I think it is wrong to judge the effectiveness of a state's school system on a single metric. Indeed, Mississippi did have a surge in reading and math when the state did what all nations that have high achievement do. They created high expectations and created highly trained teachers in the science of reading (not comprehensively highly trained teachers). Mississippi's surge in achievement levels out after 8th grade. Other nations with high achievement devote adequate resources and hold teachers in high esteem. The US has not learned that lesson yet.
I think it’s important to talk about Mississippi and Louisiana, as Chad’s piece did. If you look at Louisiana and Tennessee, we get a broader picture and we see evidence of gains in upper grades.
Note that MS also began showing progress in 8th grade in the most recent NAEP cycle… nothing like its 4th grade progress, but that is to be expected if you look closely at the sequence of its reforms. Mississippi was late to knowledge-building curriculum, so the state is playing catch-up on comprehension.
Disability services are only one portion of special needs. You ignore IEP's and other classifications. You're using invalid statistical methods, cherry-picking, and using confirmation bias to draw your conclusions.
Yet you base your premise on a single year's results, when they could very well be statistical outliers. But even if MS's improvement trend is sustainable, it's not a zero-sum game. Mississippians improvements doesn't imply New Jersey's failure. We simply have a hugely higher cost of living than MS, as I mention below. The Yankees lost the World Series in 2024 and were knocked out this year. Does that mean they're not the most successful baseball team? Come on, man.
It's never been a secret that urban, POC's lag academically. But it won't change the cost of educating affluent suburban children by sucking local public districts budgets off with vouchers.
Do you actually have a plan to raise POC performance? I'll wait. Republicans have controlled the governor's mansion for many years, and yet, here we are.
Let's not beat around the bush. You'll never get me to vote Republican, because your educational reform agenda, which includes union-busting and vouchers will simply drain public education funding in the name of "choice". So take off the veil. You know it. And tell that to your buddies at WUCNJ who love to quote you.
As expected, this is typical MAGA cherry-picked data with flimsy, superficial analysis, basing an entire state's progress on one favorable data point. A few minutes of research reveals one item that NJ taxpayers get for its school spending: Special Education support. If your kid has special needs, you don't want him or her anywhere near Mississippi, and if you care about other families' kids, you're a solid contributor to "the village" that takes care of ALL of our children.
"Mississippi spends the least on special education among states analyzed, with an average of $5,265 per pupil in a 2024 report. Overall, public schools in Mississippi received $1.3 billion in federal funds for the 2021-22 school year, which includes funding for special education, but this is part of a broader national picture where special education costs can be a burden on state and local budgets." -- https://bellwether.org/publications/who-pays-for-special-education/?activeTab=1
Compare that to NJ:
For the 2021-2022 school year, the average budgetary cost per special education pupil was $18,208.
We're an affluent state, and we can afford to help our neediest. But that means we have to spend more. This price doesn't show up in NAEP scores.
I don't have time nor can I fit more into this little box. But maybe others can join in.
Oh - and for "copying playbooks"? Nice try, but it's the other way around. NJ is already near the top. Mississippi has learned from NJ, not vice versa.
One reason I prefer looking at income categories is because it's hard to compare students with disabilities across states given the different identification strategies. For example, New Jersey identifies a higher percentage of students for disability services (18 percent versus 16 in MS and 13 in LA). Does that mean NJ has more students in need, or do they use different criteria?
Disability services are just one portion of special needs issues. You ignore IEP's and other classifications, such as behavioral and learning issues. You don't include the enormous cost in supporting these children, with their lower teacher-student ratios, transportation, security, and even capital costs. New Jersey is among the top states tending to ASD, and is why it's a magnet state for parents of kids on the spectrum.
As for cost per child, there's context: you can't ignore New Jersey's cost of living and wage scales. Do you actually believe a New Jersey staffer (faculty, administrator, or bus drivers alike) can raise families on a Mississippi median income of $38,000/year, when NJ's is around $55K?.
You're using invalid statistical methods by cherry-picking one cohort (4th graders) and one testing year, and using confirmation bias to draw these specious conclusions. Fourth grade scores are only a part of the picture, and concluding that one testing year implies a trend is a stretch. But it's a convenient and exploitable political wedge issue
It's great that MS has improved. Let's see if that is sustainable. New Jersey has been consistent for decades.
If you are genuine in wanting to lower overhead in NJ education, consider consolidating schools by gluing together regional school districts, but New Jerseyans are stubborn, self-protective, xenophobic home-rulers and the haves would prefer to pay more, and have-nots simply can't. But voucher programs, which is the underlying subtext in ALL these complaints, would be disastrous.
Bravo!! Thank you for this breakdown! It's the same story, if not worse, in Wisconsin.
The variation in costs is another unbelievable metric. What do we "get" for our investments?
Kinda makes you wanna repurpose Nina Simone's, "Mississippi Goddam" into "Mississippi, hell yeah!"
