Analysis / Achievement context
Achievement in context
Student needs, not neighborhood income, explain school score differences
MCPS schools in wealthier attendance areas post higher MCAP scores. Four measures of enrolled students — economic disadvantage, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and chronic absenteeism — explain 90% of the school-to-school variation in ELA proficiency. Adding neighborhood income to those measures raises that figure by less than a tenth of a percentage point.
Neighborhood income and test scores
Each dot is one of the 172 MCPS schools with complete data. Schools in higher-income attendance areas score higher on MCAP ELA (r=+0.66). The fitted line rises about 39 points of proficiency from the lowest- to the highest-income areas.
What high- and low-income areas differ on
Attendance-area income moves together with the student measures MCPS reports separately. In the wealthiest fifth of attendance areas, economic disadvantage, multilingual learner share, and chronic absenteeism are a fraction of their levels in the least wealthy fifth. A raw income comparison mixes these differences together.
Students with disabilities are the exception: across the all-schools quintiles, SWD share ranges from 13.9% to 17.8% and does not follow the income gradient.
| Income quintile | Median income | ELA | Math | Econ. disadv. | ML | SWD | Chronic absent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | $99k | 36.9% | 23.3% | 55.4% | 37.3% | 14.8% | 24.9% |
| Q2 | $113k | 48.6% | 30.7% | 44.0% | 25.5% | 14.9% | 23.5% |
| Q3 | $129k | 53.0% | 32.3% | 40.7% | 23.4% | 16.5% | 22.7% |
| Q4 | $163k | 62.8% | 45.5% | 27.6% | 16.1% | 17.8% | 16.9% |
| Q5 | $207k | 77.5% | 59.8% | 16.0% | 11.1% | 13.9% | 12.9% |
Quintiles are computed within this view's own income distribution: 195 schools, about 39 per quintile. High-school math figures reflect MCAP Algebra 1, taken only by students who reach the course in high school; most students test in middle school, so the high-school figures describe a smaller, non-representative group.
| Income quintile | Median income | ELA | Math | Econ. disadv. | ML | SWD | Chronic absent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | $96k | 34.7% | 26.0% | 56.7% | 40.9% | 15.5% | 24.4% |
| Q2 | $111k | 45.9% | 38.3% | 44.9% | 28.1% | 16.6% | 21.5% |
| Q3 | $135k | 48.0% | 39.4% | 44.8% | 27.3% | 19.0% | 20.3% |
| Q4 | $168k | 62.5% | 55.0% | 25.4% | 16.0% | 19.3% | 15.2% |
| Q5 | $215k | 76.4% | 70.3% | 16.3% | 10.4% | 14.8% | 11.8% |
Quintiles are computed within this view's own income distribution: 130 schools, about 26 per quintile — small groups, so read level views as descriptive.
| Income quintile | Median income | ELA | Math | Econ. disadv. | ML | SWD | Chronic absent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | $105k | 41.4% | 16.2% | 51.6% | 27.6% | 13.2% | 19.4% |
| Q2 | $114k | 46.4% | 18.5% | 44.9% | 22.2% | 12.8% | 20.3% |
| Q3 | $123k | 50.0% | 21.6% | 37.6% | 23.0% | 13.9% | 19.5% |
| Q4 | $157k | 64.0% | 34.2% | 28.9% | 13.8% | 14.6% | 15.7% |
| Q5 | $199k | 79.7% | 49.7% | 15.2% | 9.6% | 11.8% | 12.0% |
Quintiles are computed within this view's own income distribution: 40 schools, about 8 per quintile — small groups, so read level views as descriptive.
| Income quintile | Median income | ELA | Math | Econ. disadv. | ML | SWD | Chronic absent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | $101k | 51.0% | 9.8% | 48.8% | 24.6% | 11.7% | 38.5% |
| Q2 | $115k | 55.5% | 6.6% | 45.2% | 24.2% | 13.9% | 38.5% |
| Q3 | $126k | 68.6% | 7.3% | 31.7% | 18.0% | 11.0% | 34.5% |
| Q4 | $152k | 68.7% | 8.4% | 30.7% | 11.9% | 11.4% | 31.4% |
| Q5 | $192k | 86.0% | 15.7% | 12.6% | N/A | 10.0% | 19.6% |
Quintiles are computed within this view's own income distribution: 25 schools, about 5 per quintile — small groups, so read level views as descriptive. High-school math figures reflect MCAP Algebra 1, taken only by students who reach the course in high school; most students test in middle school, so the high-school figures describe a smaller, non-representative group.
How much each factor explains
Five models were fit to the same 172 schools, each predicting ELA proficiency from a different set of measures. The four student measures account for nearly all of the variation a model can capture here; adding neighborhood income to them raises explained variation by less than a tenth of a percentage point.
Math shows the same pattern: income and school level explain 66% of the variation, the four student measures explain 90%, and adding income brings the figure to 90% (163 schools).
