"Yankees": Legends in their Own Minds
YANKEES & CHILD ABUSE
In spite of their absolutely miserable record in "education, "Yankees" [read: the arrogant Americans who occupy the New York area and continue to push their failed education concepts on the rest of unwilling Americans, two thirds of whom view sodomy as a "civil right", and who just became the 13th state to pass a "gay rights" law] have saddled the entire US population [more than two thirds of whom oppose legalized sodomy] with their bizarre and failed policies, yet continue to insist that their approach to education is a success. Could there be a more heinous form of child abuse than to leave the nation's children dead last in the world in education, other than to refuse to admit it's true, demand ever more money in spite of their clear and evident colossal failure, and insult anyone who dares to challenge their holey grail?
MONEY DECREASES EDUCATION QUALITY
Adding more money to education has never improved it, and it never will. Just the reverse is shown to be true around the country and around the world. As the cost of primary and secondary education in the US increased from 4.8% to 7.8% of GDP, SAT scores decreased 98 points. Across states, each $45/year increase in the cost of education per student follows a 1 point decrease in SAT Math scores. Across nations, TIMSS Math scores increase 40 points for each 1% of GDP decrease in education spending.
No state spent more per student than New Jersey for education in 1998, a whopping $10,233 per student (17 times as much as the average annual income of blacks in Africa), even though New Yersey consistently scores in the lowest quartile in most standardized tests. That same year, Utah spent only 42% as much per student, or only $4,256, yet Utah consistently scores at or near the top tenth percentile. South Dakota spent half as much per student as New Jersey, at $5,281, yet consistently occupies the top spot on numerous tests. The District of Columbia always scores dead last, yet they spent almost as much as New Jeresey, at $9,225 per student.
What has New Jersey accomplished with this astounding advance in the cost of education? In 1975, their combined SAT score was 213 points lower than Iowa, and in 1993 it was 211 points lower. In 2000, with only 4% of New Jersey students taking the ACT, they scored lower than 35 states, whereas with 69% of their students taking the test, Iowa scored higher than 34 states.
TWO OUT OF FIVE TEENS IN NEW JERSEY DIDN'T EVEN GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL
There were only 65,106 high school graduates in New Jersey in 1998, which means that 44% of 17 year olds in New Jersey weren't even enrolled in high school, nor did they even graduate, which is an even bigger indictment of the failure of the "yankee" education strategy than their poor performance on standardized tests. Failing to graduate almost half of the children in the state is evidence of a very serious problem with their education strategy which completely discredits any "advice" that "yankees" might ever hope to provide to the rest of the country.
If there is a rule of thumb about education spending and education quality, it's that the less government is involved in education, the better the education of our children. Another rule would be to ignore any suggestion made by a "yankee".
[see also http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/dt168.html ]
US DEAD LAST ON TIMSS--TWICE
TIMSS math which our 8th graders took in 1995 and 1999 demonstrated that our ranking in the world remained the same. 27 countries scored higher in 1995, and 18 scored higher in 1999, but 9 that scored higher in 1995 didn't take the 1999 test--Switzerland, Austria, France, Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. One country that scored lower in 1995 scored higher in 1999, and 3 that scored higher in 1995 scored lower in 1999, but two countries which didn't take the 1995 test scored significantly higher in 1999--Chinese Taipei by 83 points and Malaysia by 17 points.
THE PHONY INCREASE IN SAT SCORES
Of the 13 points that SAT math scores in the US are said to have increased between 1988 and 2000, 7 of them were between 1995 and 1999, suggesting that this increase was due to recentering and other changes in the test rather than any improvement in the quality of US education. Furthermore, by scoring more than 85 TIMSS math points lower than Korea on two separate tests, we proved that a 13 point increase, even if it was an indication of an improvement in education quality, wouldn't even begin to correct the error even if it was a reverse of the 40 year downward trend in test scores.
THE PHONY INCREASE IN NAEP SCORES
NAEP Math scores are also said to have increased 13 points, from 271 in 1990 to 2000 in 2000, but this too is the result of a change in the test or the way the test is administered or reported, rather than an improvement in the quality of education. North Carolina reported a 30 point increase, and Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia reported an increase of 13 or more points. In 1990, North Carolina scored second to last at 250.4, only 30.7 points lower than North Dakota, at 281.1, so this 30 point "increase" represented a difference equivalent to the entire spectrum of scores across the nation in 1990. Because the average national increase was 13 points, North Carolina didn't score first in 2000, but of the states whose scores were reported that year, only 8 states scored higher.
