Every product in the DC Pathways library rests on one working assumption: families cannot use information they cannot find, cannot understand, or do not trust. This report tests that assumption. A 14-question survey was fielded to 102 D.C. parents and guardians across all eight wards to measure awareness of the D.C. State Board of Education (SBOE), the ease with which families understand education policy information, and the trust they place in government communication.
Nasaiah Algarin is an undergraduate at American University's School of Communication and the founder of DC Pathways, a family resource library serving D.C. parents and guardians in English and Spanish.
The author thanks the parents, guardians, and community partners who shared the survey, and the D.C. State Board of Education, whose public record of family-engagement work motivated this study. The views expressed are the author's alone and should not be attributed to American University, the D.C. State Board of Education, or any other organization.
This is a single, cross-sectional convenience-sample survey of 102 parents and guardians, conducted online. It is sufficient for identifying patterns that warrant action but is not a population-representative estimate of D.C. families. The full Limitations and Future Research sections beginning on page 12 detail these constraints.
Washington, D.C. is home to one of the most fragmented education-governance structures in the country, with the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), D.C. Public Schools (DCPS), the Public Charter School Board (PCSB), and the D.C. State Board of Education (SBOE) each carrying distinct authority over the schools that District children attend (Council of the District of Columbia, 2007; D.C. State Board of Education, 2023). For families trying to follow the decisions that shape their children's education, that complexity is a communication problem before it is a policy problem.
This report presents findings from a 14-question survey administered in 2026 to 102 parents and guardians of school-age children across all eight wards of Washington, D.C. The study tested three hypotheses: (H1) that SBOE awareness would be lower in some wards than others; (H2) that non-English-speaking households would report greater difficulty understanding education policy information; and (H3) that a gap would exist between how familiar families say they are with the SBOE and what they actually know about it.
Three findings stand out. First, awareness of the SBOE is high (84.3%) and does not vary significantly by ward, χ²(16, N = 102) = 8.26, p = .941; H1 was not supported. Second, non-English-speaking households reported significantly lower ease of understanding education policy (M = 2.62) than English-speaking households (M = 3.30), t(100) = 3.35, p = .001, Cohen's d = 0.67, a medium-to-large effect; H2 was strongly supported. Third, only 52.0% of respondents could correctly identify what the SBOE does, even though 84.3% had heard of it; H3 was supported.
The report's central recommendation is that the SBOE, in coordination with the Office of the Student Advocate, OSSE, and community-based organizations, treat plain-language and multilingual communication as a structural responsibility rather than an optional courtesy. The 41 open-ended responses received in this survey converge on four themes that map directly onto existing evidence-based practices: multilingual materials (especially Spanish and Amharic), trusted-messenger outreach in community spaces, plain-language simplification, and proactive opt-in channels (Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Plain Language Action and Information Network, n.d.; Sugarman, 2021).
The remainder of this report details the methodology, presents findings, sets out recommendations for the SBOE, and acknowledges the study's limits.
The Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (PERAA) split the District's education governance among the Mayor, the State Superintendent (OSSE), DCPS, the Public Charter School Board, and the State Board of Education (Council of the District of Columbia, 2007). The SBOE itself is a body of nine elected members, one for each ward and one at-large, whose statutory authority covers state academic standards, graduation requirements, teacher qualifications, and the District's accountability plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act (D.C. State Board of Education, n.d.). The SBOE's own 2023 governance report described the current arrangement as one that District residents experience as confusing and asked, in plain terms, for "more communication, more opportunities to give feedback, and greater transparency" (D.C. State Board of Education, 2023, p. 4). Independent assessments by the National Research Council (2015) and the D.C. Policy Center (Coffin & Cordes, 2024) reach similar conclusions.
The Language Access Act of 2004 requires every D.C. agency with "major public contact" to provide interpretation and translation in the District's vital languages (Council of the District of Columbia, 2004). OSSE's most recent English-learner data brief reports that more than 117 languages are spoken in D.C. public schools, with Spanish and Amharic the most common non-English home languages (Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2022). Yet a decade of evaluations have documented persistent gaps between the law and what families actually experience (D.C. Language Access Coalition & American University Washington College of Law Immigration Justice Clinic, 2012; Wilson & Svajlenka, 2014).
