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