If I'm not mistaken, they compare children of similar demographics. This controls for how different states have different percentages of varying demographics. Based on this, I don't see how the convergence of performance over time could explain why Mississippi would be doing well.
Depends if the corrections are static or dynamic. The states with the worst relative moves are all super white, while the states with the best relative moves have large black populations. That suggests something strange is going on with the adjustment.
If state A has 30% reduced school lunches and state B has 5%, then I don't think it would be strange to see the adjustment resulting in an increase in state A's ranking relative to state B. For example, in the original raw scoring method, if state B has lower quality education, then it may still outperform state A due to the difference in demographics.
Yes I understand the reason why to adjust for demographics, but if the demographic adjustment results in adjusted results for white states falling off a cliff while more diverse states hold steady, there’s probably something funky going on with the adjustment.
