Standardized Testing - John Oliver

[jesmu84]

So, what do we learn here... politicians made promises based on good ideas (that they couldn't realistically achieve), someone made a ton of money, no one really benefited in the end (especially those who it was supposed to help the most), and when it turns out to not work correctly? People who are mostly innocent get fired.

Perfect.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/J6lyURyVz7k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/J6lyURyVz7k</a>

[Eldon]

There are some universities that have taken the initiative to make standardized test scores optional, instead focusing more on GPA, courses taken, extra-curriculars, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

There are some universities that have taken the initiative to make standardized test scores optional, instead focusing more on GPA, courses taken, extra-curriculars, etc.

Which is even more problematic because an A in biology at one high school is equivalent to a C at another.  Thus the need for standardized tests because the quality of high schools from one district to another can be difficult to gauge.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Reminds me a bit of a very good Megan McArdle article from a couple years ago:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/21/america-s-new-mandarins.html

Of course, once you gave the imperial bureaucracy a lot of power, and made entrance into said bureaucracy conditional on passing a tough exam, what you have is ... a country run by people who think that being good at exams is the most important thing on earth.

[Lennys Tap]

Which is even more problematic because an A in biology at one high school is equivalent to a C at another.  This the need for standardized tests because the quality of high schools from one district to another can be difficult to gauge.

This is rich beyond belief. The most dedicated defenders of affirmative action (based on economics, not race) could use your argument as their most convincing and compelling one. Absolute evaluations which give no consideration to context are by their very nature unfair. Getting a 30 on the ACTs after 8 years of Winnetka grammar schools, 3 years of New Trier and thousands spent on test prep is NOT a better score than a 29 after 8 years at Suder elementary followed by 3 years at Simeon. Not taking context into the equation is discrimination. Period.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

This is rich beyond belief. The most dedicated defenders of affirmative action (based on economics, not race) could use your argument as their most convincing and compelling one. Absolute evaluations which give no consideration to context are by their very nature unfair. Getting a 30 on the ACTs after 8 years of Winnetka grammar schools, 3 years of New Trier and thousands spent on test prep is NOT a better score than a 29 after 8 years at Suder elementary followed by 3 years at Simeon. Not taking context into the equation is discrimination. Period.

Speaking of context, after high school I found out that for schools up and down the east coast, many have SAT prep classes that students take for 3 years before taking the test. Coming from Podunk, Wisconsin, we showed up one Saturday morning and took the test. My guess is that has some effect on the outcome of test scores ...

[tower912]

1430 SAT   (740 Math, 690 Verbal)
30 ACT   (32, 32, 32, 26)

These are scores from 1983 and I have no idea what they translate to today.   
I had a college prep curriculum, but took no extra classes. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Yeahhh .. pretty sure admissions departments have figured all this out.  Not teal.

[GGGG]

The Oliver piece wasn't about the SAT/ACT, but about standardized testing throughout a child's academic career.

...and it was brilliant. 

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

1430 SAT   (740 Math, 690 Verbal)
30 ACT   (32, 32, 32, 26)

These are scores from 1983 and I have no idea what they translate to today.   
I had a college prep curriculum, but took no extra classes. 

I took the SAT in 2002 and have no idea what I got. There's humble bragging and then there's humble bragging.

[#UnleashSean]

Haha I took an online math class that had this mathxl thing from pearson. (the company featured) And there were sooooo many errors and incorrect math it was hilarious. Along with just a ton of WTF moments.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Oliver piece wasn't about the SAT/ACT, but about standardized testing throughout a child's academic career.

...and it was brilliant. 

It was formulaic....plug and play....same old same old every week.  Some really good stuff, some pretty poor stuff, all mixed in.  He hits plenty of good points, misses badly on some others.  Sounds like many of us here on Scoop.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

It was formulaic....plug and play....same old same old every week.  Some really good stuff, some pretty poor stuff, all mixed in.  He hits plenty of good points, misses badly on some others.  Sounds like many of us here on Scoop.

hear hear. Personally found this one to be weak.

[GooooMarquette]

Which is even more problematic because an A in biology at one high school is equivalent to a C at another.  Thus the need for standardized tests because the quality of high schools from one district to another can be difficult to gauge.

The huge variability between high schools is a fact.  My kids are fortunate to have gone to very strong public schools, and got mostly As.  Now in college, they are continuing to do very well.  But they're in class with kids who likewise got mostly As in high school, and are suddenly C or D students.  When their friends struggle with "new" concepts, my kids are amazed because they learned many of those concepts years ago.

