Beyond the buzzwords: How Washington, DC education policies shape youth activism

• In Event: Empowering youth voices: Education, civic engagement, and identity formation across global contexts

Proposal

Youth activism has surged globally in recent years, from climate strikes to racial justice movements, often driven by young people dissatisfied with traditional institutions (Taft, 2017; Mirra & Garcia, 2020). Yet the role of education policy in structuring the possibilities and limits of such activism remains underexamined. In Washington, DC - a city that is simultaneously a local community, an urban school district, and the nation’s political capital - the stakes of youth civic engagement are particularly high. Students are surrounded by the institutions of U.S. democracy and global governance, while also contending with some of the country’s most persistent inequalities in race, class, and schooling (Asch & Musgrove, 2017; Fine et al., 2004). Against this backdrop, DC’s education policies frequently emphasize youth voice, civic participation, and global competence (Engel, 2021; Levinson, 2012), yet how these aspirations are experienced by students in practice remains an open question.

This paper asks: How do education policies in Washington, DC construct opportunities and constraints for youth activism? How do high school students navigate these dynamics across schools and communities? We approach these questions through Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, field, and habitus (Bourdieu, 1986; Reay, 2004), which illuminate how students’ social positions shape access to civic opportunities, and through a dimensional analysis framework (Schatzman, 1991; Kools et al., 1996), which enables systematic coding of the conditions, processes, and consequences embedded in student narratives.

Methodologically, the study draws on 20 focus group interviews with 72 public high school students, aged 14–20, across five DCPS schools. Schools were selected to represent variation in racial composition, socioeconomic context, and institutional resources. Focus group transcripts were analyzed through dimensional analysis, which was used in tandem with Bourdieu’s framework to identify how forms of capital (cultural, social, and political) circulate within the DC education policy field (Lareau, 2011; Carter, 2005).

Findings highlight three central dynamics. First, DC education policy documents emphasize civic participation and youth voice, aligning with global trends in student-centered education and global citizenship frameworks (Swalwell, 2013; UNESCO, 2015; Saito et al., 2023). Yet in practice, these ideals are often depoliticized: students reported that schools encouraged safe, non-controversial forms of involvement, such as community service or leadership training, while discouraging engagement with politically sensitive issues like racial justice, climate change, or international conflicts. These findings echo critiques of how schools simultaneously valorize and constrain youth political agency (Rubin, 2016; Taft, 2017; Hantzopoulos & Shirazi, 2021).

Second, access to activism opportunities was shaped by the unequal distribution of resources across DC schools. Students in more affluent or racially mixed schools described access to extracurricular clubs, debate teams, and mentorship networks that broadened their civic horizons (Kahne & Sporte, 2008). In contrast, students in under-resourced schools relied more heavily on community-based organizations, religious institutions, and peer networks to develop activist identities. This reflects how racialized and classed capitals condition pathways into civic participation (Lareau, 2011; Carter, 2005; Nasir & Hand, 2008).

Third, students articulated both the promises and pitfalls of activism. Many described activism as a space of empowerment, solidarity, and hope, resonating with scholarship on the transformative potential of youth political action (Kirshner, 2015; Mirra & Garcia, 2020). At the same time, they noted risks of burnout, tokenization, or co-optation by schools and policymakers who highlighted student activism for public relations while avoiding systemic change (Field & Morrell, 2022; Fine et al., 2004). This ambivalence underscores how youth inhabit contradictory roles as both agents and objects of policy (Rubin, 2016; Taft, 2017).

Taken together, these findings show how DC education policies construct a field of activism that is encouraged, constrained, and stratified. Bourdieu’s framework helps illustrate how students mobilize social, cultural, and political capital to navigate this policy landscape, while dimensional analysis reveals how structural inequalities shape their strategies. Students’ activism emerges as a hybrid practice, formed at the intersection of school-based instruction, peer learning, community organizing, and digital activism (Showden et al., 2023; Saud et al., 2023).

This paper contributes to comparative and international education in several ways. It offers an empirically grounded analysis of youth activism within a unique federal city context, extending debates about youth agency, civic education, and global learning (Engel, 2021; Salisbury et al., 2023). It also advances the use of Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and field in analyzing youth civic participation, showing how structural inequities interact with policy discourse. In addition, it generates policy insights, demonstrating that supporting meaningful youth activism requires material investments in equity, protections for politically sensitive expression, and sustained partnerships with community organizations (Levinson, 2012; Hantzopoulos & Shirazi, 2021).

Ultimately, while DC education policies gesture toward empowering youth as civic actors, the realities of schooling often limit what forms of activism are possible. Yet students demonstrate creativity and resilience, leveraging diverse resources to carve out civic spaces on their own terms. Their activism reveals both the contradictions of policy and the generative possibilities of youth engagement in shaping more just, inclusive, and democratic futures.

Authors

• Vanessa R. Sperduti, CIES

• Laura C. Engel

• Sümeyye ARPACI, George Washington University

• Mania Borzenko, Technion Israel Institute of Technology