Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to note that the states best known for top notch public k-12 education, like New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Connecticut, etc. are all on the "start after Labor Day, out mid-late June" calendar. Not saying that these states have superior outcomes BECAUSE of that schedule, but the "but the standardized tests!!!!" argument holds very little merit when you consider this.
You need to look a little closer at the data. First, Minnesota has very few SAT takers -- ACT is more common and the only kids taking the SAT are those who want to go to higher-end/East Coast schools. The same is true for Iowa (and it's SAT scores are even higher than Minnesota's) -- and look at Wisconsin and Mississippi's SAT average score for white kids -- sky high -- but very few kids are taking it.
OK, so let's get back to your allegation -- that states like MA, CT and NJ are doing really well on standardized tests (I assume you mean the ones that are national, b/c otherwise a comparison of "standardized tests" would be useless). We have to look at the average scores of kids different groups, and compare similar groups, otherwise, you are simply penalizing states that have a higher proportion of kids in disadvantaged groups. So, when we compare white kids to white kids in states where lots of kids take the SAT, looks like Maryland (when they were starting PRIOR to Labor Day) had higher average scores for white student than New Jersey, Massachusettes and Virginia (all of which started AFTER Labor Day when these SATs were taken).
I don't know if there will be any change now that Va is starting earlier. But, your premise is faulty. NY, MA, and CT == starting after Labor Day == have not historically been higher scoring than a state that started before Labor Day.
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/sat-participation-scores-by-state-and-race.pdf (see p. 92).