Ira David Socol on Teach for America, KIPP Schools, and Reforming Education

From an interview with Ira Socol at Open Education:

From your writings readers can clearly discern your strong opposition to the tenets of the Teach for America program. Can you highlight for our readers your thoughts on TFA?

Teach for America is a “colonial project.” It is a “missionary project.” It begins with the basic premise that the solution for the underclass in America is to make them ‘as much like’ rich white folks as possible. When you listen to the TFA leadership, they don’t really talk about “education,” probably because they don’t really believe in education. They talk about “leadership” instead. If they believed in education they would see education as important on the path to effective teaching, an idea they specifically reject, replacing it with the thought that since TFA corps members represent the elites (or, religiously, the “elect”), all they have to do is “lead” the downtrodden out of poverty.

This is essentially the British Colonial conversion concept. “We’ll fix Nigeria/Ireland/South Africa/India. We’ll just teach them to speak the Queen’s English, give them a Parliament, and make them wear powdered wigs in court. Then they’ll be civilized. And like the British Empire, this strategy is adopted because TFA’s board and supporters have no desire to ever relinquish power to a rising colonial population. If it’s all about “follow the leader,” the leader never changes.

Read more

The problem with Teach for America –part two

Olson Online writes:

Yesterday I discussed Peter Campbell’s criticism of Teach for America as unworkable on a large scale. Because “success” –meaning higher test scores– is predicated on both teachers and students working longer and harder (much, much longer and harder) than can realistically be expected of typical educators and their students, the TFA approach has limited utility in the reform of public schools.

In his second essay, Campbell suggests the “apolitical” zealotry of Teach for America recruits undermines progressive efforts to remedy the plight of poor and minority students who are most likely to struggle in school. The TFA mantra of “no excuses” for poverty or other extenuating conditions that hamper learning is at the heart of the problem.

Campbell puts it this way:
“In adopting this philosophy [poverty is 'no excuse' for failure], TFA aligns itself with every policy shop (e.g., the Fordham Foundation, the Manhattan Institute) that holds a similar view. It also un-aligns itself with policy shops (e.g., the Children’s Defense Fund, the NAACP) that believe that poverty plays a crucial role in shaping educational outcomes.”

Read more

A Response to Teach for America

Choosing Democracy writes:

Teach for America (TFA), which claims to be for equity in education, opposes education equity champion, Linda Darling-Hammond for Obama’s Secretary of Education and indeed, any role in the Obama administration! Why? In the words of TFA’s political arm, Leadership for Education Equity, Darling-Hammond’s appointment “COULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR TFA!”

What is TFA afraid of? To ensure equity in education, Darling-Hammond has advocated for putting only qualified teachers in every classroom. She has opposed assigning unqualified teachers to the poorest and most vulnerable students. TFA teachers are just such unqualified teachers. Darling-Hammond’s research as well as the research of other objective education researchers has shown that the students of untrained TFA teachers do poorly on standardized tests compared to the students of trained teachers. Her research shows that once TFA teachers participate in quality teacher preparation programs and become qualified their students perform better. The problem is that 66% of TFA teachers never get trained. They leave at the end of 2 or 3 years. Darling-Hammond.

Read More

Grading Obama on education

Newsday’s Opinion Staff writes:

Though public school systems are taking a hit as states confront fiscal crisis, education as a policy issue may well be pushed aside as the Obama administration prioritizes the ailing economy.

But teachers’ advocates may be pleased that Linda Darling-Hammond was just tapped for Obama’s education policy working group. (No word yet on Education Secretary.)

The Stanford professor and former public school teacher has been a sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, arguing that it “wastes scarce resources on a complicated test score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum, uprooting successful programs and pushing low-achieving students out of many schools.”

Darling-Hammond has also aligned with the National Education Association in questioning the long-term benefits of Teach for America, a prestigious (some say overhyped) alternative teacher-certification program that fast-tracks young college grads into stints at struggling schools.

Read more

Would the Obama administration be anti-TFA?

Dc Blogger writes:

If you think that parsing Obama’s portfolio policy is difficult, what to make of the conflicting signals over Teach For America? On the one hand, Barack Obama has praised Michelle Rhee, the poster-child for Teach For America’s impact on American education. Several of his advisors are drawn from the group’s alumni and friends. And as I mentioned last week, as far as I can tell, almost 100 percent of the TFAers I know are pulling for Obama to win.