Each measure's estimated effect
Each row shows how many points of ELA proficiency separate two schools that are one standard deviation apart on that measure but match on the others; the whisker is a 95% confidence interval. Measured with nothing held constant (top row), income is associated with +12.2 points. Once the four student measures are accounted for, the income estimate falls to +0.3 points, with an interval that spans zero. The student measures retain large effects under the same comparison.
Negative values mean schools with more of that measure score lower (172 schools). Grey means the interval includes zero. Economic disadvantage accounts for most of the change in the income estimate: without it, the other three measures leave income at +3.4 points [+1.9, +5.0]. Interval construction is described in the technical details.
Accounting for the income gap in scores
Schools in the top income quintile (median $190k) average 69.5% proficient in ELA; schools in the bottom quintile (median $99k) average 36.6%. The student-measure model accounts for essentially all of that 32.9-point gap, most of it through economic disadvantage and multilingual learner share.
Each component is the no-income model coefficient times how far apart the top and bottom income quintiles sit on that measure. Accounting, not causation: it shows what the income gap is made of, not what changing any one measure would do.
Scores against expectations, across incomes
Each school is plotted by how far its ELA score lands above or below what the four student measures predict, against the same income axis as the first chart. The fitted line rises +0.4 points across the full income range (r=+0.02) — the remaining differences between schools show little relationship to income.
Same 172 schools and income axis as the first chart. The dark horizontal line marks zero — a school scoring exactly what its context predicts; the teal line is the fitted trend. Expectations come from the student-measure model (R²=90%), which does not use income.
A school-by-school check
As a check on the model results, each school is compared with the same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures, and its ELA score is set against the average of those peers. If wealth mattered beyond student context, schools scoring above their peers would cluster in wealthier areas. Peer-matching details are in the technical notes.
Actual ELA vs the peer expectation
For each school, expected ELA is the average actual ELA of the 10 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The diagonal means actual ELA equals that peer expectation; dots outside the typical band land notably above or below their peers.
Each level uses one fixed set of schools with neighborhood income, all four student-context measures, and ELA present.
Peer differences by neighborhood income
If wealth explained the remaining differences, this fitted line would rise with income the way the raw pattern does (about 39 points across the range). Here it rises +1.9 points. Schools in similar-income neighborhoods can land 13 points apart against their peers.
118 elementary schools, each compared with the 10 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The dark horizontal line marks zero — a school scoring exactly what its peers score; the teal line is the fitted trend, and the shaded stripe is the typical ±7-point band.
Actual ELA vs the peer expectation
For each school, expected ELA is the average actual ELA of the 5 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The diagonal means actual ELA equals that peer expectation; dots outside the typical band land notably above or below their peers.
Each level uses one fixed set of schools with neighborhood income, all four student-context measures, and ELA present.
Peer differences by neighborhood income
If wealth explained the remaining differences, this fitted line would rise with income the way the raw pattern does (about 39 points across the range). Here it rises +2.9 points; with only 34 schools reporting all four measures, this panel is a rough consistency check, not a finding. Schools in similar-income neighborhoods can land 16 points apart against their peers.
34 middle schools, each compared with the 5 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The dark horizontal line marks zero — a school scoring exactly what its peers score; the teal line is the fitted trend, and the shaded stripe is the typical ±5-point band.
Actual ELA vs the peer expectation
For each school, expected ELA is the average actual ELA of the 3 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The diagonal means actual ELA equals that peer expectation; dots outside the typical band land notably above or below their peers.
Each level uses one fixed set of schools with neighborhood income, all four student-context measures, and ELA present.
Peer differences by neighborhood income
If wealth explained the remaining differences, this fitted line would rise with income the way the raw pattern does (about 39 points across the range). Here it rises +4.8 points; with only 20 schools reporting all four measures, this panel is a rough consistency check, not a finding.
20 high schools, each compared with the 3 same-level schools most similar to it across the four student measures. The dark horizontal line marks zero — a school scoring exactly what its peers score; the teal line is the fitted trend, and the shaded stripe is the typical ±4-point band.
School explorer
Search, filter by level, or sort any column. “Expected” is the similar-context peer expectation used in the charts above; positive differences mean a school scores above the schools most like it across the four student measures.
