Ed. Note: This analysis by John Migueis, a licensed clinical social worker and administrator of NJ21st, examines disparities in serving students with disabilities within New Jersey. Migueis looks at seven wealthy suburban districts and seven low-income urban districts, finding “a consistent and striking portrait of structural disparity” in proficiency scores, graduation rates, staffing ratios, special education placement, and segregation. (The only exception is cost per pupil, which he also explains.) This was first published at NJ21st. , a platform dedicated to analyzing and reporting on municipal, education, and state issues.

This report compares suburban and city school districts in New Jersey across various Indicators. Suburban districts include Berkeley Heights, Chatham, Madison, Millburn, New Providence, Summit, and Westfield. City districts include Camden, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, Trenton, and Union City.

Definition & Demographics

District Factor Groups (DFGs) are still maintained by the New Jersey Department of Education to classify school districts based on the socioeconomic status (SES) of their communities and were last updated in the early 2000’s. While the School Performance Report no longer references this grouping, it is a useful angle to start with. The groupings range from A (lowest SES) to J (highest SES) and are based on factors such as income, education level, and employment — not on school performance or student outcomes.

This table shows the DFG category for each of the 14 districts analyzed in this report. These DFGs are significant because they shape how districts compare in terms of resources, funding expectations, and the structural challenges their students may face.

To highlight the contrast: City districts in this report are classified in the lowest bands (A or B). Suburban districts are all in the highest bands (I or J) This SES divide is central to understanding differences in placement rates, funding, and services explored throughout this analysis.

DFG Category

Income

The column below displays the median household income for each of the seven-district clusters, based on U.S. Census data. The table below breaks down the racial and ethnic composition of the total student populations across the two district groups: suburban and city. Together, these data points underscore a fundamental difference in community demographics — both in terms of economic conditions and student diversity — that shape service delivery and outcomes in each setting.

Race & Ethnicity (Proficiency Exam Participants)

ELA Performance All Grades Average Over Time (2021-2024)

The chart below compares district-wide student performance on English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency tests over time. These figures show the percentage of students meeting or exceeding grade-level expectations on statewide assessments. Comparing these outcomes across districts highlights persistent gaps in academic achievement — gaps that reflect broader patterns of resource allocation, community investment, and opportunity.

Math Performance All Grades Average Over Time (2021-2024)

The chart below compares district-wide student performance on Math proficiency tests over time. These scores reflect the percentage of students who met or exceeded grade-level expectations on state assessments. Persistent gaps in Math proficiency — particularly between high- and low-DFG districts — raise critical questions about access to foundational instruction, intervention supports, and equitable learning opportunities in early grades.

% Of Students that Met or Exceeded Proficiency by Year and District Type

Average Graduation Rate Over Time (2021-2024)

The chart below tracks the average high school graduation rate over time (2021–2024) for suburban and city districts. While both groups show stable year-over-year trends, the nearly 20-point gap between them reflects a longstanding divide in student outcomes tied to broader economic and structural inequities. Graduation rates remain one of the clearest indicators of how well districts are able to support students from entry to exit — and where additional resources or interventions may be most needed.

Special Needs Students: Categories within District Type

The first chart below shows the distribution of special education students across city and suburban districts. While student populations vary, the share of students classified with disabilities is slightly higher in city districts overall. The two following charts break this down further, showing the proportion of students in each disability category within the special education population of each district type. These patterns suggest a broadly consistent distribution of disability classifications across both district types — indicating that, at a high level, students are being identified with similar needs regardless of setting.

Special Needs Students: Regular Classroom Time by District Type

This chart highlights stark differences in the amount of time special education students spend in general education classrooms, based on district type. Based on the data: In suburban districts, 67.4% of special education students spend 80% or more of their day in general education settings — a strong indicator of inclusive practices.

In contrast, only 29.8% of students in city districts receive the same level of inclusion. Meanwhile: 40.3% of students in city districts are educated outside of general education for the majority of the day (less than 40%), compared to just 6.1% in suburban schools. These differences reflect systemic disparities in how districts implement inclusion, with city schools more likely to segregate students with disabilities into separate settings — despite similar legal obligations and funding structures.