So why on earth is the campaign allowing Linda Darling-Hammond to play surrogate for the Senator and say nasty things about TFA in high-profile events? See for yourself; check out Vaishali Honawar’s Teacher Beat post about Tuesday night’s Education Week debate and scroll down to the YouTube clip about TFA. You’ll hear Lisa Graham Keegan of the McCain campaign promoting the program and LDH attacking it, arguing that it’s not the way to “build the profession.”

Let’s hope that Darling-Hammond’s view prevails.

Re: Those who can’t, teach

Markus Kolic writes:

Garrett is quite right to accuse the “Equity Project” and its Crimson promoters of a sneering elitism and a misapprehension of the nature of teaching. (This also applies, incidentally, to Teach for America, a reprehensible organization which embodies everything I hate about the Ivy League.)

Read More

Options

Garrett Dash Nelson writes:

There’s lots of talk about how Teach for America is a pretty poor answer to the problem of educational equality in the United States. The way this argument goes, TFA serves as a prestigious placeholder that functions as a credential equivalent to consulting or financial jobs, only with a socially responsible veneer. While this is material for a much longer discussion, this snippet from today’s Crimson demonstrates the kind of company that TFA shares in at least some people’s occupational outlooks.

“I’m applying for jobs right now and there’s a lot more competition and there are fewer jobs so things are more stressful,” Kyle E. D. Wiggins ’09 said. “I’m looking for jobs in finance, consulting, and private equity, but because of the financial crisis I’m looking at Teach for America and thinking about going abroad.”

Read more

Should Teach For America ask Corps Members for a 3-year commitment?

Kelly Vaughan at Gotham Schools writes:

Teach For America (TFA) alum and Reluctant Disciplinarian author Gary Rubinstein on why TFA should ask Corps Members (CMs) to commit for three years rather than two:

I say this because I know that after two years of teaching, most CMs have become really excellent teachers. (I’m in my 11th year now, and I don’t think I’m that much better than I was in my third year. I taught for 4 years total in Houston.) Right now there are approximately 3,000 CMs in their first year, 3,000 CMs in their second year in their placement sites. … If TFA made the commitment three years, you’d have 3,000 first years, 3,000 second years, and 3,000 third years. This would be 9,000 teachers with 67% of them being ‘very effective.’ … To me, that’s making a good step toward ‘One day all children will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.’

Read more

“With programs like TfA we are putting a band-aid over a huge flesh wound in the American educational system. “

From EdNotes online:

I posted an article from The Feministe by “Anna” called “Why I Hate Teach for America” on Aug. 24, 2008. This comment came across this morning.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post “Why I Hate Teach for America”:

I am a traditionally trained teacher. I have a dual degree in elementary and special education. I’m currently working on my M.Ed in Literacy. It pains me to think of the disservice we are doing our students with TfA. I’ve seen people with no background become literacy coaches in 3 years, teaching new recruits how to teach! It’s an absolute joke.

We are putting the wrong people in the neediest situations and often watching them fail. With programs like TfA we are putting a band-aid over a huge flesh wound in the American educational system. I believe that alternative programs can be a part of the certification process but TfA is missing the boat, big time.

I teach special education in an inner-ring suburb of a large metropolitan area. I think of what our students are missing by having teachers, with less than 8 weeks of training, standing in front of them, especially in the elementary grades. Research proves that these primary years are the most important in shaping our academic success and our nation is willingly letting people with no experience or background teach literacy and math.

Unfortunately, this is the way it will be unless this great nation of ours realizes that we need to turn things around, supporting our students at home and our teachers in the classroom. Our profession has lost its nobility. Students are disrespectful and are supported in their poor choices by parents. We need to reward teachers who pursue higher education degrees and continue to teach with higher salaries and an ounce of appreciation for the often thankless things we do and the countless hours spent helping students beyond our contracted day.

Teach for America perpetuates the problem by supporting the idea that teaching is a stepping stone to bigger and better. In my mind, teaching is the bigger and better. Teach for America boasts that high expectations are required for student achievement. I agree, and I have higher expectations for programs like TfA and the people who have chosen this path. Step up to the plate TfA and require your recruits to enter the field and continue with their training to TEACH!

Read the original post

Teach for America inspires students but not effective in long run

Krystie Yandoli at The Daily Orange writes

The two-year time commitment for Teach for America is appealing to students with other plans for their future but want to find a way to contribute to a mission of social change. Good intentions aside, impoverished children should not be taught by people do not have long-term plans to continue teaching.

The students deserve to be taught by teachers who are in it for the long haul. The two-year mark leaves teachers with an impression that they are fulfilling their duties within this time period and do not need to continue with their efforts.

Despite recent recruiting efforts, some students are still skeptical.

Read more