New Mexico the dumbest state for 2nd year straight

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 09:50am

States Ranked: Smartest to Dumbest

The smartest state in the union for the second consecutive year is Massachusetts.

The dumbest, for the third year in a row, is New Mexico.

These are the findings of the Education State Rankings, a survey by Morgan Quitno Press of hundreds of public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average. These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high drop-out rates and physical violence.

How does YOUR state rank?

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Vermont

New Jersey

Wisconsin

New York

Minnesota

Iowa

Pennsylvania

Montana

Maine

Virginia

Nebraska

New Hampshire

Kansas

Wyoming

Indiana

Maryland

North Dakota

Ohio

Colorado

South Dakota

Rhode Island

Illinois

North Carolina

Missouri

Delaware

Utah

Idaho

Washington

Michigan

South Carolina

Texas and West Virginia (tie)

Texas and West Virginia (tie)

Oregon

Arkansas

Kentucky

Georgia

Florida

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Hawaii

California

Alabama

Alaska

Louisiana

Mississippi

Arizona

Nevada

New Mexico

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-10-21 10:07am

Are per-pupil expenditures, class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios (putting aside that this seems to be triple-counting spending) really meaningful measures of intelligence?

Shouldn't graduation rates and proficiency be enough?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-21 10:08am

*notes that except for Montana, the top 10 states are all Northeast or Midwestern states*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 10:14am

The Dude wrote:Are per-pupil expenditures, class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios (putting aside that this seems to be triple-counting spending) really meaningful measures of intelligence?

Shouldn't graduation rates and proficiency be enough?

Obviously, the "smartest" and "dumbest" labels are just for sensationalism. The list really describes quality and success rates of public schooling, in which class sizes are extremely important. Class sizes correlate to the amount of attention a teacher can give to each individual student. Graduation rates are only one part of the picture.

I put my kid in a private school at a "not inconsequential" cost and how do I know it's worth it? Because I asked him what he liked most about his new school and he said "when I put up my hand, they notice."

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-10-21 10:38am

Darth Wong wrote:Obviously, the "smartest" and "dumbest" labels are just for sensationalism. The list really describes quality and success rates of public schooling, in which class sizes are extremely important. Class sizes correlate to the amount of attention a teacher can give to each individual student. Graduation rates are only one part of the picture.

I put my kid in a private school at a "not inconsequential" cost and how do I know it's worth it? Because I asked him what he liked most about his new school and he said "when I put up my hand, they notice."

And the degree to which this matters will be reflected in the actual performance ratings.

If you look at the factors they used (http://www.morganquinto.com/edfact03.htm#FACTORS), you can see that a system that spends more to achieve equal results will be ranked HIGHER.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 10:44am

The Dude wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Obviously, the "smartest" and "dumbest" labels are just for sensationalism. The list really describes quality and success rates of public schooling, in which class sizes are extremely important. Class sizes correlate to the amount of attention a teacher can give to each individual student. Graduation rates are only one part of the picture.

I put my kid in a private school at a "not inconsequential" cost and how do I know it's worth it? Because I asked him what he liked most about his new school and he said "when I put up my hand, they notice."
And the degree to which this matters will be reflected in the actual performance ratings.

What performance ratings? Graduation rates? That's easy to improve; you just make it easier to graduate. Standardized tests? I've seen typical academic standardized tests; they're a joke. Good for proving that your kids can memorize shit, though.

If you look at the factors they used (http://www.morganquinto.com/edfact03.htm#FACTORS), you can see that a system that spends more to achieve equal results will be ranked HIGHER.

Sure, if you define results in such a grossly oversimplified manner.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-21 10:45am

Washington's number 30, I would have placed us a little higher than that. Hmm interesting.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-10-21 11:07am

we're no1! we're no 1!

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-21 11:13am

I can safely say that list is bullshit. Alaska and Montana need to be swapped.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-21 11:13am

Not in the bottom ten. SCORE~~!!!!

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-21 11:17am

Iceberg wrote:*notes that except for Montana, the top 10 states are all Northeast or Midwestern states*

Montana IS a Northern state.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-21 11:18am

Alyeska wrote:I can safely say that list is bullshit. Alaska and Montana need to be swapped.

You're joking, right? Ever spent a year in one of the villages?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-10-21 11:21am

I would like to mention that, as a mortgage guru, I will give you guys a fact based on personal observation: The states which are ranked lowest, for the most part? Their tax rates as it relates to school taxes (On property) are nothing(Or so low as to not matter). For the states that are really up there on the list, I see their tax rates and go "Holy shit"(They're expensive). I'm completely not kidding, either, It is almost directly fucking proportional.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-21 11:22am

bohemianfey wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I can safely say that list is bullshit. Alaska and Montana need to be swapped.
You're joking, right? Ever spent a year in one of the villages?

I was born and raised in Alaska. While Alaska typicaly votes Republican I've noticed they are on average far more liberal the the state of Montana.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-21 11:24am

Chardok wrote:I would like to mention that, as a mortgage guru, I will give you guys a fact based on personal observation: The states which are ranked lowest, for the most part? Their tax rates as it relates to school taxes (On property) are nothing(Or so low as to not matter). For the states that are really up there on the list, I see their tax rates and go "Holy shit"(They're expensive). I'm completely not kidding, either, It is almost directly fucking proportional.

