DPI Report Card Addendum: Wauwatosa, A District Bereft of Equity
Embedded Files
Addendum to the DPI Report Card Analysis
Addendum to the DPI Report Card Analysis
(2030 Task Force — November 2025)
TL;DR
Because Wauwatosa shows a 70% correlation between economic disadvantage and outcomes (vs. ~30% statewide), a nearly 40-point school-to-school performance spread, no equity-bright-spot schools, and because these patterns have persisted for five consecutive years, the district’s inequity profile sits at the extreme edge of what statewide data would lead us to expect for a district of its size. This is a structural and persistent equity problem — and represents a profound failure of the current administration to close equity gaps. The reality on the ground could not be farther removed from the rhetoric coming out of the Fisher Building.
Introduction
Following the release of our report, Wauwatosa: A+ for Marketing, C+ for Performance, a new multi-year statistical analysis by community member Justin Dux provides critical additional insight into the district’s performance patterns. Using five years of DPI report card data and a Wauwatosa-specific regression model, this analysis evaluates how each school performs relative to what its socioeconomic profile predicts.
The key metric—known as the residual—is calculated as:
Actual DPI Score – Predicted DPI Score (based on % Economically Disadvantaged and Open Enrollment)
Residual analysis is widely used in education research to identify schools that are outperforming expectations and those that are falling short—independent of demographic composition.
Justin’s work shows that while statewide demographics explain roughly 30% of variation in school outcomes, Wauwatosa’s outcomes are unusually tightly linked to economic disadvantage and open enrollment (≈70% correlation). This high correlation signals an equity structure problem, not a random distribution of outcomes.
Key Findings
Figure 1. Five-Year Average Residuals (Actual – Predicted DPI Score)
Figure 1. Five-Year Average Residuals (Actual – Predicted DPI Score)
Caption:
Positive values indicate schools performing above expectations based on WSD’s demographic model. Negative values indicate schools performing below expectations. Data compiled by Justin Dux from DPI report cards, 2020–2024.
Report of the 2030 Task Force on the DPI Report Card.pdf1. The district average masks large internal disparities
1. The district average masks large internal disparities
At the district level, Wauwatosa’s overall DPI score appears “average” only because high-performing and low-performing schools cancel each other out mathematically.
But families do not experience averages.
They experience individual schools, and the differences between them are stark.
The five-year residuals reveal a district with extremes, not consistency.
2. A cluster of schools consistently outperforms expectations
2. A cluster of schools consistently outperforms expectations
Several schools scored 8 to 15 points above expected values for five consecutive years:
Lincoln Elementary
Roosevelt Elementary
Wauwatosa STEM
Montessori
Washington Elementary
East High
These schools exhibit strong leadership, instructional coherence, and stable culture.
3. Multiple schools consistently underperform expectations
3. Multiple schools consistently underperform expectations
A group of schools scored 6 to 10 points below statewide demographic expectations:
West High
Whitman Middle
Eisenhower Elementary
Underwood Elementary
Longfellow Middle
And the district’s online school, Wauwatosa Virtual Academy, scored more than 20 points below predicted performance.
These are persistent, multi-year gaps, not one-year anomalies.
4. The magnitude of inequity is extraordinary
4. The magnitude of inequity is extraordinary
The five-year spread between highest and lowest residuals is nearly 40 points—one of the clearest indicators of structural inequity within the school system.
For a district that publicly prioritizes equity, the measurable inequity between schools is profound.
5. Target Group Outcomes confirm the same inequity pattern
5. Target Group Outcomes confirm the same inequity pattern
Justin’s second analysis examined DPI’s Target Group Outcomes (TGO) metric—a measure meant to capture whether schools are successfully supporting their most vulnerable learners. When plotted against five-year residuals, a striking pattern emerges:
Figure 2. Target Group Outcomes vs. Five-Year Residuals (Quadrant Analysis)
Figure 2. Target Group Outcomes vs. Five-Year Residuals (Quadrant Analysis)
Caption:
Five-year residual performance (X-axis) vs. 2024–25 DPI Target Group Outcomes (Y-axis). Schools in the upper-right quadrant perform well both overall and with their most vulnerable students. Wauwatosa’s struggling schools cluster in the lower-left quadrant, revealing consistent underperformance across metrics.
Key insight:
Key insight:
The same schools that excel overall (STEM, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Montessori, East) also excel with their target groups.
The same schools that perform poorly overall (Whitman, Eisenhower, Underwood, Longfellow, West) also perform poorly with their target groups.
Most telling:
Wauwatosa has no schools that perform strongly with vulnerable students while performing modestly overall.
In high-functioning districts, these “equity bright spots” are common.
In Wauwatosa, they do not exist.
This reinforces the central finding:
WSD’s inequity problem is structural, predictable, and durable across metrics.
The Bottom Line: WSD’s inequity problem is structural and persistent—not theoretical
The Bottom Line: WSD’s inequity problem is structural and persistent—not theoretical
The combined five-year analyses confirm:
Some schools consistently exceed demographic expectations across multiple metrics.
Others consistently underperform in ways that are not random and not new.
The district’s single DPI score conceals these school-level disparities instead of confronting them.
Wauwatosa’s unusually tight correlation between disadvantage and outcomes points to system-level inequity rather than student-level variation.
These findings reinforce the need for transparency, leadership stability, instructional coherence, and an accountability framework that reflects school-level performance, not districtwide averages.
The 2030 Task Force will continue publishing FOR Briefs to ensure families, educators, and policymakers have a clear, data-based view of school performance in Wauwatosa.
Page updated
Report abuse