If nothing else, the dozens of hours of education hearings this past fall in DC made one point very, very clear: DC routinely fails the most vulnerable kids among us. 

While this is hardly news, it doesn’t mean the failures were inevitable nor that every child was failed. Yet no matter the topic, these fall 2025 hearings underscored that point repeatedly. For example:

–The lack of tracking of DC students by our state superintendent of education (OSSE) implicates so much else, whether special education (SPED) violations; bus services; enrollment, attendance, and graduation data; test score reporting; and proper resourcing. 

Bottom line: If you don’t know where every kid goes at all moments of the school year, you don’t know who is taking the tests that are the basis of school ratings; when the kids are at school; who is graduating from where (and when); and what is needed (and when) for appropriate staffing and resources. Instead, you are just taking one set of numbers at the beginning of the school year (enrollments, attendance, staffing, etc.), then taking another set of numbers at the end of the school year, and then pretending that those numbers represent all the same people. They never have—and never will as long as we have high mobility in our schools and poor staff retention. 

Worse, such arithmetic speciousness abets actual crime. That is because DC’s most mobile students are often the most vulnerable and, as nearly every hearing demonstrated, without appropriate responses to actual students at the precise moment they need those responses, DC is denying educations in one way or another.

–Each hearing was held by the council’s committee of the whole, which consists of the entirety of the council. But only a small minority of council members ever showed up for each hearing. In fact, for most of the dozens of hours that comprised these hearings, only the council chair was present. 

In other words, our elected officials (including one running for mayor—at large CM McDuffie, the same man whose work on the facilities committee for his chosen private school Georgetown Day ensured DC taxpayers spent twice its assessed value to buy it after it was on the market for 3 years) have chosen to allow only one person to have almost total oversight of DC’s annual $2 billion expenditure in our publicly funded schools. 

–Several of the hearings had invited expert witness panels. This could have been illuminating if we only knew why those people, those schools, and/or those jurisdictions mattered particularly. But alas, at no point was it ever made clear why the experts were selected (nor was it obvious to me).

–At the November 5 hearing, a principal stated that the best way to help kids educationally is to get them out of poverty. Two days later, at another hearing, a state board of education member said the same thing. Then, at the December 9 hearing, another principal reiterated the message. Each time, council chair Phil Mendelson pushed back. He made clear not only that poverty was beyond his scope to address, but also that poverty should never serve as an excuse for not educating children. 

Fair enough–except that if poverty is a barrier to any child’s education (and every one of these fall hearings made clear it is), then it stands to reason addressing poverty would be a cornerstone of improving DC education. 

But addressing poverty is apparently a step too far for a body that voted to give billionaires $1 billion of public funds for a stadium. After all, if poverty is intractable no matter what, why use that $1 billion to provide food and warm, comfortable, stable homes for those who need them when you can just make relatively few (but powerful) people happy? 

So, without any pretense as to capturing any hearing in detail, I put below brief take-homes from each (in semi-chronological order). 

October 1: Holding school budgets harmless

This hearing repeated the greatest hits of the last 15 years regarding modernizations and budget stability in DCPS: enrollment drop-offs for schools in swing space, seemingly (or possibly actual) random punitive budget cuts, and no money to ensure equity systemwide for programming. Perhaps unsurprisingly, financial incentives for attendance came up at the 3 hour mark. 

October 15: Truancy and chronic absenteeism

This almost 8-hour hearing on truancy and chronic absenteeism also had a brief discussion about financial incentives for attendance (see the 1 hour 57 minute mark and also the discussion of Dunbar’s program at the 5 hour 35 minute mark). AFAIK no one mentioned having an audit of attendance data and how DC’s 60-some LEAs account for attendance. 

Lots of public witnesses talked about the effects on attendance of having a terrifying occupying force in DC and the fact that many DC residents feel unsafe. While witnesses made clear that attendance is multifactorial, its partner tragedies—educations lost, delayed help, lack of resources for known cases of truancy, punishing poverty that results in many attendance issues—are constant. 

At the 5 hour 32 minute mark, we learned that attendance data for this school year will start to be available at the beginning of this calendar year. As of this post, we are still waiting—as we are also waiting for preliminary enrollment data (it is now months later than in prior years). 

October 28: OSSE transportation issues

This hearing started with invited witnesses from suburban school districts around DC and also from South Carolina and Oklahoma. Council chair Mendelson grilled them in a manner that made him seem to be auditioning to be the head of OSSE–which is actually responsible for transportation services for students with disabilities. That hour was followed by hours of public witness testimony that spoke to the continuing horrors of OSSE transit: disabled children left waiting at school or home or trapped in buses; no communication with parents; school staff left hanging; no reliable, accurate tracking; and always, educations denied.

