A record 19,000 people – roughly a 10 percent jump from the previous year – applied this academic year to Teach for America, the program that places students from top colleges in classrooms in disadvantaged school districts for a two-year assignment. The program allows the students to begin teaching just months after graduation while they work toward their teaching certificate, instead of having to wait a year or more to get into the classroom. Teach For America accepted about 3,300 students this spring — fewer than one in five of those who applied — and roughly 2,400 are expected to begin teaching in the fall, according to Todd McGovern, a Teach For America spokesman.
http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/05/26/teach
---
TFA founder Wendy Kopp gave a speech in April at Washington University in St. Louis.
Someone from the audience asked Kopp about TFA's role in affecting change in the socioeconomic domains that contribute to the achievement gap. She said that TFA stays out of those ideological debates and focuses on its core competency -- finding and developing the educational leaders of the future. But being silent on the issue of other factors that contribute to the achievement gap is not the same as staying out of ideological debates on the issue; a widely-respected organization such as TFA could make meaningful, powerful, substantive contributions to the national conversation regarding educational reform. However, because TFA (or perhaps just Kopp representing TFA) does not make these contributions, it tacitly contributes to the notion that the achievement gap can be closed by attracting, training, and sustaining great teachers, i.e., TFA's mission.
I respect and admire TFA on many levels, but Kopp's talk underscored the extent to which TFA unwittingly plays into the hands of conservative ideologues who want to shirk the role of federal, state, and local governments in closing the achievement gap and make educational reform exclusively about school reform. While reforming schools is absolutely crucial, we have to do more than just find, train, support, and sustain great teachers.
TFA is taking an extraordinarily powerful and public -- albeit implicit -- stand on how to close the educational achievement gap. I know that TFA staff and all the incredibly dedicated teachers and alums from TFA are working their asses off to make a difference. I also know that, from talking to my colleagues in the public education advocacy community, TFA teachers are consistently spoken about in glowing terms.
The irony here, however, is that each successful TFA teacher builds this consensus: all teachers have to do is work harder, longer, better, and more passionately on behalf of children, and we can close the educational achievement gap ourselves. In the speech at Washington University, Kopp embodied and testified to this notion. To illustrate this point, she told the story of a TFA teacher named Aurora. Aurora was from a low-resource background. She was placed in a Houston 4th grade classroom. She discovered that the students were nowhere near the 4th grade proficiency benchmarks, so she got the key to the school from the janitor and came in early and stayed late every day. She asked the parents to let the students stay late each day. She also had her students come in on Saturdays. At the end of the year, the students all passed the 4th grade test.
A moving story, indeed. But what does this suggest?
1) academic success depends on teachers working much longer hours than they already do - while this might be reasonable to ask of young, ambitious, TFA teachers who are single, unmarried, and have no kids, it is not reasonable to ask this of older teachers who are married, have kids, and who must struggle in balancing work/life commitments. Not only is it not reasonable, but it is not practical. In other words, it won't work. Because it won't work, it won't scale. Because it won't scale, the most it can possibly hope to achieve is modest, limited success in a certain number of schools populated with young, ambitious, 20-something TFA teachers.
To make this point, look at the issue that KIPP schools are faced with right now. In a recent interview, KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg said, "(I)t's getting harder to find the teachers that are already at the master level." ( source - http://www.pbs.org/makingschoolswork/sbs/kipp/feinberg.html ) KIPP seems to thrive on the energy of its young, ambitious, mostly white teachers who are genuinely committed to helping poor kids of color. I take nothing away from what the founders of KIPP are committed to and what they want. I admire them, like I admire many people who actually want to do something about social justice and closing the achievement gap. But while Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg might be willing to work 10 hour days for 5 days, 5 hours more on Saturdays, and 1 extra month in the summer, I doubt that many others will. It's no coincidence that the majority of "KIPP'sters" are in their 20's, are single, and have no kids. Doing the right thing is noble work . . . until you hit 30. Or get married. Or have kids.
