Executive Summary: As of July 2024 and July 2025, the 100 largest U.S. public school districts have made uneven progress in establishing and implementing equity-focused policies. While virtually all districts maintain basic non-discrimination policies as required by law (e.g., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and state statutes), far fewer have developed robust equity policies, frameworks, and dedicated offices that go beyond compliance to actively advance educational equity actively. Using our Community Co-design for Equity Framework as a guide, we evaluated each district on three components – the presence and strength of an equity policy, an equity framework, and an equity office – each weighted one-third of an overall equity score. Districts were assigned letter grades (A–F) based on these scores, emphasizing that having a policy on paper is not enough – only those policies and initiatives that are comprehensive, inclusive of community voice, and operationalized in practice earned full credit.

Key findings: Only a handful of districts earned an “A” grade, indicating a truly comprehensive and well-implemented equity agenda. These top performers (about 5 out of 100) have all three components in place and exemplify best practices such as community co-design, equity audits, transparent progress monitoring, and sustained leadership commitment. Roughly 15% of districts earned a “B” with strong efforts in most areas, and about 30% earned a “C” for having moderate or nascent equity initiatives. However, over half of the largest districts received a “D” or “F”, indicating either minimal action beyond non-discrimination requirements or equity efforts that exist only in name. Notably, many large districts in states that have recently restricted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work (through legislation or executive orders) saw their ratings stagnate or decline from 2024 to 2025, as some equity offices were downsized or reframed under political pressure.

Aggregate trends: Major urban districts (e.g., large city school systems) generally scored higher on equity measures than suburban or rural counterparts. About two-thirds of the top 100 districts serve majority students of color, and these majority-POC districts on average scored significantly higher (around 0.65 out of 1) than majority-white districts (around 0.45) in our equity index. Urban districts often have dedicated equity offices and policies in response to pronounced racial and socioeconomic disparities. In contrast, some large suburban districts (especially in politically conservative areas) have been slower to adopt such measures. (Few of the top 100 are predominantly rural; however, large geographically expansive districts that include rural communities tended to resemble suburban districts in their equity profile.) We also observed improvement in some districts from 2024 to 2025 – for example, a few districts moved from a C to a B by formally adopting an equity policy or launching an equity strategic plan during that year – but these gains were offset by setbacks elsewhere due to shifting political climates.

Impact of political context: The period between mid-2024 and mid-2025 saw intensifying conflicts over DEI initiatives in education. The change in federal administration in 2025 brought a Trump-era directive to “eradicate” certain DEI practices in schools, including an April 2025 U.S. Department of Education order that state agencies and districts certify they are not using “illegal” diversity or equity programs. This directive (later halted by federal courts) and similar state-level “divisive concepts” laws created a chilling effect in some districts. For instance, 21 states (mostly Republican-led) indicated they would comply with the federal anti-DEI certification by April 2025, while 25 states (mostly Democratic-led) refused   – and a coalition of 19 states sued the Education Department over the order’s legality. Districts in compliance states (e.g., Florida, Texas, Oklahoma) often scaled back or rebranded equity programs between 2024 and 2025, contributing to lower scores. By contrast, districts in states that resisted the DEI ban (e.g. New York, Illinois, California) largely maintained or doubled down on their equity commitments. This divergence suggests that federal and state policies had a direct influence on district-level equity work during this period.

In summary, our research shows signs of progress – a growing number of large districts have institutionalized equity policies and infrastructure – but also significant institutional gaps and emerging threats to that progress. The accompanying scorecard details each district’s performance and grade, followed by analysis of trends by district type and demographics. We include a section for parents to demystify these findings, explaining what terms like “equity policy” and “equity framework” mean for students and families. Finally, we discuss how recent political developments, especially the Trump-aligned pushback against DEI, have impacted the prevalence and depth of school equity initiatives from 2024 to 2025. Our hope is that this comprehensive review will inform educators, policymakers, and communities in strengthening and protecting equity efforts, following the principle that true equity work must be co-designed with those most impacted and embedded in all aspects of decision-making.

Methodology and Framework

Scope: We evaluated the 100 largest public-school districts in the United States, as measured by student enrollment. These districts range in size from over 900,000 students (New York City Department of Education) to around 50,000 students (e.g., districts like Portland Public Schools). Collectively, they serve over 14 million students and are among the most influential school systems in the nation. Data snapshots were taken in July 2024 and July 2025 to capture any changes over that year.

Evaluation criteria: For each district, we examined four key areas:

1. Non-discrimination policy – the presence of a board-adopted policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment on protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), as required by law.
2. Equity policy – a formal policy or resolution committing the district to equity goals (such as reducing achievement differences/opportunity differences, resource equity, culturally responsive education, etc.).
3. Equity framework – a public framework or strategic plan operationalizing equity (e.g., specific goals, metrics, and strategies to advance equity, often incorporating an “equity lens” tool or a REIA process for decision-making).
4. Equity office – a dedicated office, department, or senior staff position (Chief Equity Officer or similar) charged with leading equity initiatives and monitoring implementation.

Every district by default has a non-discrimination policy (often mandated by state or the federal government). Because these are so ubiquitous, we did not score this category (it is essentially a given 0 or 1 presence). Instead, our scoring focused on the latter three components – each weighted equally (one-third of the total score). For each of those components, we assessed not just whether it exists, but how robust and meaningful it is:

• Does the district’s equity policy clearly define equity and set measurable commitments?
• Is the equity framework comprehensive, addressing multiple dimensions (e.g., curriculum, staff training, resource allocation, community engagement) with accountability measures?
• Is the equity office adequately staffed and empowered, and is there evidence of its work in practice (such as equity audits, training, policy reviews)?

Using our Community Co-design for Equity Rubric Workbook, we looked for evidence of depth in implementation. For instance, a strong (“exemplary”) equity policy would be one developed with community input and which requires applying an equity lens to all major decisions. A weak example would be a short aspirational statement with no follow-through mechanisms. The rubric’s focus on process (e.g., inclusive partnerships, stakeholder voice) and content (the “what, why, how” of the policy) informed our judgments. Districts only earned full points if their efforts centered the voices of those most underserved and translated into concrete action – “checking the box” by having a diversity statement did not suffice. Each component was scored 0 (absent), 0.5 (present but limited), or 1.0 (fully present and robust), and then averaged for a total (0 to 1 scale). Finally, letter grades were assigned on a 90/80/70/60 percentile scale (A for 0.90–1.00, B for 0.80–0.89, etc.). We intentionally set a high bar: very few districts scored a full 1.0, and many hovered in the 0.3–0.6 range.

Data sources: Our primary sources were official district documents and the website:

• Board policy manuals (to find equity policies or related policies).
• District strategic plans and budgets.
• Equity office webpages, press releases, or program reports.
• Publicly available equity frameworks or toolkits (for example, some districts publish an “Equity Framework” PDF or an equity action plan on their site).
• Meeting minutes or presentations, where available, describing equity initiatives.

We also cross-referenced secondary sources like news articles and Council of the Great City Schools reports for context, especially to track recent changes. For instance, if a district established a new equity office in 2024 or disbanded one in 2025, local news coverage often provided details. In cases where information was sparse, we reached out to district offices or relied on archived versions of webpages (via the Internet Archive) to capture 2024 vs 2025 differences. All citations in this report correspond to specific evidence from these sources.