Spending and Staffing Data from 2024

This snapshot of 2024 spending and staffing data reveals an important distinction: City districts spend more per pupil than their suburban peers, but they also report larger class sizes and more students per support staff member. These figures suggest that while urban districts allocate more funds per student, that spending may be driven by higher operational costs or broader service demands — not necessarily by greater instructional or support capacity. Understanding how those dollars are distributed is essential when evaluating a district’s ability to deliver equitable student support.

Conclusion

This report reveals the extent to which school district type — city or suburban — shapes the educational experience of students in New Jersey. Across nearly every indicator we examined — from proficiency scores and graduation rates to staffing ratios, special education placement, and per-pupil spending — the data paints a consistent and striking portrait of structural disparity.

Suburban districts serve, on average, wealthier communities with less racial and ethnic diversity and have significantly higher student outcomes on state proficiency exams. They also spend less per pupil while maintaining better student-to-staff ratios, particularly for support services.

City districts, meanwhile, face more complex student needs with fewer personnel resources and often less inclusive placement patterns — with just 29.8% of special education students spending most of their day in general education, compared to 67.4% in suburban districts. Even in categories where funding appears comparable, such as spending per pupil, outcomes remain starkly uneven — suggesting that resource allocation alone cannot close the gap. Instead, this analysis points to the need for systemic attention to how policy, staffing, and service delivery intersect with local conditions.

Ultimately, this is not just a comparison of city and suburban schools — it’s a call to recognize how geography, demographics, and institutional structures collectively determine the opportunities available to New Jersey’s students. Bridging this divide requires not only funding parity, but a shared commitment to equitable access, inclusive practices, and support systems that meet students where they are.

Methodology

This report analyzes publicly available education data to compare key indicators across two types of New Jersey school districts: city districts (DFG A–B) and suburban districts (DFG I–J). The goal is to surface equity-relevant differences in demographics, student outcomes, and service delivery patterns.

District Grouping:

Districts were selected based on their District Factor Group (DFG) classification, a socioeconomic index maintained by the New Jersey Department of Education. The report includes: 7 suburban districts from the highest DFG tiers (I–J) 7 city districts from the lowest DFG tiers (A–B) This allows for a controlled comparison between communities at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Data Sources:

Student performance and demographic data were sourced from the New Jersey School Performance Reports, published by the NJDOE. Special education enrollment and placement data were drawn from the NJDOE’s IDEA annual reporting, including statewide totals and placement breakdowns. Spending and staffing figures come from the NJDOE’s Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending (2024 edition). Household income data were pulled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates.

Calculations and Aggregation
All district-level metrics were averaged within each cohort (city vs. suburb). Data were not weighted by enrollment, allowing each district to contribute equally to the cohort average. Where applicable, category-level percentages (e.g., disability classifications) reflect the internal makeup of each group’s special education population.

Limitations
This analysis is descriptive and exploratory. While it highlights patterns that may be relevant to equity and access, it does not attempt to measure causality or assess individual district performance. All figures are rounded where appropriate for clarity.

Data Confidence & Limitations

All data used in this report was sourced from publicly available files provided by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and the U.S. Census Bureau. Values were manually reviewed and validated across multiple formats, including spreadsheets, screenshots, and NJDOE performance reports. Where needed, calculations (e.g., inclusion rates, staffing ratios) were derived from official placement and enrollment counts, and verified for consistency with source totals.

Key district comparisons were based on a fixed group of 14 districts — 7 city and 7 suburban — selected for their alignment with the highest and lowest District Factor Group (DFG) classifications. All metrics were calculated using raw counts unless otherwise noted, and percentages were derived within each group (city or suburb) to ensure comparability. This report reflects a high degree of confidence in the underlying data. However, it is important to note: All figures are based on the most recent data available at the time of analysis (2020–2024). Any reporting inconsistencies or rounding errors in the original NJDOE source files may carry forward. Graduation rate analysis reflects only the “4-Year Adjusted Cohort” metric and does not include extended-year graduation rates or alternative school outcomes.

Despite these limitations, the findings presented here are grounded in verifiable public data and aim to support honest, transparent discussion about educational equity in New Jersey.

This report was created using publicly available data from the New Jersey Department of Education. We encourage journalists, researchers, and civic organizations to explore the data behind this report. A cleaned version of the full dataset (2020–2024) is available as a downloadable zip file. If you’re interested in replicating or extending the analysis, feel free to reach out to team@nj21st.com. We welcome collaboration and transparency.