172 schools
| A. Mario Loiederman Middle | MS | 39.6% | 39.1% | +0.5 | 45.0% | 33.6% | 12.9% | 20.4% | $124k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albert Einstein High | HS | 68.4% | 63.5% | +4.9 | 37.6% | 21.8% | 15.2% | 41.4% | $124k |
| Arcola Elementary | ES | 29.3% | 32.9% | -3.6 | 58.5% | 49.4% | 12.1% | 30.8% | $98k |
| Argyle Middle | MS | 42.3% | 44.9% | -2.6 | 48.5% | 28.9% | 10.3% | 19.8% | $89k |
| Ashburton Elementary | ES | 64.3% | 67.8% | -3.5 | 19.9% | 15.1% | 10.8% | 17.1% | $117k |
| Bayard Rustin Elementary | ES | 57.3% | 58.2% | -0.9 | 32.0% | 28.3% | 15.6% | 18.1% | $126k |
| Beall Elementary | ES | 66.8% | 65.6% | +1.2 | 25.1% | 14.9% | 12.8% | 12.4% | $111k |
| Bells Mill Elementary | ES | 83.0% | 78.7% | +4.3 | 14.2% | 8.9% | 10.2% | 8.9% | $226k |
| Belmont Elementary | ES | 73.7% | 79.1% | -5.4 | 15.5% | 9.6% | 14.0% | 8.3% | $201k |
| Benjamin Banneker Middle | MS | 34.7% | 47.9% | -13.2 | 52.3% | 15.5% | 16.0% | 19.8% | $112k |
| Bethesda Elementary | ES | 67.4% | 67.1% | +0.3 | 24.0% | 24.5% | 11.1% | 16.6% | $140k |
| Bethesda-Chevy Chase High | HS | 78.5% | 76.6% | +1.9 | 21.6% | 11.2% | 8.4% | 24.8% | $171k |
| Beverly Farms Elementary | ES | 85.8% | 79.7% | +6.1 | 8.2% | 9.3% | 11.4% | 11.6% | $226k |
| Briggs Chaney Middle | MS | 42.9% | 46.3% | -3.4 | 51.5% | 18.2% | 14.0% | 11.8% | $118k |
| Brooke Grove Elementary | ES | 53.0% | 56.8% | -3.8 | 34.1% | 13.6% | 31.9% | 16.8% | $157k |
| Brookhaven Elementary | ES | 40.7% | 33.9% | +6.8 | 58.4% | 37.9% | 24.8% | 20.5% | $127k |
| Brown Station Elementary | ES | 34.4% | 32.1% | +2.3 | 56.8% | 47.6% | 20.0% | 27.8% | $96k |
| Burning Tree Elementary | ES | 71.4% | 78.7% | -7.3 | 8.3% | 12.2% | 18.6% | 9.7% | $253k |
| Burnt Mills Elementary | ES | 34.6% | 36.7% | -2.1 | 62.3% | 33.1% | 12.0% | 27.8% | $105k |
| Burtonsville Elementary | ES | 43.5% | 52.4% | -8.9 | 49.4% | 15.9% | 14.0% | 20.2% | $137k |
| Cabin Branch Elementary | ES | 68.9% | 66.5% | +2.4 | 24.6% | 12.7% | 14.4% | 14.7% | $190k |
| Candlewood Elementary | ES | 62.0% | 61.4% | +0.6 | 27.5% | 15.7% | 19.9% | 15.0% | $141k |
| Cannon Road Elementary | ES | 35.8% | 39.8% | -4.0 | 56.5% | 24.6% | 26.4% | 21.1% | $96k |
| Captain James E. Daly Elementary | ES | 37.4% | 32.7% | +4.7 | 59.8% | 43.1% | 12.3% | 31.7% | $121k |
| Cashell Elementary | ES | 64.0% | 61.1% | +2.9 | 27.3% | 11.6% | 26.8% | 12.4% | $196k |
| Cedar Grove Elementary | ES | 73.7% | 62.3% | +11.4 | 25.3% | 9.5% | 22.6% | 20.8% | $160k |
| Clarksburg Elementary | ES | 60.0% | 64.2% | -4.2 | 28.1% | 17.8% | 13.4% | 10.2% | $163k |
| Clarksburg High | HS | 63.6% | 67.7% | -4.1 | 31.6% | 10.4% | 11.3% | 30.0% | $139k |
| Clearspring Elementary | ES | 64.2% | 55.8% | +8.4 | 38.1% | 13.0% | 17.7% | 20.5% | $140k |
| Clopper Mill Elementary | ES | 33.3% | 34.6% | -1.4 | 60.9% | 28.3% | 21.7% | 21.8% | $104k |
| Cloverly Elementary | ES | 42.9% | 53.8% | -10.9 | 34.7% | 22.9% | 24.1% | 17.5% | $169k |
| Col. Zadok Magruder High | HS | 61.6% | 62.6% | -1.0 | 41.3% | 20.0% | 13.7% | 37.9% | $147k |
| College Gardens Elementary | ES | 59.1% | 54.3% | +4.8 | 37.0% | 12.4% | 18.4% | 23.6% | $111k |
| Damascus Elementary | ES | 51.6% | 50.8% | +0.8 | 40.1% | 23.1% | 24.6% | 26.1% | $129k |
| Damascus High | HS | 68.1% | 69.7% | -1.6 | 28.6% | 7.5% | 14.1% | 34.4% | $156k |
| Darnestown Elementary | ES | 63.5% | 66.8% | -3.3 | 16.4% | 10.0% | 32.2% | 17.3% | $224k |