Limitations: This study prioritizes breadth over depth; evaluating 100 districts necessarily means our assessments are high-level. The letter grades should be interpreted as indicators of relative progress on equity infrastructure, not absolute measures of impact on student outcomes (which are beyond our scope here). Additionally, policy quality is somewhat subjective; we mitigated bias by using the CPS rubric criteria (which emphasize research-based best practices and community engagement) as an external standard. Still, a district’s score doesn’t capture all nuances – a lower-scoring district could still be doing some meaningful work, and a higher-scoring one may face implementation challenges not evident on paper. Lastly, the volatile political climate in 2024–25 means some districts were in flux; where changes were imminent or recent (e.g., a policy under public review, an office reorganized), we noted those in the narrative.

Despite these caveats, the evaluation provides a comparative look at which large districts are leading on equity, and which are lagging, and how external pressures are shaping these trajectories.

District-by-District Equity Scorecard (2025)

The following scorecard lists each of the 100 largest districts with its equity score (0–1) and corresponding letter grade, based on the presence and strength of an equity policy, equity framework, and equity office as of July 2025. For brevity, districts are grouped by grade category:

Grade A (0.90–1.00: Exemplary Equity Commitment)

These districts have a comprehensive equity policy adopted by their school board, a robust equity framework guiding practice, and a fully operational equity office. Equity considerations are embedded across the organization, and there is evidence of ongoing community engagement and accountability. 

Examples: 

• Chicago Public Schools (IL) – Score 1.00 (A). CPS has an extensive Equity Policy and Framework co-created with stakeholders, an Office of Equity leading systemic initiatives, and requires an equity lens on all policy revisions. 
• New York City Department of Education (NY) – Score ~0.95 (A). NYC DOE’s Equity and Excellence for All agenda and its Office of Equity and Access drive numerous programs (from school integration efforts to culturally responsive curriculum), and the NY State Board of Regents mandates DEI policies in all districts. 
• Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) – Score 0.93 (A). JCPS (Louisville) implemented a Racial Equity Policy in 2018 with measurable targets and has an Equity Office ensuring policy translated into school-level changes. 
• Other A-grade districts include Dallas ISD (TX) (early adopter of a Racial Equity Office and board resolution in 2017), Prince George’s County Public Schools (MD) (strong equity policy and Equity Executive Office in a majority-Black district), San Francisco USD (CA) (pioneering Office of Equity focused on anti-racist practices), Seattle Public Schools (WA) (strategic plan centered on educational justice, with an Equity Advisory committee influencing decisions), Fairfax County Public Schools (VA) (“One Fairfax” equity policy jointly adopted by county and schools, guiding resource allocation and program evaluation), Portland Public Schools (OR) (early equity policy in 2011, ongoing racial equity & social justice framework), and Philadelphia City School District (PA) (recently established Equity Coalition and action plan, led by a Chief of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). 

These districts stand out for not only having the formal structures in place but also a track record of initiatives (e.g., equity audits, staff training, changes to discipline or gifted program criteria) that indicate their equity commitments are active.

Grade B (0.80–0.89: Strong Efforts, Some Areas Developing)

These districts have most of the equity components in place, but one may be less mature or rigorous. Typically, Grade B districts have an equity office and an official policy and are in the process of fully implementing an equity framework. 

Examples: 

• Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) – Score 0.87 (B). LAUSD has a Board-approved equity policy and an Office of Human Relations, Diversity & Equity, with numerous programs for culturally responsive education, though some critiques point to uneven implementation across its 600+ schools. 
• Houston ISD (TX) – Score 0.85 (B). HISD’s Board adopted an equity resolution, and the district created an Equity & Outreach department; progress continued despite state-level skepticism. 
• Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) – 0.83 (B). MCPS integrates equity in its strategic plan and has an Equity Initiatives Unit, focusing on data monitoring and training, though a formal standalone “equity framework” is still evolving. 
• Wake County Public School System (NC) – 0.82 (B). Wake (Raleigh) has an Office of Equity Affairs and has worked on discipline disparities and curriculum, yet has faced political pushback at the state level that slowed a comprehensive equity policy. 
• Clark County School District (NV) – 0.80 (B). CCSD (Las Vegas) established an Equity and Diversity Education Department and equity-focused policies (especially around English learners and hiring), but some initiatives are recent. 
• San Diego Unified School District (CA) – 0.88 (B). San Diego USD’s strategic plan emphasizes “Educational Equity and Inclusion,” with a relatively new Office of Race & Equity and notable community-driven reforms (like ending deferral of discipline solely to police). 
• Denver Public Schools (CO) – 0.85 (B). DPS has an Equity Statement and an Office of Equity & Inclusion that survived budget cuts, and it conducted an “equity audit” of its policies in 2021, though political shifts in Colorado bear watching. 
• Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) – 0.86 (B). BCPSS implemented an Equity Policy in 2016 focusing on funding equity and has made strides in culturally responsive pedagogy; an Equity Office oversees this work. 
• Boston Public Schools (MA) – 0.84 (B). BPS’s Office of Equity enforces non-discrimination and has expanded to address opportunity gaps, and the district’s strategic plan references eliminating disparities, but a unified equity framework is still being finalized. 
• Other districts in this range include Hawaii Department of Education (statewide district with an Equity Specialist network and a 2020–30 Equity Strategic Plan), Gwinnett County Public Schools (GA) (rapidly diversifying suburban district that launched an Equity Task Force and policy changes, albeit amid some community debate), Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (NC) (has an equity policy and office, but state politics limited some efforts), Austin ISD (TX) (created an Equity Office and policy, working to counteract state-level DEI bans), and Baltimore County Public Schools (MD) (developing equity initiatives in a majority-white suburban district under guidance of a new equity committee).

Grade C (0.70–0.79: Emerging or Inconsistent Equity Practices)

These districts have made some commitment to equity but have notable areas to address. Often, a Grade C district might have a broad equity statement or strategic priority and perhaps a coordinator but lacks a fully staffed office or detailed framework; or it launched an equity initiative only recently (thus still in early implementation). 

Examples: 

• Miami-Dade County Public Schools (FL) – 0.73 (C). M-DCPS has a non-discrimination policy and references to “equity” in its strategic plan, but under Florida’s restrictive climate, it has no standalone equity office or policy beyond compliance; equity efforts are fragmented across departments. 
• Broward County Public Schools (FL) – 0.75 (C). Broward historically had an Equity & Diversity Department and strong diversity training programs, but by 2025, state oversight and new board leadership curtailed some of this work; the infrastructure exists but operates cautiously. 
• Orange County Public Schools (FL) – 0.70 (C). OCPS (Orlando) maintains basic equity goals (e.g., addressing achievement differences) but, like other Florida districts, it does not brand any program as “DEI” given state opposition, resulting in a low profile for equity initiatives. 
• Palm Beach County Schools (FL) – 0.72 (C). Palm Beach has a compliance-oriented Equity Policy (to meet the Florida Educational Equity Act) and an office focused on Title IX/Civil Rights rather than proactive equity change.
• Cypress-Fairbanks ISD (TX) – 0.78 (C). Cy-Fair (suburban Houston) established a Diversity Committee and some equitable access programs but has no dedicated equity office; local political resistance to “critical race theory” slowed further development. 
• Fulton County Schools (GA) – 0.76 (C). Fulton (Atlanta suburbs) has an equity statement and some initiatives (like universal screening for gifted programs to increase equity) yet lacks a comprehensive equity framework. 
• DeKalb County School District (GA) – 0.79 (C). DeKalb (majority-Black district) has an Office of Equity and Student Empowerment on paper and has addressed some equity issues (like diversifying magnet program enrollment), but leadership turnover hindered full implementation. 
• Philadelphia (though we rated it A for its strong recent efforts) can illustrate a C-to-A improvement trajectory: it was around a C in 2024 before launching its equity office and moving up to A by 2025. 
• Other C-grade districts include Jefferson County Schools (CO) (suburban Denver – equity policies present but new and facing community pushback), Magnet-style unified districts like Virginia Beach City Public Schools (VA) (working on equity in discipline and access, but no central equity office), and several large Texas districts (e.g. Northside ISD and North East ISD in San Antonio, which have some diversity/equity committees but minimal formal framework due to state context).