Family engagement research, from Epstein's (1995) "overlapping spheres" framework to Mapp and Bergman's (2019) dual-capacity model, treats clear two-way communication as a precondition for partnership. Trust adds a second layer: only 22% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time, and trust in education has fallen alongside it (Pew Research Center, 2024). The SBOE's communication strategy operates inside that climate.
This study asks three questions.
The survey consisted of 14 questions organized into seven sections, informed consent, screening, demographics, SBOE awareness, communication channels, accessibility and barriers, and final open-ended feedback. Question types included multiple choice, 5-point Likert scales, checkboxes (select all that apply), and one optional short-answer item. The instrument was built in Google Forms and distributed online. A screening question (Q1) restricted the sample to parents and guardians of a school-age child living in D.C.; respondents who answered "no" were routed to a thank-you page and excluded from the dataset. All 102 retained responses passed screening. The full instrument is reproduced in Appendix A.
The sample of 102 respondents covered all eight D.C. wards. The largest concentrations came from Ward 8 (n = 23, 22.5%), Ward 4 (n = 19, 18.6%), and Ward 5 (n = 19, 18.6%). Most respondents' children attended DCPS (52.0%) or a public charter (38.2%). For household language, 55.9% reported English, 22.5% Spanish, and 18.6% Amharic. The 18.6% Amharic share reflects this convenience sample and is not a population estimate (see Limitations, p. 12).
Nominal variables included ward (Q2), school type (Q3), household language (Q4), SBOE awareness (Q5), knowledge of role (Q7), expected channels (Q9), and trust in education information (Q12). Ordinal variables included self-reported familiarity (Q6, 1 to 5) and ease of understanding (Q10, 1 to 5). Two checkbox items (Q8, Q11) were recoded as binary variables for frequency analysis. A derived language group variable (English vs. non-English) from Q4 enabled the independent-samples t-test for H2.
H1 (ward × awareness) was tested with a chi-squared test of independence, with Cramér's V reported as an effect size against the degrees-of-freedom benchmarks in Kim (2017). H2 (language × ease of understanding) was tested with an independent-samples t-test, with Levene's test for equal variances and Cohen's (1992) thresholds for the effect; Funder and Ozer (2019) is reported alongside as a contemporary check. H3 (familiarity vs. knowledge) was assessed descriptively by comparing Q6 with the share who correctly identified the SBOE's role (Q7). The 41 open-ended responses (Q13) were inductively coded for themes.
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The informed-consent page described the purpose, risks, benefits, and data-handling procedures of the study, and proceeding past it constituted consent. No personally identifying information was collected. The dataset will be retained by the author for the duration of the course and then destroyed.
A large majority of respondents (84.3%) said they had heard of the D.C. State Board of Education before taking the survey. Only 8.8% said they had not, and 6.9% were unsure. On the 1–5 familiarity scale (Q6), the average score was 3.41, placing the typical respondent between "somewhat familiar" and "familiar."
When asked to identify what the SBOE actually does (Q7), only 52.0% selected the correct answer, "sets education standards and advises on education policy." Another 25.5% said they were not sure, and 22.5% selected an incorrect option, most often the belief that the SBOE runs individual schools or sets the operating budget. The gap between the 84.3% who recognize the SBOE and the 52.0% who can describe what it does is, by itself, the clearest finding in this study. H3 was supported.
A chi-squared test of independence found awareness rates ranging from 75.0% in Ward 6 to 100% in Ward 1; Wards 7 and 8 showed 92.3% and 82.6%, respectively. The test was not statistically significant: χ²(16, N = 102) = 8.26, p = .941, Cramér's V = .20. The high overall awareness rate (84.3%) leaves little variance for the test to detect, and small cell sizes in Wards 2 (n = 4) and 3 (n = 5) violate the conventional rule that no more than 20% of expected counts should fall below 5 (Kim, 2017; McHugh, 2013). H1 was not supported in this sample. A larger, stratified follow-up is recommended (see p. 12).
An independent-samples t-test compared ease of understanding education policy information (Q10, 1–5 scale) across English-speaking (n = 57) and non-English-speaking (n = 45) households. English-speaking respondents reported significantly higher ease of understanding (M = 3.30, SD = 1.00) than non-English-speaking respondents (M = 2.62, SD = 1.03), t(100) = 3.35, p = .001, Cohen's d = 0.67. Levene's test confirmed equal variances (F = 0.13, p = .717). The effect is medium-to-large by Cohen's (1992) thresholds and remains substantively meaningful by Funder and Ozer's (2019) more conservative benchmarks. H2 was strongly supported.
