[vondur]

Where my wife works the average salary is over 100K per year, so not bad for 9 months of work. This is in California where the test scores are some of the worst in the nation. I would not lean too hard at political party affiliation, California politics is heavily influenced by Teachers Unions, and yet we score near the bottom of the entire US.

[teachrdan]

> This is in California where the test scores are some of the worst in the nation

I read your post and thought it was BS, so I did a little research. According to this, California public school test scores are better than Texas and closing in on New York and Florida.

> California politics is heavily influenced by Teachers Unions, and yet we score near the bottom of the entire US.

California scores better than Texas, a completely Republican-run state where the teacher's unions have almost no influence. How do you account for that?

https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-k-12-test-score...

[verteu]

Maybe California just has more rich people. When you control for demographics/SES, Texas schools seem far superior:

https://www.chadaldeman.com/p/which-states-actually-have-the...

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/States_Dem...

[ants_everywhere]

Texas, Mississippi, and others partially achieve this by holding students back.

Mississippi, for example, has a third grade reading gate. Texas holds black kids back at a nearly twice the rate of white kids. These kids are older and have repeated the grade so they do better in the 4th grade NAEP assessment.

This is possibly working as intended. However, you can achieve the same results by redshirting your kid or having them repeat a grade.

So the claim from the blog post that

> but Texas has a slight edge for Hispanic students and a huge advantage for Black students.

says that the Texas results are driven by a demographic that's aggressively held back.

[vondur]

Isn’t that a good thing? Should students be promoted to a higher grade if the aren’t doing well. It’s really difficult to do this in California. My wife has dealt with high school seniors who are functionally illiterate. Maybe if they were held back they might catch up.

[ants_everywhere]

I'm not making a judgment about whether it's a good or bad thing for the kid. I don't know the literature to have a position. I'm just contextualizing the data.

In practical terms, the states kind of have different definitions of what it means to be in 4th grade. And that's one way of increasing your score on this particular measurement.

I think the right thing to do is intervene before students are held back. But that costs money and might make your NAEP scores worse if the student just squeaks by this year rather than staying behind a year. But I don't have the data on how much they're attempting to intervene in cases where students look like they're going to be held back.

[verteu]

Good point, a true apples-to-apples comparison would be based on age rather than grade level.

[daedrdev]

Adjusted for income its really bad. Income is the strongest causes of academic performance, so if you adjust for them California is doing way worse than other states.

[dmoy]

CA also scores middle of the pack on nominal poverty rate (OPM), but last in the country on cost of living adjusted poverty rate (SPM). If anything though, that means backwards from what I would expect for income controlled education scores... ?

[gamblor956]

This is false. Adjusted for income CA students outperform most other states because CA has one of the largest populations of low income students.

[yepitwas]

Huge ESOL population, too (but to be fair, Texas and several other states also face that challenge)

[gamblor956]

Yes they have large ESL populations but CAs is much larger and those other states fare worse by any breakdown.

[xenobeb]

Exactly. The problem is the students and parents.

It would not matter what school you sent me to, I did not care about learning or intellectual pursuits when I was 15.

I would have had to be raised by completely different parents with different values in a different time and place.

[bsder]

> This is in California where the test scores are some of the worst in the nation.

This is an easily disprovable statement that calls into question your credibility.

California schools generally score right at or just below the median for the entire US.

That doesn't make them good, but they sure aren't the worst.

> I would not lean too hard at political party affiliation

In the US, it's not hard to look at a map of political party affiliation and a ranking of the worst schools and not notice the correlation.

[mothballed]

It's not hard to be in the median yet one of the worst states, if NY/CA/FL/TX all have shit scores (I have no idea if that's the case). You could conceivably be at the median while being one of the worst 5 or 10 states.

[Tyr42]

Median means that half the states are worse than you. Unless there are ties, it's impossible to be the median and the 10th percentile.

Unless I missed something?

[mothballed]

I was thinking median meant enough population of below states to reach half of populace, are doing worse.

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>It's not hard to be in the median yet one of the worst states, if NY/CA/FL/TX all have shit scores (I have no idea if that's the case). You could conceivably be at the median while being one of the worst 5 or 10 states.

I wonder where you went to school. Median means that half of the sample is above and half the sample is below.

To explain (and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand), the median of the fifty states is that 25 are above the median and 25 are below it. See how that works?

Here's a simpler example in case you're still confused:

Steve makes $5/hour

Bob makes $8/hour

Reggie makes $11/hour

Sylvana makes $14/hour

Benoit makes $17/hour

The median wage is then $11.00/hour. Get it now?

Check out this very complex page[0] (let me know if you need help with the bigger words) that discusses this idea. Good luck. I suspect you're gonna need it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_tendency

[mothballed]

>I wonder where you went to school. Median means that half of the sample is above and half the sample is below.

Yes I understand that, but the sample unit called out in finding the median explicitly was 'schools' not median 'state.' (And before that, test scores, in which the fundamental unit is a child and not a state).

I was trying to come up with an explanation how CA could be at the bottom while still have schools around the median.

If NY/CA/FL/TX are huge and tight to together, the median school or child could be in one of them even if they were amongst the worst 5 or 10 states. The 'median' as used above was in reference to schools, not states.

I think the key piece you're missing here is each state does not have equal number of schools or children. Therefore if a state's schools are all scoring near the median (of schools) as alleged, and the large states are all doing bad, California could be one of the worst few states while having their schools (and children) near the median. You're getting your units mixed up.

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>California schools generally score right at or just below the median for the entire US.

I'm guessing you're referring to the statement above from the comment here[0]. Is that correct?

I read that as "[All] The schools in California [in aggregate] generally score right at or just below the median for [other states' schools in aggregate] for the entire US." Which is as Tyr42 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45191847 ) interpreted it as well.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I don't believe I've ever seen comparisons of individual schools across the US. Ever. It's always comparisons of all the schools in one state as compared with those in another state.

Sure, there are often comparisons within states between school districts or between schools in the same district, but never one-to-one comparisons of a single school in one state vs. all the other schools in the US.

But yes, i can see how you might read it that way. That said, I guess we won't know which GP meant unless they come back and tell us.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45190611

Edit: Clarified comparison examples within within states/between school districts/schools.

[bsder]

> I read that as "[All] The schools in California [in aggregate] generally score right at or just below the median for [other states' schools in aggregate] for the entire US."

That is how I intended it as, like you, I have never seen anything else.

However, the real comment I was refuting was "This is in California where the test scores are some of the worst in the nation." That statement simply isn't supported by the data.

It is certainly possible that California does have some of the worst individual districts in the nation as it definitely has pockets of incredibly poor socioeconomic areas. However, that does not define "California schools" as an aggregate any more than the fact that California has some of the highest individually performing schools in the country by virtue of demographics as well.

[mothballed]

I think the way you read it is the more likely way to read it. But the way I read it for my comment was the way I had to read it to come up with California coming at the bottom while having schools all scoring near the median of schools. I was trying to come up with a way to read it to make the assertions possibly true.