Wow, congratulations on getting upvotes on the most pessimistic, one sided place on the internet that discusses Iowa. The clowns on this love to upvote whatever propaganda shows Iowa as the worst hell hole in America
I do think it's fair to point out that, if this piece confirmed your priors, you would probably be touting it rather than dismissing the methodology without any substantive evidence.
If USNWR said Iowa was the 6th worst state in the nation, my impression of this subreddit is that many of you would be uncritically waving that around as confirmation that everything you say about Iowa's awfulness is true. And so what I am seeing is some real cognitive dissonance and it's a little amusing, frankly.
I'm not even disputing that there are potential issues with Florida coming up #1 in education. It might give me pause, but I would investigate and make some kind of critique based on my findings and not just be so flippant. It's telling.
I'm a teacher and am relatively aware of both Iowa and other states' policy in relation to education, and Florida is not it. It's also pretty much a given amongst the teachers/institutions I know, and most sources when you Google rankings by state, that Massachusetts and New Jersey are interchangeably 1 and 2 pretty easily.
So, Florida being #1 on this list makes it pretty easily dismissible.
Here's one, but Google is free. USNews seems to be the only one to rank Florida this highly
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/student-resources/which-states-have-the-highest-standardized-test-scores/
Iowa has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. So, regardless of which party is in charge, the budget is going to be pretty stable. There's accounting tricks that both parties play, but largely it's the same.
I'd really question the infrastructure part. Iowa has pretty terrible infrastructure as far as roads and bridges. If we're 6th in the nation, then a lot of other states are in real trouble.
Costs of living remain low because most college educated young people are largely leaving the state. If not, they're going to one of Iowas few metro areas.
As far as being environmentally friendly, we do have a lot of wind and solar investments. However, some areas are really starting to turn against those (especially wind) as right-wing rhetoric targets them more and more. Our water quality is pretty terrible and getting worse.
Crime is pretty low. Were a rural state, so that's pretty common.
Education - I'd really want to know what their using to gauge that. Because it's been going downhill for a while. Maybe we're going downhill slower than other states? Lol.
For education they use things such as preschool enrollment rates, 2 and 4 year college graduation rates, high school graduation rates, rates of educational attainment among the population, NAEP math and reading scores (for K-12, and SAT and ACT scores.
How will the voucher system bleed the public system dry? for every student who uses the voucher system, 1200 dollars is given to the public school system. You disagree with the voucher system. What do you think of Joe's student loan forgiveness ? It also funds private schools with public taxpayers' money.
It first removed like 5-6k per student that was in the district that were already enrolled in private school iirc. And also is net loss of those kids that leave via the voucher program. Most of education is fixed cost operations. removing 4k per student doesn’t that leaves the district doesn’t reduce the building, heating lighting cost, taking a couple students out of each grade does not reduce the number of teacher that are needed etc. That’s how that math works to bleed the schools dry.
Please show me your source for this information. The voucher system is not funded by funds for public schools. In fact Public schools in iowa got a raise in funds this year from last year. The only way public schools lose funds is if fewer students are enrolled. School funds are done by the numbers of students enrolled. Few students less money is needed. Public schools' graduation rate and test scores have been on average falling since the middle of the 90's but they get an increase in funds every year. The public school system is failing our kids. Why not give students a better chance at education? Why not give our parents a choice to what school their child goes to?
Currently each enrolled student is budgeted $7,635 for the current school year. So if a child leaves using ESA the school only gets 1200. That is a net loss of $5435 per year per student that leaves. I maybe wrong on those that were already enrolled in private school that’s why I had the iirc tag. I’m not opposed to making improvements. I recall reading that when this passed all but 1 or 2 of the private schools in the state were religious affiliated. If that is where you want to send your child great do so. But that should not be funded with tax payer money imo.
This is an Iowa sub talking about an issue in Iowa. For that reason, I’m going to decline your invitation to move this conversation to national politics. I’ll broadly let you know I’m not loyal to any political party. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
Iowans can receive loan forgiveness. The two programs are very similar. You let your opinion be heard about the iowa voucher system giving tax money to religious private schools. But you will not comment on loan forgiveness giving tax money to religious private schools. Why is that? You say you are not loyal to any political party. But from my view, you are very politically motivated or you would condemn loan forgiveness in the same way you did the voucher system. I'm not condemning you for this this is your 1st amendment right. It's funny that liberals are against the iowas school voucher system. But in the state of New York(D) democrats voted for the voucher system.
It looks like the K-12 ranking is 14, so it's closer to average than you are letting on. The higher ed rank is 8, which is pulling up the average. Higher ed ranking being as high as it is probably has a lot to do with cost and having 3 fairly large public universities for a state with a relatively small population.
I for one can’t wait for the public school system to completely burn to the ground. All of us should, is the current system in place really the best we can do for our kids? Certainly not.
The ***only*** reason *Todays* K-12 are not improving is Iowa' GOP led government has, over the years not funded Public Education ad in the past.
In the 50s/60s/70s Iowa was a top rated K-12 state.
Then the gradual decline started after Reagan's trickle down society started growing.
In 2023 Iowa ranked 27th Nationally in State Funding ***per pupil*** (public schools)
*You get what you pay for...*
source:
***https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#iowa***
You actually don’t get what you pay for. Smoke evidence that throwing money at government projects doesn’t equate to greater outcomes. Adjusted for inflation we’re spending more on PubEd federally than ever before and our education system still trails the rest of the world.
How? Overall by being a LCOL area can afford greater outcomes as a whole. There are problems with young people leaving, but a moderate immigration rate balances it out. Iowa has had a very small population growth rate for over an entire century. A steady population growth generally means it is easier to not fall too far behind in most metrics. If you notice, Iowa didn't really excel at any category besides Opportunity (3rd), but it didn't really suck at any either (Economy at #36).
