Here’s a shocking truth: despite spending over $39,000 per student—the sixth-highest in the state—Cambridge schools still see significant achievement gaps among their most vulnerable students. And this is the part most people miss: even in a community as affluent and education-focused as Cambridge, students who are low-income, Black, Hispanic, disabled, or English learners are falling behind their peers. But here’s where it gets controversial: with such a massive budget, why isn’t the system doing more to close these gaps?
A recent equity audit, commissioned by the Cambridge Community Foundation and conducted by THRIVE!, sheds light on these disparities. Geeta Pradhan, the foundation’s president, didn’t hold back: ‘These disparities are—and should be—unacceptable.’ The study, released Monday, highlights that while Cambridge boasts high MCAS scores and a commitment to equity, the reality for marginalized students is far from equal.
Parents and educators aren’t surprised. Cambridge Public Schools Superintendent David Murphy acknowledges the issue but also defends the district’s progress. ‘With our resources, we should be performing at a really high level,’ he said. ‘Every student should be on a path to post-secondary success. We have no excuses.’ Yet, he points out that Cambridge still outperforms most districts, with several schools excelling as strong learning communities. ‘That proves we can do it—and do it well,’ he added.
But the audit raises a critical question: Can even the best-funded schools overcome the systemic barriers students face outside the classroom? Cambridge’s $280 million budget has undoubtedly fueled ambitious programs, but the results are uneven. Chronic absenteeism, for example, is higher than the state average, especially in high school, where 34.4% of students miss 10% or more school days—compared to 25.2% statewide.
Pradhan takes a ‘glass half full’ approach, praising the district’s dedicated professionals and suggesting incremental improvements. ‘We can push the system to go the extra mile,’ she said. The audit recommends using classroom performance data more effectively and improving coordination across schools to hold teachers to higher standards. Murphy agrees, emphasizing that ‘inconsistency diminishes standards, and vulnerable children pay the price.’
One of the district’s top priorities now? Building stronger relationships with families. ‘The more trust we have with families, the deeper our connections with students, and the more impactful our instruction can be,’ Murphy explained. Yet, he acknowledges that Cambridge’s challenges mirror those of other wealthy districts, where students from privileged backgrounds consistently outperform their peers.
Here’s the bigger question: Is it fair to expect schools alone to solve issues like poverty, hunger, and social-emotional health? Pradhan thinks not. ‘We put the responsibility on schools to fix everything,’ she said. ‘It’s a goal for the entire community to step up.’
So, what do you think? Can Cambridge—or any district—truly close these gaps, or are some barriers too big for schools to tackle alone? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
