COMPARE CITIES

Citywide Education Progress Reports

Which Cities Are Showing Progress in 2018? Which Reforms Showed the Most Movement?

In 2018, San Antonio showed the most significant activity in its education strategy. Atlanta, Camden, Los Angeles, and Oakland also made progress in at least three of twelve system reform indicators.

We saw most of the activity in:

  • Creating consolidated information guides about district and charter schools.
  • Simplifying the application or enrollment process for charter schools, district schools, or both.
  • Offering new or expanded school leadership programs.

We saw little movement on:

  • Strategically managing the city’s school portfolio so quality schools are located where they are most needed, and low-performing schools are improved, restarted, or closed.
  • Giving schools flexibility over their funds, weighted for student needs, so schools have the resources they need to drive improvement.
  • Expanding transportation policies so students have better access to schools of choice.

COMPARE REFORMS   COMPARE OUTCOMES

System Reforms

The Citywide Education Progress Reports look at how well cities are doing across three goals. Below is a summary of their progress for the 2017-2018 school year. Change in indicator scores between the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years is identified by an arrow showing improvement or decline.

Cities by scoreThe education system is
continuously improving
All students have access to
a high-quality education
The education strategy is
rooted in community
01INDIANAPOLIS030303
02WASH., D.C.030303
03CLEVELAND030303
04DENVER030203
05CHICAGO030203
06NEW YORK CITY020303
07CAMDEN020303
08NEW ORLEANS020302
09BOSTON030202
10PHILADELPHIA020302
11ATLANTA020202
12HOUSTON020202
13KANSAS CITY020202
14LOS ANGELES020202
15MEMPHIS020202
16OAKLAND020202
17SAN ANTONIO020202
18TULSA020202

Information updated in June 2018. See 2017 scores.

Do schools have the resources they need? School improvement happens at the school level, but making sure resources are available requires sound, citywide policy. Having the right talent in a city is critical for schools to be able to provide students with a quality education. Schools should also have control over their budgets so they have the resources to address the needs of their student population.


Cities by scoreRight teachersRight leadersEquitable funding
01BOSTON02
0202
02DENVER020202
03CHICAGO010202
04CLEVELAND010202
05INDIANAPOLIS010202
06NEW ORLEANS010103
07WASH, D.C.02
02
01
08ATLANTA0102
01
09HOUSTON010102
10LOS ANGELES02
0101
11NEW YORK CITY010102
12CAMDEN010200
13MEMPHIS010101
14OAKLAND0102
00
15PHILADELPHIA0102
00
16KANSAS CITY010100
17SAN ANTONIO010100
18TULSA010100

Information updated in June 2018. See 2017 scores.

Do school choice and supply meet family needs? This goal addresses how well the city is doing with providing families access to quality schools. We look at what the city is doing to ensure quality schools are in every neighborhood, and how well the choice process is working for families who want to use it.


Cities by ScoreArray of
school models
Strategic
school supply
Families
have information
Enrollment
is working
Transportation
is working
01PHILADELPHIA0301020103
02CLEVELAND.0201020202
03INDIANAPOLIS0202020201
04WASH, D.C.0201020202
05CAMDEN0102020201
06NEW ORLEANS0101020202
07DENVER0101020201
08KANSAS CITY0201020101
09NEW YORK CITY-00N/A01010203
10BOSTON0201010101
11CHICAGO0101020200
12OAKLAND0200020200
13ATLANTA0201010100
14SAN ANTONIO0201000101
15HOUSTON0101010001
16MEMPHIS0101010001
17LOS ANGELES0200000100
18TULSA0001000101

Information updated in June 2018. See 2017 scores.

Is the whole community engaged? Education is a citywide endeavor. When families, community organizations, and city leaders have the opportunity to provide feedback and share in the vision, the strategy is more likely to be sustainable and meet the needs of all students. In this goal, we look at how well the city is doing with engaging key stakeholders.


Cities by scoreSystem is responsiveCity engages familiesVariety of groupsBroad support
01INDIANAPOLIS01020303
02CAMDEN02020202
03CLEVELAND01020203
04DENVER01020202
05WASH, D.C.01020202
06CHICAGO02020101
07LOS ANGELES02010201
08NEW ORLEANS01020201
09NEW YORK CITY01020201
10TULSA01020201
11BOSTON01010201
12HOUSTON01000301
13MEMPHIS01010201
14OAKLAND01010201
15SAN ANTONIO01010201
16ATLANTA01010101
17KANSAS CITY01010101
18PHILADELPHIA00010102

Information updated in June 2018. See 2017 scores.

This data is not optimized for viewing on a mobile device.

Student and School Outcomes

Atlanta, ChicagoDenverNew Orleans, and New York City had statistically significant improvement in math and reading proficiency rates. Camden had statistically significant improvement in reading but not math proficiency rates. But only two cities—New Orleans and Tulsa—were about on par with state proficiency rates in math. Any city’s improvement or decline that is not statistically significant is labeled “no improvement.”

