Last week, I posted a memo to Wendy Kopp, suggesting a new way to deploy Teach for America corps members—and get top veteran teachers in front of our highest need classrooms. The Teach for America founder emailed a thoughtful reply over the weekend:
Many thanks for all the generous sentiments in your blog entry, which I appreciate. As for your recommendation, as you might guess, I don’t think this would be a good thing for urban and rural kids. It is a rare person who has what it takes to excel as a teacher in a low-income community, and it’s not at all a given that teachers who do well in more privileged communities will do well in urban and rural areas. The most important thing for kids in low-income communities is that we recruit as many people as possible — whether new or experienced — who have the personal characteristics that differentiate successful teachers in high-poverty communities, and that we train and support them to be effective in meeting the extra needs of their students. The individuals who come to Teach For America are coming because they want to work with the nation’s most disadvantaged children (and it is unlikely that most of them would decide to channel their energy toward teaching in more privileged contexts), and in fact their motivation to level the playing field for them is one reason for their success. The recent Urban Institute study that looked at the impact of high school teachers in the state of North Carolina over a six-year period provides evidence that our strategy has a positive impact for kids; the study showed that the incremental impact of hiring a Teach For America corps member was three times the impact of having a teacher with three or more years of experience. Moreover, in addition to providing a critical source of excellent teachers for disadvantaged kids, our strategy of channelling the energy of the nation’s future leaders into urban and rural schools is important for the long-term effort to ensure educational excellence and equity. Teach For America is building a pipeline of leaders who are deeply committed to educational equity and deeply understand what it will take to ensure that children in low-income communities have the educational opportunities they deserve. Their initial teaching experience in under-resourced communities is foundational to their lifelong commitment to effecting the systemic changes necessary to ensure educational opportunity for all.
Wendy Kopp
CEO & Founder
Teach For America
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
The undoing of this idea would certainly be that very few people would join TFA with the goal of teaching in a wealthy school district for two years so that a successful and experienced teacher could fill-in in a needier place.
That said, I reject the idea that it’s impossible to find experienced teachers in other districts that could also be successful in an impoverished one. If TFA has the ability to choose recent college grads that they think can be successful in these circumstances, surely they can pick experienced teachers who could be as well.
A valid point, Corey, and one that Wendy Kopp makes as well. One-third of TFA corp members stay in the classroom for more than two years. What if they got a 3 to 5 year commitment from some recruits, and started those corp members in functional schools? Then they would finish their rotation in a high-needs school.
Math for America, based in New York, awards matriculants full tuition for an M.Ed at NYU or Columbia Teachers College, provided that the recipient completes the degree (and student teaching) prior to full-time classroom work. After that, participants commit to teach in city schools for five years, several of which must be served in high-need placements. But Math for America is designed to recruit career teachers–and that’s exactly Wendy Kopp’s point, that TFA is not designed to address teaching shortages, but a broader goal.
The corps screening process as I understand it selects for qualities that characterize effective managers. Successful applicants are ambitious, persistent, organized, open-minded, and, above all, responsible for the results their students produce. Those qualities are not necessarily absent in teachers who have had success in other contexts. They do, however, characterize teachers who consistently produce student achievement gains in high-need schools specifically. A stint in a high-achieving suburban school might help a new teacher learn how to manage a classroom or develop a rigorous curriculum in a calmer setting. It would not teach him how to navigate social services bureaucracy, how to persuade an administrator afraid of losing school accreditation, or how to suck it up with a smile and make gains in deplorable working conditions outside teachers’ immediate control. That takes gall, not training, to put it bluntly–and I’m not sure you can teach gall, though gall often produces results in high-need schools. So TFA self-selects for corps members who thrive on the challenge, because the achievement gap is the most immediate national challenge for them.
Good points all, Ms. Miller. Ambitious, persistent, organized, open-minded and accountable are great qualities in a teacher in a high-needs school. Ambitious, persistent, organized, open-minded, accountable and experienced are even better.