2) academic success depends on students working much longer hours than they already do - this troubles me because Kopp's story does not include details about what the students were actually doing in the classroom with Aurora. It's reasonable to assume that, because Aurora was committed to having the students pass the 4th grade test, that she spent her efforts focused on helping the students pass the test. But as I know from my Princeton Review days, test preparation and education are not the same thing. Did Aurora spend a lot of class time helping the 4th graders learn about the Declaration of Independence? Did she encourage the students to write poems and short stories? Did she ask them to do self-portraits using watercolor paints? I don't know. But I doubt it. What she probably did, like any good educator would do, was identify the discrete skills and tasks that were going to be tested in the state test and then made sure that her students were proficient in these areas. The "good news" at the end of Kopp's story was that all the students passed the test. But high test scores, as we know, are not necessarily indicative of better-educated students.
Therefore, the apparent success story that Kopp told is fraught with tension. But this tension did not get acknowledged (at least not by Kopp). Instead, it left the audience with this question: why can't all teachers be like Aurora?
George Bush and the supporters of NCLB ask the same question: why can't all teachers be like this? But instead of framing this like a rhetorical question, what if we really asked ourselves, "Why can't all teachers be like this?" As I said, not all teachers can be like this because not all teachers can devote this much time to their jobs. This is not because they are lazy or deficient. It's because they want to have lives that include something other than work. We wouldn't think of asking this of any other profession, yet it seems almost natural to expect teachers to work 60 to 80 hours per week. In fact, a lot of teachers already work this many hours. But where is this getting us?
So a model of success that is predicated on this workload virtually ensures that it cannot scale. But if it could scale, then becoming a teacher would not be all that different from entering a monastery, i.e., to become a teacher, you need to renounce all other connections to the world.
But I want teachers to be connected to the world. I want teachers to have lives outside the classroom. I want teachers to have kids. And I also want teachers to have time away from work so they can reflect on what they are doing and not be completely burned out by what they are doing.
But the most disturbing part of Kopp's story came at the end when she said that Aurora was now a student at Harvard's National Institute for Urban School Leaders. Kopp said, understandably quite proudly, that Aurora was on track to become the youngest graduate of the Institute ever. But this was no cause for celebration for me. Why not? Because if Aurora emerged from her own TFA experience convinced that all we need to do is have teachers work longer and harder and better, and all students need to do is work longer and harder and better, then she will be in a very powerful position to convince others that this is all we need to do. Her convictions are buttressed by the fact that she had done this herself, and that surely others could do this. So I'm afraid of Aurora's "success." If she is, in fact, put in charge of a large urban district, I can only imagine what might ensue.
7 comments:
Of course, the second part of TFA's mission is that people like Aurora will be motivated to become the leaders in all sectors and you are right, it's not as simple as Wendy's story about Aurora makes it. It never is. There's so much that goes into student achievement. Aurora is probably not the master teacher that KIPP is looking for, yet she has ideas and hopefully will make a positive difference. The truth is, kids can't wait for us adults to figure it out.
Liz - I agree that "kids can't wait for us adults to figure it out." We obviously need to craft both short and long-term stategies. TFA is a very good short-term strategy. But, as I said, there are major problems with it. Number one, it will never scale to the level where it can do something substantive for all of public education. TFA itself hopes -- hopes -- that it can place 8,000 teachers by 2010 (as compared to the 3,500 it currently places). 8,000 teachers, no matter how passionate and effective, will not close the achievement gap. Number two, TFA draws a lot of praise and support from very conservative, pro-business people. The problem with this is that TFA walks -- unwittingly -- right into the poltical hacksaw that these organizations want to take to public education. As I said, the implicit message of TFA is, "All we need to do is hire great teachers and all our problems will be solved." This lets these conservative, right-wingers off the hook because they can point to TFA's success and say, "See, they are saying the same thing that we are. TFA is successful. They aren't complaining about poverty, and look how great they are doing." This is very, very dangerous. Each successful TFA teacher makes it that much more difficult to address the larger issues that contribute to the achievement gap because it takes the wind out of progressive educators' sails. The irony is that TFA is a very progressive organization, a very noble organization, but it is being used as a pawn.
