Re: Teach for America: Why We Should Be Afraid

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Arguing that organizations that promote improving schools that serve 
disadvantaged youngsters are somehow in retreat from wider concerns of 
equity and social justice is absolute, total, and complete nonsense.  
You might as well claim that the Little Sisters of the Poor are in 
retreat from social justice.  Only in the schematized world of ARN 
would someone argue something this silly.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>
To: ARN-L List <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:52:46 -0500
Subject: [arn-l] Teach for America: Why We Should Be Afraid

  OK, so it's an admittedly hyperbolic title. I honestly don't think we 
need to fear TFA. But, then again, given the strength of its brand, its 
image, and its underlying philosophy, and the fact that a record 19,000 
people – roughly a 10 percent jump from the previous year – applied 
this academic year to Teach for America 
(http://transformeducation.blogspot.com/2006/05/teach-for-americas-popula
rity-grows.html), we have a lot to be concerned about. The reason? In a 
nutshell, TFA represents a growing "progressive" or "Democratic" flavor 
of mainstream thinking on educational reform. So for those of us who 
oppose NCLB and the high-stakes testing regime and are looking for 
someone or something to take the lead on national education reform, we 
will be sorely disappointed -- perhaps even disturbed or afraid -- by 
what this so-called "progressive alternative" looks like.

 Although TFA is not a policy shop per se, it embodies a very powerful 
policy message: "poverty should not be used as an excuse for why our 
schools won't work." In adopting this philosophy, 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.

 TFA President and Founder Wendy Kopp says we need to take pressure off 
schools, increase access to high-quality pre-schools, improve public 
services, etc. But then she turns around and argues that poverty should 
not be used as an excuse for why our schools won't work. So which is 
it? Do we acknowledge the harmful effects that poverty has on 
educational outcomes and work very hard to eradicate it? Or do we look 
at poverty as an excuse, saying that it doesn't really matter and that 
the effects really aren't that bad and can be compensated for? TFA 
clearly argues the latter and, in so doing, makes an extremely powerful 
policy statement about closing the educational achievement gap.

 Kopp says that we have many examples of how schools can take kids 
growing up in poverty and put them on a level playing field with kids 
in other communities. I know of some schools that have been able to do 
this, most notably the KIPP schools that TFA alumni Mike Feinberg and 
Dave Levin started. But these are only a handful of schools scattered 
amongst the country's 15,000 school districts. We must never mistake 
these isolated examples as the norm. They aren't. Nor must we ever 
believe that these isolated cases can be reproduced nation-wide. They 
can't. KIPP relies on energetic idealists in their 20's who are single 
and have no kids to work 10 hour days, an extra day on Saturday, and an 
extra month in the summer. There are only so many people who are 
willing to do this. There are even fewer who can do this because of 
their family commitments. They have to go home, fix dinner, do the 
dishes, walk the dog, and help with their kids' homework.

 Certainly some kids can pull themselves up out of the inner-city 
despite the tremendous odds. Certainly some great schools have formed 
and will continue to form in poor neighborhoods and attract motivated 
teachers, students, and parents to work together to improve the 
educational outcomes of poor kids. KIPP is a good example of this. But 
the dozens of examples of personal success pale in comparison to the 
hundreds of thousands of personal failures. The 40 or so KIPP schools 
make up a tiny fraction of the thousands and thousands of schools where 
children are ground up and spat out. So why do so many poor kids fail? 
Why are so many poor children chewed up and spat out?

 Clearly, kids can't wait for us adults to figure things out. We 
obviously need to craft both short and long-term stategies. TFA is 
short-term strategy. But 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. According to a recent Inside 
Higher Education article 
(http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/05/26/teach), 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 organizations 
(http://www.teachforamerica.com/supporters.html). The problem with this 
is that TFA walks -- unwittingly or not -- right into the poltical 
hacksaw that these organizations want to take to public education. The 
message of TFA is, "If we hire great teachers, have great school 
leaders, and have higher expectations of students, our problems will be 
solved." This lets conservatives 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 
frames itself as a progressive organization, a noble organization, but 
it is being used as a pawn to derail the efforts to accomplish the 
kinds of substantive changes that true progressives call for.

In a recent speech, Kopp said:

 "Each year, the Gallup organization does a survey in which they ask 
the public why we have low educational outcomes in low-income 
communities. The public’s top three responses are (1) lack of student 
motivation, (2) lack of parental involvement, and (3) home-life issues. 
Those responses strike me as capturing accurately the views of most 
Americans – even most thoughtful and civic-minded Americans. And yet, 
based on their experiences actually working with kids and families, our 
corps members . . . answer the Gallup question very differently. Given 
the same question and the same twenty choices, our corps members 
respond at the end of their second year that the top three factors 
contributing to low outcomes are (1) teacher quality, (2) school 
leadership, and (3) expectations of students. There is such hope in 
this. Our corps members are telling us that this problem is within our 
control… that we can ensure that all of our nation’s children have the 
opportunities they deserve."

 Let me take each of the corps members' beliefs about low outcomes one 
by one:

 1) teacher quality - the corp members' opinions appear to rest on the 
assumption that all teachers can (and should) be like TFA teachers. But 
TFA teachers are a special breed. To begin with, they have a different 
kind of motivation operating as they enter the classroom. I taught for 
two years at a Japanese high school. I entered the classroom knowing I 
was there for two years. I loved the experience, but when things got 
bad, I knew I only had one year to go, then only six months to go, then 
only one month to go. Knowing I was leaving helped make the 
insurmountable things bearable. Throughout the experience, the exit 
door was always clearly marked. While many TFA teachers choose to stay 
on past their two year commitments, many don't. (I've read different 
reports on what the attrition rate is -- some say it's higher than 
average, others say it's about the same.) Based on my own experience in 
a two-year teaching commitment, I could afford to work very hard with 
the end in sight. This is not the case for the average classroom 
teacher. The attrition rate for average classroom teachers is about 50% 
in the first five years. These teachers can't make a long-term 
commitment to a profession that is so riddled with problems and 
inequities, so they leave.

