To : Wendy Kopp, CEO and Founder, Teach For America
From: Robert Pondiscio, The Core Knowledge Blog
Re: Taking TFA to the Next Level
Dear Wendy:
First of all, congratulations on the huge surge in applications this year, and that New York Times editorial praising the impact of Teach For America’s teachers. TFA is hot, hot, hot! You’re well on the way to establishing the premier brand in education reform. Heck, you’re already there. That’s why you made this year’s TIME 100 list of the most world’s most influential people. It’s a good time to be Wendy Kopp and Teach For America. You’ve earned every accolade.
Because of all this success, you have built up a boatload of political capital. You’ve earned the right to innovate and really move the needle for our most disadvantaged kids. Now it’s time to break the mold and deploy your corps members in a way that could take TFA’s impact—already significant—to new heights.
You and I both know that the big knock on TFA is always going to be that its teachers are “two years and out.” Sure, you’ve got data to show that your smart, well-trained new teachers improve student outcomes. That’s great stuff. We also know that a third of corps members stay past their two-year commitment, and that’s even better. Even those who teach for just two years often go on to leadership positions, both in and out of education, deeply affected and energized by their experience. Bonus! But the more cache TFA gets, the more it’ll be used by some as a blue-chip resume item to catch the eye of recruiters on Wall Street, in the best law firms and corporations, and in top grad schools. Face it, that’s already an issue. These kids are no dummies, after all.
So here’s how we solve the “two and out” problem and kick TFA’s impact into the stratosphere: Instead of throwing TFAers into the worst teaching situations in the cities you serve, place them in some of the best, highest-performing schools. (Stick with me, Wendy, here’s the beauty part.) Place them in that high-functioning school for two years as pinch-hitters for some of our best, most experienced teachers, and send those master teachers to the same schools to which you’re sending TFA corps members now. We can call it the Teach For America Fellowship, and throw in a nice extra chunk of change to incentivize those master teachers without worrying about whether it’s merit pay.
Here’s why it makes sense:
Did you see the video of Amy Wilkins of Ed Trust at the Ed in ‘08 conference last week, talking to Dan Brown, the Huffington Post blogger? He’s the guy who wrote that book about his first year as a teacher in the Bronx. “Why were you there?” she asked Dan. “You were teaching the most challenging children there are, and they need the most skilled and experienced teachers. You had no business in that school.” She wasn’t insulting Dan, just making an important point about the way teaching talent is distributed. Our toughest schools are no place for rookies, even well-educated, data-driven rookies. Being a first year teacher in a tough school makes for great memoirs, but all the good intentions and Ivy League degrees under the sun don’t make you a great teacher. We’re certainly not going to turn around thousands of underperforming schools on the backs of 22-year olds.
Watch that video of Amy Wilkins and Dan Brown all the way to the end. In the last segment, someone interviews him about what Wilkins said, and Dan replies, “I wish it were possible to send all veteran master teachers to the highest need city schools. That would be amazing.”
Yes it would. And you might be the only person in America who could actually pull it off, Wendy. You’ve got the recruitment network, the program, the funding pipeline and the moral authority to make it happen. The TFA halo has never shined brighter. Recruitment is up, foundation grants are pouring in. Your development people can probably raise money in each of your service areas to pay the master teachers a healthy stipend to spend two years working with our most disadvantaged kids and spread best practices among the rest of the staff. Send a half a dozen or more in at a time and you’ll really see a school turnaround.
Think of it. Our kids who are furthest behind would get what they really need-the best teachers, not just the best-intentioned teachers. Meanwhile, your freshly recruited, elite college grads can learn their craft at a high-functioning school, leaning to become yet another great teacher alongside competent professionals instead of being overmatched in the trenches among other neophytes and burnt out teachers. At the end of year two, the master teacher returns to his or her original school, and your corps members, with two years of successful teaching under their belts, can go off to teach in the inner city confidently, having honed their craft, truly ready—because of TFA’s training and a positive classroom experience—to make a difference for our most challenging kids.
OK, some parents in the top schools might object to having a first-year teacher instead of that beloved veteran, but we can spin that. What parent on the Upper East Side of Manhattan wouldn’t want little Tyler or Ashleigh taught by a freshly-minted Harvard or Yale grad? Perhaps they can even get a head-start on their college application essays, working with their TFA corps member teacher. Everyone wins!
