Standardized Testing - John Oliver

[RushmoreAcademy]

I'm a teacher and everything Oliver says is pretty much spot on.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:
South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2#ixzz3ZI01umhD

While only 17 prominent studies have looked at the teacher union-achievement link, the rvidence suggests that unionism raises achievement modestly for most students in public schools. These favorable patterns on unionism include higher math and verbal standardized test scores, and very possibly, an increased likelihood of high school graduation. Although most studies were conducted on high-school students, favorable union effects were also found at the elementary level.

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Chapter10-Carini-Final.pdf

I'll be the first to admit that this in and of itself doesn't prove a causal relationship, but it it does clearly show that unions hardly get in the way of student achievement.

I do agree that principals should have more discretion in staffing their schools, and the task of removing a bad teacher is too arduous. But the solution ought to be streamlining the process, not eliminating people's rights to organize.

It's up for debate of course, but I'd like to point out the difference between correlation and causation.

If you are interested in performance, I can't think of why you would include a union in your design.

[Pakuni]

It's up for debate of course, but I'd like to point out the difference between correlation and causation.

Yes. Thank you for repeating me.

If you are interested in performance, I can't think of why you would include a union in your design.

Maybe because numerous studies have found that students living in states with strong teacher unions perform better academically than their peers in states with weak (or no) unions. As I said, there are enough other factors involved that one can't make clear determination of a causal relationship. But, if nothing else, it disproves the argument that unions have a negative effect on academic achievement.

Here are couple more examples:

Focusing on two of the best-known standardized tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT), the authors examine whether interstate variation in standardized test performance is negatively linked to interstate variation in teacher unions. They find a significant and positive relationship: that is, the presence of teacher unions appears to be linked to stronger state performance on these exams. These findings challenge the position that teacher unions depress student academic performance, and in so doing invite further empirical scholarship on this topic from a range of academic disciplines.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-70-issue-4/herarticle/lessons-learned-from-state-sat-and-act-scores_130

These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

[Eldon]

Yes. Thank you for repeating me.

Maybe because numerous studies have found that students living in states with strong teacher unions perform better academically than their peers in states with weak (or no) unions. As I said, there are enough other factors involved that one can't make clear determination of a causal relationship. But, if nothing else, it disproves the argument that unions have a negative effect on academic achievement.

Here are couple more examples:

Focusing on two of the best-known standardized tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT), the authors examine whether interstate variation in standardized test performance is negatively linked to interstate variation in teacher unions. They find a significant and positive relationship: that is, the presence of teacher unions appears to be linked to stronger state performance on these exams. These findings challenge the position that teacher unions depress student academic performance, and in so doing invite further empirical scholarship on this topic from a range of academic disciplines.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-70-issue-4/herarticle/lessons-learned-from-state-sat-and-act-scores_130

These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

Depressed relative to what?  You don't know the benchmark.  That is to say, you can never be sure that without unions the academic success of these students would have been higher. 

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Yes. Thank you for repeating me.

Maybe because numerous studies have found that students living in states with strong teacher unions perform better academically than their peers in states with weak (or no) unions. As I said, there are enough other factors involved that one can't make clear determination of a causal relationship. But, if nothing else, it disproves the argument that unions have a negative effect on academic achievement.

Here are couple more examples:

Focusing on two of the best-known standardized tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT), the authors examine whether interstate variation in standardized test performance is negatively linked to interstate variation in teacher unions. They find a significant and positive relationship: that is, the presence of teacher unions appears to be linked to stronger state performance on these exams. These findings challenge the position that teacher unions depress student academic performance, and in so doing invite further empirical scholarship on this topic from a range of academic disciplines.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-70-issue-4/herarticle/lessons-learned-from-state-sat-and-act-scores_130

These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

Cool. Thanks for the material as well as attitude.

I'm suspicious of any conclusion that unions would cause better quality in any industry. Not aware of any cases where this happened. I agree unions have had value, but not for outcomes of efficiency or quality.

