I just crush a lot.
Let’s say you’re a teacher. Maybe you have a ruler, the wire-rimmed glasses, a paddle. Whatever, you’re a big punisher, it’s cool. What if someone asked you about Teach for America, the service-du-jour for the millenial generation. Would you talk about a lagging education system and underserved school children? Would you mention (regressive and property) tax policy, de facto segregation, Brown v. Board, globalization & immigration, the concept of a national language, universal living wage, academic freedom, culturally-appropriate textbooks, bilingual instructors, access to counseling and academic tutoring, after-school programming, comprehensive sex education, gender and racial equity?
You nasty twin. I don’t care.
The real problem with Teach for America isn’t that people fail to talk about the real issues underpinning the American education system (especially No Child Left Behind); it’s (1) because people think it’s a good model, and (2) because Teach for America bills itself as a way to make change in American education system(s). Yes, we need more teachers. You’re right: we need exciting and energetic young people to empower kids to learn, achieve…um…”overcome.” But we need more than a summer of training for fresh-out-of-college folks; we need more than a short-lived import-export system; our schools require more than self-reflexive service for post-college wanderers.
Don’t stop, get it, get it.
And then there’s the global expansion of the model. People should let me know if I’ve drawn the wrong schemata, but here’s how I see the model:
1. Recruit highly educated folk from elite schools. 2. Train them to “teach” over one summer. 3. Place them in key areas (domestically and now internationally) about which they know nothing. 3. Send them off after two years.
That schemata is certainly a reduction; it’s distilled to an extreme degree. I know this. I’m just wondering if, given the gains that Teach for America claims, their model may increase the marginalization of “real” teachers, encourage kids and schools to value imports rather than their own, and further the degradation of communities where schools neither have the resources to build classrooms nor the programs to foster endemic talent.
Long as you show class, and pass my test
With increasing teacher turnover, draconian salary scales, and brain drain from our most underserved communities, why are we sending in folks from the outside? Why not empower communities with training and resources, as well as policies that don’t require onerous testing just so a school can receive some arbitrary passing grade that’s inextricably linked with federal funding?
Hmm. A service program that filters talented young people into organizations that advocate for progressive federal policies wouldn’t be as sexy, right? Recent grads wouldn’t be jonesin’ for a review of the Federal Register or a lunch break with the Department of Education’s budget.
While I’m certain that we need more teachers in the field — especially those who will capitalize on their experiences and advocate at the federal level for real, lasting, and systemic change — I’m not sure Teach for America is the be-all-end-all model. Or the way we should be directing young folks who are interested in making change.
To me, billing Teach for America as the education change model is as bankrupt as matching a post about the plight of American education with a Big Pun song.
Elevator to the top, hah, see you later, I’m gone
Cartoon courtesy of http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/ESEA173.shtml
7 responses so far ↓
Bob // October 26, 2007 at
I like this post. (Big Pun always helps)
Teach for America is a useful program, but it is not a comprehensive solution to educational woes in the U.S. Does anybody know of programs in the Teach for America model that focus recruitment on people who grew up in the same or similar neighborhoods as those in which the teachers are placed? Does TFA, itself, do this?
I’d imagine that this would be a difficult recruitment task, given the “brain drain” effect, but I’d be curious to see how this could affect “insider” vs. “outsider” concerns. If insiders had been getting the job done, though, I don’t think educators and education policymakers would be looking toward outsiders to the extent they are. I think there are plenty of habits in the education system that could use a fresh look by whoever is willing to give such a look and follow through with their findings.
Laura // October 27, 2007 at
I am an alum of Teach For America and a big supporter of the organization. I don’t think the organization is perfect, but I know that many people are working _exceptionally_ hard to make it better every year.
In my opinion, the most exciting element of Teach For America is the fact that it exposes so many people to the stark reality of public schools in this country. Being in a public school in the MS Delta for five years was enough to convince me that we have a moral obligation to improve education in this country. Many alums, including myself and my husband, have stayed in education and even in low-income schools and are in it for the long-term. In addition, many of those who are not still in the field of education are still fighting for their students. One friend is finishing her law degree and will work as a Special Education Lawyer, advocating to make sure students get the services they need. Another is finishing her medical degree and has been running a free clinic in downtown Nashville for low-income children.
As for your comment that “A service program that filters talented young people into organizations that advocate for progressive federal policies wouldn’t be as sexy, right?” You’re right to state that we need talented young people in all forms of public service.
See http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org/, which has bipartisan support in the House and Senate and is the brainchild of two Teach For America (Delta!) alums, Chris Myers Asch and Shawn Raymond. The U.S. Public Service Academy is an idea that grew from their Teach For America experience.
To reply to the comment above, Teach For America is a very diverse organization. 28.3% of the 2007 corps consisted of people of color, which is a higher percentage than the schools from which Teach For America recruits.