| Diamond Elementary | ES | 73.7% | 78.3% | -4.6 | 12.5% | 18.1% | 13.9% | 12.8% | $165k |
| Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary | ES | 64.6% | 43.2% | +21.4 | 51.6% | 16.4% | 20.8% | 19.3% | $111k |
| Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Middle | MS | 46.4% | 42.7% | +3.7 | 51.3% | 17.3% | 13.9% | 25.3% | $105k |
| Dr. Sally K. Ride Elementary | ES | 33.2% | 40.0% | -6.8 | 55.1% | 23.9% | 27.7% | 19.2% | $150k |
| Dufief Elementary | ES | 57.8% | 64.7% | -6.9 | 17.3% | 14.4% | 34.7% | 12.8% | $194k |
| Earle B. Wood Middle | MS | 54.1% | 53.3% | +0.8 | 37.0% | 20.4% | 14.4% | 21.5% | $113k |
| East Silver Spring Elementary | ES | 44.1% | 40.5% | +3.6 | 53.4% | 22.7% | 16.7% | 17.4% | $115k |
| Eastern Middle | MS | 53.9% | 48.3% | +5.6 | 44.0% | 23.9% | 14.1% | 12.0% | $106k |
| Fairland Elementary | ES | 34.0% | 35.3% | -1.3 | 60.1% | 19.5% | 20.7% | 29.1% | $140k |
| Fallsmead Elementary | ES | 73.9% | 74.3% | -0.4 | 18.1% | 9.1% | 11.2% | 9.8% | $154k |
| Farmland Elementary | ES | 67.2% | 67.3% | -0.1 | 18.8% | 29.7% | 13.7% | 15.9% | $111k |
| Fields Road Elementary | ES | 49.5% | 46.0% | +3.5 | 43.7% | 26.8% | 14.5% | 29.8% | $108k |
| Flora M. Singer Elementary | ES | 50.2% | 55.8% | -5.6 | 30.8% | 28.4% | 26.4% | 10.6% | $152k |
| Flower Hill Elementary | ES | 31.8% | 37.4% | -5.6 | 55.5% | 37.0% | 15.3% | 24.5% | $105k |
| Flower Valley Elementary | ES | 52.5% | 67.9% | -15.4 | 23.2% | 19.2% | 15.7% | 16.0% | $94k |
| Forest Knolls Elementary | ES | 53.9% | 55.1% | -1.2 | 35.9% | 20.3% | 23.5% | 13.6% | $166k |
| Forest Oak Middle | MS | 32.9% | 32.6% | +0.3 | 56.9% | 30.9% | 14.8% | 24.7% | $108k |
| Fox Chapel Elementary | ES | 52.0% | 38.8% | +13.2 | 50.5% | 33.0% | 9.4% | 22.4% | $100k |
| Francis Scott Key Middle | MS | 35.1% | 33.8% | +1.3 | 61.8% | 35.3% | 9.6% | 16.1% | $103k |
| Gaithersburg Elementary | ES | 17.1% | 27.1% | -10.0 | 58.4% | 64.7% | 14.6% | 29.7% | $89k |
| Gaithersburg High | HS | 42.8% | 44.5% | -1.7 | 47.8% | 32.4% | 15.9% | 51.0% | $113k |
| Gaithersburg Middle | MS | 34.1% | 36.8% | -2.7 | 47.9% | 29.9% | 16.3% | 31.0% | $119k |
| Galway Elementary | ES | 39.3% | 34.9% | +4.4 | 58.9% | 34.0% | 16.0% | 20.5% | $109k |
| Garrett Park Elementary | ES | 62.7% | 67.1% | -4.4 | 21.5% | 24.3% | 8.5% | 16.8% | $129k |
| Georgian Forest Elementary | ES | 26.9% | 33.5% | -6.6 | 57.8% | 47.1% | 9.4% | 31.8% | $82k |
| Germantown Elementary | ES | 46.0% | 54.0% | -8.0 | 44.9% | 15.8% | 25.9% | 22.9% | $124k |
| Glen Haven Elementary | ES | 32.6% | 38.0% | -5.4 | 48.2% | 35.0% | 21.5% | 24.8% | $117k |
| Glenallan Elementary | ES | 37.3% | 43.1% | -5.9 | 47.3% | 30.8% | 21.1% | 23.7% | $137k |
| Goshen Elementary | ES | 49.6% | 48.5% | +1.1 | 45.5% | 26.9% | 13.8% | 24.3% | $124k |
| Great Seneca Creek Elementary | ES | 44.6% | 44.2% | +0.4 | 47.1% | 25.2% | 12.9% | 25.8% | $120k |
| Greencastle Elementary | ES | 32.4% | 35.6% | -3.2 | 63.1% | 21.3% | 20.0% | 28.4% | $82k |
| Greenwood Elementary | ES | 75.7% | 80.3% | -4.6 | 10.3% | 5.3% | 12.5% | 10.9% | $199k |
| Harmony Hills Elementary | ES | 21.8% | 25.6% | -3.8 | 63.3% | 66.6% | 9.9% | 21.7% | $89k |
| Highland Elementary | ES | 41.8% | 29.9% | +11.9 | 56.5% | 50.6% | 12.6% | 19.9% | $99k |
| Highland View Elementary | ES | 54.5% | 49.5% | +5.0 | 44.8% | 29.8% | 13.9% | 14.7% | $126k |