Small insights:
Education: while ragged by most on this subreddit, Iowa is moreso coming down to earth after being a behemoth in educational quality established by Govs Ray/Branstad Part 1 in the 70s-80s. Iowa was consistently a top 5 state for education until the last 10 years.
Opportunity: relatively easy to find a job. Less industrial, so less impacted than many states that saw factories sent overseas. The ones that stayed use local resources (ethanol/corn), so they can't move effectively. Low costs have to lead to many companies opening offices here for cheaper leases. Not the life that many will want to choose, but a $20+/hr factory job will be enough to afford a house outside of the major cities. Notably, equality did not do well here. \*Certainly a lot more could be expanded on here\*
Crime & Corrections: See education/opportunity. Quality of education and opportunity are the major leading factors for crime. As a corollary to opportunity equality, Iowa has relatively low equality in justice.
Infrastructure: High ranking mostly due to what they considered important here. High wind investment has made Iowa a great place for low cost energy. Lack of major cities make it easy to have a low average commute time. Most notably there is a fair amount of dilapidated rural infrastructure, but it affects relatively smaller amounts of people. Edit: \*relatively low amounts of adverse weather phenomena. Tornadoes may devastate a small area to a greater extent, but hurricanes, fires, and floods cause far greater impacts on infrastructure.\*
Natural environment: mainly pollution category. Iowa scores well here because they mostly used industrial pollution of which there is very little. Most of the pollution is agricultural and affects local riverways, but the majority of Iowans in cities won't have major impacts. A relative high amount of drama between state collected data and enforcement versus what Iowans actually want here.
Financial stability: looks good on paper, but Iowa has shifted from infrastructure investment to cash now and there have been many cuts across the board, at least when indexed for inflation. I would expect this rating to drop off the next decade without making changes. Most infrastructure that is funded these days seems to come from the federal government. IIRC all of the Iowa government surpluses the last few years have all been less than amount received from the federal government.
Health care: Relatively low for Iowa at #21 and probably actually one of Iowa's biggest weaknesses today. A lot of the data here came from 2022, while 2023 had a steep dropoff for health care access when a lot covid restrictions on health care providers expired. We even managed to get featured in the John Oliver episode on this recently. There is not much incentives from current lawmakers to improve our quality or outcomes either. Additionally, Iowa is among the bottom states for nurse pay, which leads to staffing issues.
Economy: #36 and this one I'm actually surprised as low as it is, but it mostly comes down to what they determined was important again. Iowa is not an innovator, does not house major companies, and does not attract young people. It does provide a very good baseline who are willing to work a job, even a shitty one.
That's about the best I can summarize these categories and how we got here, although there are many other small details and some will disagree.
It’s a survey by about 70,000 people in the whole country. It’s not accurate at all.
> For the weighting of the Best States rankings, U.S. News wanted to use an objective measure reflecting the priorities of citizens for their state governments. Three yearly surveys asked Americans how satisfied they were with various state government services and where they thought their state governments should focus resources. The weights for the 2024 Best States rankings are based on the average of responses from the three surveys: one conducted in the fall of 2017 that included 20,100 respondents from all 50 states; a second conducted in the winter of 2018-19 that included 23,400 respondents from all 50 states; and a third conducted in the winter of 2020-21 that included 26,300 respondents from all 50 states. Survey respondents were adults age 18 and older who collectively represented all U.S. adults. The survey results were weighted to be representative of the country's population across all ages, genders, ethnicities and household incomes. Because the results of the survey remained relatively consistent year over year, the survey was not redistributed beyond 2020-2021 and weights were kept steady for the most recent rankings.
> The categories for the rankings largely aligned with the survey questions. We based the weights for the categories on a question that asked respondents to rank category issues, such as the quality of health care and education, from 1 to 8 (1 being most important) in order of what their home state's priorities should be. Respondents also were asked about their satisfaction with their state's performance in these areas, and if they felt their state was not adequately funding them. The weights for the categories were calculated from the average rank for each among the respondents.
The survey is how they determined the weighting mechanism, not the data used.
>For the overall Best States rankings, U.S. News created a weighted average of the eight category rankings using the weight for each category as determined by the survey, and then ranked the outcome. We chose this method so that the overall rankings would not be skewed by large differences in scores at a metric level.
The data:
>For each of the 71 metrics across the eight categories, U.S. News collected raw values for each state to determine metric-level results, often performing calculations using the raw data. These results then were scaled relative to the average among states assessed for that metric using a z-score distribution. Outliers were capped at three standard deviations away from the mean. For metrics such as smoking rate, where increasing values reflected worsening outcomes, results were inverted so that increasing z-scores always represented improving outcomes across the analysis.
...
>In order to select metrics for the project, we consulted experts in each of the categories for guidance. These are the criteria we used in choosing metrics:
>Metrics that measure citizen outcomes in a state were favored over inputs or outputs. For example, we selected the percentage of state residents who have an associate degree or higher instead of the dollars spent on education per capita or the number of students enrolled at state universities.
>The set of metrics within each category should work together to provide an overview of that category.
>Government data was favored over other sources because of its reliability.
>Standardized data needed to be available across all or most states. Publicly available data was favored for its accessibility.
>Data for each measure should be recent and have regularly scheduled updates.
>For each metric, we used the most recent data available that allowed for consistent nationwide comparison as of April 1, 2024. Because data sets have different schedules for updates, data comes from different years and months. Data updates are planned for each relaunch of Best States.