CityMath Proficiency RatesReading Proficiency
06ATLANTA03IMPROVEMENT03IMPROVEMENT
06CHICAGO03IMPROVEMENT03IMPROVEMENT
06DENVER36IMPROVEMENT03IMPROVEMENT
06NEW ORLEANS0303IMPROVEMENT0303IMPROVEMENT
06NEW YORK CITY0303IMPROVEMENT0303IMPROVEMENT
0506CAMDEN02NO IMPROVEMENT03IMPROVEMENT
04BOSTON02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
04CLEVELAND02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
04INDIANAPOLIS02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
04KANSAS CITY02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
03PHILADELPHIA02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
03TULSA02NO IMPROVEMENT02NO IMPROVEMENT
03SAN ANTONIO02NO IMPROVEMENT01FALLING BEHIND
02HOUSTON01FALLING BEHIND01FALLING BEHIND


This indicator demonstrates whether cities made statistically significant school-level gains in proficiency rates, relative to state averages. We define statistically significant as results having a p-value of less than 0.05.

Source: State agency school performance files, 2011-12 to 2014-15. For all cities we used 2011-12 for Year One and 2014-15 for Final Year except for Denver, Kansas City, New York City, Philadelphia and Tulsa. We do not have data for Los Angeles, Memphis, Oakland and Washington, D.C.. See Methodology & Resources for more detail.

In Atlanta, Camden, Denver, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Washington, D.C., cities gained on their state graduation rates by three percentage points or more. But only New Orleans and San Antonio graduation rates were on par with or better than their states’ rates.

City By Grad Rate2014-15 Graduation Rate
87SAN ANTONIO87
85HOUSTON85
83LOS ANGELES83
78KANSAS CITY78
78NEW ORLEANS78
77PHILADELPHIA77
76CHICAGO76
75ATLANTA75
74OAKLAND74
73TULSA73
73MEMPHIS73
71WASHINGTON, D.C.71
71INDIANAPOLIS71
70CAMDEN70
70NEW YORK70
68BOSTON68
67DENVER67
56CLEVELAND56


We estimated citywide graduation rates using 9th grade cohorts from the 2011-12 school year. EDFacts provided four-year graduation rates for each school.

Source: The EDFacts Initiative, U.S. Department of Education, Assessment and Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates (ACGR) Data 2011-2015.

In Boston, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, New York City, and San Antonio, low-income students were performing slightly better in math and reading than low-income students in the average city. In Memphis and New Orleans, the city's EEI score improved by 14% and 7%, respectively, over five years.


The Education Equality Index (EEI) shows how well low-income students are performing on state assessments relative to their peers nationwide. The national benchmark is 50. In cities with a score below 50, students are doing somewhat worse than their peers nationally; in cities with a score above 50, students are doing somewhat better than their peers nationally.


City By Score2014-15 EEI Score
62.2NEW YORK CITY62.2
61.0INDIANAPOLIS61.0
59.9HOUSTON59.9
58.6CHICAGO58.6
58.5SAN ANTONIO58.5
56.7BOSTON56.7
48.1LOS ANGELES48.1
47.9NEW ORLEANS47.9
46.8MEMPHIS46.8
40.7OAKLAND40.7
40.7PHILADELPHIA40.7


Source: Education Equality Index
Note: No 2014-15 EEI scores were available for Atlanta, Camden, Cleveland, Denver, Kansas City, Tulsa and Washington, D.C.

Some cities have proportional representation in advanced math coursework across some subgroups—like Los Angeles, Oakland, Denver, Washington D.C., Atlanta, or Chicago for black students.

But in only CamdenMemphis, San Antonio, and New Orleans, were all student subgroups enrolled in high school advanced math coursework at similar rates as the total high school population.


This indicator shows whether student subgroups are proportionately enrolled in advanced math coursework in high school. We compared the enrollment rates in math courses with the demographics within the high school population to show whether certain student sub-groups were over- or under-represented in advanced math courses. We used federal data from 2013-14 for all cities.


CityBlackHispanicWhiteOther
CAMDEN
MEMPHIS
SAN ANTONIO
NEW ORLEANS
LOS ANGELES
DENVER
HOUSTON
CLEVELAND
NEW YORK CITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BOSTON
KANSAS CITY
INDIANAPOLIS
OAKLAND
CHICAGO
TULSA
PHILADELPHIA
ATLANTA


Source: U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection 2013-2014.

This data is not optimized for viewing on a mobile device.

The Center on Reinventing Public Education is a research and policy analysis center at the University of Washington Bothell developing systemwide solutions for K–12 public education. Questions? Email crpe@uw.edu.