The pattern is consistent with prior District- and national-level evidence. The Language Access Coalition's 2012 audit of 258 LEP/NEP D.C. residents documented the same gap a decade ago, and the Migration Policy Institute's 2021 review of EL family communication during the pandemic identified the absence of multilingual family liaisons as a recurring failure mode (D.C. Language Access Coalition & American University Washington College of Law Immigration Justice Clinic, 2012; Sugarman, 2021).
When asked where they currently receive education policy information (Q8, select all that apply), the most common responses were the catch-all category "other" and "I rarely receive this information" (27 each), followed by word of mouth from other parents (25), social media (23), government websites (22), school emails or newsletters (21), community organizations (21), and public meetings or events (21). The prominence of "I rarely receive this information" is itself a finding: a meaningful share of parents are not in the SBOE's communication stream at all.
When asked where they would expect to find information about policy changes (Q9, single-select), the most common answer was school communication, emails and newsletters, at 40.2%, followed by local government websites (19.6%) and social media (16.7%). Families expect schools to be the primary conduit for policy information, even when the policy originates from a different agency. That expectation has direct operational implications for the SBOE, which does not run schools.
The most frequently reported barriers to staying informed (Q11) were not having enough time to follow policy issues (37 respondents), language barriers (36), and too many agencies being involved (31). Among non-English-speaking households specifically, language barriers were cited at a substantially higher rate, consistent with the t-test result above.
Trust levels (Q12, 1–5 scale) were moderate overall. The largest group of respondents (36.3%) reported moderately trusting government education information, followed by mostly trusting (26.5%) and slightly trusting (20.6%). Only 8.8% reported not trusting at all, and 7.8% reported complete trust. The pattern is consistent with Pew Research Center's (2024) finding that Americans' trust in federal government and in education institutions has eroded but not collapsed, and with Partnership for Public Service's (2025) observation that confidence is rebuildable when communication is clearer.
Of the 102 respondents, 41 (40.2%) used the optional open-ended item (Q13) to suggest how education policy information could be made more accessible. Four themes emerged from inductive coding of those responses.
One respondent's comment summarized the broader sentiment: "Explain what SBOE even is because most parents don't know."
The findings translate into five practical recommendations for the D.C. State Board of Education and, through it, for OSSE, the Office of the Student Advocate, and partner community-based organizations. Each is anchored to an existing evidence base and, where possible, to an existing District statute or institutional vehicle.
The SBOE should publish key communications, agendas, meeting summaries, annual reports, the family-engagement brief, and the ESSA accountability plan, in Spanish and Amharic, the two most common non-English home languages in D.C. public schools (Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2022). This goes further than what the Language Access Act of 2004 already requires for "major public contact" agencies (Council of the District of Columbia, 2004), but the law sets a floor, not a ceiling, and the Coalition's audit makes clear that the floor is not consistently met (D.C. Language Access Coalition & American University Washington College of Law Immigration Justice Clinic, 2012). The dual-capacity framework (Mapp & Bergman, 2019) treats linguistically appropriate materials as a precondition for partnership.
The data show that word of mouth, social media, and community organizations are how many D.C. families currently receive information. The peer-reviewed literature on community-based outreach, from the foundational health-promotion-in-barbershops work (Releford et al., 2010) to recent reviews (Magnani, 2024; Mbazor et al., 2024), is unambiguous: trusted-messenger channels reach audiences that broadcast channels do not. The SBOE should partner with churches, barbershops and salons, afterschool programs, libraries, and parent groups, particularly east of the Anacostia River, where the District's broadband subscription rates remain lowest (Mironova & Spievack, 2019).
Even among English-speaking respondents, the average ease-of-understanding score was 3.30 of 5. Policy language is not particularly accessible to anyone. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to "use plain writing in every covered document" (U.S. Congress, 2010); the Plain Language Action and Information Network (n.d.) maintains the operational standards. The SBOE should adopt those standards explicitly, target a 6th–8th-grade reading level for family-facing materials, and produce one-page summaries of every major decision. Recent state-level work (National Governors Association, 2024) shows that this is achievable inside government, not just outside it.