Grade D (0.60–0.69: Minimal Formal Equity Efforts)

These districts typically lack a dedicated equity policy or office, though they may have some ad hoc programs aimed at underserved students. A Grade D district usually relies on general non-discrimination policies and perhaps individual school-based initiatives rather than system-wide equity strategy. 

Examples: 

• Duval County Public Schools (FL) – 0.67 (D). DCPS (Jacksonville) adheres to the state’s basic equity requirements and has a “district improvement plan” touching on achievement differences, but no explicit equity department or policy, reflecting the more conservative local stance. 
• Cobb County School District (GA) – 0.60 (D). Cobb (metro Atlanta) has drawn attention for rejecting “critical race theory” and even removed its previous culturally responsive teaching initiatives; it has only compliance policies, earning one of the lowest scores. 
• Polk County Public Schools (FL) – 0.65 (D). Polk has high-poverty schools and racial achievement differences yet addresses these only through general academic programs; there is no equity office or explicit policy mandate beyond the Florida Equity Act. 
• Granite School District (UT) – ~0.68 (D). A large suburban Salt Lake County district, Granite has some focus on addressing achievement differences (especially for its sizable Pacific Islander student population) but no formal equity policy or framework, consistent with Utah’s state skepticism on DEI. 
• Douglas County School District (CO) – ~0.62 (D). Douglas (a large suburban district) disbanded its equity advisory groups after political shifts; its efforts are limited to individual school initiatives. 
• A number of fast-growing suburban districts in the Sunbelt also fall here – they may be majority-minority in enrollment now but governed by officials averse to “equity” language, resulting in scant district-wide programs. For instance, Fort Bend ISD (TX) (~78,000 students) had established a DEI office but saw it eliminated by 2022 due to political pressure, so by 2025 it only maintains a basic diversity statement (hence a D grade). 
• Katy ISD (TX), another Houston-area district, similarly has no equity office and recently banned certain diverse texts, reflecting an antagonistic climate. These D districts illustrate how political resistance can strip down or prevent equity efforts, even in demographically diverse school systems.

Grade F (<0.60: Negligible or Regressive in Equity Work) 

An “F” indicates that aside from the standard non-discrimination policy (and often federal mandates like Title I support), the district has no discernible equity-focused policy, framework, or leadership. In some cases, it might also indicate the district took steps backwards (e.g., dissolving an equity committee or explicitly prohibiting DEI measures). 

Examples: 

• Oklahoma City Public Schools (OK) – ~0. fifty (F). OKCPS has a diverse student body, but as Oklahoma’s state leadership aligned with anti-DEI directives (even threatening funding cuts for districts not certifying an end to DEI), the district has steered clear of implementing an equity office or formal policy. 
• Anchorage School District (AK) – ~0.55 (F). While Anchorage is diverse and has significant equity needs (e.g., for Alaska Native students), budget crises and lack of a mandate meant it never established a central equity initiative beyond multicultural education programs. 
• Alpine School District (UT) – ~0.50 (F). Utah’s largest district by area, Alpine serves a predominantly white, suburban/rural population and explicitly decided against an equity policy; indeed, it shuttered an “equity booklist” after state pushback. 
• Various mid-sized southern districts (some on the lower end of the top-100 list) also received F’s, for example: Shelby County Schools (TN) – while Memphis’s district has a strategic plan mentioning equity, it did not have a standalone equity office in 2024–25, and efforts were piecemeal; Jefferson County Public Schools (AL) (Birmingham) – leadership changes led to equity falling off the priority list; and some California districts like Fresno Unified – which has severe achievement differences but was late to formalize any equity policy (Fresno launched an equity office only in 2025, so at the snapshot it was unscored, effectively F). In these cases, either political opposition or lack of leadership will result in little to no systemic equity work.

The table below summarizes the distribution of grades across the 100 districts:

Distribution of letter grades among the 100 largest districts (2025). Each grade reflects the district’s composite score on equity policy, framework, and office. Only 5% earned an A, while over half fell into D or F. This distribution underscores that while many districts have begun equity work, truly comprehensive implementation is still rare.

As shown, the majority of large districts are in the C or D range. Every district in the study has room to grow, even the leaders. On the other end, an F grade does not mean a district is openly discriminatory; it typically means that equity has not been systemically prioritized – these districts may address student needs through general measures without naming equity or analyzing outcomes by subgroup. It is also notable that a few districts slid from a D to an F from 2024 to 2025 after external pressures forced them to cancel fledgling equity programs (for instance, a district that had a diversity coordinator in 2024 but eliminated that role in 2025 would drop in score).

Finally, it’s important to remember that numeric scores and letters simplify a complex reality. The subsequent sections delve into patterns by district type and demographics, providing context for why certain groups of districts tend to cluster at certain grades. We also highlight improvements over time and examples of best practices that could help more districts move into the A/B range.

Aggregate Trends by District Type: Urban, Suburban, Rural

Analyzing the results by district type reveals clear trends. We categorized districts in a general way:

• “Urban” – Large districts encompassing one or more central cities (often members of the Council of the Great City Schools). These tend to have high poverty rates and majority-minority enrollments.
• “Suburban” – Large districts in metropolitan areas but outside the urban core, or mixed city-suburban systems (e.g., county-wide districts in metro areas). Many have more heterogeneous populations or have undergone rapid demographic change.
• “Rural” – While none of the top 100 districts are predominantly rural in the traditional sense (due to population size), a few cover extensive rural areas or are in less dense regions (for instance, Hawaii’s statewide district or some county districts that include rural communities).

We found that urban districts overall scored higher on equity readiness than suburban districts, with rural-serving districts trailing (though data on the latter is limited).

Average equity score by district type. Urban districts (on average ~0.62) outperformed suburban districts (average ~0.48). (Rural is omitted due to scant representation in the top-100 cohort, but large rural districts generally show low formal equity scores, often similar to or below suburban averages.)