I'm fairly certain MUHS, for example, does not have unionized teachers and rates among the best of Wisconsin high schools. I'd venture to guess this is the same in most if not all cities with similar private schools.

I'm aware private schools are less encumbered by many things that public schools are. They can also go out of business if they don't demonstrate a value for the additional tuition. If having unionized teachers were actually a competitive advantage for these schools, I'd expect more of them would pursue it.

[Pakuni]

I'm fairly certain MUHS, for example, does not have unionized teachers and rates among the best of Wisconsin high schools. I'd venture to guess this is the same in most if not all cities with similar private schools.

Why do you think that is?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Why do you think that is?

Not sure, but I don't think they would improve with the addition of teachers unions.

[GGGG]

Yes. Thank you for repeating me.

Maybe because numerous studies have found that students living in states with strong teacher unions perform better academically than their peers in states with weak (or no) unions. As I said, there are enough other factors involved that one can't make clear determination of a causal relationship. But, if nothing else, it disproves the argument that unions have a negative effect on academic achievement.

Here are couple more examples:

Focusing on two of the best-known standardized tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT), the authors examine whether interstate variation in standardized test performance is negatively linked to interstate variation in teacher unions. They find a significant and positive relationship: that is, the presence of teacher unions appears to be linked to stronger state performance on these exams. These findings challenge the position that teacher unions depress student academic performance, and in so doing invite further empirical scholarship on this topic from a range of academic disciplines.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-70-issue-4/herarticle/lessons-learned-from-state-sat-and-act-scores_130

These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

I wonder if it is as simple as a union having an upward impact on salaries, thus attracting a greater number of high level candidates to the profession.

[Pakuni]

Not sure, but I don't think they would improve with the addition of teachers unions.

How do you know?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

How do you know?

I don't know. I think.

[Pakuni]

I wonder if it is as simple as a union having an upward impact on salaries, thus attracting a greater number of high level candidates to the profession.

That's certainly a plausible theory.
Another is that states with strong unions are likely to have better working conditions for teachers, and those better working conditions are also better learning conditions - less crowded classrooms, more teacher assistants/aides, better and more training opportunities for instructors, more spending on resources, etc.

[Pakuni]

I don't know. I think.

Do you think the type of student whose family can afford paying $11,000+ a year on high school tuition is more likely to score well on a standardized test than a kid at North Division or some other inner-city school?
Does that possibly have more to do with the academic success at MUHS than the union status of its faculty?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Do you think the type of student whose family can afford paying $11,000+ a year on high school tuition is more likely to score well on a standardized test than a kid at North Division or some other inner-city school?
Does that possibly have more to do with the academic success at MUHS than the union status of its faculty?

Can you walk me through how simply having more money in your bank account results in higher test scores?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Do you think the type of student whose family can afford paying $11,000+ a year on high school tuition is more likely to score well on a standardized test than a kid at North Division or some other inner-city school?
Does that possibly have more to do with the academic success at MUHS than the union status of its faculty?

Why is it, do you think, that essentially zero private schools put up with unionized teachers? If that truly helps academic performance, they'd be all over it, no?

[Pakuni]

Can you walk me through how simply having more money in your bank account results in higher test scores?

There have been literally dozens - if not hundreds - of studies showing a direct connection socio-economic status/family income and academic success, for a plethora of reasons.

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status/

http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible

http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/_Forms/spring2014/Hernandez/

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

There have been literally dozens - if not hundreds - of studies showing a direct connection socio-economic status/family income and academic success, for a plethora of reasons.

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status/

http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible

http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/_Forms/spring2014/Hernandez/

While I'm certainly killing time on this board I'm not interested in looking through four dense articles and studies to cobble together a point you're unwilling or unable to articulate.

I'll point out that the MUHSes of the world aren't only ahead of inner-city schools. Schools in Wauwatosa, Waukesha, etc also underperform MUHS (generally speaking).

[Pakuni]

While I'm certainly killing time on this board I'm not interested in looking through four dense articles and studies to cobble together a point you're unwilling or unable to articulate.