| Jackson Road Elementary | ES | 31.9% | 35.6% | -3.7 | 58.0% | 34.4% | 16.5% | 20.7% | $108k |
| James Hubert Blake High | HS | 55.1% | 55.4% | -0.3 | 49.7% | 19.7% | 10.5% | 38.7% | $112k |
| JoAnn Leleck Elementary at Broad Acres | ES | 27.9% | 25.0% | +2.9 | 68.6% | 69.3% | 9.8% | 20.9% | $64k |
| John F. Kennedy High | HS | 36.9% | 46.4% | -9.5 | 54.7% | 37.2% | 14.4% | 48.9% | $99k |
| John T. Baker Middle | MS | 58.5% | 61.2% | -2.7 | 31.2% | 11.5% | 19.1% | 22.0% | $153k |
| Jones Lane Elementary | ES | 64.7% | 63.1% | +1.6 | 25.3% | 22.3% | 14.8% | 19.0% | $195k |
| Judith A. Resnik Elementary | ES | 39.8% | 37.1% | +2.7 | 56.1% | 24.8% | 11.9% | 29.5% | $140k |
| Julius West Middle | MS | 60.3% | 57.7% | +2.6 | 31.6% | 16.8% | 13.4% | 19.2% | $126k |
| Kemp Mill Elementary | ES | 25.4% | 24.0% | +1.4 | 69.6% | 60.7% | 7.3% | 24.9% | $148k |
| Kensington Parkwood Elementary | ES | 78.9% | 78.0% | +0.9 | 10.5% | 10.9% | 14.8% | 10.4% | $161k |
| Kingsview Middle | MS | 62.6% | 67.2% | -4.6 | 30.6% | 10.4% | 9.4% | 13.7% | $147k |
| Lake Seneca Elementary | ES | 24.8% | 36.3% | -11.5 | 61.7% | 22.4% | 26.4% | 26.3% | $90k |
| Lakelands Park Middle | MS | 62.4% | 66.1% | -3.7 | 26.7% | 15.6% | 11.3% | 16.2% | $163k |
| Lakewood Elementary | ES | 73.6% | 67.9% | +5.7 | 19.5% | 14.7% | 16.9% | 15.7% | $190k |
| Laytonsville Elementary | ES | 54.0% | 61.7% | -7.7 | 30.1% | 17.5% | 17.8% | 15.0% | $168k |
| Little Bennett Elementary | ES | 57.9% | 62.3% | -4.4 | 24.9% | 14.7% | 22.6% | 15.7% | $157k |
| Lois P. Rockwell Elementary | ES | 58.7% | 62.5% | -3.8 | 31.8% | 10.5% | 29.9% | 17.2% | $167k |
| Lucy V. Barnsley Elementary | ES | 67.6% | 56.0% | +11.6 | 36.6% | 24.1% | 14.4% | 12.7% | $133k |
| Luxmanor Elementary | ES | 59.2% | 63.4% | -4.2 | 23.8% | 21.7% | 21.7% | 15.5% | $121k |
| Maryvale Elementary | ES | 63.4% | 56.3% | +7.1 | 43.5% | 17.4% | 12.6% | 15.8% | $114k |
| Meadow Hall Elementary | ES | 35.6% | 37.5% | -1.9 | 45.7% | 45.7% | 21.7% | 15.7% | $158k |
| Mill Creek Towne Elementary | ES | 55.6% | 49.5% | +6.1 | 40.9% | 24.4% | 20.1% | 22.1% | $131k |
| Monocacy Elementary | ES | 64.6% | 69.3% | -4.8 | 23.3% | 11.7% | 13.5% | 11.0% | $207k |
| Montgomery Blair High | HS | 65.0% | 64.4% | +0.6 | 37.4% | 20.4% | 8.1% | 33.7% | $101k |
| Montgomery Village Middle | MS | 23.3% | 36.2% | -12.9 | 59.6% | 39.5% | 16.4% | 21.2% | $95k |
| Neelsville Middle | MS | 39.7% | 43.2% | -3.5 | 47.3% | 26.5% | 9.8% | 25.0% | $119k |
| Newport Mill Middle | MS | 50.9% | 48.0% | +2.9 | 44.5% | 27.0% | 21.3% | 14.0% | $129k |
| North Bethesda Middle | MS | 78.2% | 74.1% | +4.1 | 14.2% | 7.1% | 11.5% | 11.4% | $157k |
| Northwest High | HS | 71.6% | 65.0% | +6.6 | 30.3% | 10.3% | 9.7% | 29.7% | $152k |
| Northwood High | HS | 52.9% | 51.5% | +1.4 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 9.3% | 46.4% | $125k |
| Oakland Terrace Elementary | ES | 59.6% | 63.5% | -3.9 | 25.6% | 14.2% | 22.6% | 14.7% | $171k |
| Odessa Shannon Middle | MS | 29.5% | 34.4% | -4.9 | 53.3% | 35.4% | 15.8% | 24.1% | $120k |
| Olney Elementary | ES | 59.7% | 70.8% | -11.1 | 18.7% | 10.0% | 13.3% | 15.7% | $170k |
| Paint Branch High | HS | 54.6% | 56.8% | -2.2 | 51.0% | 12.9% | 11.7% | 25.9% | $109k |
| Parkland Middle | MS | 50.0% | 45.1% | +4.9 | 46.2% | 28.6% | 8.8% | 18.1% | $105k |
| Poolesville Elementary | ES | 69.7% | 72.0% | -2.3 | 14.2% | 8.0% | 12.5% | 18.2% | $186k |
