[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

MA and NJ almost always place higher in rankings than CT and NH has placed higher several times recently. Which data source do you have lists CT as #1 for public schools?

US News has it as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut. That includes colleges.

For just pre-K through 12, US News has it as New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut

Of course, all K-12 public education is local and mostly depend on socioeconomic status. Claremont, NH schools won't win any prize. Ditto Camden, NJ or Chelsea, MA. It's all about being able to buy your way into the town with the good school system. Low income people are shut out of those places and they tend to not have much affordable housing.

Connecticut is stuffed full of affluent leafy suburbs that all have top school systems. States that rank at the bottom also have towns with good school systems, just a lot less of them.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

US News has it as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut. That includes colleges.

For just pre-K through 12, US News has it as New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut

Of course, all K-12 public education is local and mostly depend on socioeconomic status. Claremont, NH schools won't win any prize. Ditto Camden, NJ or Chelsea, MA. It's all about being able to buy your way into the town with the good school system. Low income people are shut out of those places and they tend to not have much affordable housing.

Connecticut is stuffed full of affluent leafy suburbs that all have top school systems. States that rank at the bottom also have towns with good school systems, just a lot less of them.

And a lot of those states don't have the same high percentage of urban poverty existing in CT to drag it down in the rankings (maybe NJ).

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

And a lot of those states don't have the same high percentage of urban poverty existing in CT to drag it down in the rankings (maybe NJ).

New Hampshire has no real cities. Manchester is it and it's only 110,000. No argument there. The state is lilly white and has seen limited immigration.

Connecticut doesn't have a monopoly on urban poverty. Massachusetts has their lengthy list of high poverty rate cities and some really sketchy heroin enclave towns. Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, Lawrence, Brockton, ... New Jersey is also stuffed full of failed cities. Camden is worse than anything in New England. Atlantic City, Asbury Park, Newark/Patterson, Trenton.

High poverty rate cities have lousy school systems. It doesn't matter where you are in the country and state government has little to do with it. It's the parents, not state and local spending.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

New Hampshire has no real cities. Manchester is it and it's only 110,000. No argument there. The state is lilly white and has seen limited immigration.

Connecticut doesn't have a monopoly on urban poverty. Massachusetts has their lengthy list of high poverty rate cities and some really sketchy heroin enclave towns. Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, Lawrence, Brockton, ... New Jersey is also stuffed full of failed cities. Camden is worse than anything in New England. Atlantic City, Asbury Park, Newark/Patterson, Trenton.

High poverty rate cities have lousy school systems. It doesn't matter where you are in the country and state government has little to do with it. It's the parents, not state and local spending.

True, but if you do a search on the states with the largest wealth gap, Connecticut is it. That certainly affects the rankings when it comes to overall public school performance.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

True, but if you do a search on the states with the largest wealth gap, Connecticut is it. That certainly affects the rankings when it comes to overall public school performance.

Metro Boston claims the largest wealth gap. I don't see much difference between Mass, CT, and NJ. They all have massively affluent 'burbs and hell hole failed urban areas. I don't see the point in ranking what are #1A, #1B, and #1C.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Metro Boston claims the largest wealth gap. I don't see much difference between Mass, CT, and NJ. They all have massively affluent 'burbs and hell hole failed urban areas. I don't see the point in ranking what are #1A, #1B, and #1C.

First, I said state, not metro area. But if you want to go there, MA doesn't rank in the top 5 states with a wealth gap.

But since you brought up metro area, Bridgeport/Stamford MSA ranks as the area with the biggest divide between haves and have nots. Boston isn't even in the top 10 (see attachment below).

This means two things. CT's wealthy is very wealthy, and CT's poor is very poor. Again, and back to my main point, this very much affects how our public schools are ranked on a national level - especially when being compared to less diverse states like New Hampshire.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Again, and back to my main point, this very much affects how our public schools are ranked on a national level - especially when being compared to less diverse states like New Hampshire.

And my main point which completely disagrees with you. In most of the United States, public school systems are 100% local. State rankings are meaningless. What you care about is the quality of the school system in the town where you live. You can be next to a failed city with an awful school system and it doesn't matter if you're in the professional person enclave next door insulated from it. Would you put kids in the Bridgeport or Waterbury or Hartford public school system? I doubt it.

[synchem]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Sorry, just had to correct these misstatements. I've driven Boston - Hartford back & forth probably 100+ times...no way is it shorter than 100 min (under best of conditions)...many times closer to 2 hrs. Also San Fran to Cupertino is 45 miles, much of that is a reverse commute, so you're talking 1 hr tops.

I lived in Boston for 5 years, and drove back to Windsor/Hartford area 2-3 times a month. Most of the time the drive was 1 hour 40 minutes +/- 5 minutes. Of course there'd be the times of traffic which would be longer, but a normal drive was definitely 100 minutes for us.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by synchem

I lived in Boston for 5 years, and drove back to Windsor/Hartford area 2-3 times a month. Most of the time the drive was 1 hour 40 minutes +/- 5 minutes. Of course there'd be the times of traffic which would be longer, but a normal drive was definitely 100 minutes for us.

I have driven in Boston during the AM + PM rush hours, and its the only place I've seen where the EZ pass lanes were longer than the cash lanes at the tolls.

Since MA switched to all electronic tolls I would assume this doesn't happen any more.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

And my main point which completely disagrees with you. In most of the United States, public school systems are 100% local. State rankings are meaningless. What you care about is the quality of the school system in the town where you live. You can be next to a failed city with an awful school system and it doesn't matter if you're in the professional person enclave next door insulated from it. Would you put kids in the Bridgeport or Waterbury or Hartford public school system? I doubt it.

You're missing my point. I don't disagree with what you stated above. My initial comment noted how CT's extreme wealth gap - largest in the nation - affects where our state stands on the list of public school rankings. You began to refute that by saying MA's wealth gap is greater, which statistically, it doesn't come close. I stand by my original statement.

I'm not saying rankings are meaningful or that they should be taken seriously. The extreme poverty affects our rankings. Nothing more, nothing less.