Canfield Avenue Elementary vs Charles H. Kim Elementary

Canfield Avenue Elementary and Charles H. Kim Elementary sit 4.9 miles apart in Los Angeles and are among the strongest elementary schools in the state — but they occupy notably different positions. Charles H. Kim Elementary ranks #9 of 9,533 California schools while Canfield Avenue Elementary ranks #17 of 9,533, making both genuinely elite performers. The overall rating gap is just 0.1 points (9.6 vs. 9.5 out of 10), so parents should look past the headline number and focus on what drives each school's strengths.

Academically, Canfield Avenue Elementary holds a narrow edge, scoring 9.7/10 versus Charles H. Kim Elementary's 9.5/10 in academic performance. Both schools match exactly on growth — each earns a 9.8/10 growth score, meaning students at both campuses are advancing at an exceptional pace relative to similar peers statewide. That tied growth score is significant: it suggests Charles H. Kim Elementary is producing the same learning velocity despite serving a substantially higher-need population.

The demographic and equity differences between the two schools are considerable. Free and reduced-price lunch eligibility stands at 88% at Charles H. Kim Elementary versus 49% at Canfield Avenue Elementary — a 39-point gap that reflects very different family income profiles. Charles H. Kim Elementary also enrolls 59% more students (472 vs. 296), and its student-teacher ratio is meaningfully more favorable at 18.2:1 compared to Canfield Avenue Elementary's 21.1:1. That smaller class size at Kim is notable given the higher enrollment overall, suggesting stronger staffing investment relative to student count.

Both schools serve kindergarten through fifth grade, so grade range is not a differentiating factor. Where the two diverge in practical terms is in the community each school reflects: Canfield Avenue Elementary operates in a more mixed-income context with slightly stronger test-score outcomes, while Charles H. Kim Elementary delivers near-identical growth results while supporting a predominantly low-income population at greater scale and with lower class sizes — a combination that signals strong instructional systems.