I'll point out that the MUHSes of the world aren't only ahead of inner-city schools. Schools in Wauwatosa, Waukesha, etc also underperform MUHS (generally speaking).

So, in other words:



But I'll try to make it very simple for you .... Kids who come from wealthier backgrounds: have more access to early education; more access to resources like books in the home, the Internet, and computers; have educated parents who are more likely to stress the importance of education and take an active role in their child's learning; have more access to tutoring, test-preparation courses and educational programs outside school; are more likely to be surrounded by peers who take academics seriously; are less likely to live in high-crime and gang areas; are more likely to be well-nourished.
All of these factors - plus a few more I haven't named - greatly increase a student's chances for favorable academic outcomes.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

So, in other words:



But I'll try to make it very simple for you .... Kids who come from wealthier backgrounds: have more access to early education; more access to resources like books in the home, the Internet, and computers; have educated parents who are more likely to stress the importance of education and take an active role in their child's learning; have more access to tutoring, test-preparation courses and educational programs outside school; are more likely to be surrounded by peers who take academics seriously; are less likely to live in high-crime and gang areas; are more likely to be well-nourished.
All of these factors - plus a few more I haven't named - greatly increase a student's chances for favorable academic outcomes.

I can't help but get the feeling that one of us is handling this discussing less maturely than the other.

As it pertains to teachers unions I'll say again that a private school goes out of business if it can't provide enough incremental value for its tuition dollars. In other words, it endures more performance-based competition than public schools.

Since that is the case, why is it that none of these private schools are encouraging their teachers to unionize, and thus get the edge against their non-unionized competition?

[Pakuni]

I can't help but get the feeling that one of us is handling this discussing less maturely than the other.

As it pertains to teachers unions I'll say again that a private school goes out of business if it can't provide enough incremental value for its tuition dollars. In other words, it endures more performance-based competition than public schools.

Since that is the case, why is it that none of these private schools are encouraging their teachers to unionize, and thus get the edge against their non-unionized competition?

Because a private school is a business and, as such, it is greatly incentivized to keep costs down.
What's the number one cost for a school? Teacher compensation.
What happens when teachers - or really, any workers - unionize? Compensation rises.
I think you know this already, though.
I think you also know that a private school couldn't prevent its teachers from unionizing if they wanted to.

To answer your next question ... how do private schools succeed if they pay their teachers less?
Well, there are several answers.
First, as I've already addressed, they have students that are primed to succeed.
Second, they have the option to bar or remove - and they do bar and remove - students who are not primed to achieve. They don't have to enroll recent immigrants who barely speak the language, kids with special needs, kids with behavioral issues, etc. 
Third, what they can't offer teachers in terms of compensation, they make up for with other benefits - little to no standardized testing; less bureaucracy; fewer regulations; better students with better parents; more control over curriculum; and so on.

Nonetheless, teacher turnover rates are far higher in private schools than in public schools because people want to get paid what they're worth.

Lastly, no one here has argued that being unionized guarantees a better outcome. I've taken pains to say just the opposite.
But the fact remains that, contrary to earlier claims in this thread, all the evidence shows that unions do not have a negative impact on student achievement.

[GGGG]

While I'm certainly killing time on this board I'm not interested in looking through four dense articles and studies to cobble together a point you're unwilling or unable to articulate.

I'll point out that the MUHSes of the world aren't only ahead of inner-city schools. Schools in Wauwatosa, Waukesha, etc also underperform MUHS (generally speaking).

Your first paragraph is exceedingly weak. He provided the dat, yet your are dismissing it because you don't want to read it?

And of course MUHS is a great school. But my guess is that on the list of reasons why it's great, the lack of a teachers union is far down the list.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Because a private school is a business and, as such, it is greatly incentivized to keep costs down.
What's the number one cost for a school? Teacher compensation.
What happens when teachers - or really, any workers - unionize? Compensation rises.
I think you know this already, though.
I think you also know that a private school couldn't prevent its teachers from unionizing if they wanted to.