So, yes, let's suppport TFA. But let's also demand that TFA take a strong stand on all the issues that contribute to the achievement gap, not just teacher quality.
The thing I do not care for with the TFA arrangement is that they are only required to teach at a given district for two years. This should be increased to at least five years. If such were the case, I think you would see deterioration in the "work ethic" of these students.
I have worked with many TFA teachers here in South Dakota. They are good workers and, as the piece states, are well versed in social justice. However, many of the TFA teachers leave after their two year stint. Many go on to pursue occupations in the area of their majors. Quite frankly, many of these individuals view TFA as a stepping stone, a way to help pay for their education.
What I would like to see is that money going into TFA move over into a program to better pay our current, dedicated teachers.
I am currently a corps member with TFA, and would like to reply to a few of the opinions offered here.
First of all, Mr. Campbell, you are correct that under current working conditions it would be unreasonable to expect teachers with families to work 60-80 hour weeks. I myself have often commented to my fellow teachers that I am highly impressed that they can perform such a stressful job and still maintain a healthy home life.
That being said, I do take exception to one of your points. You stated that "We wouldn't think of asking this [long hours] of any other profession, yet it seems almost natural to expect teachers to work 60 to 80 hours per week."
Well, that's not quite true. Attorneys, doctors, bankers, consultants, and a host of other professional workers are often required to work 60 or more hours per week.
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between a professional and an employee is that employees leave at quitting time, while professionals leave when the job is done.
If 60-80 hour weeks are what it takes to ensure that students learn what they are supposed to, then so be it - teachers are indeed professionals, and thus need to stay until the job is done.
However, in my experience this is not generally necessary. I would say that my average week was about 50 hours this past year. I generally worked 9 hours 5 days a week, and did a couple hours of planning or grading over the weekend. On average, my students went up over 2 full grade levels in reading, and mastered all of their state objectives.
The key in my opinion is not working longer, but working more efficiently. My students did not just work on state-mandated tasks, they wrote stories, poetry, did mock debates, and all sorts of other activities. Each of these activities was driven by a particular component of the state standards, and I explained explicitly to my students that, for example, learning how to participate in a debate will improve their public speaking skills.
Ultimately, I believe the key to closing the achievement gap is for teachers to ensure that they cater to the unique learning styles and skills of their students. My students were successful because I incorportated their interests into the curriculum - if they like hip-hop, use that to teach poetry; if they like drawing animals, use that to teach descriptive writing.
Surely, it is important to address the socioeconomic factors that influence education. It would be great if all of my students had clean, safe houses to live in and a community with more jobs for their parents. However, those sorts of systemic changes will be the work of generations - and will hopefully include policymakers enlightened by their own time spent in low-income classrooms and communities. As teachers, however, we need to focus on what is within our personal control right now.
As a last comment, to Brian, I do not believe that TFA would be as successful as it has been if we required a 5-year committment. I certainly would not have joined, and neither would most of my peers.
Since TFA's mission is twofold - to achieve short-term success in the classroom and a long-term impact on public policy - we would not attract such a large pool of talented applicants if the committment was longer than 2 years.
Richard - I'd like to respond to two points you make:
1) "Well, that's not quite true. Attorneys, doctors, bankers, consultants, and a host of other professional workers are often required to work 60 or more hours per week. It seems to me that the fundamental difference between a professional and an employee is that employees leave at quitting time, while professionals leave when the job is done."
This is hubris, pure and simple. It is the arrogant disdain that a neophyte exemplifies when posing as an expert. You are not an expert, Richard. Nor are you a teacher. To suggest that teachers are not professionals because they are unwilling to give up their lives outside of their professional commitments is offensive to say the least. But it's also simply ignorant. The income that attorneys, doctors, bankers, and consultants earn differs on several orders of magnitude from the income that teachers earn. To compare them is foolish and misleading. Again, evidence of the neophyte posing as an expert. If you would like to suggest a way that teachers can earn as much as attorneys, doctors, bankers, and consultants, by all means let me know. This would be a useful contribution. Otherwise, I suggest you learn a bit more before you open mouth and insert foot. Your kind of "expertise" is precisely what I most fear about you and your TFA comrades.
