You do realize that statistics like this consisting of the agglomeration of a bunch of fairly diverse numbers are almost completely worthless, don’t you? If you seriously wanted to analyze the educational system of each state, you would have to look at each number separately. I have no complete explanation for the overall ratings, but generally (not always, I say, but generally) the higher the average income in the state the higher the overall rating. Calling the overall ratings a measure of the “stupidity” of a state is utter nonsense.
You know, now that you pointed that out, it really doesn’t make sense to call a state ‘smart’ or ‘stupid’ based on those education statistics. And one certainly couldn’t make any conclusions about an individual’s intelligence based on these rankings.
Thanks for the insight, Mr. Wagner. Are you by any chance originally from Connecticut?
In fact, if you look at the factors (see happyheathen’s links), you’ll note that funding issues make up 5 of 21 factors, whereas proficiancy testing makes up only 4. Class size is another 3. I believe that Japan and South Korea, both way ahead of us in standardized tests, would find themselves pretty low on this food chain. I haven’t seen any indication that there are weights attached to any of these factors, but the results surprised me. Then again, I was educated by #38, #37, and #29, so I may not have the brain power to figger out these fancy numbers. C’mon, people! Arkansas as high as #38?
Woohoo! #3! I’m actually fairly stunned by that ranking, as Montana’s educational system is perpetually underfunded.
Wow Wendell, let me guess without looking…
Maryland > #25? 
I moved from State #4 (MA) to #26??
Hmmph. I’m a bus ride away from Bronx Science (alma mater) and a train ride away from Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Tech. Shouldn’t they bring up the average a bit? All public schools.
And my (parochial) elem school had about 40 kids in each class–bad!! But we had caring teachers, parents who wouldn’t tolerate slacking off, a strong immigrant-striving karma, and a desire to go to a good high school and get the hell out of the Bronx. Nobody did NOT go to HS and most went on to college, too.
In fact, where is the “Get the hell out of ______?” factor in that study?
Mee to, butt my edjucashun iz guud, thow.
heresiarch and lieu,
Do you have something you want to say to me? Then just say it and cut out these snide implications.
Oops. I was trying to making a joke.
For the record, I agree with your post and I didn’t mean any offense.
Wendell, Maybe you missed the smiley face?
Were the distribution of federal monies to be based on this silly ranking, I’d understand your vitrol. As it stands, it’s simply a way for posters to point at themselves and laugh.
Well, at least most of us.
Actually, as a product of those schools (up until 8th grade), I am not so surprised. I think that educational objectives are much easier to meet in small schools, of which Montana has plenty. For example, my school district had, in the 1980’s, about 40 kids per grade, and it was considered a “B” size school (for athletics)–“C” schools were even smaller!
My school was also surprisingly strict for a public school. For example, in junior high, my school maintained an “ineligible list” from week to week. If you were not doing well enough in two subjects, your name was put on the list, and you were not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities that week. Believe me, that was a powerful motivator to shape up! (The list was public, too, so avoiding humiliation was enough for some, whether you were in sports/other activities or not!) Compare this to my high school in Minnesota (#12–not bad, but still…), which determined athletic eligibility by the academic quarter. Well, by then, your grades are already shot, and there’s no way to improve them. It’s accountability like that that makes a good school, and I don’t think that costs much money.
I would also guess that Montana (and Connecticut and Vermont, for that matter), have a lot less “diversity” than most states. There were poor kids in my classes, but those kids were a lot like me otherwise–overwhelmingly white, spoke English at home, had a home to go to, etc. Their parents were even well-educated in some cases–the economy was just all shot to hell. It’s probably much easier to teach chldren like that than children who, for instance, come to the US as refugees and whose parents don’t speak English at all.