6 ms·

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

by vondur 1y ago

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.

bsder 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      I was thinking median meant enough population of below states to reach half of populace, are doing worse.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_tendency
    - mothballed 1y ago
      >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 1y ago
        >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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45190611 Edit: Clarified comparison examples within within states/between school districts/schools.
teachrdan 1y ago
> 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-scores/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-k-12-test-score...
- verteu 1y ago
  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-best https://www.chadaldeman.com/p/which-states-actually-have-the... https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/States_Demographically_Adjusted_Performance_on_the_2022_Nations_Report_Card.pdf https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/States_Dem...
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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.
xenobeb 1y ago
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.

by vondur 1y ago

bsder 1y ago

> 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 1y ago
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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    I was thinking median meant enough population of below states to reach half of populace, are doing worse.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_tendency
  - mothballed 1y ago
    >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 1y ago
      >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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45190611 Edit: Clarified comparison examples within within states/between school districts/schools.

teachrdan 1y ago

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

verteu 1y ago
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-best https://www.chadaldeman.com/p/which-states-actually-have-the... https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/States_Demographically_Adjusted_Performance_on_the_2022_Nations_Report_Card.pdf https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/States_Dem...
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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.

xenobeb 1y ago

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.