Interesting article. I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of many aspects of public (and private) education that are currently available to the masses. However, one factor that I think may not be thoroughly addressed is how much the socio-economic status of various districts within each state are taken into consideration. How are ‘richer’ districts doing in comparison to ‘poorer’ districts? What does that say about the quality of education we make available in these poorer districts? I think often enough, these grades are a result of averaging the 2, painting a picture of sub-par academic standards everywhere, rather than getting to root of the problem, which are the socio-economic, and demographic issues that contribute to the quality of educational institutions in poorer areas. The issue is much larger than curriculums and how they are administered (although they are contributing factors). But I think there is something to be said when ‘richer’ districts consistently do much better than their poorer counterparts. In fact, when you really take a closer look at it, there really is no comparison… Ultimately, I think social and economic reform, along with educational reform, are at the root of revitalizing the system as a whole.