 Moreover, the average TFA teacher is in his/her early 20's, is single, 
and has no kids. They are clearly very dedicated young people who are 
not only willing to work longer hours and on Saturdays, but who are 
able to to work longer hours and on Saturdays. Teachers with families 
simply can't do this.

 How, then, can the TFA model of a teacher be reproducible? For 
teachers with families who enter the profession with no exit door in 
sight, holding TFA up as a model is simply not realistic. Saying "this 
problem is within our control" is also not realistic in this context.

 Of course we want better trained, better supported, and more motivated 
teachers in our classrooms. But how do we achieve this goal? By holding 
up an unsustainable, unattainable model as the goal?

 2) school leadership - given that TFA receives support from The Broad 
Foundation and Edison Schools, Inc., and has deep connections to KIPP 
schools, I'm assuming that the model of school leadership TFA is 
holding up is one that is associated with these organizations. If so, 
that is troubling to me. Edison's for-profit model, Broad's metaphor of 
running schools like businesses, and KIPP's use of heavy rewards and 
punishments are not consistent with forms of teaching and learning that 
honor the highest aspirations of education. According to Craig Gordon 
(http://transformeducation.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-do-we-mean-by-privat
ization.html), a high school teacher and educational activist in 
Oakland:

 "Randolph Ward, sent to run Oakland's public schools by the Broad 
Foundation, has championed "results based budgeting" as the solution to 
the district's inefficiency because it makes every school operate as a 
small business. Each school's budget depends upon its average daily 
attendance (not enrollment), so a big school in a poor neighborhood 
with low attendance rates might actually get fewer dollars than a 
smaller school in a wealthier neighborhood. Ward proudly sold this 
Broad vision of "educational entrepreneurship" that makes each 
principal a CEO who must maximize revenues (attending students) and 
minimize costs (especially salaries) to survive. "CEOs" compete with 
each other to attract more students, get them into the building and 
hire the newest, lowest-paid teachers they can find, demand more 
waivers to the union contract (if the union survives) to get more done 
with fewer resources and reduced staff. Teacher burnout and high 
turnover equals a perpetually young, cheap staff. Yes, these are 
'public' schools, but operating on a private sector model."

 Of course we want better trained, better supported, and more motivated 
leaders in our schools. But how do we achieve this goal? By turning 
principals into CEO's? By using "results-based budgeting" as per Randy 
Ward and the Broad Foundation? By turning schools into profit-making 
ventures for entrepreneurs who look at children as commodities 
(Edison)? By asking teachers to work 10 hour days for 5 days, 5 hours 
more on Saturdays, and 1 extra month in the summer (KIPP)?

 3) higher expectations of students - while having high expectations of 
students is certainly a key factor that shapes educational outcomes, 
these high expectations must be balanced with the reality of these 
kids' lives. Poor kids go to school poor and come home poor. Nothing 
that happens at school changes that. We can expect all we want of 
students that have little to no pre-K experience, inadequate 
healthcare, inadequate nutrition, and inadequate parental support. But 
to suggest that "we can ensure that all of our nation’s children have 
the opportunities they deserve" simply by expecting more from them is 
to completely overlook the role that poverty plays in shaping reality. 
Yes, some kids can overcome the odds and make it despite the desperate 
conditions they are mired in. But why not do everything we can to 
increase the odds that more kids will make it, not just the kids who 
"deserve" it? Why must poor kids work so hard to make it, while their 
affluent peers have to do so much less? This is the most important 
social justice issue of our time.

 Of course we should hold kids to high standards and encourage them to 
excel. But how do we achieve this goal? Why not have higher 
expectations of local, state, and federal governments in improving 
educational outcomes?

 TFA must take a strong public stand on all the issues that contribute 
to the achievement gap, not just teacher quality, school leadership, 
and expectations of students. These latter issues that TFA focuses on 
are critically important, no doubt. But if we really want to close the 
achievement gap, we have to do more. The analogy I use is to think of a 
high-jumper. To get ready for the Olympics, her trainer tells her to do 
800 sit-ups a day. While doing 800 sit-ups a day is certainly a good 
idea, it's not enough. She needs to do other things to improve her 
vertical leap, her stamina, and her acceleration. If she did all of 
these things together, the odds of her winning a gold medal would 
increase greatly. But if she only does 800 sit-ups a day, her chances 
are pretty slim. Same with the achievement gap: focusing on school 
reform (teacher quality, school leadership, and expectations of 
students) is certainly a good idea, but it's not enough. If we did all 
the things we need to do (including school reform), the odds of closing 
the gap would increase greatly. So why put all your eggs in one basket? 
Why not do everything we can to increase the likelihood that no child 
will be left behind?

 If we're serious about leaving no child behind -- really serious -- we 
have to wrestle with this question: how can every child gain access to 
a free, high-quality education? To cast the net as wide as possible and 
to increase the likelihood that more poor kids will make it, we have to 
level the playing field. Poverty is not an excuse. It's a reality.

 In the end, TFA can be a vocal participant in doing more or it can 
lend tacit support to the status quo. However, I'm not holding my 
breath. Kopp is married to Richard Barth, who was at Edison before he 
went to KIPP. He's now the CEO of the KIPP Foundation. 
(http://www.kippschools.org/staffdirectory.cfm?pageid=nav6b2)

I can only imagine the dinner-table conversations . . .

--
 Posted by Peter Campbell to Transform Education at 6/19/2006 09:44:00 
AM

------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net


________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.