| Potomac Elementary | ES | 79.8% | 80.3% | -0.5 | 7.1% | 6.7% | 6.0% | 11.0% | $237k |
| Quince Orchard High | HS | 63.3% | 66.7% | -3.4 | 31.3% | 17.2% | 10.2% | 35.9% | $131k |
| Rachel Carson Elementary | ES | 75.9% | 65.8% | +10.1 | 23.1% | 17.4% | 14.4% | 15.3% | $175k |
| Redland Middle | MS | 49.0% | 51.2% | -2.2 | 44.0% | 20.8% | 18.0% | 22.2% | $168k |
| Richard Montgomery High | HS | 73.8% | 71.2% | +2.6 | 25.5% | 13.5% | 8.6% | 26.6% | $126k |
| Ridgeview Middle | MS | 52.1% | 58.6% | -6.5 | 32.6% | 17.0% | 16.7% | 20.8% | $123k |
| Ritchie Park Elementary | ES | 77.6% | 78.8% | -1.2 | 12.6% | 7.3% | 11.1% | 11.4% | $182k |
| Robert Frost Middle | MS | 82.2% | 73.3% | +8.9 | 15.6% | 6.0% | 11.4% | 9.6% | $176k |
| Roberto W Clemente Middle | MS | 47.4% | 46.1% | +1.3 | 44.9% | 16.4% | 18.0% | 17.9% | $107k |
| Rock Creek Forest Elementary | ES | 66.7% | 63.6% | +3.1 | 27.0% | 20.1% | 16.1% | 12.0% | $101k |
| Rock Creek Valley Elementary | ES | 49.0% | 56.2% | -7.2 | 27.4% | 23.2% | 29.4% | 15.9% | $178k |
| Rock View Elementary | ES | 36.7% | 43.6% | -6.9 | 42.2% | 37.3% | 30.1% | 21.3% | $129k |
| Rockville High | HS | 63.8% | 63.1% | +0.7 | 40.0% | 19.4% | 18.2% | 38.7% | $113k |
| Rocky Hill Middle | MS | 49.9% | 54.2% | -4.3 | 38.7% | 16.6% | 12.5% | 21.4% | $127k |
| Rolling Terrace Elementary | ES | 13.8% | 26.4% | -12.6 | 66.2% | 63.4% | 11.0% | 21.1% | $63k |
| Ronald McNair Elementary | ES | 58.6% | 62.4% | -3.8 | 30.9% | 13.4% | 11.5% | 17.0% | $155k |
| Rosemont Elementary | ES | 46.1% | 31.8% | +14.3 | 60.3% | 38.6% | 15.3% | 29.4% | $104k |
| S. Christa McAuliffe Elementary | ES | 37.7% | 37.6% | +0.1 | 56.3% | 26.3% | 14.5% | 22.5% | $103k |
| Sargent Shriver Elementary | ES | 26.6% | 26.8% | -0.2 | 56.8% | 58.4% | 11.5% | 23.1% | $113k |
| Seneca Valley High | HS | 59.3% | 57.1% | +2.2 | 45.9% | 15.3% | 15.0% | 30.7% | $115k |
| Sequoyah Elementary | ES | 48.0% | 45.9% | +2.1 | 39.5% | 28.9% | 24.7% | 21.1% | $183k |
| Shady Grove Middle | MS | 50.0% | 50.4% | -0.4 | 39.5% | 22.1% | 10.7% | 21.2% | $127k |
| Sherwood Elementary | ES | 57.0% | 65.5% | -8.5 | 24.7% | 9.3% | 22.5% | 21.2% | $169k |
| Silver Creek Middle | MS | 69.5% | 65.8% | +3.7 | 27.5% | 13.2% | 14.2% | 11.7% | $206k |
| Silver Spring International Middle | MS | 54.3% | 50.8% | +3.5 | 37.5% | 23.8% | 10.1% | 24.3% | $110k |
| Sligo Creek Elementary | ES | 64.2% | 69.4% | -5.2 | 21.9% | 11.1% | 11.1% | 17.6% | $111k |
| Sligo Middle | MS | 50.1% | 51.6% | -1.5 | 38.3% | 24.9% | 16.0% | 12.0% | $120k |
| Snowden Farm Elementary | ES | 69.4% | 69.1% | +0.3 | 20.0% | 11.6% | 11.2% | 14.0% | $164k |
| Somerset Elementary | ES | 78.7% | 66.3% | +12.4 | 19.9% | 15.9% | 10.7% | 20.6% | $153k |
| South Lake Elementary | ES | 21.0% | 25.5% | -4.5 | 67.0% | 60.3% | 11.4% | 35.3% | $68k |
| Spark M. Matsunaga Elementary | ES | 71.9% | 64.6% | +7.3 | 25.0% | 14.5% | 15.8% | 17.9% | $206k |
| Springbrook High | HS | 56.0% | 54.5% | +1.5 | 47.8% | 27.6% | 9.3% | 37.2% | $118k |
| Stedwick Elementary | ES | 32.3% | 36.4% | -4.1 | 60.6% | 33.4% | 19.2% | 25.3% | $131k |
| Stone Mill Elementary | ES | 73.6% | 75.9% | -2.3 | 14.4% | 14.4% | 16.4% | 12.2% | $170k |
| Stonegate Elementary | ES | 54.7% | 58.8% | -4.1 | 30.1% | 15.1% | 22.2% | 15.0% | $172k |
| Strawberry Knoll Elementary | ES | 47.6% | 37.9% | +9.7 | 55.1% | 21.2% | 26.7% | 22.0% | $124k |
| Summit Hall Elementary | ES | 20.7% | 35.2% | -14.5 | 69.5% | 41.5% | 19.0% | 25.9% | $105k |