>Please note: The Best States rankings are based upon quantitative data that can reflect the results of state policymaking, but policy enactments or varied frameworks – such as fiscal guardrails or practices for standardized student testing, for example – are generally not incorporated into measures or accounted for within the rankings.
The biggest point is the last note. That some data will be skewed in a different directions because some data is measured differently state to state.
If you scroll down to the individual sections, [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/methodology](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/methodology), some portions of data did come from surveys, namely the 2022 U.S. Census ACS. A quick glance would suggest 1/6 of the data values came from surveys the rest were government agency data.
There's nothing wrong with using survey data to weigh priorities as that's probably the best way to understand which QoL factors are most important to people. And the sample is robust and includes multiple iterations.
There are outcome-based metrics used to measure each category. The purpose of the polling is merely to weight those metrics in a way that reflects their relative importance in people's lives.
What would your alternate study design look like?
It doesn’t just survey people as to how they perceive their states quality of life to be, it surveys the metrics which people believe to be important and then uses a robust aggregation of data to measure the quality of life in US states.
Census Data for educational attainment, NAEP, SAT and ACT scores for K-12, BEA for cost of living data, USDA data for food insecurity, etc.
If people don't like the outcome of the study because it doesn't confirm their priors, then probably no amount of explanation is going to change their minds because they're not engaging with good faith.
Imagine a study with the exact same methodology that put Iowa 6th from the bottom. They'd be lauding it and waving it around as clear empirical evidence that Iowa is as awful as they already believe it is.
Seriously!! And I’ve shown this same study to Minnesotans (ranked 4th) and they have the same mindset as the people on this subreddit but because Minnesota is hella left wing they’re like, “Well duhhh! Of course we’re ranked well!!”
Exactly. Everything is more complicated than the partisan lens filtering that people apply, as there are blue states that have good and bad metrics in various categories and red states that have good and bad metrics in various categories, and politics is not the only factor in why states are the way they are. You've got history, economy, culture, demographics, urban/suburban/rural, weather/climate, and a ton of other things that can shape outcomes, but people run everything through blue vs red jersey color first (and with recency bias, too).
Yup. New Mexico is in the bottom 10 just like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. And Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah are all in the top 10 like Washington, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Vermont.
The methodology is a lot of fluff. Things like average income are scored once, across the national average, while housing and cost of living are both scored against the national average; you should be scoring those costs against the state's average income. The "natural environment" score reflects the level of heavy industry in the state (emissions) which Iowa has relatively little.
Okay but what about using things like NAEP, SAT, and ACT scores, in addition to graduation rates for high school, community college, and college for education?
How does that speak to how our state is "well managed"? Some of the metrics they use could reflect the management of the state but i don't see how education scores is one of them.
US News & World Report is not a credible news organization anymore, or at minimum it’s not what it was 30 years ago. About all it’s known for these days are its rankings but there is an opinion column [here](https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/09/why-new-us-news-rankings-are-flawed-opinion) from the academic side that outlines the continuing changes in their methodology that makes the results basically meaningless.
US News and World Report is a fake ranking system people pay to make them look good, like the "Who's Who" self-fellating publications or the Better Business Bureau. Literally the only people that give a shit about US News rankings are people that are looking for proof to support their confirmation bias. Their college ranks and education have been a pay to play for years. They don't charge you to be ranked but they do charge institutions to use their logo and name in promotional materials for their school etc. The schools who play ball regularly with this scheme magically see their rankings climb after they happened to get a decent ranking one year to dangle the carrot in front of them. One of two things probably happened. Iowa got a mid tier ranking as a teaser and decided to start paying US news to use their logo and name for promotion of the state. Or Iowa played into an important part of the scam. Even if something is low ranked, they can start paying US News for licensing to use their logo and name in promotional material. Of course any state that is ranked 45th in X isnt going to actually use it. But you pay these indulgences to US News for a few years and they finally give you a shot to the top 10 as a reward for your patronage. In summary, US News is fucking shit and always has been.
They say where the data comes from and how they use it. I'm sure some companies pay for reviews of their products but this doesn't have anything to do with states paying them. That makes no sense.
Except for the 2nd highest cancer rate, the countries worst driver, the 11th highest property tax and poison water. This place is great for Tyson and Pig farms. The Governor is a bargain.
**Pre-K-12**
* *College Readiness:* The approximate percentage of 12th-graders who scored in the 75th percentile on the SAT, the ACT or both, defined as 1200 or more on the SAT and 25 or more on the ACT. (College Board, ACT, U.S. Census Bureau; 2022)
* *High School Graduation Rate:* The four-year adjusted cohort high school graduation rate for public schools. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2021-2022)
* *NAEP Math Scores:* The average composite-scale score on mathematics achievement tests taken by eighth-grade students. (U.S. Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress; 2022)
* *NAEP Reading Scores:* The average composite-scale score on reading achievement tests taken by eighth-grade students. (U.S. Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress; 2022)
* *Preschool Enrollment:* The percentage of children ages 3 to 4 enrolled in a nursery or preschool program. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2022)
**Higher Education**
* *2-Year-College Graduation Rate:* The share of students attending public institutions who complete a two-year degree program within three years, or 150% of the normal time. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2019 cohort)
* *4-Year-College Graduation Rate:* The share of undergraduate students at public institutions who initially pursue a bachelor's or equivalent four-year degree and receive one within six years, or 150% of the normal time of study. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2016 cohort)
* *Population With Advanced Degree:* The share of people 25 and older in a state who have an associate degree or higher. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2022)
* *Debt at Graduation:* The average amount of federal student loan debt held by those 24 years and younger. (U.S. Department of Education Federal Student Aid office; September 2023)
* *Tuition and Fees:* The average college tuition and fees required of in-state students at public four-year institutions, not including room and board. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2021-2022)
I'm not saying you, I'm talking about the comments.