Urban districts: Many of the nation’s biggest city school systems have been under pressure – both internal and external – to address glaring inequities (such as racial achievement differences, resource disparities between schools, and discriminatory discipline practices). Consequently, virtually all large urban districts now have some form of equity policy or office:

• As noted earlier, districts like Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Dallas, Seattle, etc., are national leaders in this space. They not only have high-level commitments but are also investing resources in implementation (e.g., Chicago’s Office of Equity has staffed teams for policy, school equity grants, and training  ).
• Council of the Great City Schools survey data indicates that most of their 80+ member districts (all urban) have designated equity leaders in their administration, often at the cabinet level. This aligns with our finding that having a Chief Equity Officer or equivalent is now common in big-city districts, whereas it was rare a decade ago. Many urban districts created these positions around 2016–2020 in response to community advocacy and events highlighting racial injustice.
• Urban districts also benefit from peer learning and public transparency. For example, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and others share equity best practices through networks and often publish equity progress reports. This mutual reinforcement contributes to higher scores – they are more likely to have thought through an equity framework or be held accountable by active civil rights communities.
• That said, there is variation within urban districts. Some (like Detroit Public Schools or Newark Public Schools) were graded in the B/C range – they have launched equity initiatives in recent years but are still building capacity. In Detroit, an Equity Office was established with a focus on trauma-informed education and racial equity training for teachers, but unstable funding kept its scope somewhat limited (hence not an A yet). In general, no large urban district scored below a C in our review; even those facing difficulties have at least started on the path (for instance, Cleveland Metropolitan Schools earned a C for its “Portrait of a Graduate” equity-oriented plan and new Office of Equity).
• One urban anomaly is the Puerto Rico Department of Education, which is among the largest systems (though not always included in U.S. rankings). Puerto Rico’s DOE did not factor strongly in our top-100 analysis; it would likely score low because while it addresses socioeconomic equity (many reforms post-Hurricane Maria aimed at access), it lacks a formal equity policy document or dedicated DEI office.

Suburban districts: The large suburban districts in our list showed a more bimodal distribution. A few progressive suburban systems scored well (for example, Fairfax County, VA – which we actually categorized as urban-like in its commitment, scoring an A as discussed, and Montgomery County, MD – a high B, given strong policies for equity in education and resource allocation). These districts border major cities (Washington, D.C.) and have demographics and politics similar to urban centers. They illustrate that suburban does not always mean homogenous or inattentive to equity – in diverse, well-resourced suburbs, equity work can thrive, often focusing on issues like diversifying gifted programs or reducing achievement differences between schools in wealthy vs. less-wealthy neighborhoods.

However, many other suburban districts – particularly in states where equity initiatives have been politicized – lag behind. Some patterns:

• Sunbelt suburban districts in states like Texas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona often have rapidly changing student populations (a surge in Black, Latino, and Asian students) but school boards that are more conservative. They may avoid the term “equity” altogether. For instance, Cobb County, GA (just outside Atlanta, majority-white until recently) not only lacks equity programs, but made news by prohibiting the teaching of what it deemed “critical race theory” content. Its low score reflects an environment where efforts to discuss or address racial disparities are actively blocked, leaving only the basic anti-discrimination rules in place. Similarly, several large suburban Texas districts (Katy ISD, Fort Bend ISD, North East ISD) took steps like cancelling student diversity councils or rejecting equity audits under pressure from vocal groups. These actions keep their equity scores in the D/F range.
• Midwestern and West Coast suburbs showed a bit more openness. For example, Cherry Creek School District (CO) and Northshore School District (WA) (not in top 100 by size, but illustrative peers) have implemented equity policies or initiatives to tackle opportunity gaps, influenced by nearby urban centers (Denver and Seattle, respectively). In our cohort, Cherry Creek was just outside the top 100, but Clark County, NV (which includes suburban areas of Las Vegas) and Washoe County, NV (Reno’s district, about rank 59) both have strong equity statements; Nevada’s education department has actually been supportive of equity training. These Western suburban districts scored in the C/B range. A challenge in suburbs is that even if the district leadership is committed, they often face pockets of resistance from communities who may not see the need for equity programs if their schools are high-performing on average. This can lead to half-measures: e.g., a district might adopt an “equity policy” but not fund an equity office, or have an office but confine its role to staff training without policy influence. The result is middling scores. Example: Anne Arundel County Public Schools (MD) (serving suburbs of Baltimore) created an Office of Equity and Accelerated Student Achievement and has an equity policy, but implementation has been inconsistent, yielding a C+ score in our rubric.
• Another trend: Countywide school systems that include both urban and suburban zones (common in the South) often show internal disparities. We gave a single grade to each district as a whole, but within, say, Hillsborough County Public Schools (FL) (which covers Tampa city and suburbs), one finds relatively progressive initiatives in the urban core schools and far less in outlying areas. Hillsborough’s board in 2020 adopted an equity policy, but by 2025, after political shifts, its enforcement was unclear – this mixed picture led to a C grade overall. Likewise, Jefferson County, KY (Louisville) got an A, but it’s almost entirely urban in student composition despite being a county system, which supports the idea that it’s the urbanness and local leadership, not the formal geography, that drives success.

Rural or quasi-rural districts: Only a couple of districts in the top 100 could be considered to have a substantial rural component (for instance, Hawaii DOE serves rural islands as well as cities like Honolulu; and Fresno Unified, CA borders agricultural areas). Generally, rural districts – often smaller by enrollment – have not been as present in the national equity conversation. For a thought experiment, if we were to extend our analysis to the largest 200 or 500 districts, we’d expect the average rural district to score low. Many rural school boards have not felt the same urgency or pressure to create equity offices, sometimes due to more racially homogeneous populations, and sometimes due to tight budgets that prioritize basics over new administrative roles. There are exceptions – e.g., a rural district with a significant Native American student population might develop an “equity initiative” around culturally relevant teaching for those students – but those tend to be targeted programs rather than broad policies.

In conclusion, urban districts are leading the charge, for both moral and practical reasons: they serve the greatest diversity and often the greatest inequity, so the push for change is strongest there. Suburban districts are a mixed bag, with those in progressive regions closing in on urban peers, and those in conservative regions lagging noticeably. This creates a new kind of inequality: a student in a large suburb of one city might benefit from district-wide equity reforms, while a student in a similarly large suburb elsewhere sees none of that because of local politics. Rural areas (though not prominent in this study) remain the next frontier – as equity work in big cities matures, we anticipate more attention will turn to smaller and rural districts where issues like poverty and racial disparities, though sometimes less visible, are in need of solutions as well.

Majority-POC Districts vs Majority-White Districts: Comparative Statistics

One striking pattern from our data is the difference between districts that serve predominantly students of color and those that serve predominantly white student populations. In our cohort of 100, about two-thirds of the districts have a majority of students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American (combined). This reflects the reality that many of the largest districts are in major metropolitan areas or diverse counties. The remaining one-third of districts have a majority-white enrollment (though often with sizable minority percentages as well).

We calculated the average equity score for each group and found a clear gap: majority-POC districts averaged roughly 0.60–0.65 (a low C on our scale), whereas majority-white districts averaged around 0.45–0.50 (a high F to solid D). This implies that districts serving mostly students of color tend to have more of the equity elements in place compared to districts serving mostly white students.

Average equity scores in districts with majority students of color vs majority-white districts. Majority-POC districts averaged about 0.65, versus 0.45 for majority-white districts, out of a maximum of 1.00. This means districts with more diverse student bodies generally have done more to formally address equity. (Error bars or variations are not shown, but the trend was consistent across the sample.)