| Takoma Park Middle | MS | 70.0% | 65.7% | +4.3 | 29.6% | 14.3% | 12.4% | 13.0% | $115k |
| Thurgood Marshall Elementary | ES | 44.7% | 54.1% | -9.4 | 37.4% | 18.2% | 21.8% | 22.3% | $109k |
| Tilden Middle | MS | 68.3% | 70.4% | -2.1 | 21.6% | 17.3% | 13.5% | 16.5% | $122k |
| Travilah Elementary | ES | 82.2% | 78.7% | +3.5 | 14.5% | 8.9% | 9.7% | 7.8% | $194k |
| Tubman Elementary | ES | 28.2% | 34.3% | -6.1 | 62.3% | 46.6% | 19.1% | 24.1% | $102k |
| Twinbrook Elementary | ES | 28.5% | 35.0% | -6.5 | 53.8% | 43.2% | 14.0% | 25.0% | $129k |
| Viers Mill Elementary | ES | 28.4% | 36.7% | -8.3 | 49.2% | 37.7% | 27.8% | 23.0% | $120k |
| Walter Johnson High | HS | 84.4% | 73.5% | +10.9 | 18.0% | 8.0% | 11.9% | 22.4% | $135k |
| Washington Grove Elementary | ES | 35.6% | 36.2% | -0.6 | 54.6% | 32.4% | 17.5% | 22.1% | $123k |
| Waters Landing Elementary | ES | 36.0% | 35.2% | +0.8 | 56.0% | 29.2% | 18.1% | 25.6% | $103k |
| Watkins Mill Elementary | ES | 24.3% | 27.4% | -3.1 | 61.2% | 58.8% | 14.0% | 34.3% | $86k |
| Watkins Mill High | HS | 43.6% | 44.2% | -0.6 | 51.3% | 32.8% | 14.0% | 45.1% | $94k |
| Wayside Elementary | ES | 87.3% | 78.1% | +9.2 | 9.5% | 8.9% | 16.0% | 10.2% | $222k |
| Weller Road Elementary | ES | 27.3% | 32.6% | -5.3 | 60.6% | 49.1% | 15.6% | 20.0% | $139k |
| Westbrook Elementary | ES | 78.0% | 79.0% | -1.0 | 13.6% | 14.0% | 10.1% | 8.9% | $175k |
| Westland Middle | MS | 76.6% | 73.0% | +3.6 | 15.4% | 10.5% | 13.3% | 13.8% | $156k |
| Westover Elementary | ES | 68.7% | 61.4% | +7.4 | 28.4% | 10.4% | 24.1% | 13.9% | $124k |
| Wheaton High | HS | 55.6% | 56.8% | -1.2 | 44.5% | 26.2% | 11.0% | 35.0% | $120k |
| Wheaton Woods Elementary | ES | 31.1% | 27.5% | +3.6 | 61.8% | 53.8% | 18.9% | 21.8% | $107k |
| Whetstone Elementary | ES | 34.6% | 34.0% | +0.6 | 58.3% | 41.2% | 17.7% | 23.9% | $96k |
| White Oak Middle | MS | 41.1% | 38.0% | +3.1 | 55.8% | 29.4% | 9.1% | 16.0% | $110k |
| William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary | ES | 61.1% | 53.0% | +8.1 | 37.6% | 13.2% | 23.5% | 20.2% | $149k |
| William H. Farquhar Middle | MS | 73.7% | 66.6% | +7.1 | 24.4% | 7.5% | 13.0% | 12.3% | $163k |
| William Tyler Page Elementary | ES | 60.1% | 58.6% | +1.5 | 37.4% | 11.4% | 11.4% | 17.2% | $101k |
| Wilson Wims Elementary | ES | 81.1% | 72.3% | +8.8 | 19.5% | 8.5% | 18.3% | 9.9% | $206k |
| Wood Acres Elementary | ES | 83.0% | 80.0% | +3.0 | 6.7% | 6.9% | 11.6% | 6.7% | $211k |
| Woodfield Elementary | ES | 70.2% | 59.6% | +10.6 | 29.2% | 10.0% | 35.3% | 16.9% | $177k |
| Woodlin Elementary | ES | 58.6% | 57.3% | +1.3 | 31.3% | 22.8% | 16.6% | 19.3% | $112k |
Source: MSDE MCAP and Special Services; MSDE Attendance; Census ACS attendance-area income · Updated: 2025 / ACS 2024
Technical model details
One-at-a-time relationships
These show each factor's raw relationship with ELA before accounting for overlap.
Model comparison
Rows use the same 172 schools. Larger values mean the prediction fits more of the school-to-school ELA variation.
The income estimate as controls are added one at a time
Every dot below is the income coefficient; the row labels say which enrolled-student measures the model also includes, added cumulatively.