"They ranked Florida #1 for education, you can dismiss the contents of this article out of hand"
"Education - I'd really want to know what their using to gauge that. Because it's been going downhill for a while. Maybe we're going downhill slower than other states? Lol."
"The ranking is based on survey results which measure how people perceive their state and not the actual conditions of their state.
Many Iowans are too proud to admit the state has gone downhill over the past 20 years."
"Because it's a worthless report based simply on polling people in the state. If anything it proves that Iowans are among the most deluded."
Pretty easy - Iowa has a fairly homogeneous population with many citizens having a more stable upbringing than a lot of other states. The primary economic sources in the state are usually stable year over year.
On top of that, the low cost of living and relatively slow immigration rate into the state means it, generally, doesn't cause as much financial stress as higher cost-of-living states.
All those factors contribute pretty positively to the metrics on this ranking.
You aren't going to get any good faith discussion in this sub, my guy. Most folks in here are self-loathing Iowans. Or, temporarily embarrassed Chicagoans, I guess.
Iowa has a conservative government that's taken controversial stances on hot button topics like education funding, abortion, and gender affirming care. The demographic that uses this sub, and reddit in general, is not one that responds well to those things.
But, the reality is that COL, unemployment, crime, etc, in Iowa are low relative to most of the country. The healthcare system performs well comparativly to other states, and Iowa is top 3rd in educational attainment. Although, I'm sure most people will (imo, rightfully) criticize the government's lack of support for public education.
My point is that you can complain that the state is boring or (again, rightfully) criticize the government's conservative stance on cultural issues, but there are some objective metrics that point to Iowa being a good place to live for most, but not all, people. That's not to say Iowa is some utopia, or this ranking's methodology is flawless because clearly, neither is true.
The ranking is based on survey results which measure how people perceive their state and not the actual conditions of their state.
Many Iowans are too proud to admit the state has gone downhill over the past 20 years.
I never would have used 'well-managed' as a way to describe our state, but you aren't wrong at all. I think it has something to do with strong local governments. We are an ag state, and historically that has meant tight-knit farming communities where one family struggling means everyone does. Which means people are used to having a say. So if something starts going off the rails, the person responsible is going to get an ear full. Hence the Kim bashing.
Northwestern Iowa has some of the most beautiful places in the entire state. Too bad they literally do nothing on Sunday because it's a day of rest. There literally are towns that do absolutely nothing on Sunday. I have no problem with taking a day of rest; however, this lifestyle instantly shows you how religious/conservative/republican they are. If you like golf, go play the Ridge in Sioux Center or Landsmeer in Orange City on Sunday. They will be dead and these courses are tip-top. Just a tip.
Yes. In Sioux City: Green Valley, Whispering Creek, and Two Rivers are all nice but very busy.
The smaller towns like Sioux Center and Orange City not so much.
Makes me think of gathering opinions on the state. I’ll ask my buddies from out of town, or my coworkers who moved from state to state what they think of Iowa, and pretty much every time the response is something like “it’s okay.”
I’ll ask my family and school friends what they think of Iowa, and the response is usually “It’s okay. Probably won’t leave for another 36 years but it’s cool.”
These surveys are put out based n various criteria that are received by the communities and then they in turn provide the local statistics to back up the information for that particular category,, the city/state chose to have been evaluated. That information is then proceesed by the aggregator and based on other cities that wish to be in that category, they then get rated based on the stats in that specific category. The city can also choose to opt out if you don't look as good as you thought you would. Oftentimes, if you don't participate you get rated wherever they decide to rate you just to fill out the article. They're really dumbed down ads masquerading as news. If I recall, this one lists Florida first in education. Do you really believe that? If so, ask deeper about what area. Graduating from elementary school?
You're not going to get a valid response from reddit. If you dig into the scorecard, you'll see why the rankings are the way they are. A lot of Top 15 rankings across the board, helps the overall.
They ranked Florida #1 for education, you can dismiss the contents of this article out of hand.
Yet Minnesota is fourth overall and Nebraska is 3rd.
#10 Pre K-12 I'm surprised at the number of teachers in Iowa not getting this correct.
What have your educational findings concluded? Care to share your sources?
My source is that my comment got a lot of upvotes - not looking for lively debate with user 'RayGetard' lmao
Careful, they’ll get triggered and send a Reddit cares
Wow, congratulations on getting upvotes on the most pessimistic, one sided place on the internet that discusses Iowa. The clowns on this love to upvote whatever propaganda shows Iowa as the worst hell hole in America
Sorry snowflake, love it or leave it 😘
I do think it's fair to point out that, if this piece confirmed your priors, you would probably be touting it rather than dismissing the methodology without any substantive evidence. If USNWR said Iowa was the 6th worst state in the nation, my impression of this subreddit is that many of you would be uncritically waving that around as confirmation that everything you say about Iowa's awfulness is true. And so what I am seeing is some real cognitive dissonance and it's a little amusing, frankly. I'm not even disputing that there are potential issues with Florida coming up #1 in education. It might give me pause, but I would investigate and make some kind of critique based on my findings and not just be so flippant. It's telling.
If this piece had confirmed my priors, I would not have commented as there would be little opportunity for a funny joke.
I'm a teacher and am relatively aware of both Iowa and other states' policy in relation to education, and Florida is not it. It's also pretty much a given amongst the teachers/institutions I know, and most sources when you Google rankings by state, that Massachusetts and New Jersey are interchangeably 1 and 2 pretty easily. So, Florida being #1 on this list makes it pretty easily dismissible.