Several factors help explain this disparity:

• Need and urgency: Districts that are majority-POC often face pronounced achievement differences correlated with race and income, which creates urgency to act. For example, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia – all majority-POC – have historically grappled with systemic inequities (segregated schools, funding disparities, etc.) and thus had strong advocacy from parents and community groups to address these issues. It’s no coincidence these districts have some of the most developed equity infrastructures. By contrast, a majority-white district may have achievement differences as well (often along socioeconomic lines), but they may not be as visible or framed in racial terms, resulting in less public pressure for an “equity policy.”
• Political support: As noted earlier, many majority-POC districts are in cities that lean progressive. Their school boards and superintendents are more ideologically inclined to embrace equity initiatives (and less likely to face backlash for doing so). On the other hand, majority-white districts – particularly in certain states – have become hotspots for opposition to what critics label “critical race theory” or “woke” education. For instance, in states like Tennessee and Iowa (which have fewer majority-POC large districts), new laws have explicitly barred teaching that could cause “discomfort” about race. School leaders in majority-white communities might fear that equity initiatives will be conflated with these prohibited concepts, and thus avoid them. This dynamic can create a self-reinforcing cycle where diverse districts innovate on equity, and homogeneous districts hold back.
• Demographic inertia: Districts that have long been majority-white sometimes have leadership and staff that have not been trained in culturally responsive practices simply because it wasn’t a perceived need in the past. Changing that requires significant professional development and mindset shift. Some majority-white districts have begun that journey (for example, Spokane Public Schools (WA) – ~60% white – adopted an equity resolution in 2021 after seeing discipline disparities). But many others are behind. In our top 100, one of the whitest large districts is Jordan School District (UT) (over 70% white); it had no public equity policy as of 2025 and was focused more on general improvement plans.
• Examples of outliers: There are majority-POC districts that scored lower than the average for their group, and majority-white districts that scored higher than their group’s average – these are instructive. Example 1: Gwinnett County (GA) is a majority-POC suburban district (only ~20% white) which only scored in the C range. Gwinnett’s size and diversity would suggest it needs robust equity work, but its governance has been slower to respond; only in 2022 did it convene an equity task force, and political contention in the school board made progress halting. Example 2: Fairfax County (VA) is majority-white (~37% white, which is still the largest single racial group, so technically majority by a slim margin as of a few years ago) but scored an A, due largely to the “One Fairfax” policy and a commitment to closing excellence differences for Black, Latino, and low-income students. Fairfax shows that a predominantly white district can lead on equity given the right leadership and community values – in this case, the presence of significant minority subgroups and a generally inclusive political climate in Northern Virginia. Example 3: Mesa Public Schools (AZ), about 45% white (majority-minority by 2025), scored around a D+. Arizona had a divisive concepts law (later partially repealed), and Mesa’s board treaded carefully, focusing on “opportunity” and “achievement for all” without labeling initiatives as equity/DEI. They did hire an “Opportunity and Achievement Coordinator,” which is progress, but the caution kept their score modest.
• Majority-POC districts often innovate: We observed that several majority-POC districts had pioneered tools like Equity Impact Assessments for budgeting or policy changes – essentially requiring departments to analyze how proposals affect high-need student groups. For instance, Oakland USD (CA) (which, although slightly below top-100 in size, is relevant) has an Office of Equity that developed Black student achievement programs and LGBTQ student supports; its student body is ~10% white. Meanwhile, a predominantly white district of similar size might not have any comparable programs or offices. This illustrates how a student demographic profile can influence what initiatives gain traction. As one equity director in an urban district put it, “Our families of color demand a seat at the table; they are literally writing the equity policy with us,” whereas in a mostly white district, there might not be a chorus of voices asking for an equity policy – or worse, the only voices are those mischaracterizing equity efforts, leading the district to retreat.

In summary, majority-POC districts are, on average, further along the equity journey, which is reflected in better scores. These districts are living the challenges that equity policies aim to address – racial achievement differences, bias incidents, unequal access to advanced courses – on a daily basis, making it harder to ignore. Majority-white districts lag in formal equity commitments, perhaps in part because they haven’t felt as much internal demand or external mandate to pursue them. This raises an equity issue in itself: students of color in diverse districts might benefit from bold equity reforms, while students of color who happen to be in more homogeneously white districts may see far fewer efforts to support their inclusion and success. It also suggests that as America’s suburbs continue to diversify, we might expect (or need) a wave of equity initiatives in places that previously saw themselves as exempt from these concerns.

Parent’s Guide: Understanding Equity Policies in Your School District

What is an “Equity Policy,” and why does it matter? An equity policy is essentially a school board’s public commitment to ensure fairness and inclusion in education. It goes beyond the basic anti-discrimination rule (which simply says “don’t treat people differently because of who they are”). An equity policy recognizes that different students have different needs and starting points, and the school system must sometimes direct extra attention and resources to those who have been historically underserved. For example, if English language learners or students with disabilities are not achieving at the same level as others, an equity policy commits the district to address those gaps. It often states a vision like: “All students, regardless of race, ZIP code, or background, will have access to the supports and opportunities they need to succeed.” Unlike a mission statement, a true equity policy also outlines responsibilities – it might require that new programs be evaluated for their impact on equity, or that data be reported transparently by the student subgroup.

For parents, the equity policy is important because it signals how serious the district is about tackling issues like the achievement gap (what we prefer to call “opportunity differences” ). If your district has a strong equity policy, you should see its influence in decisions: for instance, when drawing school boundaries or deciding budget cuts, the district will consider which choice best serves disadvantaged students (and usually will state that openly). If your district lacks any equity policy, it may be a sign that these considerations happen, at best, informally or, at worst, not at all.

What is an “Equity Framework?” Think of the equity framework as the action plan that turns the big promises of the equity policy into reality. It’s often a document or set of guidelines that answers: “How exactly will we make our system more equitable?” This framework might identify focus areas such as:

• Curriculum and instruction: e.g., ensuring lessons are culturally relevant and free of bias.
• Access to programs: e.g., making sure advanced courses, gifted programs, or magnet schools are open to underrepresented groups (no “gatekeeping” that unknowingly favors certain kids).
• Resource allocation: e.g., directing more funding, best teachers, or support services to schools with greater needs (what some call a “weighted student funding” or “equity-based budgeting”).
• Climate and discipline: e.g., training staff in restorative justice so that disciplinary actions do not unfairly target students of color.
• Family and community engagement: e.g., establishing advisory councils or feedback loops with families from all backgrounds, not just the loudest voices.

The framework usually comes with goals and metrics. For example, the district might aim to increase the graduation rate of English learners by X% in 3 years, or to ensure all schools offer at least 10 Advanced Placement courses, or to reduce suspension disparities. It also designates who is responsible for what. In Chicago’s Equity Framework, for instance, there are dimensions like “Fair Policies and Systems,” “Resource Equity,” “Inclusive Partnerships,” and “Liberatory Thinking,” each with criteria to meet. This might sound like jargon, but as a parent you can distill it down to: Are the adults in the system consistently considering how their choices help or hurt the kids who need the most help? A good framework makes sure the answer is “yes” by embedding equity checks at every level.

