I actually took a look at the rankings and was struck by the criteria used.
Firstly, it didn't look at anything positive. Rather, it inferred "best" by
the absence of certain negatives. THese negatives, it just so happened,
coincide with major sources of governmental funding.
Most interesting was the seeming correlation with the rankings and states
dense in minority members. It seems that, with the exception of Idaho, the
lower rankings seem to be high in minority density and the high rankings are
of states low in minority density. In other words, kids are better off in
States with a lower percentage of ethnic minority people per mile!
I haven't looked at the REAL data, nor have I compared it to any objective
measures of "minorities per square mile." It is just an off the cuff
observation of mine. It may be provocative, but I thought it was interesting
to explore.
RJ