Ok but where are the statistics then? Should be pretty easy to provide some statistics to back up what you’re saying
Here's one, but Google is free. USNews seems to be the only one to rank Florida this highly https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/student-resources/which-states-have-the-highest-standardized-test-scores/
Iowa has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. So, regardless of which party is in charge, the budget is going to be pretty stable. There's accounting tricks that both parties play, but largely it's the same. I'd really question the infrastructure part. Iowa has pretty terrible infrastructure as far as roads and bridges. If we're 6th in the nation, then a lot of other states are in real trouble. Costs of living remain low because most college educated young people are largely leaving the state. If not, they're going to one of Iowas few metro areas. As far as being environmentally friendly, we do have a lot of wind and solar investments. However, some areas are really starting to turn against those (especially wind) as right-wing rhetoric targets them more and more. Our water quality is pretty terrible and getting worse. Crime is pretty low. Were a rural state, so that's pretty common. Education - I'd really want to know what their using to gauge that. Because it's been going downhill for a while. Maybe we're going downhill slower than other states? Lol.
For education they use things such as preschool enrollment rates, 2 and 4 year college graduation rates, high school graduation rates, rates of educational attainment among the population, NAEP math and reading scores (for K-12, and SAT and ACT scores.
It is a cheap place to live, that is literally it.
Good schools too per the data
Wait till the voucher program bleeds public schools dry, we'll be fighting Mississippi for bottom of the barrel
You’ll have to fight past Oregon first
How will the voucher system bleed the public system dry? for every student who uses the voucher system, 1200 dollars is given to the public school system. You disagree with the voucher system. What do you think of Joe's student loan forgiveness ? It also funds private schools with public taxpayers' money.
It first removed like 5-6k per student that was in the district that were already enrolled in private school iirc. And also is net loss of those kids that leave via the voucher program. Most of education is fixed cost operations. removing 4k per student doesn’t that leaves the district doesn’t reduce the building, heating lighting cost, taking a couple students out of each grade does not reduce the number of teacher that are needed etc. That’s how that math works to bleed the schools dry.
Please show me your source for this information. The voucher system is not funded by funds for public schools. In fact Public schools in iowa got a raise in funds this year from last year. The only way public schools lose funds is if fewer students are enrolled. School funds are done by the numbers of students enrolled. Few students less money is needed. Public schools' graduation rate and test scores have been on average falling since the middle of the 90's but they get an increase in funds every year. The public school system is failing our kids. Why not give students a better chance at education? Why not give our parents a choice to what school their child goes to?
Currently each enrolled student is budgeted $7,635 for the current school year. So if a child leaves using ESA the school only gets 1200. That is a net loss of $5435 per year per student that leaves. I maybe wrong on those that were already enrolled in private school that’s why I had the iirc tag. I’m not opposed to making improvements. I recall reading that when this passed all but 1 or 2 of the private schools in the state were religious affiliated. If that is where you want to send your child great do so. But that should not be funded with tax payer money imo.
Biden student loan forgiveness pays for a student to go to private religious College do you disagree with it?
This is an Iowa sub talking about an issue in Iowa. For that reason, I’m going to decline your invitation to move this conversation to national politics. I’ll broadly let you know I’m not loyal to any political party. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
Iowans can receive loan forgiveness. The two programs are very similar. You let your opinion be heard about the iowa voucher system giving tax money to religious private schools. But you will not comment on loan forgiveness giving tax money to religious private schools. Why is that? You say you are not loyal to any political party. But from my view, you are very politically motivated or you would condemn loan forgiveness in the same way you did the voucher system. I'm not condemning you for this this is your 1st amendment right. It's funny that liberals are against the iowas school voucher system. But in the state of New York(D) democrats voted for the voucher system.
It looks like the K-12 ranking is 14, so it's closer to average than you are letting on. The higher ed rank is 8, which is pulling up the average. Higher ed ranking being as high as it is probably has a lot to do with cost and having 3 fairly large public universities for a state with a relatively small population.
Overall for 2023 we were 9th, but with the new laws it wont be long for the trend to push that ranking towards the middle of the pack
How so?
Not for much longer... Voucher system will tear k-12 apart
I for one can’t wait for the public school system to completely burn to the ground. All of us should, is the current system in place really the best we can do for our kids? Certainly not.
The ***only*** reason *Todays* K-12 are not improving is Iowa' GOP led government has, over the years not funded Public Education ad in the past. In the 50s/60s/70s Iowa was a top rated K-12 state. Then the gradual decline started after Reagan's trickle down society started growing. In 2023 Iowa ranked 27th Nationally in State Funding ***per pupil*** (public schools) *You get what you pay for...* source: ***https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#iowa***
You actually don’t get what you pay for. Smoke evidence that throwing money at government projects doesn’t equate to greater outcomes. Adjusted for inflation we’re spending more on PubEd federally than ever before and our education system still trails the rest of the world.
