would appear in a working group meeting or a public meeting; and when. There was no detail as to who would be on that panel specifically. I was also unable to find written materials used by this working group on the SBOE website (aside from the brief summary posted for the December 4 working session) nor any video or other recording of their meetings.

Nonetheless, the November 20 public SBOE meeting featured a panel of invited witnesses on the subject of a civil right to education in DC–after which three public witnesses testified live about the same subject. The testimony of one of the latter (the executive director of PAVE) stated: “I am here this evening because a memo was shared that was written for the state board by Andrew Brady, a partner in the California offices at DLA Piper, and my testimony today is in response to that text.” In fact, the November 20 testimony of both public witnesses and the invited panel appeared to be informed by that DLA Piper memo–which is still not publicly posted anywhere on the SBOE website that I can find.

Thus, by the SBOE’s November 20 meeting we had an idea presented–of a legally actionable civil right to education in DC–and

—no written materials or notes publicly shared on the ideas and people informing this or discussing it;
—a panel of expert witnesses on this topic chosen in a manner not publicly stated; and
—a publicly unavailable document on this subject addressed to the state board (and shared with at least one November 20 public witness) whose ideas appeared to be foundational to the discussion.

That November 20 SBOE meeting was also fascinating inasmuch as Rep. Patterson said the following (starting at the 55 minute, 42 second mark in the video; boldface mine):

“We need something like this [a civil right to education] to hold people accountable . . . I’ve never received the amount of pushback to hold people accountable for the education of students that I have on this particular issue. It was just fascinating to me and from the people that it came from, who advocate on behalf of parents but yet still they said “we don’t want this right now, the temperature is too hot, we’re scared, Trump is coming, we need to put our head in the sand right now and do the status quo.” . . .  Our students cannot allow us to do the status quo for 4 years and hope that we get a friendlier person in 4 years to us that won’t do something . . . Every student in the District of Columbia deserves to have a right to a quality education.”

Inquiring minds want to know: Who were all these folks pushing back (and when!), given that the only apparent shared documentation of this idea and how it would work in DC–a memo–hasn’t even been made public by SBOE? Regardless of one’s thoughts on a civil right to education in DC, that DLA Piper document is deeply flawed and outlines processes that could ruin DCPS—not to mention leaving students high and dry. Here’s why:

If you apply this concept only to DCPS (as the DLA Piper document states), you have essentially conferred civil rights via buildings. That is, what that document outlines is not driven by actual people (ie students), but by the schools that educate them, such that almost 50% of DC’s students could potentially be granted no civil right in education clearly–or possibly at all.

Now, it could be that all DC students would be granted the right to sue regardless of where they attended school—but the suing could be only about conditions in DCPS. Setting aside issues of standing (“dear judge, please understand that Sidwell was my only option!”), suing thusly would not apply to conditions of publicly funded DC schools that are not DCPS (and forget about private schools).

The assumption behind all of this seems to be that all non-DCPS schools in DC are inherently and always better than DCPS schools. Which is a nice thought—except that it is wrong. If 11 minutes of two Eagle Academy witnesses starting at the 1 hour 3 minute mark of the December 5 council hearing video is not enough evidence for you on that score, just read education researcher Betsy Wolf’s excellent analysis of just how bankrupt that DLA Piper memo is on what constitutes “quality” in DC’s publicly funded schools. 

Moreover, without any outlining of funding or structural remedies, the DLA Piper document suggests that judges will determine what exactly is educational “quality” in DCPS and, if no funding to remedy it per the court, then the offending (DCPS) schools will literally have to stop—and once that happens, there will be even fewer places in DC for students to assert a right to education and/or obtain a remedy to ensure educational “quality.” 

The only people I see being helped by this are those who run non-DCPS schools of choice here, both private and publicly funded—which for all I know may be the point, given that Patterson himself has long been employed by the latter (ie Rocketship, KIPP). Patterson apparently pushed this idea forward with well-connected ed reform folks like the memo’s author and California resident Ben Austin, who (among other things) gave money to the ed reform PAC of former DC charter board chair Lea Crusey. Though in that list of donations Austin once called himself a teacher, his resume doesn’t list any actual teaching experience.

But these folks sure are giving DC an education! 

In an email to me earlier this month, Patterson noted that despite the DLA Piper memo being addressed to DC’s state board of education, it “was not the product of any government agency.” Patterson stated that he had requested it as a “private citizen” in an effort “to get a better understanding of the legalities of what such a proposal would mean specifically for the District of Columbia.” Patterson also noted that there was “no cost incurred.”

(Well, sure—but for the cost of public process, clarity, and democracy.)

Be sure to check out the SBOE write-up of the same—and expect more on this topic in 2025.

In the meantime, see what another DC resident aimed for with DC education equity. Without any civil right to education, Hobson’s lawsuit, and the judgement in it, puts the finger on how impoverished this current effort at “quality” is–and how no one in DC is advocating for what that judge ordered all those decades ago, most of which was never enacted and could be (in slightly different way, given enrollment stats and charters) enacted tomorrow:

“To correct the racial and economic discrimination found in the operation of the District of Columbia public school system, the court has issued a decree attached to its opinion ordering: 1. An injunction against racial and economic discrimination in the public school system here. 2. Abolition of the track system. 3. Abolition of the optional zones. 4. Transportation for volunteering children in overcrowded school districts east of Rock Creek Park to underpopulated schools west of the Park. 5. The defendants, by October 2, 1967, to file for approval by the court a plan for pupil assignment eliminating the racial and economic discrimination found to exist in the operation of the Washington public school system. 6. Substantial integration of the faculty of each school beginning with the school year 1967-68. 7. The defendants, by October 2, 1967, to file for approval by the court a teacher assignment plan fully integrating the faculty of each school.”

There’s a reason that no DC education leaders refer to this judge’s decision and that it’s never been enacted.

But yeah, let’s talk about “quality.”