Access and Equity in Our Public Schools
To provide a clear understanding of how our states are doing at providing equal access to each state’s best schools, Lost Opportunity uses NCES data to compute the chances that, compared to a White, non-Latino student, a historically disadvantaged student (minority or low-income) will attend a high school ranked in the top quartile in the state. Essentially, what chance does a Black, Latino, or poor student, compared to a middle-class White student, have of avoiding the drop-out factories and studying in a college-prep high school?
| States Sorted by Opportunity to Learn Index | ||||||
| Rank | State | Native American | Black | Latino | FARL | OTLI |
| 1 | Louisiana * | 53% | 101% | 112% | 96% | 100% |
| 2 | Alaska | 92% | 93% | 106% | 70% | 93% |
| 3 | Oregon | 97% | 68% | 97% | 42% | 93% |
| 4 | Vermont | 46% | 1% | 114% | 86% | 93% |
| 5 | Idaho | 106% | 107% | 78% | 95% | 82% |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 109% | 45% | 63% | 84% | 81% |
| 7 | Hawaii | 98% | 56% | 83% | 70% | 77% |
| 8 | Delaware | 99% | 74% | 66% | 69% | 73% |
| 9 | Maine | 74% | 56% | 93% | 87% | 69% |
| 10 | New Mexico | 40% | 65% | 75% | 59% | 68% |
| 11 | New Hampshire | 111% | 105% | 63% | 66% | 67% |
| 12 | Utah | 87% | 48% | 61% | 81% | 64% |
| 13 | Washington | 72% | 69% | 60% | 66% | 64% |
| 14 | Indiana | 89% | 56% | 70% | 65% | 61% |
| 15 | North Carolina | 29% | 60% | 71% | 60% | 61% |
| 16 | Virginia | 84% | 46% | 124% | 61% | 61% |
| 17 | Kentucky | 78% | 60% | 65% | 70% | 60% |
| 18 | Alabama | 91% | 57% | 65% | 68% | 59% |
| 19 | Mississippi | 59% | 58% | 78% | 72% | 58% |
| 20 | South Carolina | 112% | 55% | 96% | 54% | 58% |
| 21 | Florida | 89% | 50% | 65% | 57% | 57% |
| 22 | Georgia | 87% | 54% | 69% | 50% | 56% |
| 23 | Minnesota | 43% | 53% | 69% | 64% | 56% |
| 24 | California | 68% | 52% | 54% | 43% | 54% |
| 25 | Tennessee | 93% | 53% | 64% | No data | 54% |
| 26 | Arkansas | 107% | 44% | 87% | 78% | 52% |
| 27 | Arizona | 43% | 69% | 51% | 41% | 51% |
| 28 | Rhode Island | 89% | 45% | 46% | 53% | 47% |
| 29 | Colorado | 82% | 44% | 43% | 45% | 45% |
| 30 | Wisconsin | 90% | 31% | 55% | No data | 45% |
| 31 | Missouri | 84% | 40% | 57% | 57% | 44% |
| 32 | Maryland | 58% | 33% | 66% | 39% | 40% |
| 33 | South Dakota | 24% | 86% | 76% | 78% | 40% |
| 34 | West Virginia | 113% | 38% | 44% | 96% | 40% |
| 35 | Iowa | 67% | 33% | 42% | 76% | 39% |
| 36 | Texas | 83% | 43% | 37% | 40% | 39% |
| 37 | Nevada | 139% | 27% | 43% | No data | 38% |
| 38 | Illinois | 61% | 33% | 43% | 32% | 37% |
| 39 | Wyoming | 28% | 26% | 40% | 84% | 36% |
| 40 | New Jersey | 67% | 30% | 39% | 33% | 35% |
| 41 | North Dakota | 29% | 46% | 66% | 104% | 35% |
| 42 | Pennsylvania | 88% | 28% | 53% | 55% | 35% |
| 43 | Kansas | 65% | 27% | 34% | 52% | 33% |
| 44 | Connecticut | 92% | 33% | 30% | 30% | 32% |
| 45 | Montana | 21% | 54% | 74% | 68% | 31% |
| 46 | Nebraska | 66% | 24% | 31% | 85% | 31% |
| 47 | District of Columbia | 25% | 28% | 48% | 30% | 29% |
| 48 | Massachusetts | 55% | 32% | 24% | 25% | 27% |
| 49 | Ohio | 67% | 21% | 62% | 58% | 26% |
| 50 | Michigan | 61% | 20% | 43% | 47% | 25% |
| 51 | New York | 45% | 25% | 25% | 54% | 25% |
* Louisiana’s schools, predominately populated by disadvantage students, rank high for providing an Opportunity to Learn, and rank low in the percentage of students achieving national proficiency or above.
Overall, the picture is not promising for our nation’s historically disadvantaged students.
Opportunity to Learn for Disadvantaged Students: 51%(1)
| Disadvantaged Student Group(2) | Opportunity to Learn (compared to White, non-Latino students |
| Native American | 61% |
| Asian American(3) | 97% |
| Black | 47% |
| Latino | 53% |
| Low-income (FARL(4)) |
53% |
NOTES
(1) The Schott 50 State Report on the Opportunity to Learn in America, The Schott Foundation for Public Education, May 2009
(2) Total enrollments (2005/6): Native American: 130,968; Asian American: 1,950,425; Black, non-Latino: 5,570,253; Latino: 5,066,273; White, non-Latino: 10,482,662; FARL: 10,260,933.
(3) Performance for sub-groups of the Asian American populations (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) varies drastically. Further federal and state disaggregation of data is needed to more accurately speak to performance results of Asian Americans.
(4) Students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. This measure is similar to the percentage of children living in poverty: Native American (32%); Asian American (20%); Black, non-Latino (41%); Latino (34%); White, non-Latino (32%).