2) "Surely, it is important to address the socioeconomic factors that influence education. It would be great if all of my students had clean, safe houses to live in and a community with more jobs for their parents. However, those sorts of systemic changes will be the work of generations - and will hopefully include policymakers enlightened by their own time spent in low-income classrooms and communities. As teachers, however, we need to focus on what is within our personal control right now."
It never ceases to amaze me that admissions concerning the need to address social and economic justice issues are invariably followed by, "However, . . ." or "But we all know that this will take a very long time." This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course teachers must work with we've got and do the best we can within the status quo. But teachers must also constantly advocate for a bigger, more urgent vision of what needs to be done about truly closing the achievement gap. A teacher working 50-80 hours per week is not doing this. Let me say this again: a teacher working 50-80 hours per week is not doing this. Teachers who do so are putting their fingers in the great dike of the system. It might look like they are doing great work, but -- ironically -- their hard work only serves to prolong the dysfunctional apparatus of which they are a part. TFA amounts to one giant finger in the dike. However, if TFA were to say something like, "Teachers have to work hard AND advocate for social justice" instead of "Teachers have to work hard while waiting two or three generations for social justice to arrive," I would lead the TFA parade. Honestly.
One last thought: your comment about the two-year vs. five-year commitment speaks volumes. It only serves to support the notion that TFA "teachers" are carpet-bagger opportunists looking to feel good while padding their resumes.
More thoughts for Richard:
I'd like to know how long you personally would be willing to work 60 to 80 hours per week as a teacher in a low-income school. Clearly you are willing to work for two years and then leave. If you fit the TFA profile, you are in your 20's, are white, well-educated, unmarried, and have no children. Your suggestion that teachers with families who stay on idefinitely in low-income schools are "employees" because they "leave at quitting time" while "professionals" (ilke you) leave when the job is done leads me to ask this question: why don't you stay past the two-year quitting time, Richard? I suppose that would be too much to ask of a professional of your caliber.
One of the most disruptive forces in schools, especially low-income schools, is the constant teacher turnover problem. Schools that strive to create an atmosphere of professionalism in the teacher ranks must constantly start from scratch every time they lose a teacher. Schools that build support into the culture of the school by creating learning teams to enhance teaching and learning are decimated by the constant exit of teachers.
Put up or shut up, Richard. Leave or stay. But don't lecture on things about which you know nothing. Leave that kind of instruction to the students in your charge. I'm sure you're an inspiration to all of them: parachute in and then get the hell out. What a tremendous role model of commitment you are.
I work in a school where TFA 'teachers' are regarded as 'some of the best' by our principal. This statement always leaves me shaking my head wondering, "They've had five weeks of training during a summer school session and their degrees are in business/philosophy/law etc..." I find it quite insulting since I (and the other real teachers) CHOSE to go into education, earned our bachelor and masters degrees in education and continue to take courses in education.
Peter writes about his concern that these TFA teachers, after two years teaching, go out into the world spouting what they know about education (Aurora's example) and then take leadership roles in education. My principal happens to be a TFA alum. He has had 5 weeks of teacher training, three years in the classroom, and then into administration. He is working on his doctorate to move up into educational leadership. Since he is an alum, our school is full of TFA people. Most leave after their two years, some don't make it a full year, others move into leadership roles in the district (yikes) and not one of them has stayed past three years. TFA is the Peace Corps for education. Makes you feel good and looks great on a resume.
To the gentleman who posted that there would be far fewer candidates if the requirement to teach was five years instead of two; this just shows where your heart is (or isn't). Please don't make a two year pit stop into our schools. Just go straight to graduate school or get a job in the field of your degree.
Post a Comment