Group items tagged

A few days ago, June 10th, Wendy Kopp, founder of TFA delivered the commencement address at Dartmouth (read it or see it here).  Aside from the appropriate motivational stories that make a commencement speech inspirational and relevant, Wendy also dedicated a fairly significant portion of her speech to the TFA critics.

"My problem with the current false market scenario regarding TFA is its intersection with the false market for charter schools. Just as charter school expansion - demand - has become heavily dependent on manipulation of markets by policy makers, TFA expansion - demand - has become dependent on those major charter network operators who are dependent on charter market manipulation (forced closure of district schools). Put simply, this is not market based reform, nor should anyone pretend that market mechanisms (rather than policy preferences and market manipulation) are driving any of this."

"Arthur Camins explains what is wrong with the TFA approach but cautions that the recruits should not be blamed or criticized. I agree. The recruits are idealistic and well-intentioned. They are akin to Peace Corps volunteers. No one suggests that Peace Corps volunteers are qualified to be Foreign Service officers or diplomats or ambassadors. Blame the organization for its hubris, not the kids. It is the hubris that produced John White (Louisiana), Kevin Huffman (Tennessee), Eric Guckian (North Carolina), Michelle Rhee."

There is considerable variance in the productivity of teachers, yet educators have been unable to identify observable characteristics related to teacher effectiveness. This paper uses data from admissions records from Teach for America to explore whether information collected at the time of hire can predict student outcomes. We find that a teacher's prior achievement, leadership experience, and perseverance are associated with student gains in math. Leadership experience and commitment to the TFA mission are associated with gains in English. The TFA admissions measures are also associated with improved classroom behavior. These results suggest that teacher success can be predicted at the time of hire.

"Every spring without fail, a Teach for America recruiter approaches me and asks if they can come to my classes and recruit students for TFA, and every year, without fail, I give them the same answer: "Sorry. Until Teach for America changes its objective to training lifetime educators and raises the time commitment to five years rather than two, I will not allow TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in high poverty areas and then after two years, encouraging them to pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity rubs me the wrong way""

Yesterday the Huffington Post ran an op/ed piece by Wendy Kopp, the founder of TFA. The title was In Defense of Optimism.  I read it, tweeted it, and moved on, but it has been rattling in my head for 24 hours now, so here are some thoughts in response.

There's been some good blogging lately on how to interpret the studies on Teach For America (TFA) teacher effectiveness - see Matthew Di Carlo and Adam Ozimek. But neither addresses the research from a Relinquisher standpoint.

In light of the new research, several components of "no excuses" education reform are likely to increase the current problems with social and educational equity, instead of addressing them. Before we look further at why charter schools, school choice, Teach for America (TFA) and teacher quality will make the problem worse, not better, let's look at some of the data.

Maybe the reason TFA members burn out so quickly (data showing the retention rate is declining will be forthcoming) is that they put in 16 hour days, work through weekends, skip meals, etc., and can do so because they don't have children of their own. And the burnout is a genuine problem because, as noted by the portal report that Stuart is parading, the children who have teachers with more than four years of experience do better on standardized tests than those who do not.

There is a small but growing body of evidence about the (usually test-based) effectiveness of teachers from Teach for America (TFA), an extremely selective program that trains and places new teachers in mostly higher needs schools and districts. Rather than review this literature paper-by-paper, which has already been done by others (see here and here), I'll just give you the super-short summary of the higher-quality analyses, and quickly discuss what I think it means.

"The organization that was launched to serve public schools so poor or dysfunctional they couldn't attract qualified teachers now sends fully a third of its recruits to privately run charter schools, many with stellar academic reputations, flush budgets and wealthy donors. TFA also sends its rookies, who typically have just 15 to 20 hours of teaching experience, to districts that have recently laid off scores of more seasoned teachers."

Several weeks ago I posted a firsthand report from University of Alabama, Huntsville assistant professor Philip Kovacs, regarding his efforts to get the Hunstville school board to re-examine its decision to spend $1.7 million on bringing Teach For America interns to the public schools there. Huntsville, he pointed out, has laid off 300 teachers over the past two years. Today, Dr. Kovacs takes us on an exploration of the research that TFA offers to justify its aggressive expansion.

First of all I am not talking about the highly profitable non-profit known as "Teach for America" or TFA, an organization which sends "corps members" (their words) into poor schools doing very little for children (as demonstrated by peer-reviewed research) but definitely making the executive board very, very rich...using your tax dollars to boot!

I find myself asking that question right now as the result of reading an op ed in today's USA Today.  It has the title Column: 3 ways to improve the USA's teacher, and it is jointly written by Dennis Van Roekel, national President of the National Education Union, the teachers union for which I am a building representative, and Wendy Kopp, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Teach for America (TFA  -USA Today incorrectly identifies that organization as "Teach for All").

As I wrote in What if you feel betrayed by your union's leadership?, the President of the National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, by doing this USA op ed with Wendy Kopp of Teach for America, gave support to TFA while undercutting support for unions and their teachers. I was not the only supporter of NEA and teachers who was incensed by the editorial.  Later, my good friend Anthony Cody posted this blog.  Meanwhile, lots of supporters were sending emails complaining about the editorial.  

Any way you do the math, Teach For America raises a lot of money. And, this, in turn, raises a lot of questions. Corps members, their families, public agencies and others wonder, "Where does the money go?" It came as no surprise to me that more voices expressed concern about Teach For America's transparency in financial matters. These concerns persist across cohorts of corps members, and particularly in a tough economy, TFA interns suggest a hidden agenda that impacts financially struggling corps members and their families.

And so readers are left to wonder, ponder, deconstruct, and dissect this strange editorial duet in USA Today. Did the NEA sign on to TFA's agenda of minimal fast-track training, or did TFA sign on to NEA's demand for a full year of residency and a rigorous examination before teachers gain their license? Or was there something else going on?

When the new book 'Class Warfare' came out, the story of the current ed reform movement featuring TFA and KIPP, I refused to buy it, since I didn't want anyone to profit from passing fiction and fantasy off as non-fiction. But when I received a complimentary copy as a gift from my frequent debate opponent, Whitney Tilson, I promised that I would, at least, read it. Analyzing a short research paper or an hour long debate is one thing, but a 500 page book - well, I was hoping that I wouldn't find much to say about it since I really don't have the time, yet I can't resist.

Like many English majors who have reached their senior year of college and are unsure of what kind of job they can get with that specialized B.A. in interwar period lesbian literature, five years ago I applied to both Teach for America (TFA) and the New York City Teaching Fellows (NYCTF). I was promptly rejected by both, but applied to NYCTF again the following year, this time checking the "yes, I would be interested in teaching education" and "yes, I would be interested in teaching mathematics even though I did not major in it" boxes.

Larry Cuban wrote a wonderful blog post recently, one that I've been planning to discuss in more detail, though now I'm going to bring it up in a way I hadn't originally intended.  In "Jazz, Basketball, and Teacher Decision Making" Cuban offers interesting analogies and scientific studies to illuminate just how complex teaching really is.  Teachers make several dozen instructional decisions every hour, hundreds per day.  For those decisions to be effective in promoting student learning, teachers need to know the difference between the meaningful information and the meaningless "noise" that we take in every second as we observe a classroom.  We need a clear sense of priorities for each student and for each moment - and though this idea will shock some people who barely understand teaching - the top priority is not always to stick to the lesson plan.  (More on that idea in a blog post coming soon).  In order for each decision to be the best it can be, we need to have a variety of options and approaches, and both the theoretical and practical background to weigh those options and make the right selection in a moment's time, and then constantly adjust.