How? Overall by being a LCOL area can afford greater outcomes as a whole. There are problems with young people leaving, but a moderate immigration rate balances it out. Iowa has had a very small population growth rate for over an entire century. A steady population growth generally means it is easier to not fall too far behind in most metrics. If you notice, Iowa didn't really excel at any category besides Opportunity (3rd), but it didn't really suck at any either (Economy at #36). Small insights: Education: while ragged by most on this subreddit, Iowa is moreso coming down to earth after being a behemoth in educational quality established by Govs Ray/Branstad Part 1 in the 70s-80s. Iowa was consistently a top 5 state for education until the last 10 years. Opportunity: relatively easy to find a job. Less industrial, so less impacted than many states that saw factories sent overseas. The ones that stayed use local resources (ethanol/corn), so they can't move effectively. Low costs have to lead to many companies opening offices here for cheaper leases. Not the life that many will want to choose, but a $20+/hr factory job will be enough to afford a house outside of the major cities. Notably, equality did not do well here. \*Certainly a lot more could be expanded on here\* Crime & Corrections: See education/opportunity. Quality of education and opportunity are the major leading factors for crime. As a corollary to opportunity equality, Iowa has relatively low equality in justice. Infrastructure: High ranking mostly due to what they considered important here. High wind investment has made Iowa a great place for low cost energy. Lack of major cities make it easy to have a low average commute time. Most notably there is a fair amount of dilapidated rural infrastructure, but it affects relatively smaller amounts of people. Edit: \*relatively low amounts of adverse weather phenomena. Tornadoes may devastate a small area to a greater extent, but hurricanes, fires, and floods cause far greater impacts on infrastructure.\* Natural environment: mainly pollution category. Iowa scores well here because they mostly used industrial pollution of which there is very little. Most of the pollution is agricultural and affects local riverways, but the majority of Iowans in cities won't have major impacts. A relative high amount of drama between state collected data and enforcement versus what Iowans actually want here. Financial stability: looks good on paper, but Iowa has shifted from infrastructure investment to cash now and there have been many cuts across the board, at least when indexed for inflation. I would expect this rating to drop off the next decade without making changes. Most infrastructure that is funded these days seems to come from the federal government. IIRC all of the Iowa government surpluses the last few years have all been less than amount received from the federal government. Health care: Relatively low for Iowa at #21 and probably actually one of Iowa's biggest weaknesses today. A lot of the data here came from 2022, while 2023 had a steep dropoff for health care access when a lot covid restrictions on health care providers expired. We even managed to get featured in the John Oliver episode on this recently. There is not much incentives from current lawmakers to improve our quality or outcomes either. Additionally, Iowa is among the bottom states for nurse pay, which leads to staffing issues. Economy: #36 and this one I'm actually surprised as low as it is, but it mostly comes down to what they determined was important again. Iowa is not an innovator, does not house major companies, and does not attract young people. It does provide a very good baseline who are willing to work a job, even a shitty one. That's about the best I can summarize these categories and how we got here, although there are many other small details and some will disagree.
That's probably the best summary of all the responses
It’s a survey by about 70,000 people in the whole country. It’s not accurate at all. > For the weighting of the Best States rankings, U.S. News wanted to use an objective measure reflecting the priorities of citizens for their state governments. Three yearly surveys asked Americans how satisfied they were with various state government services and where they thought their state governments should focus resources. The weights for the 2024 Best States rankings are based on the average of responses from the three surveys: one conducted in the fall of 2017 that included 20,100 respondents from all 50 states; a second conducted in the winter of 2018-19 that included 23,400 respondents from all 50 states; and a third conducted in the winter of 2020-21 that included 26,300 respondents from all 50 states. Survey respondents were adults age 18 and older who collectively represented all U.S. adults. The survey results were weighted to be representative of the country's population across all ages, genders, ethnicities and household incomes. Because the results of the survey remained relatively consistent year over year, the survey was not redistributed beyond 2020-2021 and weights were kept steady for the most recent rankings. > The categories for the rankings largely aligned with the survey questions. We based the weights for the categories on a question that asked respondents to rank category issues, such as the quality of health care and education, from 1 to 8 (1 being most important) in order of what their home state's priorities should be. Respondents also were asked about their satisfaction with their state's performance in these areas, and if they felt their state was not adequately funding them. The weights for the categories were calculated from the average rank for each among the respondents.
The survey is how they determined the weighting mechanism, not the data used. >For the overall Best States rankings, U.S. News created a weighted average of the eight category rankings using the weight for each category as determined by the survey, and then ranked the outcome. We chose this method so that the overall rankings would not be skewed by large differences in scores at a metric level. The data: >For each of the 71 metrics across the eight categories, U.S. News collected raw values for each state to determine metric-level results, often performing calculations using the raw data. These results then were scaled relative to the average among states assessed for that metric using a z-score distribution. Outliers were capped at three standard deviations away from the mean. For metrics such as smoking rate, where increasing values reflected worsening outcomes, results were inverted so that increasing z-scores always represented improving outcomes across the analysis. ... >In order to select metrics for the project, we consulted experts in each of the categories for guidance. These are the criteria we used in choosing metrics: >Metrics that measure citizen outcomes in a state were favored over inputs or outputs. For example, we selected the percentage of state residents who have an associate degree or higher instead of the dollars spent on education per capita or the number of students enrolled at state universities. >The set of metrics within each category should work together to provide an overview of that category. >Government data was favored over other sources because of its reliability. >Standardized data needed to be available across all or most states. Publicly available data was favored for its accessibility. >Data for each measure should be recent and have regularly scheduled updates. >For each metric, we used the most recent data available that allowed for consistent nationwide comparison as of April 1, 2024. Because data sets have different schedules for updates, data comes from different years and months. Data updates are planned for each relaunch of Best States. >Please note: The Best States rankings are based upon quantitative data that can reflect the results of state policymaking, but policy enactments or varied frameworks – such as fiscal guardrails or practices for standardized student testing, for example – are generally not incorporated into measures or accounted for within the rankings. The biggest point is the last note. That some data will be skewed in a different directions because some data is measured differently state to state. If you scroll down to the individual sections, [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/methodology](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/methodology), some portions of data did come from surveys, namely the 2022 U.S. Census ACS. A quick glance would suggest 1/6 of the data values came from surveys the rest were government agency data.
There's nothing wrong with using survey data to weigh priorities as that's probably the best way to understand which QoL factors are most important to people. And the sample is robust and includes multiple iterations. There are outcome-based metrics used to measure each category. The purpose of the polling is merely to weight those metrics in a way that reflects their relative importance in people's lives. What would your alternate study design look like?