Montana ranks one of the lowest on school funding in the entire country. Our teachers are paid for shit. Alaska has some of the highest paid teachers and starting sallaries of $50,000 are not unheard of.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-10-21 11:24am

Darth Wong wrote:What performance ratings? Graduation rates? That's easy to improve; you just make it easier to graduate. Standardized tests? I've seen typical academic standardized tests; they're a joke. Good for proving that your kids can memorize shit, though.

What exactly are you arguing, here? That expenditures is a superior measure of education? If not, what measurements would you suggest?

As an aside, what do kids memorize for a standardized math, writing or reading comprehension test? On an individual level a standardized test measures a kid's brains more than the effectiveness of his teachers, but this doesn't much matter when you're comparing state-wide statistical results.

Anyway, this only reinforces my scepticism of the report: what kind of assessment gives points for how concerned parents are with kids homework, but ignores the proportion of students that go on to post-sec in favour of raw graduation rates?

Sure, if you define results in such a grossly oversimplified manner.

???
If two states are equal in all factors but expenditures, this study will rank the state with the more expensive system as "smarter". If there's any oversimplification, it's on the part of its authors.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-10-21 11:28am

Alyeska wrote:
Chardok wrote:I would like to mention that, as a mortgage guru, I will give you guys a fact based on personal observation: The states which are ranked lowest, for the most part? Their tax rates as it relates to school taxes (On property) are nothing(Or so low as to not matter). For the states that are really up there on the list, I see their tax rates and go "Holy shit"(They're expensive). I'm completely not kidding, either, It is almost directly fucking proportional.
Montana ranks one of the lowest on school funding in the entire country. Our teachers are paid for shit. Alaska has some of the highest paid teachers and starting sallaries of $50,000 are not unheard of.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-21 11:31am

Alyeska wrote:
bohemianfey wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I can safely say that list is bullshit. Alaska and Montana need to be swapped.
You're joking, right? Ever spent a year in one of the villages?
I was born and raised in Alaska. While Alaska typicaly votes Republican I've noticed they are on average far more liberal the the state of Montana.

While I wasn't born and raised there I do have four cousins there and I spent a year in Kong. There are some really good schools, but for every good school there's 10 little Yupik, Inuit, low income, etc schools that are 30 times worse. If they're factoring in physical violence I can totally believe it. Hell, my best friend S's little brother is in jail right now for bringing a gun to school and pistol whipping someone(that little fucktard. Jesus am I going kick his ass when I see him). You have to admit that while the educational system in Alaska has it's up points it's also got extreme lows as well that factor in. No way would it be in the top ten.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-21 11:57am

Darth Wong wrote:What performance ratings? Graduation rates? That's easy to improve; you just make it easier to graduate. Standardized tests? I've seen typical academic standardized tests; they're a joke. Good for proving that your kids can memorize shit, though.

The interesting one that I saw was designed to determine whether or not there was a correlation between SAT scores and financing per pupil. It showed that there was a considerable negative correlation (ie. states that spend lots of money have lower SAT scores than ones that don't). The educators who had originally commissioned the study then went through some hand-waving to make sure their study was invalidated (and it did have some flaws that prevented you from drawing a definitive conclusion), but it was still funny.

Sure, if you define results in such a grossly oversimplified manner.

Nevertheless, merely spending more money is not indicative of a superior system. A machine is worth what it does; not what you pay for it.

Mlenk · Post by **Mlenk** » 2004-10-21 12:17pm

Hmm, well at least I can be happy that Nevada isn't last anymore. lol

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 12:37pm

The Dude wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What performance ratings? Graduation rates? That's easy to improve; you just make it easier to graduate. Standardized tests? I've seen typical academic standardized tests; they're a joke. Good for proving that your kids can memorize shit, though.
What exactly are you arguing, here? That expenditures is a superior measure of education? If not, what measurements would you suggest?

No, I'm arguing that all of these factors should be taken into account, not forcing us to choose one or the other in a grotesque false-dilemma fallacy as you would so idiotically have us do.

As an aside, what do kids memorize for a standardized math, writing or reading comprehension test? On an individual level a standardized test measures a kid's brains more than the effectiveness of his teachers, but this doesn't much matter when you're comparing state-wide statistical results.

Is it multiple-choice? If so, it's a poor test. Good testing requires too much labour on the part of the markers, and standardized tests can't afford that.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-10-21 12:38pm

Yay! Arkansas hedged out most of the deep south.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 12:39pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Nevertheless, merely spending more money is not indicative of a superior system.

Are you buying into the same false dilemma that The Dumbshit is peddling? You have to take all of it into account; ideally we would be able to track far more data, not less. What you're trying to do is argue that because an evaluation based solely on funding and class size is stupid, then funding and class size should be completely ignored when evaluating a school, which is even more stupid.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-21 12:44pm

Iowa is in the top 10. Of course.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-21 12:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Are you buying into the same false dilemma that The Dumbshit is peddling? You have to take all of it into account; ideally we would be able to track far more data, not less. What you're trying to do is argue that because an evaluation based solely on funding and class size is stupid, then funding and class size should be completely ignored when evaluating a school, which is even more stupid.

At least in my case, this isn't a false-dilemma since I've explained WHY using money as a way of measuring education is misleading. I'm questioning why money spent is even used as a criteria, since it doesn't seem to affect a crucial outcome of education. I'm arguing that funding isn't a GOOD criteria for rating a state's level of intelligence. Ideally, we would be able to track a huge variety of criteria, but given the limited ability of the study to conduct its review, using funding per pupil is not a reasonable way of measuring a state's intelligence. I never said anything about class sizes.