[GGGG]

The huge variability between high schools is a fact.  My kids are fortunate to have gone to very strong public schools, and got mostly As.  Now in college, they are continuing to do very well.  But they're in class with kids who likewise got mostly As in high school, and are suddenly C or D students.  When their friends struggle with "new" concepts, my kids are amazed because they learned many of those concepts years ago.

That isn't just about the high schools. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What are Oliver's solutions?

[brewcity77]

It was formulaic....plug and play....same old same old every week.  Some really good stuff, some pretty poor stuff, all mixed in.  He hits plenty of good points, misses badly on some others.  Sounds like many of us here on Scoop.

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.

[GGGG]

What are Oliver's solutions?

I'm not John Oliver, but instead of an over-abundance of testing, and instead of using such objective metrics to determine the value of a teacher, I would have...

...taken a look to see why students from other countries are better at math and science.  What do they do in the classrooms?  What is their curricula like?  How does it differ from what takes place in US classrooms?

...require principals to evaluate teachers as professionals.  I agree that teachers unions have traditionally been a problem.  It has de-professionalized the occupation.  I know a number of principals, and they know who the good teachers are.  Allow them to reward the high performers, and point out and eventually fire the low performers.  Objective measurements can play a part in that, but ultimately a teacher's job can't simply be measured objectively.

Give me some time and I can think of more.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

What are Oliver's solutions?

No Child Left Behind is part of the federalization of education. Do you think government should run local public schools?

[GGGG]

No Child Left Behind is part of the federalization of education. Do you think government should run local public schools?

As long as the local public schools aren't teaching creationism, intelligent design or such nonsense. 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

As long as the local public schools aren't teaching creationism, intelligent design or such nonsense. 

The point of my question is that NCLB is a government program, and Chicos seems to be defending more government involvement in public schools which would seem contrary to his personal philosophy.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not John Oliver, but instead of an over-abundance of testing, and instead of using such objective metrics to determine the value of a teacher, I would have...

...taken a look to see why students from other countries are better at math and science.  What do they do in the classrooms?  What is their curricula like?  How does it differ from what takes place in US classrooms?

...require principals to evaluate teachers as professionals.  I agree that teachers unions have traditionally been a problem.  It has de-professionalized the occupation.  I know a number of principals, and they know who the good teachers are.  Allow them to reward the high performers, and point out and eventually fire the low performers.  Objective measurements can play a part in that, but ultimately a teacher's job can't simply be measured objectively.

Give me some time and I can think of more.

I can get on board with some of these.   A teacher's job, in my opinion, has to be measured to some degree objectively.  There is a fiduciary responsibility to do that, especially with unions involved.  That doesn't mean all of it, but it has to be a significant portion to it. 

Other countries also slot their students into certain paths early on.  I'm not sure that's what we want, but just pointing out the grass is always greener argument isn't necessarily the case either.

School choice...why don't we have it?

So on and so forth.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

I can get on board with some of these.   A teacher's job, in my opinion, has to be measured to some degree objectively.  There is a fiduciary responsibility to do that, especially with unions involved.  That doesn't mean all of it, but it has to be a significant portion to it. 

Other countries also slot their students into certain paths early on.  I'm not sure that's what we want, but just pointing out the grass is always greener argument isn't necessarily the case either.

School choice...why don't we have it?

So on and so forth.

Lots of simple and good ideas here. I'd suggest:

1) Measure principles and not teachers. Different teachers are better cut out for different schools, and the Principle should be measured on how well he/she builds a team to improve the performance of their school
2) Benchmark other countries (already mentioned)
3) Kill teachers unions, and allow Principles to attract, let go of talent as they see fit (just like any other successful organization does)

[GGGG]

Lots of simple and good ideas here. I'd suggest:

1) Measure principles and not teachers. Different teachers are better cut out for different schools, and the Principle should be measured on how well he/she builds a team to improve the performance of their school
2) Benchmark other countries (already mentioned)
3) Kill teachers unions, and allow Principles to attract, let go of talent as they see fit (just like any other successful organization does)

I am only correcting the spelling because it could be confusing...but it's "principal."

[Pakuni]

Lots of simple and good ideas here. I'd suggest:

1) Measure principles and not teachers. Different teachers are better cut out for different schools, and the Principle should be measured on how well he/she builds a team to improve the performance of their school
2) Benchmark other countries (already mentioned)
3) Kill teachers unions, and allow Principles to attract, let go of talent as they see fit (just like any other successful organization does)

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.

[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

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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.

[Pakuni]

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

[77ncaachamps]

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?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[GGGG]

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]

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]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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]

...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.   

[Pakuni]

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]

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]

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.

[77ncaachamps]

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.

[mu03eng]

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  )  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.

[mu03eng]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[GGGG]

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]

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]

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