collapse

* Recent Posts

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Standardized Testing - John Oliver  (Read 20261 times)

Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2015, 09:35:52 PM »
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

Yes, but not all of them. That's my point. If the only value private schools offer is that you rub shoulders with other rich families, then you'd be stupid to spend any more than what your tax dollars provide in Whitefish Bay. Why pay $11k for something your public school provides already.

My point is that private schools must provide some other value beyond this. In the MUHS example I keep using, their graduates tend to get into more exclusive universities, have higher test scores, etc.

This means that something other than affluence is influencing the greater success at private schools like MUHS over their public counterparts.
"Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, 'you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water-.    Never missed in 6 years." - Chico apropos of nothing

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2015, 11:12:03 PM »
Yes, but not all of them. That's my point. If the only value private schools offer is that you rub shoulders with other rich families, then you'd be stupid to spend any more than what your tax dollars provide in Whitefish Bay. Why pay $11k for something your public school provides already.

My point is that private schools must provide some other value beyond this. In the MUHS example I keep using, their graduates tend to get into more exclusive universities, have higher test scores, etc.

This means that something other than affluence is influencing the greater success at private schools like MUHS over their public counterparts.


In a 2007 study, "Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools?" the Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that once key family background characteristics were considered, public high school students do as well as private school students. "When we controlled for other factors, family background was the biggest determinator of how a kid was going to do," says Diane Stark Rentner, Deputy Director of the CEP.

The report found that:

1. Private high school students scored no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science and history than their counterparts in public high schools.

2. Private high school students were no more likely to attend college than their public high school counterparts.

3. By age 26, young adults who had attended private school enjoyed no more job satisfaction than those who had attended public high schools and were no more likely to be engaged in civic activities.


The study did identify two exceptions: Kids who attend private school had higher SAT scores. According to the study, "independent private school students do not learn any more than other students as measured on achievement tests, but they do perform better on the SATs." CEP believes this "could mean that students in private schools tend to have higher IQs (aptitude tests are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests) or that private schools are better at honing students' test-taking skills (on which SAT scores are somewhat dependent)." This, in turn, gave private school students an advantage getting into elite colleges.

Catholic schools run by holy orders did have some positive academic effects, such as slightly higher achievement levels in reading, math and history.

The role of parents


CEP found that private schools contain a larger proportion of children whose parents have characteristics (such as higher levels of education) that contribute to learning than do public schools. These characteristics are what appear to make the difference.

http://theweek.com/articles/464411/private-school-worth
« Last Edit: May 05, 2015, 11:27:54 PM by Pakuni »

77ncaachamps

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8457
  • Last of the Warrior Class
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2015, 11:38:33 PM »
You can't talk about MUHS, the lack of unions, student achievement and leave out the student/family demographics of those that attend.

Why doesn't MUHS just teach troubled MPS kids?
Wouldn't that be more worthwhile than middle/upper-middle students who come from families that are generally stable, supportive and resourceful?

Oh, yeah. It's a business. And those MPS kids probably can't afford it.
So MUHS, despite having great teachers, would run out of money and go out of business.

Test scores are tied to those responsive and responsible families who can afford a Jesuit education at MUHS.

No doubt, unions have increased compensation for the teaching profession.
Do you think they make enough money? How would you fix it?

A charter school teacher, with solid results, "became too expensive" for the school and was cut after 3 years. Results weren't the issue; her pay was.

Starting salaries in the Bay Area for teachers is around $50k gross. That can't even pay for rent in many places.

Finally, re: testing, I understand there's a push for linking testing with job security for teachers.
But if three parents hold out their children, among the higher scoring students, would the average score of the tested students be a fair evaluation of the teacher?
Why isn't there a push for the same public treatment for other groups like doctors?
SS Marquette

Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2015, 01:33:07 AM »

In a 2007 study, "Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools?" the Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that once key family background characteristics were considered, public high school students do as well as private school students. "When we controlled for other factors, family background was the biggest determinator of how a kid was going to do," says Diane Stark Rentner, Deputy Director of the CEP.

The report found that:

1. Private high school students scored no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science and history than their counterparts in public high schools.

2. Private high school students were no more likely to attend college than their public high school counterparts.

3. By age 26, young adults who had attended private school enjoyed no more job satisfaction than those who had attended public high schools and were no more likely to be engaged in civic activities.


