[fncypants]

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.

[nixon_why69]

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.

[walthamstow]

> we've had many generations as a developed nation now

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.

[nixon_why69]

You're right, but "don't blame us, we were investing our energy in oppressing the blacks" isn't really the greatest excuse for cotton belt states when it comes to their education and gdp numbers.

[gruez]

> we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes.

Does this explain the gap between white/black poverty too?

[squeefers]

> your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes.

bad teachers dont make an area poor. a poor area doesnt have the money for good teachers, youve got it the wrong way around.

[bluGill]

Teachers generally make the same in a suburb as in an inner city school. In the Des Moines area all schools get the same amount of money per student, but you still see suburbs outperforming the city schools. I don't know what the problem is, but this disproves the money is the problem theory.

[squeefers]

he said the link was with poverty and education outcomes, not school funding and education outcomes

[the_sleaze_]

No, gp is correct. Good public education is a profoundly good indicator of economic prosperity, though it is a long term investment.

[squeefers]

> Good public education is a profoundly good indicator of economic prosperity

well yeah.... because for good schools you need good money. no money = bad schools. good schools dont appear in poor areas. thats the connection.

[gruez]

>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.

[ch4s3]

> 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.

[bell-cot]

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.