Racial Equality in U.S. Education: State-by-State

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/04

Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing, as well as proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo explains methodology behind ranking all 50 states, highlights standardized testing, graduation rates, and funding disparities, and unpacks why states like Wyoming and New Mexico rank higher despite limited resources.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Chip Lupo. All right. So, Brown v. Board of Education—even I, as a Canadian, know about this landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision. In 1954, the Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). While it was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, it faced considerable resistance at the time. Even today, some individuals and groups continue to debate aspects of desegregation policy, though the core principle is widely accepted.

In general, it is no longer seen as controversial to oppose the denial of school enrollment based on race. However, modern challenges persist in terms of equity—especially around how school districts vary in funding, educational quality, access to resources, and student outcomes, including standardized test scores.

So, what have you found in terms of how these factors play out across school districts in various U.S. states?

Chip Lupo: Scott, first, let us get into the methodology. What we did was compare all 50 states to assess which have the most significant levels of racial equality in education. This includes access, funding equity, and academic outcomes. One key thing to remember is that school funding in the U.S. often depends on local property taxes, which creates systemic disparities between districts—especially those with predominantly white populations versus predominantly Black or Hispanic populations.

We specifically examined the gaps between Black and white Americans in areas such as high school and college graduation rates, standardized test scores, and the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree. The metrics with the highest weight were test scores and educational attainment, especially at the postsecondary level. We ranked each state from 1 to 50.

The results were surprising. The top three states in terms of racial equality in education were Wyoming, New Mexico, and West Virginia. These are generally rural and lower-income states, which may suggest that economic parity in some of these areas contributes to a narrower racial gap—although this does not necessarily indicate overall high performance.

That is to say, while the systems in those states may not be exceptionally high-performing or well-funded, the levels of disparity between racial groups appear smaller than in many wealthier, more urbanized states.

Jacobsen: That is a stark difference. How would you characterize that 70-point range overall?

Lupo: It tells us that racial inequality in education is not only persistent but varies drastically from state to state. States like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Nebraska have relatively high average educational outcomes overall—but when you disaggregate by race, the disparities are enormous. These states tend to have significant achievement gaps and lower postsecondary attainment rates for students of colour despite overall affluence or investment in education. So the issue is not just funding—but who has access to that funding and how equitably it is distributed.

Our data emphasizes that racial equality in education is not just about lifting all boats—it is also about closing gaps.

Jacobsen: So, if you are in a state with a large majority white population, that number is probably going to be skewed a bit. So, we adjust on a per capita basis.

Lupo: Exactly. Public high school graduation rates are given full weight. Standardized test scores also receive full weight because, at least in recent years, they have been central—though some colleges have moved away from requiring them. Still, standardized tests like the SAT and ACT have long been hot-button issues in conversations about racial equity, particularly due to concerns about cultural and socioeconomic bias embedded in the tests.

Jacobsen: Right. So, you gave full weight to standardized testing.

Lupo: Yes, exactly. However, you pointed out a key detail—the gap in total scores across states. We are talking about a top score of 88 down to a low of 12. That is a glaring gap. It strongly suggests that there is still significant work to be done nationwide to close racial disparities in education.

Jacobsen: I see. That covers methodology broadly. Let us zoom in. The most significant weighting you assigned was for adults without a bachelor’s degree—specifically, giving double weight to those with at least a bachelor’s degree. Why does that factor make up more than a third of the overall score?

Lupo: Right. That is a good observation. Yes, we gave double weight to the share of adults over age 25 with at least a bachelor’s degree. That is because, culturally and economically, earning a college degree is still considered a benchmark of educational success. That mindset largely stems from the generation preceding ours, and it remains strong today.

In many minority communities, which were historically denied access to higher education, a bachelor’s degree represents not just academic success but also social mobility and pride. It is seen as a milestone achievement. That is probably why we placed more weight on that metric than on high school graduation, which received only half the weight.

Jacobsen: Understood. Now, about SAT and ACT scores—some students take one, some take both, and others use them when transferring between universities. Why do those get included in racial equality metrics in education?

