The report provides the first citywide assessment of the changing and complex public school landscape in the U.S., enabling city leaders to assess the overall health of all of their cities’ schools, regardless of whether they are district- or charter-run, and to benchmark them against schools in other cities.

In “,” researchers at the 91Ě˝»¨â€™s (CRPE) went beyond test scores, using publicly available data to develop nine indicators related to school improvement and academic opportunity.

These cities reflect rapidly changing student demographics and the complexity of today’s urban public education landscape, where multiple agencies oversee public schools and enrollments are spread across a variety of school types.

Key national findings:

• Performance in most cities is flat, with limited proficiency gains and large shares of schools stuck in the bottom 5 percent of schools in their state.
• Students from low-income households and students of color face staggering academic inequities, with limited access to high-performing schools and college preparatory experiences.
• Across the 50 cities, white students were four times more likely than black students to enroll in a top-scoring elementary or middle school.
• Black students were twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as white students.
• Less than 15 percent of all high school students took the ACT/SAT in 30 of the 50 cities.
• Less than 10 percent of all high school students took advanced math classes each year in 32 of the 50 cities.

Though it paints a bleak picture, the report also highlights cities that have made significant progress.

“I hope this will serve as a catalyst for city leaders to take a look at where they might be falling short and identify other cities they might learn from,” said CRPE Senior Research Analyst , the report’s lead author.

For example:

• How have New Orleans and other cities managed to improve or replace so many of their lowest-performing schools?
• What is happening in cities like Memphis and Chicago — where black students participate in advanced courses and the SAT at high rates?
• Why do some cities, like Newark and Columbus, have high numbers of schools that “beat the odds” by performing better than schools with similar demographics?
• What accounts for the favorable discipline outcomes in cities like Baton Rouge, the only city in the report where black students are not suspended at higher rates than white students? Or Los Angeles, where overall suspension rates are low and Hispanic students are less likely to be suspended than white students?

“This report suggests that inequity in public education, though widespread, isn’t inevitable,” said CRPE Director . “What should make us angry is that there is evidence that things can be better.”

The analysis suggests that no single model for providing or governing schools — district operation, chartering or vouchers — has been a sure solution to address the needs of urban students. However, given the enormity of the challenges represented in this study, no city should close off any possible source of good schools or promising solutions.

Lake is calling for civic and school system leaders across the country to learn from one another and to aggressively hunt for evidence-based new solutions that enable them to do more of what works and respond quickly and meaningfully to shifting demographics and other challenges.

“America is at a profound moment of social struggle,” she said. “School improvement can’t wait for us to solve poverty or racial injustice. But we can create great school options now for young people that can help to mitigate these other social challenges.

“Education is a crucial lever for mayors and civic leaders to provide hope and opportunity for our most vulnerable youth. We can’t improve our cities without improving our schools.”

The report features interactive charts enabling users to sort each indicator by student sub-groups and outcomes. Measuring Up: Educational Improvement and Opportunity in 50 Cities and interactive data are available at .

In December 2013, more than 20 million students around the globe participated in the Hour of Code, organized by – a Seattle-based non-profit dedicated to expanding participation in computer science. The event allowed students to try their hand at coding and prompted discussions among policymakers and educators about how to provide students with greater access to computer science education.

That discussion – and , co-founder and CEO of Code.org – will come to the 91Ě˝»¨’s Seattle campus May 8 for the .

“Coding is the new Spanish or Mandarin. It’s the new language of tomorrow’s jobs,” said , director of 91Ě˝»¨Bothell’s , which is organizing the event.

Partovi will talk about the impact of the Hour of Code and what parents, educators and policymakers in Washington state can do to prepare students for science, technology, math and engineering jobs.

, 91Ě˝»¨professor of computer science and engineering and member of the Code.org , will provide introductory remarks. Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, will facilitate the conversation.

The event will be held at Kane Hall Room 110. Doors open at 6:30 p.m., and the event and live-streaming on will begin at 7 p.m. Free registration is on .

Along with the Center on Reinventing Public Education, the event is in partnership with 91Ě˝»¨Computer Science and Engineering, 91Ě˝»¨College of Education and .

These findings are relevant for Washington state as policy makers consider how best to implement Initiative 1240 to allow charter schools, which appears to have been approved by voters in the most recent election.

The issue of charter schools and special-needs students arises in part from a that said, at the national level, charter schools enroll fewer students than schools run by districts.

That may be true when comparing national averages of charter compared with non-charter schools, but new research comparing New York State’s district-run schools with charter schools finds important variations in the enrollment patterns of students with special needs.

“Although certainly some charter schools are not meeting their responsibilities in special education, our data indicate that the simplest explanation—that charters don’t want to serve these kids and are sending them away—is not really a good characterization of the story,” said , director at the 91Ě˝»¨’s , which conducted the study.

The looked at special education enrollment in individual schools, grade levels, neighborhoods and in the portfolios of schools under different authorizers to present a more accurate picture.

The study uncovered four key findings:

• At the middle and high school levels, the average enrollment figures are actually higher in charter schools than in district-run schools and the distribution and range are almost indistinguishable.
• A marked difference in special education student enrollments, however, does appear when charter elementary schools are compared with their district-run counterparts.
• While some authorizers oversee schools with special needs enrollments that closely track those of nearby district-run schools, other authorizers oversee groups of schools that don’t mirror the special education enrollments of their district-run neighbors.

The report demonstrates a need for more research and a better understanding of enrollment data in order to explain the differences uncovered by the analysis, the authors say. Part of the difference in elementary schools, for example, may be that some district-run schools offer programs that attract more students with special needs.

Charter schools at the elementary level might also be less inclined to label students as needing special education services. This raises a troubling question: are charter schools under-enrolling or under-identifying students with special needs, or are district-run schools over-identifying them?

The authors point out that there likely are access and quality issues that need to be addressed in charter schools, but policy solutions need to recognize the complexity of the issues. For example, the research indicates that setting statewide special education enrollment targets may be less effective than school or regional targets that pay careful attention to those very specific factors that influence such enrollment choices as locations, grade-spans, and neighborhoods. Moreover, explicit efforts to develop charter school programs that better address the needs of special education students might more effectively increase enrollment and improve the quality of service for these students than simply setting a target.

The commissioned the report.

###

The report, , by Robin Lake, Betheny Gross and Patrick Denice, is available at .