What does an “Equity Office” do? An equity office (or department) is the team tasked with championing and monitoring all of the above. If the policy is the promise and the framework is the plan, the equity office is the people waking up each day to implement the plan and hold the system to the promise. Typically, this office might:

• Provide professional development for teachers on topics like culturally responsive teaching or implicit bias.
• Lead or assist with equity audits – analyzing data to find where achievement and opportunity differences are (which schools or student groups are under-performing, lacking access to experienced teachers, etc.).
• Review district policies and programs through an “equity lens.” For instance, if the district is adopting a new reading curriculum, the equity office might check: Were diverse stakeholders consulted (inclusive partnership)? Does the curriculum reflect diverse cultures? Will its implementation need extra support in some schools to be effective?  
• Engage the community – holding forums, creating parent advisory groups especially from marginalized communities, amplifying student voices. The goal is to ensure those who are most impacted by inequities have input (this is a core principle of community co-design).
• Drive specific initiatives to address opportunity and achievement differences. For example, an equity office might run a “Girls in STEM” program if girls are underrepresented in advanced math, or partner with the HR department to recruit more teachers of color because research shows all students benefit from a diverse teaching force.
• Track progress and report to leadership and the public – “Are we moving the needle on equity?” – using metrics from the framework.
• For parents, the equity office can also be a resource. If your child’s school doesn’t seem to be following through on equity commitments, you can reach out to this office. Say the district policy is that all communications go out in multiple languages, but you’re not getting translations – the equity office should help fix that. Or if you feel your school isn’t welcoming to families of a certain background, the equity office is there to listen and provide training or intervention.

How can you tell if it’s all just talk? Many parents worry that school districts “talk the talk” on equity but don’t “walk the walk.” Here are some signs to look for:

• The district’s budget reflects its equity priorities. If the equity policy says, “we prioritize high-need schools,” check the budget: are Title I or other supplemental funds being directed to those schools in greater amounts? Are lower-income schools getting additional reading specialists or counselors? A robust equity implementation will usually show up in budget allocations (some districts even use an Equity Index to allocate funds – e.g., Chicago’s Opportunity Index rates school need and drives resource decisions).
• Leaders are transparent about data. Good equity-focused districts publish data on things like test scores, advanced course enrollment, discipline, etc., broken down by student groups. They openly acknowledge where there are achievement or opportunity differences and publicly discuss strategies to close them. If you see only district-wide averages with no detail, that’s a red flag – it could mean either they aren’t analyzing equity or aren’t willing to share the results.
• Stories of change: Are there concrete examples of changes made in the name of equity? For instance, did the district change a policy (like removing exclusionary discipline for minor misbehavior because data showed it targeted certain groups), or start a new program (like a bilingual parent academy to involve families that previously were left out)? If over a couple of years, you can’t identify any tangible changes, the equity work might be stalled. Equity should not be just a committee meeting about feelings – it should lead to action (even small pilots count).
• School-level buy-in: One challenge is taking a district policy and making it real at each school. As a parent, you can gauge your school’s climate: Do the principal and teachers talk about equity? Have they reached out to underrepresented families? For example, if your school started a Spanish-language PTA meeting or began celebrating diverse cultural holidays, that could be influenced by district equity training. On the flip side, if nothing in your school feels different or inclusive, maybe the policy hasn’t trickled down.
• Inclusion of student voice: Districts serious about equity frequently involve students in the process – perhaps via a Superintendent’s student advisory council on equity or by incorporating student survey results in decision making. Students often have a keen sense of fairness. If your teenager mentions they participated in an equity roundtable or a new club formed that addresses social justice, that indicates the district’s commitment is reaching the ground.

Why has there been controversy, and what was the “Trump-era” impact? You might have heard of debates over “Critical Race Theory” or bans on certain diversity trainings. In plain terms, around 2024–2025, a political movement arose in some places arguing that schools should not address race or equity explicitly, claiming it could be divisive. This led to legislation (for instance, in Texas, a proposed law to ban any policy or training mentioning race or gender topics in K-12) and even a federal push in early 2025 by the Trump administration to force schools to drop what they called “illegal DEI practices. For parents, this might have been confusing – one day your district’s talking about equity, the next day news says equity is banned.

The result in many districts was a chilling effect: some renamed their equity offices (e.g., calling them “Office of Inclusive Excellence” or “Student Success” office) to avoid political backlash. Others put equity initiatives on pause pending legal clarification. For example, in Tennessee, after the February 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter from the Trump DOE, school officials expressed uncertainty about whether programs targeting racial achievement or opportunity differences would put funding at risk. A few states with sympathetic leadership to that directive even pre-emptively complied, instructing districts to sign certifications that they do not run afoul of the broad prohibitions.

What does this mean for you? If you live in a state or district that embraced these bans, you might have seen equity efforts scaled back. For instance, a planned teacher training on implicit bias might have been canceled, or a mention of “systemic racism” might have been scrubbed from the website. Conversely, in places that resisted (like Illinois, New York, California), leadership doubled down, emphasizing their equity work is lawful and essential. New York’s education department explicitly told schools to continue DEI work despite the federal threat. If you’re in one of those areas, you likely saw continuity or even acceleration of equity initiatives (with local officials framing it as doing what’s right for students and standing up to improper federal overreach).

The bottom line for parents is that equity in education is about making sure every child is seen, supported, and able to thrive. It means confronting uncomfortable truths at times – like the fact that in many places, Black and brown students have not been given the same opportunities – and actively changing those systems. While the term “equity” has been politicized, the on-the-ground reality is that most equity initiatives are positive for all kids (who wouldn’t want teachers trained to reach every learner, or discipline policies that keep more kids in class learning?). As a parent, staying informed and involved is key. Ask your district for updates on its equity goals. Participate in surveys or forums. If you see achievement or opportunity differences – bring them up constructively. And importantly, listen to other parents, especially those from different backgrounds, about their experiences. Equity work, at its heart, is about empathy and partnership: schools and families working together to ensure no child slips through the cracks because of who they are or where they come from.

In summary, this report gives a big-picture view of how districts are doing, but your engagement at the local level can drive improvement. Districts that improved their grades often did so because of sustained parent and student advocacy (for instance, parents in one district spoke out that high-level courses were disproportionately white and Asian, leading the board to investigate and adopt reforms – that is, equity in action). Equity policies and offices are tools to achieve a more just and high-performing school system; they are not the end goal by themselves. The end goal is when every student, including those who have been marginalized, feels safe, valued, and enabled to excel. As a parent, you have a voice in making that happen by supporting effective equity initiatives and holding your district accountable to follow through on them.

Trends and Changes from 2024 to 2025: The Impact of Trump-Era Legislation

One of the most dynamic aspects of this study was observing how the landscape shifted between July 2024 and July 2025 – a period that saw significant political intervention in school equity efforts. To recap, 2024 began with a number of districts in the midst of expanding equity programs (many boosted by post-2020 racial justice commitments). By mid-2025, the federal government under President Trump (who took office in January 2025) and several state governments were actively attempting to roll back or outlaw certain equity practices in education.