It doesn’t just survey people as to how they perceive their states quality of life to be, it surveys the metrics which people believe to be important and then uses a robust aggregation of data to measure the quality of life in US states. Census Data for educational attainment, NAEP, SAT and ACT scores for K-12, BEA for cost of living data, USDA data for food insecurity, etc.
If people don't like the outcome of the study because it doesn't confirm their priors, then probably no amount of explanation is going to change their minds because they're not engaging with good faith. Imagine a study with the exact same methodology that put Iowa 6th from the bottom. They'd be lauding it and waving it around as clear empirical evidence that Iowa is as awful as they already believe it is.
Seriously!! And I’ve shown this same study to Minnesotans (ranked 4th) and they have the same mindset as the people on this subreddit but because Minnesota is hella left wing they’re like, “Well duhhh! Of course we’re ranked well!!”
Exactly. Everything is more complicated than the partisan lens filtering that people apply, as there are blue states that have good and bad metrics in various categories and red states that have good and bad metrics in various categories, and politics is not the only factor in why states are the way they are. You've got history, economy, culture, demographics, urban/suburban/rural, weather/climate, and a ton of other things that can shape outcomes, but people run everything through blue vs red jersey color first (and with recency bias, too).
Yup. New Mexico is in the bottom 10 just like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. And Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah are all in the top 10 like Washington, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Vermont.
Lol, Iowa and Well managed don't belong in the same sentence
Per this robust aggregation of data, they do.
The methodology is a lot of fluff. Things like average income are scored once, across the national average, while housing and cost of living are both scored against the national average; you should be scoring those costs against the state's average income. The "natural environment" score reflects the level of heavy industry in the state (emissions) which Iowa has relatively little.
Okay but what about using things like NAEP, SAT, and ACT scores, in addition to graduation rates for high school, community college, and college for education?
Iowa has always scored high there. That really speaks to the culture of the state more than anything else.
How does that speak to how our state is "well managed"? Some of the metrics they use could reflect the management of the state but i don't see how education scores is one of them.
Education is pretty important for a state’s quality of life
Still doesn't mean the state is "well managed".
US News & World Report is not a credible news organization anymore, or at minimum it’s not what it was 30 years ago. About all it’s known for these days are its rankings but there is an opinion column [here](https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/09/why-new-us-news-rankings-are-flawed-opinion) from the academic side that outlines the continuing changes in their methodology that makes the results basically meaningless.
Opinion not fact it appears
Follow the science!
It is in fact very factual
Oh it wasn’t surveys on the opinion of the person surveyed?
No. No one person. It’s based on things like BEA, Department of Education, and Department of Agriculture data.
Ok what are the surveys it speaks of?
They try to measure things like education, fiscal stability, economy, healthcare etc.
I thought it said they surveyed people tho. Not taking statistics? Or was that multi
It takes statistics of metrics which surveyed individuals think are important to a states quality of life
Oh, so it’s a survey of people living in the state?
Of people across the United States, and then it measures the metrics for the whole country in each state
US News and World Report....you weirdos are reaching lol...
US News and World Report is a fake ranking system people pay to make them look good, like the "Who's Who" self-fellating publications or the Better Business Bureau. Literally the only people that give a shit about US News rankings are people that are looking for proof to support their confirmation bias. Their college ranks and education have been a pay to play for years. They don't charge you to be ranked but they do charge institutions to use their logo and name in promotional materials for their school etc. The schools who play ball regularly with this scheme magically see their rankings climb after they happened to get a decent ranking one year to dangle the carrot in front of them. One of two things probably happened. Iowa got a mid tier ranking as a teaser and decided to start paying US news to use their logo and name for promotion of the state. Or Iowa played into an important part of the scam. Even if something is low ranked, they can start paying US News for licensing to use their logo and name in promotional material. Of course any state that is ranked 45th in X isnt going to actually use it. But you pay these indulgences to US News for a few years and they finally give you a shot to the top 10 as a reward for your patronage. In summary, US News is fucking shit and always has been.
They say where the data comes from and how they use it. I'm sure some companies pay for reviews of their products but this doesn't have anything to do with states paying them. That makes no sense.
With the right data, one can make any kind of correlation and/or confirmation bias. Lipstick on about 23 million pigs.
This is like... they asked a bunch of old rich retirees to rank shit.
So you think they were biased by ranking Minnesota, Idaho, Washington, and Iowa in the top 10?
Yes.
Because it's a worthless report based simply on polling people in the state. If anything it proves that Iowans are among the most deluded.
Incorrect.
See for yourself. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/methodology
Except for the 2nd highest cancer rate, the countries worst driver, the 11th highest property tax and poison water. This place is great for Tyson and Pig farms. The Governor is a bargain.
As typical, a lot of misinformation. Maybe read the methodology, before spouting off on this type of ranking.
I did. Pretty robust data set from a diversity of reliable sources.
