Moses Field Center vs Keidan Special Education Center

Moses Field Center and Keidan Special Education Center sit at the absolute top of Michigan's public school rankings — first and second respectively out of 3,190 schools statewide — separated by just 0.1 rating points (9.8 vs. 9.7 out of 10). That near-identical overall gap masks meaningful differences in specific performance dimensions that matter when choosing between them.

On academics, Moses Field Center holds a 9.7/10 academic score against Keidan Special Education Center's 9.5/10, a 0.2-point delta that, while modest in isolation, is notable given how compressed scores become at the very top of a 3,190-school field. The growth gap follows the same direction: Moses Field Center's 9.9/10 growth score outpaces Keidan Special Education Center's 9.7/10, meaning Moses Field Center students are gaining ground at a slightly faster rate relative to their starting points.

Demographically, both schools serve high-poverty populations — Moses Field Center at 74% free/reduced lunch eligibility, Keidan Special Education Center at 77% — indicating comparable economic contexts. The sharpest structural difference is student-teacher ratio: Keidan Special Education Center's 5.6:1 ratio versus Moses Field Center's 6.8:1 means Keidan students receive more concentrated adult attention per classroom, a significant factor in specialized settings. Moses Field Center enrolls 61 students total; Keidan Special Education Center enrolls 90, making Keidan the larger campus despite its lower ratio.

Both schools serve grades PK through 08 and are located 6.7 miles apart within Detroit. The overlap in grade span means families are genuinely choosing between two full elementary-through-middle pathways, not trading off grade coverage. Moses Field Center's edge in overall rating (fact 1), state rank (fact 2), and growth score (fact 3) is real but slim — at this tier, program fit and the student-teacher ratio advantage at Keidan Special Education Center (fact 6) may carry more practical weight than the fractional score differences.