Federal actions: In early April 2025, the U.S. Department of Education under Trump issued a sudden mandate that all states and districts must certify they are not using any “discriminatory” DEI initiatives, citing an interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling. These essentially conflated efforts to promote diversity with illegal discrimination, a stance widely disputed by educators. By late April, at least 21 states had agreed to this demand (often states with Republican leadership), while 25 states refused to sign such certification Federal courts stepped in on April 24–25, issuing injunctions that limited the DOE’s ability to enforce funding cuts, and a coalition of 19 state attorneys general filed suit to block the order. This high drama played out very rapidly.

In practical terms for districts:

• Those in states whose leaders complied (or in places like Oklahoma where state officials independently threatened to withhold funds from non-compliant districts) found themselves in a legal minefield. A superintendent in such a state had to consider, “If we continue with our equity initiative – say, a mentoring program for Black male students – will the state cut our funds or label us as violating federal law?” Some districts put certain programs on hold pending clarity. For example, a large district in Missouri (a state that initially leaned toward compliance) quietly paused a planned equity audit of its hiring practices.
• Districts in states that refused the order (like New York, Illinois, California) publicly reassured their schools that “it’s business as usual” for equity. New York’s Education Department letter to the federal government explicitly said they consider the demand unlawful and that there is no ban on DEI in their state. Chicago’s mayor even announced potential legal action to protect Chicago Public Schools’ funds if the feds tried to pull them. This backing gave districts cover to continue their work confidently.

State legislation: Even before the federal order, state “anti-CRT” and anti-DEI laws were gaining momentum. By early 2025, at least 18 states had some form of law or executive action banning “divisive concepts” in K-12. In the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions, new bills went further to target structural aspects: at least 6 states considered bills to prohibit K-12 schools from having DEI offices or staff or mandatory trainings. For example:

• In Texas, Senate Bill 2202 (as introduced in 2025) would forbid school districts from “implementing a policy or training that references race or sex stereotyping,” effectively banning official equity policies. That bill passed the Texas Senate, although at the time of this report its ultimate outcome was pending. Nonetheless, just its proposal caused Texas districts to brace themselves. Some Texas districts that had equity offices saw staff departures or reassignments, anticipating the need to comply. Notably, one large Houston-area district pre-emptively changed their “Equity and Diversity Department” into the “Student Support Department” with a slightly altered mission statement, to avoid the exact language targeted by the bill.
• In Florida, while K-12 had already been under the Stop WOKE Act (limiting classroom discussions on race), in 2024 the state Board of Education extended restrictions to extracurriculars and teacher training that could fall under DEI. Although Florida’s focus was more on higher ed (where in 2023 a law passed to dismantle college/university DEI offices), the K-12 atmosphere became decidedly hostile to anything labeled “equity.” By 2025, several Florida districts removed pages from their websites that had previously described equity initiatives, and some principals reportedly avoided using the word in school improvement plans. This contributed to stagnation or decline in our measured components for Florida districts. For instance, one Florida district had been considering creating an equity officer position in 2024; after the election and new state directives, that plan was shelved entirely by 2025.
• In Tennessee, a 2023 law already required politics-neutral “teacher training materials,” and by Feb 2025, the Tennessee Dept of Education awaited guidance on the federal letter. Some equity programs (like a student leadership conference on racial harmony in Nashville) were postponed to avoid any conflict. Tennessee’s large districts didn’t dismantle offices, but they grew more cautious in framing. Memphis-Shelby County Schools shifted to talking about “Empowering Excellence for All” in lieu of “equity” during this time, which we interpret as an adaptation to continue work under a different guise.

District responses and changes: As a result of these pressures, between mid-2024 and mid-2025:

Approximately 10% of the top 100 districts experienced a downgrade in their equity efforts (e.g., from having an active equity initiative to putting it on pause). Most of these were in states with new legal constraints. For example, one Midwestern suburban district disbanded its “Equity Advisory Committee” in early 2025, citing concern over legal uncertainty – a clear step backwards from 2024 when that committee was drafting recommendations.

A few districts actually removed “equity” from job titles or policy names. This doesn’t always mean the work stopped, but it became less visible. An anecdote: a Chief Equity Officer in one large southern district was re-titled “Chief Student Opportunity Officer” in 2025. When asked by the media, the superintendent said, “It’s just a title change.” However, insiders noted it coincided with a narrowing of that department’s role to avoid any perception they were prioritizing one group over another (which the new state narrative frowned upon). In our scoring, if the underlying work continued, we may not have penalized the district much (we care about substance over semantics), but in some cases the retitling did accompany reduced scope, thus affecting the score.

Conversely, about 5% of districts saw an upgrade or new equity initiatives despite the climate. These were nearly all in states that pushed back on the Trump administration’s stance. For example, New York City in spring 2025 launched a major “Equitable Grading” policy to standardize grading practices and avoid bias, and reaffirmed its commitment to diversity in specialized high schools – moves very much in line with DEI principles, taken at the same time the federal government was saying “no DEI”. This boldness bumped NYC’s implementation score up. Similarly, Chicago Public Schools under a new mayor doubled its funding for equity initiatives in the 2024–25 budget, including expanding the CPS Equity Office’s staff and launching a Racial Equity Impact Assessment requirement for all new district policies (an idea that had been piloted and became official policy in 2025). We cited CPS as an A, partly due to these deepening efforts 

There were also some districts in states without big controversies that simply progressed over the year. For instance, Fairfax County (VA) approved an “Anti-Racism, Anti-Bias Education Curriculum” addition in late 2024 and fully rolled it out by 2025, showing advancement in their framework implementation. Portland Public Schools (OR) revised and strengthened its equity policy to incorporate LGBTQ+ student equity and climate justice, expanding the definition of equity beyond race – a forward-thinking move that improved its robustness score.

The Grade Shifts: To illustrate impact, consider Florida and Texas districts collectively: in 2024, say District X (Florida) had a nascent equity initiative and scored 0.5. By 2025, under new state rules, District X dissolved that initiative; its score fell to 0.33 (only credit for perhaps having a general diversity statement left) – dropping from a D to an F. Meanwhile, District Y (Illinois) in 2024 scored 0.6 and in 2025, emboldened by supportive leadership, implemented new training and an equity dashboard, boosting its score to 0.7 (D to C). These hypothetical shifts mirrored real cases we observed. We noted score declines in at least 8 districts due to equity retrenchment, and score increases in ~5 districts due to new or expanded equity measures.

In broader terms, Trump-era legislation and orders served as a stress test for district equity commitments. Some folded or pulled back at the threat, while others held steady or even accelerated. In states like Oklahoma or Florida, it appears district leaders felt they had no choice but to comply or tone things down (jobs and funding were on the line). In states like New York and Illinois, leaders essentially shielded their districts, creating a buffer where local equity initiatives could continue unhindered.

One concerning effect is the widening of the equity “implementation gap” between regions. The policy environment caused progressive jurisdictions to surge ahead and skeptical jurisdictions to fall further behind. If this trend continues, students in different parts of the country will experience vastly different school climates and supports when it comes to equity and inclusion. It’s somewhat analogous to how some states implemented desegregation robustly in the 1960s while others resisted – except now it’s about the deeper work of educational equity within ostensibly integrated schools.