The study did identify two exceptions: Kids who attend private school had higher SAT scores. According to the study, "independent private school students do not learn any more than other students as measured on achievement tests, but they do perform better on the SATs." CEP believes this "could mean that students in private schools tend to have higher IQs (aptitude tests are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests) or that private schools are better at honing students' test-taking skills (on which SAT scores are somewhat dependent)." This, in turn, gave private school students an advantage getting into elite colleges.

Catholic schools run by holy orders did have some positive academic effects, such as slightly higher achievement levels in reading, math and history.

The role of parents


CEP found that private schools contain a larger proportion of children whose parents have characteristics (such as higher levels of education) that contribute to learning than do public schools. These characteristics are what appear to make the difference.

http://theweek.com/articles/464411/private-school-worth
I consider my theory debunked.
"Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, 'you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water-.    Never missed in 6 years." - Chico apropos of nothing

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2015, 09:20:29 AM »

Catholic schools run by holy orders did have some positive academic effects, such as slightly higher achievement levels in reading, math and history.

The role of parents[/i]

CEP found that private schools contain a larger proportion of children whose parents have characteristics (such as higher levels of education) that contribute to learning than do public schools. These characteristics are what appear to make the difference.

http://theweek.com/articles/464411/private-school-worth

Private school education isn't about education... it's about being private.  In other words, you're not paying for the teacher, you're paying for who sits next to Johnny or Suzy in class.

Money well spent, in my opinion.  I'd rather my kids be taught in an environment where the vast majority of parents believe that education begins at home.  Now, if I lived in Buffalo Grove or Glencoe, then sure, I'd send my kids to Stevenson or New Trier.  But I don't.  Such is the downside of living in an area where your HH income is above the median... cost of living may be relatively cheaper, but cost of education is relatively higher.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2015, 09:32:39 AM »
Private school education isn't about education... it's about being private.  In other words, you're not paying for the teacher, you're paying for who sits next to Johnny or Suzy in class.

Money well spent, in my opinion.  I'd rather my kids be taught in an environment where the vast majority of parents believe that education begins at home.  Now, if I lived in Buffalo Grove or Glencoe, then sure, I'd send my kids to Stevenson or New Trier.  But I don't.  Such is the downside of living in an area where your HH income is above the median... cost of living may be relatively cheaper, but cost of education is relatively higher.


I understand this to a point.  I do think there is value in Johnny or Suzy being in school with students who don't take it as seriously...or students who *wish* they had parents who believe that education begins at home.

That being said, I wouldn't be sending my kids to the Milwaukee Public Schools.  But to West Allis, Wauwatosa or Cudahy?  Sure.  Those districts provide a safe environment for kids and offer plenty in the way of college prep classes.

I'm not being critical of your choice by any means.  It's just that my experience as a student and as a parent leads me to believe that many public schools provide a high quality education while teaching lessons about dealing with students who aren't as fortunate as you. 

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2015, 09:35:08 AM »
Private school education isn't about education... it's about being private.  In other words, you're not paying for the teacher, you're paying for who sits next to Johnny or Suzy in class.

Money well spent, in my opinion.  I'd rather my kids be taught in an environment where the vast majority of parents believe that education begins at home.  Now, if I lived in Buffalo Grove or Glencoe, then sure, I'd send my kids to Stevenson or New Trier.  But I don't.  Such is the downside of living in an area where your HH income is above the median... cost of living may be relatively cheaper, but cost of education is relatively higher.

Right.
The success of students in private schools has little to do with the quality of instructors - and nothing to do with whether they're organized or not - but with the fact the vast majority of kids in private schools are there because their parents value education highly (as shown, in part, by their willingness to pay upwards of $5-10K for it).
And kids with parents who value education highly - and are surrounded by peers whose parents are the same - usually do better in school than those whose parents are less concerned with education.

Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2015, 10:42:52 AM »
Right.
The success of students in private schools has little to do with the quality of instructors - and nothing to do with whether they're organized or not - but with the fact the vast majority of kids in private schools are there because their parents value education highly (as shown, in part, by their willingness to pay upwards of $5-10K for it).
And kids with parents who value education highly - and are surrounded by peers whose parents are the same - usually do better in school than those whose parents are less concerned with education.
So to expand on this, it sounds like the most important factor contributing to student success has nothing to do with unions one way or another.
"Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, 'you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water-.    Never missed in 6 years." - Chico apropos of nothing

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2015, 10:48:37 AM »
So to expand on this, it sounds like the most important factor contributing to student success has nothing to do with unions one way or another.