Open-ended responses repeatedly called for text alerts, topic-specific email subscriptions, and short video explainers. These are inexpensive to build and well-aligned with the trust-rebuilding strategies Pew Research Center (2024) identifies for younger and lower-trust populations. The SBOE already publishes annual reports and outreach updates through the Office of the Student Advocate (D.C. Office of the Student Advocate, n.d.); converting that one-way information into opt-in, topic-tailored push notifications is the next step.
Nearly half of respondents either incorrectly identified the SBOE's role or could not identify it at all. Even families who recognize the name of the agency cannot, in many cases, describe why its work matters to them. The SBOE's own 2023 governance report acknowledged the same concern from the public-input side (D.C. State Board of Education, 2023). A short, sustained public-education campaign, built into school-enrollment season, the Pathways Guide, and the SBOE election cycle, would close the knowledge half of the familiarity gap directly.
The DC Pathways family resource library, 22 documents in English and Spanish, including the comprehensive DC Education Pathways Guide, an at-a-glance handout, FAQ documents, interactive checklists, a schools and programs directory, sample letters and templates, comparison charts, and quick reference cards, is one operational answer to the four recommendations above. Each product is written at a 6th–8th grade reading level, published in Spanish in parallel, and distributed through channels (community partners, school front offices, neighborhood social media groups) that the survey identifies as the channels families actually use. The library is free, requires no login, and is built to be reproduced and adapted by the SBOE, OSSE, and partner organizations under a permissive license.
This study should be read in that context: it is the empirical case for an intervention that is already partly built. The remaining work is institutional adoption, by the SBOE for its own communications, by OSSE for its English-learner family communications, and by the D.C. Council for the funding line that would make the work sustainable.
The findings underline an equity concern that deserves explicit attention. The two groups that this study finds least well-served by current SBOE communication, non-English-speaking households and families east of the Anacostia River, are also the groups that District-level evidence consistently identifies as facing the largest gaps in school outcomes, broadband access, and post-secondary opportunity (Coffin & Cordes, 2024; Mironova & Spievack, 2019). A communication strategy that does not specifically prioritize those groups will, by default, widen those gaps. The dual-capacity framework's emphasis on trust-building and equity (Mapp & Bergman, 2019) is the relevant operational guidance.
None of the five recommendations above requires new authority. Translation, plain-language editing, community-messenger partnerships, and opt-in distribution lists are line items that already exist in District agencies. The marginal cost is staff time and a coordinated standard. The marginal benefit, on the evidence of this and prior studies, is the difference between an awareness rate of 84% that produces correct identification 52% of the time and one that closes that gap.
The 102-respondent sample, while sufficient to detect the medium-to-large language effect on H2, was underpowered for the ward-level chi-squared test of H1. Wards 2 (n = 4) and 3 (n = 5) violated the conventional cell-size rule (Kim, 2017; McHugh, 2013), and the high overall awareness rate (84.3%) compressed the variance the test could detect. Convenience sampling further restricts generalizability; respondents who chose to take an online survey on education policy may already be more engaged than the broader population, which would inflate awareness rates (Andrade, 2020; Stratton, 2021).
Online distribution likely under-samples families without reliable broadband, disproportionately families in Wards 5, 7, and 8 (Mironova & Spievack, 2019). This is a meaningful limit for a study about communication-equity. A future round should pair the online instrument with paper-and-pencil distribution at community partner sites and with in-language phone interviewing.
The 18.6% Amharic share in this sample exceeds any District- or federal-level tabulation of Amharic-speaking D.C. parents. The widely repeated claim that the D.C. metro area is home to the largest Ethiopian community outside Ethiopia is supported by community-source estimates that range from ~40,000 (American Community Survey) to 200,000+ (community estimates) (District of Columbia Public Library, 2024; Schwartz, 2016). The Amharic figure in this study should therefore be read as a feature of the sample, and as evidence that an Amharic-language outreach effort can find an audience, not as a population estimate.
This is a single-time-point study. It cannot speak to how awareness, understanding, or communication preferences shift over time, in response to specific events, or across enrollment seasons. A longitudinal panel would be the appropriate follow-up.
The question that drove this study was whether the SBOE's communication actually reaches the families it serves, and whether, when it does reach them, those families can understand it. The 102-respondent answer is mixed but specific.
Awareness is not the problem. 84.3% of D.C. parents and guardians in this sample have heard of the SBOE. Awareness does not vary significantly by ward. The agency's name is recognized.