I have to confess Wendy, this is not an entirely original idea. Back when I was with the New York City Teaching Fellows, I heard Joel Klein say he wanted to do something like this with the Fellows—have them become great teachers before moving to high-needs schools. I’m not sure what ever happened to that idea; I have a hunch the UFT had something to say about it. But it made a world of sense then, and it makes a world of sense now. I know for a fact Klein loves this idea. I heard it direct from the horse’s mouth. Give him a call. Let’s at least give it a try in a half dozen pilot schools in September. What do you say, Wendy?
Remember your book, One Day, All Children…? Why wait for one day to give kids a great teacher when you can leverage the power of the ed reform megabrand you’ve built to make it happen right now?
Sincerely,
Robert Pondiscio
cc: Joel Klein, Chancellor New York City Schools
Amy Wilkins, Vice President, The Education Trust
Dan Brown, The Huffington Post
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Very nice ideas but your guess that the UFT had something to do with Klein’s moving away from a swap of TF and TFA’s with vet teachers is off base.
First of all, the UFT sell off almost any part of the contract for money which has been proven time and again.
Secondly, Klein has proven time and again that the “let’s mve the most experienced vets into the most needed schools” was a ploy to eliminate seniority. Witness the costs to schools for higher teacher salaries under Klein, an invitation to shed these teachers. These vets who apply to new schools get barely a response.
Thirdly, even if Wendy Kopp came up with the money to pay the difference, hwo much do you think it would take to get a teacher to make the move from a cushy school to the other side of the tracks? Talk to private school teachers for instance, which I have done, and when I ask them to put a price on their making the move, they laugh. A lot.
Norm, if I’m not mistaken, is Norm Scott, who blogs at Ed Notes online. 35-year veteran NYC teacher, and passionate edublogger. I’m flattered you stopped by Norm and thanks for taking the time to comment
Klein’s idea was not the swap, that’s my humble contribution, but the idea of starting Teaching Fellows in functional environments before sending them to more challenging postings. I’ll defer to you on whether Klein’s ideas about getting the most experienced teachers in the most needed schools was a ploy or not; I’m not in a position to know. I prefer to take him at his word.
But I will disagree with you about finding experienced educators who are willing to make the move to more challenging posts. First of all, we’re talking about two years. My point is that if we’re going to have teachers serve for just a few years in struggling schools, it makes sense to try to create a mechanism for our most talented teachers to be the ones who do so.
At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I do believe there would be many veteran educators who are men and women of good will and commitment, who understand that there is a need, and that they have the tools and talent to make a difference. One of my heroes is a friend who used to have a top administrative job at an elite private school; she’s now turning around astruggling Harlem charter. Public service may be fashionable among our youngest teachers, but it never goes out of fashion among our best and noblest teachers.
Great post. Half great satire. Half a practical solution. But a great way to pose the issue.
I used alternative certification to change from academics to high school. Back then, nobody would have ever considered hiring me for elementary school. But the truth is that I got attached to the elementary and middle school kids in the nighborhood. “I could have been a contender.” I’d have been just as happy teaching those sweet little things. (I have got to admit to a little swagger based on my successes with highschool, but the real challenge is middle school.)
There is some wisdom, though, in directing newcomers to high school. In our case, your first job is to be a cop. When I was a newly minted Rutgers PhD, I wouldn’t have had the experience or the authoritative demeanor. But I was nearly forty and I had a lot of practical experience in the hood when I started teaching felons.
Regarding the serious part of your proposal, it would have to address the same dynamic that would kill the senority-busting proposals of Klein, et. al. Its takes different personalities to teach in high and low poverty and elementary and secondary schools. Why would anyone presuppose that a great teacher in one environment would enjoy and flourish in another?
We should persuade as many as possible of as many types as possible of people from all backgrounds to commit to high poverty schools. I don’t think that the particular professional experience is so important. Its overall life experience. Pedaguagy is important, but having experienced defeat is much more so. My single best academic experience was flunking my orals the first time. Getting my first book sent back over and over by a conservative editor was second. The best academic preparation I’ve had afterwards was not failing National Certification. I would have almost certainly accepted a particularly attractive high prestige job offer if it had not come after my students and I shared the year when my father died. Those setbacks are tiny compared to the challenges my students face.
I meant to say that failing National Certification was my best preparation.
As far as foul-ups, I’ve got a million of em.
Robert
As one who came from a Teaching Fellow like program for men escaping the Vietnam War who were thrown into the toughest schools as first year teachers and were destroyed at first, I understand exactly what is going on with TFA and TF.