See Teach For America’s commitment to diversity:
http://www.teachforamerica.org/admissions/our_commitment_to_diversity.htm
theredelephant // October 28, 2007 at
The public service academy looks great, but it’s not advocacy. To me, it seems the program will work within existing structures that may marginalize many folks; it doesn’t seem the public service academy will aim to challenge these structural barriers. There’s a desperate need for teachers, but there’s also a desperate need for progressive advocates. TFA and the public service academy don’t seem to be geared toward creating advocates. Note the FAQ section, where they get specific:
What kinds of jobs would Academy graduates do during their five-year service requirement?
Academy graduates will spend five years serving their nation by working as teachers, park rangers, police officers, border agents, and other critical public service jobs at the local, state, national and even international levels.
Laura // October 28, 2007 at
I think leading from within is one powerful way to be an advocate. Unless people experience and work in these professions themselves, how can they be good agents of change? I believe there are many ways to lead from the center and make significant changes in any organization.
theredelephant // October 28, 2007 at
I just wonder how effective a change maker you are if you’re limited by working within the actual structure you wish to change.
This American Prospect article, http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=the_teach_for_america_numbers, is helpful in delineating some of the numbers. According to Goldstein, TFA is 70% white and numerous studies have shown that inexperienced young teachers don’t, um, make the grade. Let alone the fact that TFA is almost as selective as an Ivy League school. (So, once again, send in the privilege.)
I think service is great. I think we need more teachers, and TFA certainly provides that. But what’s the quality? What are we saying about our schools if we send in inexperienced, highly educated white folks? TFA seems more like the easy solution — the band-aid — to a system and an institution so deeply troubled that it’ll take a lot more than excited young people with a “good heart” to change it.
Since we’re doing anecdotes: From my experience in undergrad, those selected for TFA were politically ambitious, not very progressive, and resume builders without a college track record of activism or advocacy, at the undergrad, in the community, or at the state level.
Laura sounds like the perfect TFAer. It’s exciting to hear about her experience, and to have a discussion about the positive effects of TFA. I simply hesitate to call service like TFA the solution to a problem that is so deeply interwoven with social and economic policy and overt and structural racism.
See below for the re-pasted American Prospect piece:
THE TEACH FOR AMERICA NUMBERS.
Speaking of the wisdom — or lack thereof — of relying on young participants in national service programs like Teach for America as stopgaps in struggling schools, Negar Azimi’s New York Times Magazine story probes deeply into the practice and ideology of TFA. So, exactly how effective are TFA teachers? It depends on who you ask:
The question of what it takes to be a good teacher has inspired a series of spirited data wars between T.F.A. and its critics. Most often cited (by the critics) is a 2005 study examining the links between student achievement and their teachers’ certification status. In a study of more than 132,000 students and 4,400 teachers in the Houston public-school district, Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Education, and three colleagues found that students taught by certified teachers outperformed those taught by noncertified teachers in reading and mathematics. Uncertified T.F.A. teachers had negative impacts on student achievement on five of six tests. Tellingly, their effectiveness improved when they gained certification.
T.F.A. has called the Stanford study flawed, arguing that its sample sizes were small and questioning whether it was subject to adequate independent review. (The organization’s P.R. team is formidable.) Teach for America points to a 2004 study carried out by Mathematica Policy Research that shows T.F.A. teachers’ student scores matching those of a comparison group of novice and veteran colleagues in reading and slightly better in math. Over two months of talking to T.F.A. staff members, I was referred to this study no less than 13 times. Another study points to the fact that principals clamor for T.F.A. teachers; 74 percent considered T.F.A. teachers more effective than other beginning teachers.
Darling-Hammond’s explanation for the numbers is not exactly flattering to T.F.A. “The principals who are saying ‘I love T.F.A.’ are responding to the fact that teaching standards in schools that hire uncertified teachers are typically low,” she told me this summer.
Some other interesting numbers on the program: Over 40 percent of TFA-ers leave the profession within 3 years. And 70 percent of the young teachers are white, although many are placed in almost completely non-white schools.
It feels heartless to criticize a program that’s, well, so good-hearted. Of course America’s most elite college graduates should be giving back. But while it appears that TFA is very effective at connecting business leaders and young professionals with the public school reform movement and imbuing them with a sense of commitment toward public education, it’s unlikely TFA is impacting student achievement in any broadly-defined way. It is not a substitute for larger, more systemic pushes to get the best teachers into the most difficult classrooms.
–Dana Goldstein
Posted by Dana Goldstein on October 4, 2007 5:34 PM
GDub21 // March 19, 2008 at
This person was just accepted to TFA, do you think she deserved it? http://razume.com/resume/view/622
Teach for America: Arguments for and against teaching teachers « playthink // June 16, 2008 at
[...] 2) TFA-recruited teachers “only” commit to two years in the teaching profession. We don’t need a “short-lived import-export system; our schools require more than self-reflexive service for post-college wanderers.” [Source] [...]
Leave a Comment