The data paints a complicated picture that seemingly challenges the College Board’s equity narrative. This is seen most powerfully in the equity gap visualization, where the proportion of Black and Hispanic students — who together make up about 60% of the California public school population — are only enrolled in AP courses at 63% and 75% of their respective population shares, while Asian and White students are significantly overrepresented. On its own, this contradicts the College Board’s stated mission of ensuring that “AP classes reflect the diversity of [a school’s] student population.”

Additionally, the SAT/ACT participation data reinforces the same demographic pattern — White and Asian students lead in college-seeking behaviors like exam enrollment. AP touts down-the-line benefits like stronger college outcomes and higher retention rates, but the data points to the fact that certain groups tend to reap these benefits more than others, pointing to an inequitable distribution.

Zooming out, it’s clear that the AP program has made tangible positive impacts for students. Altogether, enrollment, and by extension the number of students who can access advanced education, has increased exponentially. Overall female enrollment has also grown to be on par with male enrollment, albeit less so in STEM. Nevertheless, considering the history of female exclusion from education, the gender statistics of AP enrollment shows a positive impact. However, these visualizations suggest that while the program has expanded in size, the expansion has not equitably translated into proportional access for certain demographics, particularly historically underrepresented groups. Literature supports our findings: simply increasing enrollment in a program can increase overall participation, but can maintain disparities for previously underrepresented groups (Parra-Martinez et al). Without addressing the structural gaps that cause these disparities, inequality cannot change (Kolluri). Thus, our data does not support the claim that AP is a tool for equal education, and instead highlights disparities in enrollment for historically marginalized groups, mirroring patterns already seen in the broader education system.

The disparities in access and participation in the AP program are made abundantly clear by our visualizations — but what is causing this? To understand the reasons for imbalance, we must note that they are not the product of individual student choices in a vacuum. Rather, these patterns exist because of overlapping structural barriers.

In the school concentration visualization, the data points to a foundational concern: unequal institutional resources. Schools serving lower-income and majority-minority communities experience consistent underfunding, leading to difficulty recruiting qualified AP teachers. Lack of funding and qualified educators creates small populations of students adequately prepared for advanced coursework, decreasing likelihood of enrollment in AP courses. In fact, studies support the conclusion that minority students are less likely to even attend schools with robust AP offerings in the first place (Klopfenstein), suggesting that the gap in access begins far before enrollment decisions.

It’s important to acknowledge the role of self-selection in this issue. Students that enroll in AP courses likely already identify themselves as college-bound. This means AP offerings largely target students who are predisposed to attending university rather than first-generation students. Therefore, instead of generating new opportunities for historically underrepresented students, its target audience are those who already plan to attend college.

To close these gaps, simply increasing the number of offerings is arbitrary without intentional plans to address root causes of racial gaps — often due to lack of resources, support, knowledge of programs, academic planning, and foundational coursework (Rodriguez and McGuire). The causes of imbalance in AP enrollment are institutional, geographic, and social. Together, these barriers ensure that underrepresentation persists in AP course enrollment, and the benefits of the program remain concentrated among those already holding structural advantages. This project aims to highlight these gaps, calling for a systematic change to the way education access is distributed.