By the way, Joel Klein was briefly in this program and supposedly taught math in middle school in the Bronx for about 6 months. He never talks about the experience - he must have gone through the same hell many of us did. I too didn’t intend to stay but got caught by the kids in my 2nd year. Never regretted it for a minute.
I saw the contrast between the other new teachers who came from traditional routes (we had 15 newbies that first year) - they were so much better prepared than we were.
My proposal would be for Wendy Kopp to raise funds to make the first year an internship with part-time teaching and support from vet teachers (in today’s world, 4-5 yr people.) I would also extend it to 3 years so people can make a better choice as to whether to stay. Let’s face it, no matter how smart people are they will need the first year to learn basic ropes. The 2nd year is manageable where you don’t make the same mistakes and in the 3rd yr you really start hitting a stride, with about another year or 2 learning curve to really be at your best.
I am too idealistic and think there are people who would make such a move but when money is the issue at stake, that concerns me. What monetary reward do we think it would take? When I started in ‘67 we were given 3 extra preps in elementary and middle schools, too I think. About 10 years later the non special service schools were given the same deal so the advantage disappeared.
In fact, vets who are idealistic are already in the tough schools. I spent my entire career in Williamsburg/Bushwick as did many of my colleagues. The key was the school environment. I also had friends who put in their 20 and took a transfer to “better” school in their own neighborhood and couldn’t believe how inferior they felt their new colleagues were compared to their old buddies. They themselves, who weren’t wanted because they took a UFT transfer, turned out to be very successful in these schools. The kind of kids and discipline problems were a joke to them. They had the most trouble with middle class parents and longed for the parents in the old area, who were often so much more supportive of teachers in some ways.
That was one of the reasons I didn’t leave - the sense of community I felt. No matter how poor, and considering the tough conditions under which so many lived, they were amongst the most generous people I ever met. They made me feel like a star. As a white Jewish, sheltered kid in 1967 without any pevious contact with people of color, I was the one who got an education.
By the way Robert, I followed your journey with interest.
Two comments, one for Robert, one for John Thompson,
Robert: I like the spirit of your idea–but what teacher, veteran or novice, wants to be in a curriculumless, fad-driven environment run by people who show overt disdain for teachers and students? The veteran teachers would likely have even less tolerance for this than novices, but would have no means of making substantial changes to the school culture. Some of those veteran teachers from excellent schools wouldn’t last two years in an environment like that. We need to change the school curriculum and culture before we can have any hope of retaining teachers in large numbers over the long term.
John Thompson, you make a profound point about defeat. Teacher recruitment programs place a premium on success–but a successful 21-year-old simply hasn’t lived enough yet to see the other side. Like you, I have learned from my defeats and wouldn’t trade most of them in. (A few, maybe.)
Diana:
I have to disagree with you somewhat. I was about 40 when I started teaching, and I tend to believe that one of the factors that worked in my favor was that I was not 22 years old and in my first full-time workplace. Many young new teachers, I feel, tend to be cowed by administrators, co-workers, parents, etc. Once you’ve been around the track a few times, I think you’re more likely to show some spine, as it were, and not reflexively defer. Hence an experienced pro would be more likely to succeed in such a difficult environment. Not that they necessarily would succeed, of course. The “curriculumless, fad-driven” environment, as you suggest, is still a problem.
Robert,
I’m not sure how much we disagree. If we do, that’s fine! But let me explain my point a little.
Like you, I started teaching around the age of 40. I had taught in temporary situations before (in addition to other jobs): two summer stints, a year-long fellowship, and a teaching assistantship. All of these were temporary, so, while I never quit, I never had the experience of persevering, until I entered public school teaching.
When I started teaching, I was driven by a desire to teach. I wanted to stick it out in order not to close the door on it. I loved (and love) it and felt it would be worthwhile to weather the difficulties. But I don’t take this state of mind for granted. A person can get discouraged and quit. And when one does quit, it can be hard to return.
Now, consider how different the position of a veteran teacher at an excellent school. Already established, he or she has no need to prove anything in a rough urban school–not to self, not to others. Yes, such veteran teachers may well show some spine, as you say, but–would they really want to spend that much energy on battles they knew shouldn’t be necessary in the first place? Even if they did try to bring changes to the school itself, how much could they do in two years?
It’s like a veteran musician who for years has been practicing in a quiet place, working on the minute details of phrasing and tone. Then the musician moves to a place where there is endless construction noise. Being a master musician, he or she is able to practice nonetheless, and even improve. But playing well against the odds is not enough. There is no comparison with those days of being up against the art.
But would TfA have the same appeal to young college grads if the idea was to teach in “good” schools for a few years and then move to the inner city?