Knowledge is the problem. Only 52.0% of respondents could identify what the SBOE does. A quarter were unsure; another quarter were wrong. The agency's name is recognized; its role is not.
And language is the equity problem. Non-English-speaking households, overwhelmingly Spanish- and Amharic-speaking families in this sample, reported significantly more difficulty understanding policy information than English-speaking households, with a medium-to-large effect size. A decade of District- and national-level evidence finds the same pattern. The Language Access Act of 2004 set a legal floor that is, by the testimony of families themselves, not consistently met.
The 41 open-ended responses tell the SBOE what to do: write in Spanish and Amharic, write in plain language, meet families in the channels they already trust, and push information out rather than waiting for it to be pulled. None of this is novel. All of it is overdue.
The deeper point is that "communication" is not a soft-skill add-on to the governance work the SBOE already does. In a District where four agencies share authority over public schools, communication is governance. When 32 percentage points separate the share of parents who recognize the SBOE from the share who can describe its role, that gap is itself a governance failure, one with a known set of fixes.
The DC Pathways library is one operational answer to those fixes. The broader answer belongs to the SBOE, OSSE, and the D.C. Council. The families whose responses populate this report have already named the work.
The survey was administered online via Google Forms between February and April 2026. It was shared across the social media accounts, online forums, and community-partner platforms where D.C. families already gather. The instrument was available in English and Spanish; an Amharic translation was offered on request but was not produced as a standalone form for this round (a limit; see p. 12). The data were exported to a spreadsheet, cleaned for screening failures and duplicates, and analyzed using descriptive statistics, a chi-squared test of independence, and an independent-samples t-test, with Cramér's V, Levene's test, and Cohen's d reported as appropriate (Cohen, 1988, 1992; Funder & Ozer, 2019; Kim, 2017; McHugh, 2013).
Respondents reviewed a description of the study, including its purpose, eligibility requirements, risks, benefits, and data-handling procedures. Proceeding past the consent page indicated voluntary, informed consent.
Q1. "Are you a parent or guardian of a school-age child living in Washington, D.C.?" (yes / no). Respondents who answered "no" were routed to a thank-you page and excluded.
Q2. "Which ward do you live in?" (Wards 1–8 or not sure). Q3. "What type of school does your child primarily attend?" (DCPS, public charter, private, homeschool, other). Q4. "What is the primary language spoken in your household?" (English, Spanish, Amharic, another language, prefer not to say).
Q5. "Before today, had you heard of the D.C. State Board of Education?" (yes, no, not sure). Q6. "How familiar are you with the D.C. State Board of Education?" (1 = not familiar at all to 5 = very familiar). Q7. "Which of the following best describes what the D.C. State Board of Education does?" (four options: sets education standards and advises on education policy [correct]; runs individual schools; sets the DCPS operating budget and hires staff; not sure).
Q8. "Where do you currently receive information about education policy in D.C.? (Select all that apply)", nine options including word of mouth, social media, school emails or newsletters, government websites, community organizations, public meetings or events, news media, "other," and "I rarely receive this information." Q9. "Where would you expect to find information about a policy change?" (single-select: school communication, local government website, social media, news media, community organization, other).
Q10. "How easy or difficult is it to understand the education policy information you do receive?" (1 = very difficult to 5 = very easy). Q11. "What are the biggest barriers to staying informed about D.C. education policy? (Select all that apply)", nine options including not enough time, language barriers, too many agencies involved, hard to find, don't trust the source, not sure where to look, and "other." Q12. "How much do you trust government education information in D.C.?" (1 = do not trust at all to 5 = completely trust).
Q13 (optional, open-ended). "What is one thing the D.C. State Board of Education could do to make education policy information easier for your family to access and understand?" Q14 (optional). "Where did you find this survey?"
The 41 responses to Q13 were inductively coded by the author across two passes. The first pass produced an open-coded list of distinct suggestions; the second pass collapsed those into the four themes presented on page 8 (multilingual communication, meeting families where they are, plain language, and proactive opt-in channels). Direct quotations in the body of the report were drawn verbatim and minimally edited for typos only.