I think there probably are some benefits .... as in every other profession, higher pay will tend to attract better workers; better working conditions for teachers can equal better learning environments for kids (i.e. less crowded classrooms, more teacher aides); etc.
But does the union status of a faculty outweigh parent involvement when it comes to determining student success? I don't think it does.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 10:51:15 AM by Pakuni »

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2015, 10:49:51 AM »
Right.
The success of students in private schools has little to do with the quality of instructors - and nothing to do with whether they're organized or not - but with the fact the vast majority of kids in private schools are there because their parents value education highly (as shown, in part, by their willingness to pay upwards of $5-10K for it).
And kids with parents who value education highly - and are surrounded by peers whose parents are the same - usually do better in school than those whose parents are less concerned with education.

So, while politicians battle over "solutions" (union/non union, more money, charter schools, vouchers, etc.) which barely move the needle, they (and we) lack the courage to acknowledge that until enough parents in the inner city care about their children's education things won't get materially better. 50 years of subsidies without incentives has succeeded only in keeping the misery contained, institutionalizing all the things the Great Society, the War on Poverty, etc., etc., were supposed to eradicate. Unfortunately, that's inevitable with no strings subsides. If there's a finite amount of money available, allocate less for welfare and give more help to the working poor. Don't cut off the methadone but give people the real hope of a better life if they get off of it themselves. People with hope take better care of themselves and their children.

CTWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2015, 11:03:32 AM »
...they (and we) lack the courage to acknowledge that until enough parents in the inner city care about their children's education things won't get materially better...

This is the crux of this issue.  You can throw all the money in the world at the schools and the teachers, etc., but it boils down to parents having their children prepared for school.  My wife is a speech therapist dealing with the youngest kids in the inner city Bridgeport schools, and the total lack of vocabulary, discipline, and respect for authority really saddens her.  75% of the kids parents don't even bother picking up report cards when they are required to after 1st and 3rd marking periods, etc.   
Calvin:  I'm a genius.  But I'm a misunderstood genius. 
Hobbes:  What's misunderstood about you?
Calvin:  Nobody thinks I'm a genius.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2015, 11:04:51 AM »
So, while politicians battle over "solutions" (union/non union, more money, charter schools, vouchers, etc.) which barely move the needle, they (and we) lack the courage to acknowledge that until enough parents in the inner city care about their children's education things won't get materially better. 50 years of subsidies without incentives has succeeded only in keeping the misery contained, institutionalizing all the things the Great Society, the War on Poverty, etc., etc., were supposed to eradicate. Unfortunately, that's inevitable with no strings subsides. If there's a finite amount of money available, allocate less for welfare and give more help to the working poor. Don't cut off the methadone but give people the real hope of a better life if they get off of it themselves. People with hope take better care of themselves and their children.

I think at some point we have to accept the fact that even the best legislation and other government prodding won't magically turn every person into a productive, hardworking citizen who cares deeply for their children and community. Heck, we can't even get a large part of the people of this country to take care of themselves.
Some people, whether it be by choice, historical oppression, institutional racism, sheer inability or some other cause (that's another debate), simply are incapable of being productive members of society.
The question becomes, then, what do we do with these people? Ignore them and deal with the consequences? Subsidize them and deal with the consequences?
There aren't any easy answers. The only answer I'm comfortable giving is that it's probably not a solvable problem.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2015, 11:35:36 AM »
I think at some point we have to accept the fact that even the best legislation and other government prodding won't magically turn every person into a productive, hardworking citizen who cares deeply for their children and community. Heck, we can't even get a large part of the people of this country to take care of themselves.
Some people, whether it be by choice, historical oppression, institutional racism, sheer inability or some other cause (that's another debate), simply are incapable of being productive members of society.
The question becomes, then, what do we do with these people? Ignore them and deal with the consequences? Subsidize them and deal with the consequences?
There aren't any easy answers. The only answer I'm comfortable giving is that it's probably not a solvable problem.