This dovetails with another hearing:

December 3: OSSE transit government witnesses

This hearing came about in the wake of the October OSSE hearing, when it became obvious that there was no viable GPS tracking system for OSSE buses. The one newsy part of the hearing was the announcement that there is (now) a contract for such a tracking system—but it was not clear when the council (or the public) would see it.

Ever hopeful, the council scheduled a new hearing on this topic for tomorrow, January 16—in the wake of which we may get a glimpse of the elusive contract for the elusive tracking system (or something).

November 10: Simplifying education reporting

Perhaps to underscore the stress apparently induced in education agencies by mandated reporting, the council provided this document in materials for this hearing on simplifying education reporting. But the hearing write-up, outlining two bills that would reduce reporting burdens, gives the game away (boldface mine):

“The purpose of Bill 26-278 is to reform and reduce reporting requirements for the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), the State Board of Education (SBOE), and the University of the District of Columbia (UDC). Specifically, it repeals OSSE’s reporting on real estate development, SBOE’s reporting on school facilities, and DCPS’s reporting on annual academic progress and draft technology plans. It also reduces OSSE’s administrative burden related to enrollment data, Pre-K program quality, residency fraud, and healthy schools reporting. Additionally, the bill revises reporting requirements for UDC’s operations and expenditures and OSSE’s reporting on the DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program.

“The purpose of Bill 26-430 is to streamline and revise certain education reporting requirements and clarify related District laws. It adjusts reporting deadlines for the Office of Out of School Time Grants and Youth Outcomes, the Master Facilities Plan, student attendance, Pre-K quality and capacity, residency fraud enforcement, environmental literacy, and school health profiles. The bill also repeals requirements for OSSE to hire an independent contractor for enrollment review, conduct a Pre-K capacity study, report on licensed child development facilities that do not participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and report locally on the DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Finally, it clarifies the scope of the School Boundary Review, the data used in annual attendance reporting, the Military Interstate Children’s Compact Commission, and the Research Practice Partnership.”

This write-up suggests that the purpose of the bills is not merely eliminating reporting burdens but also ensuring the public has no way of knowing enrollments well or in a timely manner—which, for all any of us knows, may be the point. After all, the only true public reckoning in DC for education privatizers is the expected decrease in student population, with ensuing enrollment and facility pressures. If you don’t care about publicly reporting that well (or at all), the party can go on a bit longer.

So it was that this hearing showed not only the DC council stepping back from doing what actual, living breathing DC residents asked them to do (and on their own time and dime!), but also assuming a role endorsed by our current presidential regime. That is, even as public witnesses pointed out how reducing reporting shifts the burden to parents to find out information about, among other things, their school’s tech and student health, power—contained in information—is reserved for those in charge.

(For clarity about this dynamic, listen to the tutorial given by public witnesses Alex Simbana and Grace Hu starting at minute 29.)

November 5: Beating the odds: standout schools (invitees only)

This hearing was tough in many ways. It took school leaders and staff for hours out of their schools during a school day in school hours without any note as to why these schools were chosen as opposed to others (i.e. are these the only 8 schools in DC with largely disadvantaged populations that do better than one might otherwise think—and who is determining what “better” is, anyway?). Not to mention that one of the schools (DC Scholars) has about 100 fewer students than another (Barnard)—yet has not only a head of school but also a principal. Does this factor into its “success”? What about overall size? Students per teacher? Whether the schools have embraced whatever ed reform de jour DC leaders are encouraging (Relay, standardized testing, high-impact tutoring, etc.)? Who knows? 

It seemed on brand that council chair Phil Mendelson opened by pushing back against a principal who stated that the best way to help kids educationally is to get them out of poverty. What followed was hours of educators trying to educate two council members (Mendelson and Ward 3 CM Matt Frumin) about their work. Two takeaways for me were the discussion starting at the 1 hour 45 minute mark on student and staff mobility and, related, the ramifications of the physical difficulty kids have in getting to school. (Gosh, who knew DC leaders encouraging a system of choice and not supporting schools of right would make traveling across neighborhoods and wards inevitable??) 

November 7: Academic achievement in DC

As far as I could see in the 7.5 hours of this hearing, there was not a lot new said on the subject of academic achievement in DC (well, except a new standardized test (SBAC) starting in spring 2027).

Just 17 minutes into the hearing, Mendelson took issue with the Ward 5 state board of education member, who dared to say what a principal said at the hearing days prior: solving poverty would improve academic achievement. Maybe some students will escape poverty and get an education–and yay for us if that happens! But more likely some kids won’t escape poverty—in which case it’s on the schools, per the chairman. (It was not clear how seriously anyone but the chairman and W3 CM Frumin take this, as they appeared to be the only council members present.) 

