The Cities Whose Schools Outperform Their Income

School ratings and household affluence track each other so closely that most rankings mostly measure income. Isolating what income does not explain produces a different list.

Across 3,265 cities in 42 states, mathematics proficiency falls as the share of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch rises, at a correlation of -0.63 — the economic profile of the student body alone accounts for roughly 40% of the variation in how cities test when every state is pooled together. That is the uncomfortable fact underneath most school rankings: sort cities by proficiency and you have substantially sorted them by income.

A more useful question is which places test above what that relationship predicts. AreaProfile fits the line separately inside each state, because each state writes its own assessment, and then measures how far each city sits above or below its own state’s line. What follows is the residual, not the raw score.

Key findings

  • Summerlin South, NV tests 37 points above what its 100% free-lunch share predicts in Nevada — the largest positive residual measured.
  • 310 cities clear their state’s median proficiency while carrying an above-median free-lunch share, which is the same finding without a model behind it.
  • The relationship is strong but not deterministic. Inside a single state, where the same test is being compared, the fits explain an average of 64% of the variation — higher than the pooled figure above, because pooling mixes every state's assessment together — and the remaining 36% is everything a lunch form does not capture.

Testing furthest above the state line

CityStateMath proficiencyFree lunchAbove prediction
Summerlin South, NVNevada72.3%100%+37
D'Iberville, MSMississippi66.2%99%+35
Hickory Hills, ILIllinois60.0%61%+32
Buffalo Grove, ILIllinois63.5%52%+30
Weigelstown, PAPennsylvania61.4%98%+30
St. Simons, GAGeorgia78.6%56%+29
Fremont, OHOhio61.8%98%+27
Manatí, PRPuerto Rico57.9%87%+27
Monroeville, PAPennsylvania57.9%97%+26
Kennett, MOMissouri49.3%100%+25
Princeton, FLFlorida68.6%69%+24
Palos Hills, ILIllinois47.3%67%+23
Westminster, CACalifornia52.8%79%+23
Rosemead, CACalifornia53.4%77%+23
St. Marys, PAPennsylvania54.5%97%+22
East San Gabriel, CACalifornia68.0%52%+22
Burr Ridge, ILIllinois55.0%52%+22
Worth, ILIllinois27.5%99%+22
Signal Hill, CACalifornia49.5%82%+21
Roma, TXTexas61.9%89%+21
Greenwood Village, COColorado71.4%21%+21
East Meadow, NYNew York92.7%28%+21
Tamiami, FLFlorida77.4%48%+20
Petal, MSMississippi73.1%60%+20
Garden Grove, CACalifornia50.6%78%+20
Residual is actual mathematics proficiency minus the proficiency predicted by the city’s free-lunch share alone, using a line fitted across that state’s published cities. Download this table (CSV)
Summerlin South37D'Iberville35Hickory Hills32Buffalo Grove30Weigelstown30St. Simons29Fremont27Manatí27Monroeville26Kennett25Princeton24Palos Hills23Westminster23Rosemead23St. Marys22
Points of mathematics proficiency above the within-state prediction.

And furthest below

CityStateMath proficiencyFree lunchBelow prediction
Town and Country, MOMissouri3.1%13%-54
East Patchogue, NYNew York23.8%39%-43
East Orange, NJNew Jersey18.2%21%-38
Bellefontaine Neighbors, MOMissouri6.9%58%-33
Wilkinsburg, PAPennsylvania18.3%66%-29
Dayton, OHOhio32.8%50%-28
Sun Village, CACalifornia11.2%64%-27
Garfield Heights, OHOhio40.0%39%-26
Sonoma, CACalifornia28.9%37%-26
Cincinnati, OHOhio45.8%29%-25
The same measurement at the other end. A negative residual is a question worth asking about a district, not an answer about it. Download this table (CSV)

A residual is not a district rating and not a causal claim. It absorbs curriculum, funding formulas, teacher retention, how a district distributes students across buildings, and ordinary measurement error, alongside anything a school itself is doing. Proficiency is from the 2018–19 assessments, the last full year of testing before the pandemic. The free or reduced-price lunch share is from 2024–25, because that is the most recent year the federal collection publishes it. So the line is fitted across a six-year gap with the pandemic inside it, and a city whose economics moved between those years carries some of that movement in its residual rather than anything about its schools — a town that grew markedly poorer since 2019 will be predicted to test worse than its students actually did, and appear to outperform. This is the largest limitation on the list. Closing it would mean fitting the line against the lunch share as it stood in 2018–19; AreaProfile collects only the current year of that measure, so the matched-period version is not something the site can compute today. Fully virtual schools are excluded from every city figure, because they enroll students from across a state while reporting a single administrative address. Private and home schooling are outside the federal collection entirely.

Methodology

For every state, AreaProfile fits a least-squares line between the share of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and enrollment-weighted mathematics proficiency across that state’s published cities, using a least-squares fit. A city’s residual is its actual proficiency minus the proficiency that line predicts from its free-lunch share alone. The fit is computed within state because every state writes its own assessment and sets its own cut score, so a national line would confound the standard with the schools. States with fewer than eight published cities are excluded, as a line through a handful of points is not a fit. EDFacts does not publish an exact proficiency rate — every figure arrives as a range, narrow where many students took the test and very wide where few did — so AreaProfile drops any cell whose published range exceeds 20 percentage points or rests on fewer than ten tested students, and requires at least two reporting schools and 200 enrolled students behind a city figure. Without those floors a town of two small schools can post the highest apparent proficiency in its state on six tested children. A positive residual means students are testing above what the economic profile of the student body predicts. It is not evidence of causation — residuals also absorb curriculum, funding formulas, teacher retention, how a district assigns students across buildings, and measurement error — and it is not a district rating.

Sources

Related

Every figure here is recalculated from the same measurements the profiles use. See the methodology for how the underlying data is collected and normalized, and the editorial policy for how these reports are written.