Perhaps the TfA model could evolve to this approach — but it would mean recruiting with an eye on longer term commitment.
And, separate from anything TfA could do, it requires the structural/funding changes that would help make a move to a more challenging school an upwards career step, rather than the reverse.
Why not steal a page from the TFA? I’m more skeptical about the “up side” of curriculum and standards, but here’s my theory of how we could extend the principles of Core Knowledge into high school.
Rather than bemoan the lack of an established curricula, lets take inventory of all the great national curricula we already have. Look at the institutions that wrestled with the problem of providing adequate background information while telling great stories, NPR, PBS, the Smithsonian and other great museums, our National Parks, and others. What if every high school had a teacher trained by NPR to use their amazing resources? Why not pay PBS to train another teacher for every poor school. Think of the multimedia resources that have been created by the great museums to help tell their story and the energy that would be released if they showed talented young people how to use their materials.
Since NCLB, our small and poor school has invested in a half dozen teaching positions per year that try to implement whatever learning package that the central office decided to impose on us, and its been a waste of money. What if we had been able to hire a half dozen young teachers trained by some of the most dynamic learning institutions in America?
Haven’t read the whole thread, but this brings up the core contradiction in so much talk of “high-performing” schools, which is that one of the points of NCLB was to unmask the fact that these schools aren’t teaching black and Hispanic kids well.
That’s why NCLB requires that schools “disaggregate the data.”
In my own high-performing school district, now up to $25,000 per pupil funding, the pass rate for black and Hispanic students on last year’s 8th grade ELA & math tests was 0.
ZERO
Not one black or Hispanic student passed.
We are a very high performing district. High school in the top 100 or 200, depending on which list you’re looking at.
Time to read Richard Elmore on nominally high-performing schools.
Or Sanders on slide-and-glide.
I also had friends who put in their 20 and took a transfer to “better” school in their own neighborhood and couldn’t believe how inferior they felt their new colleagues were compared to their old buddies. They themselves, who weren’t wanted because they took a UFT transfer, turned out to be very successful in these schools.
This is what I’m talking about.
There is no reason to assume that teachers in high-performing schools are better than teachers in low-performing schools.
High-performing schools depend heavily on parents “helping with homework,” which often means reteaching the content and tutors.
Basically, high-performing schools often have a ghost-teaching force.
A Scarsdale tutor told me she estimates half the kids there are tutored. I wouldn’t be surprised.
When I returned to visit schools in more affluent communities, I began to see them in a very different light. On paper, these schools’ performance usually looked reasonably good. From the inside, however, they looked jarringly different from the improving high-poverty schools I had observed.
One of the most powerful differences was that teachers and administrators tended to define student learning difficulties as a problem to be solved by students and their families, rather than one to be solved by schools. A common response to student learning problems in these districts is to suggest that parents seek private tutoring. At a recent gathering of about 300 educators from high-income schools and districts, I asked how many could tell me the proportion of students in their schools who were enrolled in private tutoring. Only four or five hands went up. But among those respondents, the answers ranged from 20 to 40 percent.
What does this mean for instructional improvement? These schools are outsourcing the task of teaching every student—and from classroom to classroom, teachers may not even be aware of it. As a result, teachers are not challenged to identify shortcomings in their own practice that inhibit student learning, or to share knowledge about which teachers are most successful and why.
In more affluent communities, I also found that variations in student performance were frequently taken for granted. Instead of being seen as a challenge to teachers’ practice, these differences were used to classify students as more or less talented. Access to high-level courses was intentionally limited, reinforcing the view that talent, not instruction, was the basis of student achievement.
What (So-Called) Low-Performing Schools Can Teach (So-Called) High-Performing Schools
by Richard F. Elmore
Loud applause for this BRILLIANT idea!
I’m a TFA alum, joined in ‘95, and still working in education in the district in which I was originally placed. Although some of the most amazing educators I know are TFA, now that I have a big picture of the needs of urban schools, I’m horrified by TFA. How can this program be allowed to go on?
I think I need some kind of TFA survivor support group. It did and does feel cultish at times, in the way that cults see nothing at all wrong with what they’re doing. This is a brilliant solution.
I think TFA is a disservice to students and the whole school community. Two years and out is not the answer for educators to make a sense impact in teaching and learning. Teaching is an art that takes time to Master. I don’t care what University your degree is from. They really don’t care about the profession. It’s all about getting free money so they can move on to pursue higher degrees. More research is needed in regards to TFA.