I think it is wrong to judge the effectiveness of a state's school system on a single metric. Indeed, Mississippi did have a surge in reading and math when the state did what all nations that have high achievement do. They created high expectations and created highly trained teachers in the science of reading (not comprehensively highly trained teachers). Mississippi's surge in achievement levels out after 8th grade. Other nations with high achievement devote adequate resources and hold teachers in high esteem. The US has not learned that lesson yet.
I think it’s important to talk about Mississippi and Louisiana, as Chad’s piece did. If you look at Louisiana and Tennessee, we get a broader picture and we see evidence of gains in upper grades.
Note that MS also began showing progress in 8th grade in the most recent NAEP cycle… nothing like its 4th grade progress, but that is to be expected if you look closely at the sequence of its reforms. Mississippi was late to knowledge-building curriculum, so the state is playing catch-up on comprehension.
I wrote about all of the above here:
https://www.karenvaites.org/p/the-southern-surge-understanding
Disability services are only one portion of special needs. You ignore IEP's and other classifications. You're using invalid statistical methods, cherry-picking, and using confirmation bias to draw your conclusions.
Lies, damnable lies, and rotten statistics.
You should read the research before you cast stones. The Urban Institute report I cited includes and controls for IEP status: https://apps.urban.org/features/naep/naep-technical-appendix.pdf
Yet you base your premise on a single year's results, when they could very well be statistical outliers. But even if MS's improvement trend is sustainable, it's not a zero-sum game. Mississippians improvements doesn't imply New Jersey's failure. We simply have a hugely higher cost of living than MS, as I mention below. The Yankees lost the World Series in 2024 and were knocked out this year. Does that mean they're not the most successful baseball team? Come on, man.
It's never been a secret that urban, POC's lag academically. But it won't change the cost of educating affluent suburban children by sucking local public districts budgets off with vouchers.
Do you actually have a plan to raise POC performance? I'll wait. Republicans have controlled the governor's mansion for many years, and yet, here we are.
Let's not beat around the bush. You'll never get me to vote Republican, because your educational reform agenda, which includes union-busting and vouchers will simply drain public education funding in the name of "choice". So take off the veil. You know it. And tell that to your buddies at WUCNJ who love to quote you.
Edited.
As expected, this is typical MAGA cherry-picked data with flimsy, superficial analysis, basing an entire state's progress on one favorable data point. A few minutes of research reveals one item that NJ taxpayers get for its school spending: Special Education support. If your kid has special needs, you don't want him or her anywhere near Mississippi, and if you care about other families' kids, you're a solid contributor to "the village" that takes care of ALL of our children.
"Mississippi spends the least on special education among states analyzed, with an average of $5,265 per pupil in a 2024 report. Overall, public schools in Mississippi received $1.3 billion in federal funds for the 2021-22 school year, which includes funding for special education, but this is part of a broader national picture where special education costs can be a burden on state and local budgets." -- https://bellwether.org/publications/who-pays-for-special-education/?activeTab=1
Compare that to NJ:
For the 2021-2022 school year, the average budgetary cost per special education pupil was $18,208.
We're an affluent state, and we can afford to help our neediest. But that means we have to spend more. This price doesn't show up in NAEP scores.
I don't have time nor can I fit more into this little box. But maybe others can join in.
Oh - and for "copying playbooks"? Nice try, but it's the other way around. NJ is already near the top. Mississippi has learned from NJ, not vice versa.
One reason I prefer looking at income categories is because it's hard to compare students with disabilities across states given the different identification strategies. For example, New Jersey identifies a higher percentage of students for disability services (18 percent versus 16 in MS and 13 in LA). Does that mean NJ has more students in need, or do they use different criteria?
There's some great visuals here about how students with disabilities identification choices vary across states --> https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/alexander.kurz/viz/UNLOCKINGPOTENTIALSpecialEducationDataCenter/Landing
Disability services are just one portion of special needs issues. You ignore IEP's and other classifications, such as behavioral and learning issues. You don't include the enormous cost in supporting these children, with their lower teacher-student ratios, transportation, security, and even capital costs. New Jersey is among the top states tending to ASD, and is why it's a magnet state for parents of kids on the spectrum.
As for cost per child, there's context: you can't ignore New Jersey's cost of living and wage scales. Do you actually believe a New Jersey staffer (faculty, administrator, or bus drivers alike) can raise families on a Mississippi median income of $38,000/year, when NJ's is around $55K?.
You're using invalid statistical methods by cherry-picking one cohort (4th graders) and one testing year, and using confirmation bias to draw these specious conclusions. Fourth grade scores are only a part of the picture, and concluding that one testing year implies a trend is a stretch. But it's a convenient and exploitable political wedge issue
It's great that MS has improved. Let's see if that is sustainable. New Jersey has been consistent for decades.
If you are genuine in wanting to lower overhead in NJ education, consider consolidating schools by gluing together regional school districts, but New Jerseyans are stubborn, self-protective, xenophobic home-rulers and the haves would prefer to pay more, and have-nots simply can't. But voucher programs, which is the underlying subtext in ALL these complaints, would be disastrous.
.
I enjoyed reading your article
and also, thanks NJ for sending all those tax dollars that way