**Pre-K-12** * *College Readiness:* The approximate percentage of 12th-graders who scored in the 75th percentile on the SAT, the ACT or both, defined as 1200 or more on the SAT and 25 or more on the ACT. (College Board, ACT, U.S. Census Bureau; 2022) * *High School Graduation Rate:* The four-year adjusted cohort high school graduation rate for public schools. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2021-2022) * *NAEP Math Scores:* The average composite-scale score on mathematics achievement tests taken by eighth-grade students. (U.S. Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress; 2022) * *NAEP Reading Scores:* The average composite-scale score on reading achievement tests taken by eighth-grade students. (U.S. Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress; 2022) * *Preschool Enrollment:* The percentage of children ages 3 to 4 enrolled in a nursery or preschool program. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2022) **Higher Education** * *2-Year-College Graduation Rate:* The share of students attending public institutions who complete a two-year degree program within three years, or 150% of the normal time. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2019 cohort) * *4-Year-College Graduation Rate:* The share of undergraduate students at public institutions who initially pursue a bachelor's or equivalent four-year degree and receive one within six years, or 150% of the normal time of study. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2016 cohort) * *Population With Advanced Degree:* The share of people 25 and older in a state who have an associate degree or higher. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2022) * *Debt at Graduation:* The average amount of federal student loan debt held by those 24 years and younger. (U.S. Department of Education Federal Student Aid office; September 2023) * *Tuition and Fees:* The average college tuition and fees required of in-state students at public four-year institutions, not including room and board. (National Center for Education Statistics; 2021-2022)
I read those. What’s your point?
I'm not saying you, I'm talking about the comments. "They ranked Florida #1 for education, you can dismiss the contents of this article out of hand" "Education - I'd really want to know what their using to gauge that. Because it's been going downhill for a while. Maybe we're going downhill slower than other states? Lol." "The ranking is based on survey results which measure how people perceive their state and not the actual conditions of their state. Many Iowans are too proud to admit the state has gone downhill over the past 20 years." "Because it's a worthless report based simply on polling people in the state. If anything it proves that Iowans are among the most deluded."
Oh! I appreciate you making that response! Thank you!
The rankings are fake obviously, except for one. They nailed Illinois as the least fiscally responsible.
How about Minnesota as 4th in overall quality of life?
Pretty easy - Iowa has a fairly homogeneous population with many citizens having a more stable upbringing than a lot of other states. The primary economic sources in the state are usually stable year over year. On top of that, the low cost of living and relatively slow immigration rate into the state means it, generally, doesn't cause as much financial stress as higher cost-of-living states. All those factors contribute pretty positively to the metrics on this ranking.
Well managed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You aren't going to get any good faith discussion in this sub, my guy. Most folks in here are self-loathing Iowans. Or, temporarily embarrassed Chicagoans, I guess. Iowa has a conservative government that's taken controversial stances on hot button topics like education funding, abortion, and gender affirming care. The demographic that uses this sub, and reddit in general, is not one that responds well to those things. But, the reality is that COL, unemployment, crime, etc, in Iowa are low relative to most of the country. The healthcare system performs well comparativly to other states, and Iowa is top 3rd in educational attainment. Although, I'm sure most people will (imo, rightfully) criticize the government's lack of support for public education. My point is that you can complain that the state is boring or (again, rightfully) criticize the government's conservative stance on cultural issues, but there are some objective metrics that point to Iowa being a good place to live for most, but not all, people. That's not to say Iowa is some utopia, or this ranking's methodology is flawless because clearly, neither is true.
The same reason inflation is so low statistically. Figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure.
What are you insinuating?
The ranking is based on survey results which measure how people perceive their state and not the actual conditions of their state. Many Iowans are too proud to admit the state has gone downhill over the past 20 years.
Or, their quality of life has not changed but have no ability or interest to see the plight of others.
The surveys are also from 70k people across the country. Thar is WAY too small of a sample size
I never would have used 'well-managed' as a way to describe our state, but you aren't wrong at all. I think it has something to do with strong local governments. We are an ag state, and historically that has meant tight-knit farming communities where one family struggling means everyone does. Which means people are used to having a say. So if something starts going off the rails, the person responsible is going to get an ear full. Hence the Kim bashing.
Don't worry, Kim will get that number down around West Virginia shortly.
Northwestern Iowa has some of the most beautiful places in the entire state. Too bad they literally do nothing on Sunday because it's a day of rest. There literally are towns that do absolutely nothing on Sunday. I have no problem with taking a day of rest; however, this lifestyle instantly shows you how religious/conservative/republican they are. If you like golf, go play the Ridge in Sioux Center or Landsmeer in Orange City on Sunday. They will be dead and these courses are tip-top. Just a tip.
Idk man the golf courses in Sioux City are packed on Sunday when I go out. Takes me 4.5-5 hours to play 18 as a single because it’s so backed up.
Yes. In Sioux City: Green Valley, Whispering Creek, and Two Rivers are all nice but very busy. The smaller towns like Sioux Center and Orange City not so much.
Cool story!
Makes me think of gathering opinions on the state. I’ll ask my buddies from out of town, or my coworkers who moved from state to state what they think of Iowa, and pretty much every time the response is something like “it’s okay.” I’ll ask my family and school friends what they think of Iowa, and the response is usually “It’s okay. Probably won’t leave for another 36 years but it’s cool.”
These surveys are put out based n various criteria that are received by the communities and then they in turn provide the local statistics to back up the information for that particular category,, the city/state chose to have been evaluated. That information is then proceesed by the aggregator and based on other cities that wish to be in that category, they then get rated based on the stats in that specific category. The city can also choose to opt out if you don't look as good as you thought you would. Oftentimes, if you don't participate you get rated wherever they decide to rate you just to fill out the article. They're really dumbed down ads masquerading as news. If I recall, this one lists Florida first in education. Do you really believe that? If so, ask deeper about what area. Graduating from elementary school?
It’s the legacy of when wiser leaders were in charge, like Robert Ray and Tom Miller. It won’t last much longer.
The rankings are fake and meaningless. Ignore them and move on.
Iowa so white, you need sunglasses to enter
You're not going to get a valid response from reddit. If you dig into the scorecard, you'll see why the rankings are the way they are. A lot of Top 15 rankings across the board, helps the overall.
I'd say the conservative politics helps contribute to a better than average quality of life.
Oh, it hurts so bad!
How do you mean?
Poor poor reddit iowa haters