I agree that there's no magic bullet. I also agree we have an obligation to those who can't or won't take care of themselves. But I think the worst message you can send to those at or near the bottom of the economic ladder is that no work and hard work carry pretty much the same results. Most people will choose the path of least resistance. I would. And when I think about the times I've been the least productive work wise they coincide with the times I've been less engaged with life in general. Busy hands may not always be happy hands, but they give one a feeling of self worth. Those lessons pass generation to generation.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2015, 02:48:40 PM »
I'm not being critical of your choice by any means.  It's just that my experience as a student and as a parent leads me to believe that many public schools provide a high quality education while teaching lessons about dealing with students who aren't as fortunate as you. 

Not sure what you're getting at by saying "teaching lessons about dealing with students who aren't as fortunate as you."  It has nothing to do with having (or not having) good fortune.  There are many kids at my children's school who come from significantly less fortunate backgrounds than me but their parents have them in school because they want a better learning environment for their children.  Sure, perhaps a quarter or a third of my children's tuition is being used to subsidize the education of those kids whose families can't afford tuition... and I'm perfectly fine with that.  I don't care what fortune anyone has... if the kids are there to learn, they'll fit in great with the rest of the kids who are there to learn, too.

Again, if I lived in a district with a better public school system, I'd have no qualms about sending my kids to public school.  But I don't see the value in a learning environment where some kids have no desire to be there and end up biding their time making trouble for everyone else.

Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

77ncaachamps

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8457
  • Last of the Warrior Class
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2015, 02:56:34 PM »
I think there probably are some benefits .... as in every other profession, higher pay will tend to attract better workers; better working conditions for teachers can equal better learning environments for kids (i.e. less crowded classrooms, more teacher aides); etc.
But does the union status of a faculty outweigh parent involvement when it comes to determining student success? I don't think it does.


A former charter school teacher joined our public school staff for what some would refer to as the union perks: pay, benefits, job security, less hours. But it also transcended those.

Some issues:
- parents could phone until 9 pm every day (they weren't reimbursed for the first few years until the charter school decided they could)
- they had to meet with every set of parents quarterly; home visits didn't count
- longer hours (7:30 - 4:00) daily
- salary compensation was 10% more than her current position but according to her, "you can't put a price on your free time" (apparently, you kinda can)
- most were young, single teachers; turnover was high and she wanted to start a family soon
- benefits were better
- more freedom in the classroom, though training was "better" in the charter school
- a lot of turnover in the families in the charter school led to trouble with new students adapting to rules and creating a culture
- principal, well-loved, had great results but the charter school group got rid of him and many teachers followed.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 02:58:17 PM by 77ncaachamps »
SS Marquette

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2015, 03:11:00 PM »
Not sure what you're getting at by saying "teaching lessons about dealing with students who aren't as fortunate as you."  It has nothing to do with having (or not having) good fortune.  There are many kids at my children's school who come from significantly less fortunate backgrounds than me but their parents have them in school because they want a better learning environment for their children.  Sure, perhaps a quarter or a third of my children's tuition is being used to subsidize the education of those kids whose families can't afford tuition... and I'm perfectly fine with that.  I don't care what fortune anyone has... if the kids are there to learn, they'll fit in great with the rest of the kids who are there to learn, too.

Again, if I lived in a district with a better public school system, I'd have no qualms about sending my kids to public school.  But I don't see the value in a learning environment where some kids have no desire to be there and end up biding their time making trouble for everyone else.



Assuming the child is safe I don't think there is a wrong answer as your thinking will net the same number of positive outcomes as someone else who sends the kid to public school....its going to depend on the child and the parent in optimizing that solution.

It's not a perfect lab experiment, but I look at me, my brother and my two cousins.  My brother and I are products of a lot of different schools in a lot of different places.  We went private schools(California), we went to great public schools(Ohio) we went to terrible public schools(Florida) and we went to good public schools (NW suburb of Chicago).  Meanwhile my cousins both went to Janesville public school systems their whole life.

In the end, all four of us have good jobs, with 3 of the 4 of us holding degrees beyond undergrad.  There are positives and negatives to each environment.  As an example, having moved so much I can assimilate and adapt to any social structure or environment because I've always had to adjust.  Change in life/job/society etc doesn't bother me one bit.  However my cousins don't deal with change well and aren't great outside of their preferred social groups (they get all weird  ;D)  Is that because of their educational environment?  I think it has an impact.