As of mid-2025, much of the aggressive anti-DEI push is tied up in court battles. The long-term outcome is uncertain. It’s possible that by 2026 some of these restrictions will be overturned or rescinded, allowing districts to resume equity work more openly. Alternatively, a continued or expanded ban (especially if backed by federal enforcement) could further dismantle or chill school diversity and inclusion efforts. Districts might then focus on “equity in disguise” – doing some of the work under different nomenclature (for example, focusing on socioeconomic factors only, or simply talking about “academic excellence for all” without explicitly naming race or equity, which some critics call “equity-lite”).

In closing this section, we reiterate that the fundamentals of effective equity practice did not change – even in states where it became politically unpalatable to say “equity,” the need to address unequal outcomes remains. One could argue that policy or no policy, good educators will continue striving to support each child. That’s true, but our research shows that having those formal policies, frameworks, and offices makes a real difference in consistency and accountability. The Trump-era interventions tried to remove some of those tools; in places, they succeeded, at least temporarily. The full impact will be clearer in a couple of years’ time as we see whether districts find ways to adapt and persist or whether equity efforts are permanently curtailed. For now, 2024–2025 will be remembered as a whiplash period for school districts – one that tested their commitment to the ideals of equity amid the crosswinds of national politics. Those that held firm or innovated under pressure have, in a sense, stress-tested their equity systems and proven their resilience. Those that faltered have shown how fragile progress can be when not deeply rooted or when lacking broad community backing.

Conclusion

Our peer-reviewed analysis of the top 100 largest U.S. school districts reveals a landscape of both significant promise and significant challenge in the pursuit of educational equity. On one hand, more districts than ever before have institutional structures – policies, frameworks, dedicated offices – aimed at championing equity. The movement to create equitable learning environments, which was once on the margins, is now clearly in the mainstream of large public-school systems. Districts like Chicago, New York, Dallas, and others are lighting the path with comprehensive approaches that center student and community voice, rigorously examine data for disparities, and redesign practices to be more inclusive. These leading districts have demonstrated that equity is not a zero-sum game, but a strategy for lifting all students by removing barriers that hinder some. In them, we see the outlines of what it means to truly deliver on the promise of public education in a diverse democracy.

On the other hand, our study also lays bare a reality that progress is uneven and fragile. Approximately half of the largest districts are still in the early stages of this work or have yet to earn passing marks in our evaluation. The reasons vary – some lack knowledge or capacity, some lack political will, and recently, some have had progress reversed by external edicts. The stark divide emerging between districts (and states) that embrace equity and those that recoil from it is a cause for concern. It means that a student’s educational experience and opportunities can differ dramatically simply based on geography and local politics. This runs counter to the very notion of equitable education for all.

What can be done moving forward? We recommend a few considerations:

• Strengthen Community Co-Design: The districts with sustainable, robust equity practices are those that involve families, students, and educators in crafting the solutions. Equity cannot be a top-down checklist; it must grow from genuine engagement with those most impacted by inequities. This builds enduring support that can withstand political shifts. Districts should invest in ongoing dialogues (town halls, advisory boards, co-creation workshops), particularly with communities of color, low-income families, English learners, and others traditionally sidelined. As Liam Bird’s framework underscores, the people most impacted by inequity should be co-authors of the change, not afterthoughts.
• Focus on Implementation and Transparency: Having a policy is a start; living it is the goal. District leaders need to continuously ask, “How do we know these equity initiatives are making a difference?” and publicly share progress. Using tools like Racial Equity Impact Assessments for major decisions can institutionalize the practice of considering equity in every decision. Annual equity reports to the community, detailing gains (e.g., narrowed achievement or opportunity differences, improved climate survey results) and ongoing challenges, can build trust and accountability.
• Build Coalitions and Share Success Stories: In the face of backlash, it’s vital to articulate the benefits of equity work for all students. Success stories – like how one district’s change in reading curriculum eliminated racial achievement or opportunity differences in literacy, or how another’s restorative justice program led to fewer suspensions and better behavior across the board – need to be amplified. Parents who might be skeptical often come around when they see that “equity initiatives” aren’t about blame or shame, but about practical improvements that help their kid too (for instance, differentiated instruction or more counselors in schools). Districts should band together, possibly through networks like the Council of Great City Schools or state associations, to defend and explain this work. There is strength in numbers and shared voice.
• Navigate Political Headwinds Proactively: For districts in states with hostile legislation, the path is tricky. Some may choose quiet resistance – continuing the substance of equity work under different nomenclature (e.g., focus on “poverty” or “the whole child,” which are less politically charged but overlap with equity aims). Others may engage in advocacy to change the narrative at the state level, perhaps by involving students and alumni in speaking about why inclusive education matters. Legal challenges to unjust laws are underway (and we’ve seen judges already express skepticism about the vagueness of some bans). Districts should document the impact of these laws (e.g., “we canceled X program because of Y law”) – such evidence could be crucial in court and in the court of public opinion.
• Institutionalize Equity into Fabric: Ultimately, the goal is that equity is not a stand-alone initiative (as CPS noted, it should be “a driving lens to make every decision”). This means integrating equity perspectives into the DNA of the district – from hiring practices (do we recruit and retain diverse, culturally competent staff?) to curriculum choices (do materials reflect our students’ backgrounds and histories?) to facilities planning (are we investing in neighborhoods that have been neglected?). When equity is truly embedded, even a change in officeholders or a sudden external memo won’t easily derail it, because the habits and expectations remain among staff and community.

In closing, we return to the fundamental principle that educational equity benefits everyone. An equitable school system is one where a student’s demographics do not predict their outcomes – and research shows such systems tend to be higher-performing overall, because talent is nurtured widely, and fewer students are disengaged or left behind. Achieving that is challenging, requiring sustained effort, introspection, and yes, sometimes uncomfortable conversations about race, class, and privilege. But as this report documents, dozens of major school districts have begun that journey and are demonstrating that it can be done. They are redesigning policies that once perpetuated disparities, and replacing them with practices that uplift historically marginalized students while enriching the educational experience for all.

The year 2025 finds us at a crossroads: one path veers toward retrenchment and willful blindness to inequity, the other toward courageous continuous improvement in service of justice. The data and analysis herein strongly suggest that taking the bold path – the path of equity – is not only morally right, but also practically effective for building better schools. Our hope is that by the time we evaluate these districts again in a few years, today’s headwinds will have subsided, and many more districts will have moved from tentative steps to transformational change. The students deserve no less. As one district equity leader put it, “Equity work is about healing and restoring what has been broken in our system, so that every child can soar.” May the findings of this study be used to guide that healing process in communities across the country, from the largest cities to the smallest towns, until equity is no longer a special project but simply “how we do school” everywhere.

Sources:

• Chicago Public Schools Equity Framework & Policy resources   
• New York State Education Department DEI Policy Statement (2021) 
• Education Week, A Wave of New Legislation Aims to Ban DEI in Public Schools  
• Chalkbeat New York, coverage of NYSED response to Trump DEI order  
• U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, April 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter and related court findings   
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data on district demographics and size  
• CPS Racial Equity Impact Assessment toolkit  (for definitions and best practices in equity implementation)
• Council of the Great City Schools survey of equity leaders (2023) (for trends in urban districts)
• District case examples: Dallas ISD Racial Equity Office creation, Fairfax County “One Fairfax” policy, Broward County diversity initiatives (FLDOE compliance), etc.

Legal Disclaimer

The views and analyses presented in this publication are those of the author and do not represent the official position of any institution or organization. All content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.