To answer your next question ... how do private schools succeed if they pay their teachers less?
Well, there are several answers.
First, as I've already addressed, they have students that are primed to succeed.
Second, they have the option to bar or remove - and they do bar and remove - students who are not primed to achieve. They don't have to enroll recent immigrants who barely speak the language, kids with special needs, kids with behavioral issues, etc. 
Third, what they can't offer teachers in terms of compensation, they make up for with other benefits - little to no standardized testing; less bureaucracy; fewer regulations; better students with better parents; more control over curriculum; and so on.

Nonetheless, teacher turnover rates are far higher in private schools than in public schools because people want to get paid what they're worth.

Lastly, no one here has argued that being unionized guarantees a better outcome. I've taken pains to say just the opposite.
But the fact remains that, contrary to earlier claims in this thread, all the evidence shows that unions do not have a negative impact on student achievement.

businesses don't succeed by solely keeping costs down, nor are they the only entities that need to manage cost (public organizations do as well).

If private schools offered no intrinsic value beyond the public options, then all "rich kids" would be concentrated in schools like Whitefish Bay, etc and yield the same scores, matriculation profiles, etc.

Like any business, private schools are wise to leverage any advantage they can to show that they are worth the investment more than their competition. This allows them to justify higher tuition, have their selection of students, etc.

My suggestion is that unionized teachers are not worth the additional cost in terms of delivering outcomes for students.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Your first paragraph is exceedingly weak. He provided the dat, yet your are dismissing it because you don't want to read it?

And of course MUHS is a great school. But my guess is that on the list of reasons why it's great, the lack of a teachers union is far down the list.

I'll invite you to use the following link to support my argument:

www.google.com

Don't dismiss my post because you're unwilling to do a little digging into what I might have been specifically referring to.

[jesmu84]

I don't think you can really compare private and public schools. There's just too many differences.

Now, comparing public schools with unions vs public schools without unions, I think is a more linear comparison.

I don't know if there is any, but I'd be interested in any evidence/studies out there comparing student outcomes of public union vs public without union.

Of course, ideally, you'd compare schools with similar socio-economic profiles. Because, as has been demonstrated time and time again, higher socio-economic student populations tend to do better than lower socio-economic student populations.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

I don't think you can really compare private and public schools. There's just too many differences.

Now, comparing public schools with unions vs public schools without unions, I think is a more linear comparison.

I don't know if there is any, but I'd be interested in any evidence/studies out there comparing student outcomes of public union vs public without union.

Of course, ideally, you'd compare schools with similar socio-economic profiles. Because, as has been demonstrated time and time again, higher socio-economic student populations tend to do better than lower socio-economic student populations.

Pakuni is about to get upset at you for not reading all of the links he's posted here...

Yes. Thank you for repeating me.

Maybe because numerous studies have found that students living in states with strong teacher unions perform better academically than their peers in states with weak (or no) unions. As I said, there are enough other factors involved that one can't make clear determination of a causal relationship. But, if nothing else, it disproves the argument that unions have a negative effect on academic achievement.

Here are couple more examples:

Focusing on two of the best-known standardized tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT), the authors examine whether interstate variation in standardized test performance is negatively linked to interstate variation in teacher unions. They find a significant and positive relationship: that is, the presence of teacher unions appears to be linked to stronger state performance on these exams. These findings challenge the position that teacher unions depress student academic performance, and in so doing invite further empirical scholarship on this topic from a range of academic disciplines.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-70-issue-4/herarticle/lessons-learned-from-state-sat-and-act-scores_130

These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.
In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.
If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html

[Litehouse]

If private schools offered no intrinsic value beyond the public options, then all "rich kids" would be concentrated in schools like Whitefish Bay, etc and yield the same scores, matriculation profiles, etc.

Like any business, private schools are wise to leverage any advantage they can to show that they are worth the investment more than their competition. This allows them to justify higher tuition, have their selection of students, etc.

My suggestion is that unionized teachers are not worth the additional cost in terms of delivering outcomes for students.

They are concentrated in Whitefish Bay
http://www.jsonline.com/news/whitefish-bay-high-takes-top-average-act-score-again-b99334878z1-272068401.html?ipad=y