THE PHONY EXCUSE ABOUT TOO MANY STUDENTS TAKING THE TEST
The Pavlovian Dog reaction of students and educators in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, who always score in the lowest quartile in the nation in SAT math, is to claim that a higher percentage of their students take the SAT test than in states like Iowa. But this obviously ignores that only 13 states score lower than New Jersey in ACT Composite which only 4% of New Jersey's students take. In this event, their Pavlovian Dog Reaction is to claim that the ACT test isn't as important to them as other standardized tests.
Thus, nobody is permitted to judge them by either their low SAT or ACT scores for reasons that THEY are permitted to criticize states with better education policies.
They have consistently scored 504 plus or minus 8 points since 1987 on the recentered SAT-I scale. A higher percentage of New Jersey's students took the test in 2000, but New Jersey scored 7 SAT Math points higher than New York that year, and Rhode Island had a fewer percentage of students participate in SAT, but they still scored 6 SAT math points lower than New York, which indicates that the percent of test takers is not the only factor.
MANIPULATING THE NAEP SCORES
Because the 2000 NAEP math scores for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were not reported, we don't know how much their scores "improved" since 1990, but we do know that Rhode Island, who consistently scores within 8 points of these other four states in SAT math (and who scored higher than New Jersey in 1988) scored 273 in NAEP math in 2000, an "improvement" of 13 points since 1990, a period of time during which their SAT Math score "increased" only 4 points, from 496 to 500.
New York's 1990 NAEP math score of 260.8 was consistent with other states that year--Rhode Island = 260.0, Delaware = 260.7, and New Jersey = 269.7, as well as with the SAT math scores for those states that year (New York = 495, New Jersey = 495, Rhode Island = 496, Pennsylvania = 489, and Delaware = 493).
New York's 2000 NAEP math score of 276, a 15.2 point increase since 1990, is completely inexplicable, and it's inconsistent with the SAT Math scores for that year (New Jersey = 513, New York = 506, Rhode Island = 500, Pennsylvania = 497, and Delaware = 496). Where in 1990 New York ranked 18th from the bottom of 37 states whose NAEP math scores were reported and 12th from the bottom of 50 states in SAT math, in 2000 it ranked 24th from the bottom of 40 states whose NAEP math scores were reported, while it still ranked 12th from the bottom in SAT math.
LOW NAEP AND ACT SCORES CAN'T BE EXPLAINED ONLY BY BLACKS
When broken down by race, Whites in Rhode Island score only 281 in NAEP math, which is 5 or more points lower than Whites in 14 other states and 10 points lower than Whites in Minnesota. This means that, not only does this doubled education cost not benefit minority groups, but Whites themselves are evidently shortchanged by OVER-spending for education.
The lowest scoring Whites at 269 are in Mississippi, who score 25 points lower than Whites in Connecticut, at 294. The highest scoring blacks are in Oregon, at 260, who score 9 points lower than Whites in Mississippi and 34 points lower than Whites in Connecticut. The lowest scoring blacks at 235 are in Arkansas, who score 59 points lower than Whites in Connecticut. The highest scoring Hispanics at 276 are in Montana, who score 7 points higher than Whites in Mississippi and 18 points lower than Whites in Connecticut. The lowest scoring Hispanics at 227 are in Mississippi, who score 8 points lower than the lowest scoring blacks, 33 points lower than the highest scoring blacks, 42 points lower than the lowest scoring Whites, and 67 points lower than the highest scoring Whites (which is the widest spectrum of NAEP math scores).
If the only reason for the 10 point difference between Minnesota and Rhode Island is the percentage of jews in Rhode Island who are counted as "White", then the scores for jews would have to be 191 if 10% of the "Whites" in Rhode Island are in fact jews, and 241 if the percentage of jews is actually 20%.
NEW JERSEY JEWS: RECORD HOLDERS IN EDUCATION FAILURE
To spend $10,000 per student per year for education, almost twice as much as North Dakota which consistently scores MUCH higher than New York (20.7 points higher in 1990 and 7 points higher in 2000 in NAEP math, and 112 and 103 in SAT math), requires an explanation. To spend an extra $5,000 per student per year for education only to produce some of the lowest scoring students in the nation is all the proof the rest of the country needs to know that the Ritalin prescribed by jewish "doctors" and "psychiatrists" is a first class crime. There is another factor at work, and that other factor is jews. Officially, jews are only 5.7% of New Jersey's population, which means that the only way to explain New Jersey's extraordinarily low scores and high education spending is that jews have VERY low standardized test scores. Explaining New Jersey's low ACT scores requires us to estimate that jews score 17.7--slightly higher than blacks at 17 but lower than Hispanics at 18.7 and considerably lower than Asians at 21.7.
