The New Jersey gubernatorial election is right around the corner. I have a whole bunch of reasons why teachers and their families, despite whatever you may think about Mikie Sherrill (D), should never, ever vote for Jack Ciattarelli (R). I'll get to those in a bit, but let's talk about what seems to have emerged as the number one education issue in the race: Do New Jersey schools suck?
If you follow the news, this will seem like an absurd question. Time and time again, New Jersey's schools are highly ranked. But Jack Ciattarelli thinks New Jersey has much to learn from low-ranked states in the South:
In response to a Chalkbeat question during last month’s Newark Today episode on WBGO radio, the Republican candidate said he would implement a “high-impact curriculum,” a set of research-based teaching strategies and learning practices that align with state standards and help boost student achievement. He pointed to Louisiana and Mississippi’s high-impact reading curriculum that has gained national recognition for improving state test scores, particularly in literacy. [emphasis mine]
Mikie Sherrill responded in one of their debates that emulating southern states was a bad idea for New Jersey:
“He keeps citing places like Louisiana and Mississippi, I think some of the worst schools in the entire nation.
— Karen Vaites (@karenvaites) October 18, 2025
If that’s where he wants to drive us to, I think voters should be aware of that.”@RepSherrill, in the NJ gubernatorial debate with @Jack4NJ.
Who wants to tell her? pic.twitter.com/Lwgu1mPICP
“He keeps citing places like Louisiana and Mississippi, I think some of the worst schools in the entire nation.
If that’s where he wants to drive us to, I think voters should be aware of that.”@RepSherrill, in the NJ gubernatorial debate with @Jack4NJ.
Who wants to tell her? pic.twitter.com/Lwgu1mPICP
— Karen Vaites (@karenvaites)
I'm not going to weigh in on SOR; if you're interested, Paul Thomas has an excellent review of the debate at the National Education Policy Center. Instead, I'll turn to a blog post by Chad Aldeman that I see being passed around on social media. Aldeman weights in on the Sherrill-Ciattarelli debate, taking the side of those who don't think New Jersey schools are doing a very good job:
But I want to double back on Sherrill’s casual slams on Mississippi and Louisiana. Do they have some of the “worst schools” in the nation, as Sherrill claimed? And by implication, is New Jersey doing better than these states? The answer to both of those questions is no.
Sherrill’s confusion may stem from the fact that New Jersey does have pretty high student achievement scores, but this could be largely because New Jersey is a relatively wealthy state that spends a lot of money on its schools. Does that mean its schools are good? What value are the schools adding? [emphasis mine]
Again, there are lots of well-funded folks around these days making this same argument: New Jersey's schools aren't as great as the data appears to show. The implication is that the Garden State is coasting, because it's a wealthy state, and it's easier to get high test scores when you have lower levels of poverty and higher household income.
Of course, no one disagrees that income and test scores correlate. I've been pointing this out for years: socio-economic status is the strongest predictor of test score outcomes, and comparisons between states (or schools) have to acknowledge this. Aldeman, however, thinks he's found a way around this problem (the scores he refers to are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), generally considered the most valid way to compare states):
I started with just one subject, one grade, and one student category (income), but the Urban Institute has taken this one step further. They factored in all the measurable forms of advantage and disadvantage to try to calculate “adjusted” scores by state. As you might anticipate by now, New Jersey looks much better on its raw scores than it does after you control for its advantages. Across 4th and 8th grade math and reading, New Jersey’s raw scores are higher than those in Mississippi and Louisiana, but once you dig in, those advantages start to disappear.
Remember the raw 4th grade math scores? They looked like this:
New Jersey: 240
Mississippi: 239
Louisiana: 235
But once adjust them for the state’s demographics, here’s what they look like:
Mississippi: 249
Louisiana: 245
New Jersey: 235
A slight advantage turns into a big disadvantage once you look under the hood. In fact, this same pattern appears in all the tested grades and subjects. New Jersey looks good on the unadjusted scores. Here are the raw 8th grade reading scores:
New Jersey: 266
Louisiana: 257
Mississippi: 254
And here’s where things stand after the demographic adjustment:
Louisiana: 265
Mississippi: 263
New Jersey: 259
Those "adjusted" NAEP scores are publicly available from the Urban Institute. I actually have quite a lot to say about how these adjustments were made and their validity for certain purposes, but that's for another time and forum. Right now, let's recap Aldeman's argument: New Jersey may have high test scores (or, in the case of Grade 4, not even that high), but that's only because it's students are wealthier than in other states.
To which I reply: Yes, that's right -- and it's an indicator that New Jersey has good schools that are doing exactly what they were designed to do.
Let's bring up the data so we can examine it:
I'm using Grade 8 data because the students who take this test have been enrolled in their state's public education system for a longer period, likely better reflecting the actual effects of their schooling.* When Urban's adjustments are applied, NJ clearly has a disadvantage, while LA and MS surge ahead. Again, the argument is that this is "fair" because test scores shouldn't just reflect economic advantage.
I use the math scores to make the point here, but reading scores yield the same result. NJ is a low-poverty state; it has less than half the poverty rate of either MS or LA. It is easier to get high test scores when you are educating fewer kids in poverty, so it's arguably not "fair" to compare states without accounting for this.
In the same way household incomes are much higher in New Jersey. But why?
Because New Jersey is a well-educated state.
New Jersey has a much higher college attainment rate than Louisiana or Mississippi. Everyone knows college grads earn more than non-grads; that explains New Jersey's high income. And higher income means more money to spend... on schools! Which get higher outcomes and prepare kids for college, which leads to higher incomes, which leads to more school spending, which...
Despite the skepticism of many, a clear research consensus has emerged that higher spending on schools leads to better outcomes. But I'd argue much of New Jersey's school spending doesn't actually translate into higher NAEP scores; instead, more affluent schools spend on broad curricular offerings, extracurriculars, student support, and other things that help boost college enrollment but don't necessarily boost scores.
We can argue whether this is fair (notice I didn't put it in quotes this time); publicly funded social replication is highly problematic.** What we shouldn't do is argue that New Jersey's schools are bad when they are doing exactly what they are designed to do.
When Urban "adjusts" its NAEP scores, it is wiping away one of the primary outcomes of good schooling that public education advocates want: higher incomes.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose Mississippi enters a period of sustained educational success, due to Science of Reading or higher school spending or whatever. College-going rises for Mississippi, so incomes go up and poverty goes down. Consequently, Urban "adjusts" the state's scores so they go lower. Then advocates claim Mississippi isn't really doing that well, because its "real" test scores are low.
Does that make sense?
We have a lot to do to make New Jersey's schools more equitable, more effective, and more efficient. But let's be clear: relative to other states—especially in the South—New Jersey's schools don't suck. Quite the contrary.
Next: teachers and your families, if you care about your salaries, benefits, and pensions, you simply can't vote for Jack Ciattarelli.
Technical notes: The NAEP data all comes from Urban, both the adjusted and actual scores. Poverty, income, and spending data are from the School Finance Indicators Database, which uses NCES and Census Bureau data. All are based on data at the school district level; I get the state averages by weighted means, weights are student enrollment. NAEP data is 2024; SFID is 2022, the latest year available for the income data. College attainment data is from the Census Bureau, 2023.
* I often notice that advocates for the "Southern Surge" cite Grade 4 statistics all the time, but often stay away from Grade 8. It's worth asking why...
** I'd also challenge anyone to make an argument that Mississippi and Louisiana's school systems are paragons of social equity. New Jersey's got real problems with equitably funding its schools, but it's not like the South is all that great itself.
