Hacker News Reader

> "Your children aren't just dumber, they're also poorer" feels like a very spicy way to elevate the status of a state to me.

Would this comment have been made if we were talking about The Bronx instead of Mississippi?

The author is saying that given the poverty status of the state it's remarkable how quickly they've been able to turn their education system around. A really good school in The Bronx will have lower scores than a mediocre school in Upper Manhattan, but that doesn't mean that we should all go out and emulate the mediocre school in Upper Manhattan. The really good school in The Bronx is obviously the better model.

The author's initial point is correct, though: because it's Mississippi we're talking about that intuition doesn't apply. It's okay to diss on Mississippi for being Mississippi.

Mississippi is largely poor because it never industrialized before industrial jobs started getting automated away or off shored.

I think it's interested that they're now investing heavily in early reading education, teacher training, and holding kids back who need more time to learn to read. They've also focused on evidence based reading curriculum which is great. It seems like they're starting to show progress and some of those lessons might be applicable in other states. Maryland as the article points out does a terrible job teaching poor kids to read, just abysmal and its a very rich state.

It seems like a decent way to compare schools' performance, just not really any good for pupils or 'education levels'.

It's truly remarkable how much compassion liberals purport to have for the poor before, apparently without any self-awareness, saying something like this.

> This article is advocating that using poverty-adjusted scores is a better way to assess student education levels. I just can't agree with that.

No, it's advocating that this is a better way of assessing the quality of the education they receive. And it is.

Rich kids in bad schools can score higher on tests than poor kids in good schools. If you want to isolate the quality of the schooling this is what you do.

> Pardon me, but 20% of your children living in poverty is my personal exact definition for an embarrassing cultural backwater.

First, this has nothing to do with the article, which is about education.

Second, perhaps without knowing it, you're spouting a classic white supremacist take: black people (there are much more in Alabama and Mississippi) are poor because they have a bad culture. If they just stopped sagging their pants and walking out on their kids like the good whites they'd be better off. Even if the intent was to direct this at the poor white people, it's still racist.

Perhaps you should consider that the people who live and struggle in other states are deserving of compassion, not derision. Yes, even if they believe different things from you, or have less money. Practice empathy.

Compassion for the people, yes. None at all for the state that has again decided that funding for school lunches for poor children is beneath their let-them-starve ideology.

Perhaps you should consider who is responsible for wellness programs in the state instead of deciding that your "this is racist" hammer is the only tool needed. Children live in poverty because the government decides it's ok. Trying to connect what I said to race identity politics is projection.

You wrote "culture." If you meant "politics," then write that. I'm not capable of reading your mind. Accusing me of projecting when you invoked "culture" to explain poverty in a state like Mississippi is hilarious. It's a common trope, you didn't question the accuracy of the connection, and if you'd used a different term I wouldn't have commented on it.

I encourage you to respond to the article and what people say, not what you think they believe. I've been a registered democrat my entire life, and I live in a red state. I don't need to "consider who is responsible" for policies, they're my neighbors and friends, and I have compassion for them even when I disagree with them or think their preferred policies hurt people.