Perhaps the most interesting discussion occurred in hour 6, when Mendelson laid into the DCPS chancellor around different test scores for Patterson and Hendley, despite similar student bodies. Chancellor Ferebee gave a masterful answer, outlining the finer points of growth versus proficiency. The majority of that hour saw the chairman engage the chancellor as to why certain DCPS schools had test scores decline, even in one calendar year, without asking whether the students taking those tests were the same from one year to the next (or even in the same school year) and whether the schools were in swing space in that time. (That same hearing timeframe also had Mendelson state that the charter board executive director had no power over what charter schools did–so take that as you will.) 

Be sure to catch WTU head Laura Fuchs at the 1 hour 3 minute mark, noting how DC’s measuring of academic achievement is flawed, and librarian KC Boyd at the 2 hour 44 minute mark on the importance of school libraries in academic achievement. 

This inevitably dovetails with the following hearing: 

December 9: School improvement

This hearing had invited expert witnesses, but there was no explanation as to why these people were invited nor how they were selected (though the misspelling of DCPS’s Kimball Elementary on the expert witness list was perhaps a tell). Public witnesses from the hearing on academic achievement the prior month repeated their messaging. And once again, early on, we had a principal tell on DC, noting at minute 21 that while everyone wants students to succeed, “if their [students’] basic needs are unmet, learning becomes an uphill battle.” 

The entire hearing was tough to listen to because Mendelson (once again joined for part of the time by his edu-BFF Frumin) appeared to be figuring out how to “do” schools. The Ward 5 CM, Zachary Parker, showed up in hour 2. There were repeated calls for sustained funding for community schools. 

For an excellent distillation of the issues, be sure to listen to Caroline Pryor of EmpowerEd at the 2 hour 50 minute mark. Then realize that all the privately funded, privately run organizations receiving public money to help support and “improve” DC’s publicly funded schools are not only impossible to track, but also beg the question: why are we not giving schools this money directly?

December 10: Oversight of education of students with special needs

This hearing seemed to have considerable overlap with the academic achievement and OSSE transportation hearings–specifically, one long conversation about how DC doesn’t serve vulnerable students well. As such, it rather canceled out the hearing a month earlier (on rescinding reporting requirements for agencies), as the clear through line was that many vulnerable DC kids are not served well not due to reporting burdens, but because DC is incentivized to not serve them. 

Again, there were expert witnesses—but how they were chosen and why is unclear, although Danielle Robinette of the Children’s Law Center and Maria Blaeuer of Advocates for Justice and Education are (as always) well worth listening to. Regardless of the many issues raised (including whether it is cheaper to litigate against providing special education versus just providing it—yes, really), it was apparent that the rot goes deep. As Blaeuer outlined in minute 43, if 35 kids with IEPs (individualized education programs) are in any class in any DC publicly funded school and the 36th student doesn’t have an IEP, that class is then considered a “general education” class—and so much for special education services. 

Setting aside the implicit insanity of 36 kids in one class, this is all on OSSE. Indeed, the discussion about the differentials in funding and treatment of SPED students between charters and DCPS (starting at about the 1 hour 5 minute mark) underscores that leaving individual schools on their own in this regard is profoundly dysfunctional and a grave disservice to kids. 

Instead, we could have an independent agency evaluate students recommended by LEAs, staff, or parents for IEPs; track all students with IEPs; and make the funding and oversight for those students completely separate from individual LEAs. That would in turn require someone to make OSSE independent and fulfill these roles—which no one is doing, so here we are.

If you have only a short time, be sure to hear the testimony of attorney Todd Gluckman starting at the 2 hour 12 minute mark about the class action against DC since 2005 (!) for special education violations and questioning by Mendelson starting at the 2 hour 32 minute mark. Gluckman expertly outlined many of DC’s issues around special education (untimely identification of disabilities; parents sidelined; lack of staff; waitlist for self-contained classroom seats).

The government witnesses (DCPS, charter board, OSSE) started their testimony at the 4 hour 9 minute mark—well into the evening. Once again, the agency heads appeared to tutor the council chair (the only member present) on basics, like the charter board mystery caller initiative that has been in place for years now. As evidence that DCPS litigates a lot and therefore increases costs, Mendelson referenced a November 2025 OIG report on attorney fees around special education litigation. What he didn’t mention is that while the report shows payments to lawyers for special education cases, not all of the payments go to DCPS. Moreover, the report notes that DCPS appears to be tracking its special education litigation, while the rest of the city’s schools—well, who knows (which may be the entire point).