Lupo: Good question. Standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, are often regarded as “high-stakes” exams. Moreover, you are right—Pearson Education, for instance, classifies tests like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Stanford-Binet as “Class C” assessments—meaning they are high-stakes and require professional oversight to administer. Similarly, SATs and ACTs are high-stakes because they have real consequences: they can determine whether someone gains admission to a particular university or qualifies for scholarships.

In the North American context, where many universities still place heavy emphasis on these scores—despite increasing test-optional policies—they remain significant indicators of educational access and opportunity. That is why we included them with full weight in our racial equity assessment.

Jacobsen: One other thing to consider with the SATs is that some students take them to gauge where they stand. For example, a rising sophomore in high school might take the SAT early to get a sense of how they are doing relative to college admissions expectations. Based on the results, students can identify where they need improvement. It also gives them time to retake the test—especially if their initial score is below the average for their target schools. They can prepare further and try to improve.

Several key sources of research were mentioned, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), ACT, and the College Board. Why were these chosen as the foundational sources for the data analysis?

Lupo: Great question. The College Board is the organization that administers the SAT and several other standardized exams, including AP exams and, indirectly, exams for graduate-level admissions. Although technically, LSATs, MCATs, and GMATs are managed by different bodies, the College Board has historically been involved in shaping educational assessment. So, including their data was essential.

ACT is a separate organization that administers the ACT, which most universities accept as an alternative to the SAT. Their dataset is vital for states and students who lean more heavily on the ACT.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity responsible for collecting and analyzing education data in the United States. It aggregates statistics on a wide range of topics, including test scores and graduation rates.

And then, of course, for demographic information, especially data disaggregated by race, the U.S. Census Bureau is the most authoritative source. When you are comparing racial equality in education, you need that population-level data.

Jacobsen: High school graduation also received a substantial weighting in your analysis. While not as heavily weighted as the percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, why is high school graduation still considered such a pivotal metric?

Lupo: High school graduation rates are a fundamental benchmark because they often reflect how well school systems are functioning at a basic level. If students are not completing high school, that is a major red flag. It highlights areas where districts may be under-resourced or struggling—especially in inner cities where schools are often underfunded and face higher crime rates.

Failing public school systems is, unfortunately, a reality in several U.S. cities, and this is reflected in the low graduation rates. So, we assigned full weight to this metric to underscore how some districts, and indeed some states, are doing a significantly better job than others—either through better administration, better funding, or more equitable policies. We wanted our analysis to reflect that.

Jacobsen: And in terms of data—was this a relatively small dataset?

Lupo: Yes, it was pretty compact. For that particular metric—public high school graduation rates—we only used six key sources. So, it is not an enormous dataset, but it is incredibly telling.

Jacobsen: That brings us to one last point. In your final ranking, you mentioned there is a relatively flat distribution—what does that mean in this context?

Lupo: It means that in the middle range of the rankings, several states are clustered closely together. So, while the top and bottom states show dramatic differences—like that 70-point gap we discussed earlier—many states in the middle have similar scores, indicating moderate performance with room for improvement.

Jacobsen: So, there is a reasonable middle, but the extremes on either end make this a very flat distribution—almost like a low, broad mound. Any explanation for why it turned out this way? I mean, it does not necessarily have to look like that. It could have two peaks in the middle or be tightly clustered around the average. However, in this case, it is quite flat and diffuse.

Lupo: Right, and as we discussed earlier, there is that extensive range—between Wisconsin and Wyoming, for instance. However, like with most data distributions, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. There is a noticeable cluster of states scoring from the upper 40s to the low 60s. For example, Oregon came in at number four with a score of 66, and Nevada was at number 25—not too far behind. So that whole block sits pretty squarely in the middle.

Jacobsen: So, we can conclude there is a thick band of states with moderate levels of racial equality in education.

Lupo: Yes, exactly. If you disregard the outliers at both extremes, the national picture is probably average—maybe slightly above average—but still far from ideal. The wide disparity between the top and bottom states indicates that there is still meaningful work to be done. The middle group suggests that we are not at a crisis point, but we have not reached equity either.

Jacobsen: Well, my friend, that is all from me today. Thank you so much. 

Lupo: No problem, Scott. Thanks so much. Have a great week—we will talk soon.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.