ELA proficiency points per one standard deviation of log neighborhood income; whiskers are 95% school-resample bootstrap interval (2,000 draws). Because the five measures are correlated, how fast the estimate collapses depends on the order controls are added — this ordering (largest first) is one choice, not a decomposition. The order-independent facts: measured alone, income is worth +12.2 points; with all four student measures it is +0.3 [-1.1, +1.7]; and without economic disadvantage the other three leave it at +3.4 [+1.9, +5.0] — so economic disadvantage specifically, not the sheer number of controls, is what absorbs it.
Conditional coefficients
Continuous coefficients are ELA proficiency-point changes for a one-standard-deviation increase, comparing schools that match on the other listed measures; brackets are 95% school-resample bootstrap interval (2,000 draws). They should not be read as separate causal effects — neighborhood income and enrolled economic disadvantage correlate at r=-0.78, so the matched comparison is statistical, not a claim about mechanism.
Level terms are relative to elementary schools: Middle school -3.0 pts; High school +9.7 pts.
Formal added-variable check: ELA and log income each residualized on the four student measures and school level. Slope +0.31 points per SD, r=+0.04 — the formal version of the scores-against-expectations chart. Confidence intervals throughout are 95% school-resample bootstrap interval (2,000 draws); intervals widen where measures overlap and the data cannot fully separate them.
Peer-matching notes
Average ELA proficiency among the nearest same-level schools by four-measure student context (economic disadvantage, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and chronic absenteeism — each standardized within level and weighted by how strongly it predicts ELA in the student-context model), excluding the school itself.
Distance weights: economic disadvantage 47%, multilingual learners 27%, chronic absenteeism 14%, students with disabilities 12%.
- This is a descriptive like-to-like comparison, not a causal estimate or school-quality score.
- Middle and high school peer charts are exploratory because far fewer schools report all four measures.
- Peer groups match on the four reported measures; differences they do not capture (programs, mobility, staffing) can still matter.
- Peer similarity weights each measure by its modeled importance; an unweighted match loosens the economic-disadvantage match and leaves disadvantage-related structure in the differences.
- Distance weights are estimated once across all levels, so they mostly reflect elementary schools. Per-level fits hint that economic disadvantage and absenteeism matter relatively more at secondary levels, but 34 middle and 20 high schools are too few to estimate level-specific weights reliably — one more reason the secondary panels are checks, not findings.
Limitations
- This is a cross-school context model, not a causal estimate or a school-quality score.
- Neighborhood income describes attendance areas, not necessarily enrolled students.
- Neighborhood income and enrolled economic disadvantage are strongly related; coefficients should not be read as separate causal effects.
- Residuals are sensitive to model choices and omitted factors; they should be read as context flags, not rankings.
- Suppressed subgroup values are excluded where needed rather than treated as zero.
- The gap decomposition is accounting, not causation: it shows what the income gap is made of, not what changing any one measure would do.