THE CALMING EFFECT OF FEDERAL WELFARE DOLLARS
How did New Jersey manage to spend so much to produce so little? Federal funding. New Jersey is a welfare state whose fear of losing federal funding far exceeds any concern for the quality of their own children's education, as evidenced by the following revealing statement from their chapter of the League of Women Voters:
Aha. So this is the little trick with "public education"! New Jersey spends two and a half times as much as Utah per student for education because taxpayers in Utah have been subsidizing the STUPID citizens of New Jersey who STILL can't even figure out how to use those extra Utah tax dollars to even educate their own children. As the League of Women Voters revealed, "public education" is about welfare and the free lunch, not education. This is just one example where the donor states are forced to subsidize welfare states like New Jersey. This completely explains the otherwise inexplicable attitude of Yankees that "welfare is a right". This explains why women in New Jersey are more concerned about getting welfare from the federal government than about educating their children--since they've been getting away with this for a century now, it's become an "entitlement" [or a "free lunch" in their vernacular].
AN AMORAL STATE OF AFFAIRS
How much should a Christian in Utah be forced to pay to teach a moron's child in New Jersey that "homosexuality is a civil right"? Nothing. In fact, what the morons in Jew Jersey ought to do is take a lesson from Christians in Utah who have both educated their children and done it at almost a third the cost. All residents of New Jersey, and not just their children, need an education for a change, not ever more free lunches and welfare dollars.
Could New Jersey get by with only $4,256 per student? Of course. If Utah can, then New Jersey can. Would this destroy their education system? It couldn't possibly get worse, and if they finally realized the error of their ways, it would inevitably get better. It would also do much to normalize the artificially, hyper-inflated "cost of living" of these welfare states.
DOES CUTTING COSTS DECREASE QUALITY?
What does New Jersey have to show for its 26 fold increase in the cost of educating a child between 1959 and 1998 (from $388 to $10,233)? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Or less than nothing? Even when adjusted for inflation, New Jersey's cost increases stand out like a sore thumb, up almost five fold (from $2,133 to $10,233), compared to less than 2 1/2 times in Utah (from $1,775 to $4,256).
What did New Jersey do with that extra $8,100 per child? TO MAKE THEM EVEN DUMBER? It's impossible that they had "education" of their children in mind when they QUINTUPLED the dollars they spend for "education" at the same time that their scores went DOWN to the bottom tier. If anything, the actual cost to *educate* a child actually decreased to perhaps $1,000, whereas it's the other $9,233 which is used to undo what they originally taught them.
A simple projection of the trend suggests that the cost per student in New Jersey is now in excess of $16,000, compared to less than $6,000 in Utah, which means that New Jersey now spends more than $10,000 more than Utah for each "student", making New Jersey the welfare queen of the universe, even worse than Israel. With 1.3 million students enrolled in public schools, this welfare queen costs American taxpayers an EXTRA $13 billion each year, compared to "only" $12 billion in "foreign aid" to Israel.
It's hard to imagine which is the worst investment.
In 1969 there were 1,322,124 students enrolled in New Jersey's public elementary and secondary schools and New Jersey spent only $1,343,564,000 for education, or $1,016 per student. But by 2000, New Jersey had managed to increase its education spending ten fold to $13,327,645,000 at the same time that the number of students enrolled in their schools decreased by 8% to only 1,222,438, leaving New Jersey's cost of education at $10,905 per student. Thus New Jersey, which was already spending 10 times as much for education as North Dakota, increased it's education spending per student by almost 11 TIMES.
Conversely, the 105,123 students in North Dakota's schools in 2000 cost only $638,946,000, or $6,078 per student, students who consistently score at the TOP end of the standardized tests, whereas the much costlier students in New Jersey consistently score at the BOTTOM end. Utah spends even less than North Dakota, at $4,692, and their students score even higher than North Dakota's.
If there IS a relationship between education spending and education quality, it is that the less a state spends for education, the better educated are their students.