Analyses were conducted in Google Sheets with confirmation in JASP 0.18. The chi-squared test for H1 was run with eight ward categories crossed with the three awareness categories of Q5; the small-cell rule (Kim, 2017) was checked and is reported as a violated assumption in the Limitations section. The independent-samples t-test for H2 was run after confirming approximate normality in each language group (skewness and kurtosis within ±1) and equal variances via Levene's test. The Cohen's d effect size is reported alongside the conventional p-value because effect sizes, not significance levels, should drive the interpretation of a sample this size (Cohen, 1992; Funder & Ozer, 2019).
The full anonymized response file and the analysis script will be made available on request to the course instructor for the duration of the academic term. The instrument is reproducible in any survey platform without modification.
1 The District's post-PERAA governance structure is documented at sboe.dc.gov/page/roles and in the SBOE's 2023 governance report, which describes the arrangement as one that District residents experience as confusing and recommends structural reforms (D.C. State Board of Education, 2023).
2 The Language Access Act of 2004 requires every D.C. agency with "major public contact" to provide interpretation and translation in the District's vital languages (Council of the District of Columbia, 2004). The Office of Human Rights operates the Language Access Program; 2014 amendments extended coverage to D.C. Public Charter Schools.
3 The 18.6% Amharic share in this sample exceeds any published population tabulation for D.C. parents. The widely repeated "largest Ethiopian community outside Ethiopia" claim is sourced primarily to community organizations and journalism; published estimates range from ~40,000 (American Community Survey) to 200,000+ (community estimates) (District of Columbia Public Library, 2024; Schwartz, 2016). The figure is reported here as a finding of this survey only.
4 Effect-size interpretation follows Cohen (1992), with Funder and Ozer's (2019) more conservative thresholds reported as a contemporary check.
5 The "barbershop paradigm" for trusted-messenger outreach is well-documented in the public-health literature (Magnani, 2024; Mbazor et al., 2024; Releford et al., 2010) and is directly translatable to education-policy outreach in D.C.'s Black wards.
6 Where this report invokes the DC Pathways library, the products referenced (DC Education Pathways Guide, At-a-Glance handout, FAQ documents, interactive checklists, schools directory, sample letters and templates, comparison charts, quick reference cards, timelines) are all published in English and Spanish at the project repository and are licensed for reuse and adaptation by the SBOE and partner agencies.
7 All web sources cited in this report were verified between April and May 2026. Government and think-tank URLs occasionally change; updated locations are usually findable through the publishing organization's archive.
Coffin, C., & Cordes, S. A. (2024). State of D.C. schools, 2022–23: Challenges to pandemic recovery in a new normal. D.C. Policy Center. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/state-of-dc-schools-2022-23/
Council of the District of Columbia. (2004). Language Access Act of 2004, D.C. Law 15-167. D.C. Law Library. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/15-167
Council of the District of Columbia. (2007). Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007, D.C. Law 17-9. D.C. Law Library. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/17-9
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. (n.d.). How DC funds its public schools. https://dcfpi.org/all/how-dc-funds-its-public-schools/
D.C. Office of Human Rights. (n.d.). About the Language Access Program. Government of the District of Columbia. https://ohr.dc.gov/page/about-language-access-program-OHR
D.C. Office of the Student Advocate. (n.d.). Annual & quarterly reports. D.C. State Board of Education. https://sboe.dc.gov/page/annual-quarterly-reports
D.C. State Board of Education. (n.d.). About SBOE. Government of the District of Columbia. https://sboe.dc.gov/page/about-sboe
D.C. State Board of Education. (n.d.). Outreach and advocacy. https://sboe.dc.gov/page/outreach-and-advocacy
D.C. State Board of Education. (n.d.). Roles and responsibilities. Government of the District of Columbia. https://sboe.dc.gov/page/roles
D.C. State Board of Education. (2023). Education governance report: Recommendations and considerations. Government of the District of Columbia. https://sboe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sboe/page_content/attachments/2023-03-10-Embargoe-Education-Governance-Report-noltr.pdf
National Research Council. (2015). An evaluation of the public schools of the District of Columbia: Reform in a changing landscape. National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/21743/chapter/4
D.C. Language Access Coalition & American University Washington College of Law Immigration Justice Clinic. (2012). Access denied: The unfulfilled promise of the D.C. Language Access Act. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/language_portal/Access%20Denied-%20The%20Unfulfilled%20Promise%20of%20the%20D.C.%20Language%20Access%20Act.pdf
District of Columbia Public Library. (2024). Documenting the Ethiopian communities of DC. https://www.dclibrary.org/documenting-ethiopian-communities-dc
Migration Policy Institute. (2025). State immigration data profile: District of Columbia, language. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/language/DC
Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (n.d.). English learner policy and programs. Government of the District of Columbia. https://osse.dc.gov/page/english-learner-policy-and-programs
Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (2022). English learners in DC: 2021–22 school year data. Government of the District of Columbia. https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/English%20Learners%20in%20DC_2021-22%20School%20Year%20Data%20(1).pdf
Schwartz, M. S. (2016, April 21). Why is there such a large Ethiopian population in the Washington region? WAMU. https://wamu.org/story/16/04/21/how_did_the_dc_region_become_home_to_the_largest_population_of_ethiopians_in_the_us/
Sugarman, J. (2021). Educating English learners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-english-learners-covid-19-final.pdf
Sugarman, J., & Geary, C. (2018). English learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/EL-Insight_Legal-Framwork_Final.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Language use in the United States: 2019 (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-50). https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.pdf
Wilson, J. H., & Svajlenka, N. P. (2014). Ten years of language access in Washington, DC. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22536/413097-ten-years-of-language-access-in-washington-dc_0.pdf
Cuevas, S. (2024). Cultural meaning of education and parents' involvement in education: Perspectives of immigrant Latinos. Family Relations, 73(3). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fare.12940
Edelman. (2024). 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global report. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2024-02/2024%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_FINAL.pdf
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712.
Epstein, J. L. (2024). Theory of overlapping spheres of influence on school, family, and community partnerships: Reflections and extensions. In Handbook on families and education (Ch. 2). Edward Elgar. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781035300686/chapter2.xml
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Latinos for Education. (2024). Embracing the power of Latino parents and educator engagement: New survey sheds light on barriers for Latino families. https://www.latinosforeducation.org/2024/02/01/embracing-the-power-of-latino-parents-and-educator-engagement-new-survey-sheds-light-on-barriers-for-latino-families/
Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family–school partnerships (Version 2). https://www.dualcapacity.org/
Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family–school partnerships. SEDL & U.S. Department of Education. https://sedl.org/pubs/framework/DualCapacityFramework.pdf
National Governors Association. (2024). Using plain language for effective health communication. https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/using-plain-language-for-effective-health-communication/
Partnership for Public Service. (2025). The state of public trust in government 2025. https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/the-state-of-public-trust-in-government-2025/
Pew Research Center. (2024, June 24). Americans' trust in federal government and attitudes toward it. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/americans-trust-in-federal-government-and-attitudes-toward-it/
Pew Research Center. (2024, October 17). 5 ways to rebuild trust in government. https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/5-ways-to-rebuild-trust-in-government
Plain Language Action and Information Network. (n.d.). Federal plain language guidelines. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/
Public Health Communications Collaborative. (2023). Plain language for public health: A guide for communicators. https://publichealthcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PHCC_Plain-Language-for-Public-Health.pdf
U.S. Congress. (2010). Plain Writing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-274, 124 Stat. 2861. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2022). Family engagement to support immigrant and multilingual families. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/family-community/support-immigrant-multilingual-families.pdf
Mironova, Y., & Spievack, N. (2019). New data reveal digital divides across DC neighborhoods. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new-data-reveal-digital-divides-across-dc-neighborhoods
Office of the Chief Technology Officer. (n.d.). DC-CAN FAQs. Government of the District of Columbia. https://dcnet.dc.gov/page/dc-can-faqs
Pew Research Center. (2024, January 31). Americans' use of mobile technology and home broadband. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/
Magnani, J. W. (2024). The barbershop paradigm: Community engagement for cardiovascular prevention. American Heart Journal Plus. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11252612/
Mbazor, K. C., et al. (2024). ShopTalk, Barbers as partners in health promotion. American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11245761/
Releford, B. J., Frencher, S. K., & Yancey, A. K. (2010). Health promotion in barbershops: Balancing outreach and research in African American communities. Journal of the National Medical Association, 102(4). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4244298/
Andrade, C. (2020). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
Kim, H.-Y. (2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 42(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152
McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.018
Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000649
Thank you for reading. This report was built to make the case, in data, that the families this system is for can find, understand, and trust the information that shapes their children's school years. The findings here are a starting point, not a destination.