What does that mean, "adjusted for poverty"? Reading level is an absolute. You're either at a third grade level or not. This adjustment seems to have no purpose other than completing a narrative that does not help solve the problem.
To be fair to gruez, the chart was made by the economist and not by them.
To be less fair to the economist, "adjusted by poverty level" is a heck of a spin, we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes. And that's without even speculating about what "demographic factors" means or implies.
>You're either at a third grade level or not. This adjustment seems to have no purpose other than completing a narrative that does not help solve the problem.
How should you measure an education system? Should you measure purely based on the student's performance? What if the students are just better at reading, independent of the school? It's not hard to imagine that even with identical teachers, that inner cities schools would have worse test scores than wealthy suburban schools, especially if the latter are rich enough to afford tutors, the family environment is more conductive to learning, etc. Recognizing this fact, it's fairly obvious that "you're either at a third grade level or not" is a terrible way of assessing how good of a job an educational system is doing.
> What does that mean, "adjusted for poverty"? Reading level is an absolute
Reading scores are SUPER strongly correlated with family income levels in the US. The fact that Alabama does a better job teaching its poorest students to read than Massachusetts does is impressive, particularly given the disparity in funding levels.
If you were comparing HS basketball coaches on the basis of how well their teams perform on the court, then you might find it useful to correct for how many tall kids went to the high schools they were coaching at.
nixon_why69|11 days ago
To be less fair to the economist, "adjusted by poverty level" is a heck of a spin, we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes. And that's without even speculating about what "demographic factors" means or implies.
walthamstow|11 days ago
Have you? Jim Crow apartheid was in place in my parents lifetime. I don't care how many cars and ship you make, that ain't developed.
gruez|11 days ago
Does this explain the gap between white/black poverty too?
squeefers|11 days ago
bad teachers dont make an area poor. a poor area doesnt have the money for good teachers, youve got it the wrong way around.
gruez|11 days ago
How should you measure an education system? Should you measure purely based on the student's performance? What if the students are just better at reading, independent of the school? It's not hard to imagine that even with identical teachers, that inner cities schools would have worse test scores than wealthy suburban schools, especially if the latter are rich enough to afford tutors, the family environment is more conductive to learning, etc. Recognizing this fact, it's fairly obvious that "you're either at a third grade level or not" is a terrible way of assessing how good of a job an educational system is doing.
ch4s3|11 days ago
Reading scores are SUPER strongly correlated with family income levels in the US. The fact that Alabama does a better job teaching its poorest students to read than Massachusetts does is impressive, particularly given the disparity in funding levels.
bell-cot|11 days ago