So is your choice or someone else's choice better?  I don't think either is but the choice will manifest itself in different ways that are just something that is....your kids may have trouble dealing with a chaotic environment or one without structure, is that a bad thing or certain?  No but it's a point of reference.  On the other hand a child of a chaotic school system my handle ambiguity and chaos well but really can't focus and execute.  Who knows.


*I'm placing no value judgements on anything just trying to articulate that choices shape lives and if anyone is comfortable with the shape they could have that should be good enough.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #66 on: May 06, 2015, 03:16:09 PM »
I think at some point we have to accept the fact that even the best legislation and other government prodding won't magically turn every person into a productive, hardworking citizen who cares deeply for their children and community. Heck, we can't even get a large part of the people of this country to take care of themselves.
Some people, whether it be by choice, historical oppression, institutional racism, sheer inability or some other cause (that's another debate), simply are incapable of being productive members of society.
The question becomes, then, what do we do with these people? Ignore them and deal with the consequences? Subsidize them and deal with the consequences?
There aren't any easy answers. The only answer I'm comfortable giving is that it's probably not a solvable problem.


Here is the thing I struggle with the most in trying to adopt a philosophy on social justice and poverty support.  There are consequences in life and some people just don't/can't care about the consequences, be they healthcare or poverty, what do you do with those people?  Do you continue to try and shield them from the consequences of their decisions and/or bad luck (genetics, born to poor families, etc)?  If you don't shield them, what happens?  Are we comfortable with people dying in the streets?

I'm a firm believer in both nature and nurture as forming people and society....but sometimes nature can't be overcome, what do you do then?
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22730
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2015, 03:49:39 PM »
That is my main issue with Oliver's show now. It was billed as an alternative Daily Show, but is really just a couple short news bits followed by the rant of the week. The problem I usually have with it is that while Stewart could usually find some middle ground (definitely leaned left, but was willing to attack the left), Oliver just plants his flag and calls it a day. I watched the first 5-6 weeks, but haven't really paid it much attention since.

I find Oliver to be quite funny and I'll keep watching just because of that. I have disagreed with a few of his rants but I usually am closer to agreeing. As others have stated, I wish some of them had more depth and suggested solutions, but it is first and foremost a comedy show and not a 60 Minutes wannabe.

What I got out of this particular show was information. I didn't know that the testing companies were raking it in so much dough and were spending bazillions on lobbying to get state and federal politicians to keep adding more and more tests. I probably should have known (or at least suspected) this to be true, but it was nice to have it pointed out. It gives me a question to ask candidates in future elections.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2015, 04:02:24 PM »
Not sure what you're getting at by saying "teaching lessons about dealing with students who aren't as fortunate as you."  It has nothing to do with having (or not having) good fortune.  There are many kids at my children's school who come from significantly less fortunate backgrounds than me but their parents have them in school because they want a better learning environment for their children.  Sure, perhaps a quarter or a third of my children's tuition is being used to subsidize the education of those kids whose families can't afford tuition... and I'm perfectly fine with that.  I don't care what fortune anyone has... if the kids are there to learn, they'll fit in great with the rest of the kids who are there to learn, too.

Again, if I lived in a district with a better public school system, I'd have no qualms about sending my kids to public school.  But I don't see the value in a learning environment where some kids have no desire to be there and end up biding their time making trouble for everyone else.




By "fortune," I wasn't solely speaking about material fortune, but also about parents who care. 

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6031
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #69 on: May 07, 2015, 04:04:07 PM »
Along with the ridiculousness that is standardized testing...

Can we also address the equal scam that is textbooks? Namely college, but also below. Just so outrageous a cost that doesn't need to exist.

77ncaachamps

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8457
  • Last of the Warrior Class
Re: Standardized Testing - John Oliver
« Reply #70 on: May 07, 2015, 06:49:47 PM »
Along with the ridiculousness that is standardized testing...

Can we also address the equal scam that is textbooks? Namely college, but also below. Just so outrageous a cost that doesn't need to exist.

Funny thing you should mention that.

Sometimes Target's clearance endcaps have online orders that are returned.
I've seen college textbooks there.

Despite being "returns" and in the clearance section (with a modest discount between 15-30%), they still can be had for a "measly" $60-100 each.

smdh
SS Marquette

 

feedback