Mr. Podiscio,
Your idea deserves a more serious hearing than I think Ms. Kopp gave to it and I’d encourage you to press her more on it. If I understand her argument it consists of 3 points
1) Good suburban teacher won’t necessarily make good urban/rural teachers
2) TFA recruits don’t want to teach in advantaged schools
3) The experience of working in challenged schools is shapes the values and perspective of future leaders
The answer to Ms. Kopp’s objections is to create this rotation system not with high-achieving SUBURBAN schools, but with high-achieving HIGH-POVERTY schools. Many such schools exist including KIPP and Achievement First schools as well as some normal district schools (see http://www.hepg.org/hep/Book/65). Given this kind of rotation
1) The experienced teachers are those who understand and are committed to success for this specific student population
2) The TFA recruits would still have the chance to work with this student population, but now with a higher chance of success, thus increasing rather than decreasing the motivation to participate.
3) The experience which would shape the values of these future leaders would not be that of hopeless dysfunctionality, but rather of the success that is possible with these kind of students. This would much better give them not just desire for, but knowledge of “what it will take to ensure that children in low-income communities have the educational opportunities they deserve” and will help them understand the nature of the “systemic changes necessary to ensure educational opportunity for all.” Otherwise they will mostly leave with a lot more of what they came in with - good intentions.
What’s more having some of these successful veterans TFA recruits in the same schools that the now-less-green TFA recent grads are teaching in will mean they will have mentors there.
This idea would combine really beautifully with the (hopefully government funded) idea of having the first year be an internship.
And all of this relates the idea of transforming Teach For America from a Peace Corps, gap-year, formative experience to a long-term recruitment strategy for the teaching profession. I’d be curious what Ms. Kopp would say to this version of your idea.
Odd you should mention experience. I believe the most recent component retest for the NY State English Regents exam involved a speech by Ms. Wendy Kopp, and an assignment to write about why it was better to not have experience (based on Ms. Kopp’s speech).
Apparently, experience just trains people to believe things can’t be done, experienced teachers have given up on their students en masse, and only new teachers with no preconceived notions can solve educational problems today. It’s a mystery why NYC, with more than half its teachers having fewer than five years experience, isn’t the best system in the nation.
Oddly, I find my experience helps me to quickly deal with many situations that would’ve baffled me when I began. I’ve also learned a lot of little tricks to control my classes that were definitely not in my beginner’s repertoire. Even stranger, several beginning teachers I know regularly seek my advice when they’d clearly be better off without it.
But the strangest thing indeed is that my daughter’s suburban school is full of experienced teachers. Despite this awful impediment, it’s far better than the one in which I work, which happens to be one of the very best in New York City.
Wendy Kopp states that “It is a rare person who has what it takes to excel as a teacher in a low-income community.” In the following sentence, she writes, “The most important thing for kids in low-income communities is that we recruit as many people as possible — whether new or experienced — who have the personal characteristics that differentiate successful teachers in high-poverty communities, and that we train and support them to be effective in meeting the extra needs of their students”
So how do you recruit “as many people as possible” when they are so rare? Answer: you develop a formula for the “successful teacher.” While recruitment programs claim to evaluate teachers individually, they can’t possibly, when they are trying to recruit so many. So they develop a profile for success, and accept those who fit it.
Whom do they left out? Possibly the tescher who loves subject matter at least as much as social justice. TFA wants the teachers committed to eliminating the gap–but that is one of many goals a teacher might have. Hence, the suburban schools get the teachers who love their subject. The failing schools get the teachers who want each child to succeed. Sure, there is overlap–but that is where the emphases likely lie. How fair is that?
Now, it is noble and important to want each child to succeed–but succeed at what? We have to ensure that what we are teaching is worthwhile, and that we are teaching it well. We have to make sure that our students are reading excellent books, not bland teen novels from “leveled” classroom libraries. We have to make sure that our students leave our lessons actually knowing something they didn’t know before. We have to present the subject in a way that makes sense now and will lead them to further insights later.
Many new TFA teachers probably do this. But many others are likely to lap up “child-centered” approaches to teaching, which supposedly help each child but in reality dilute the curriculum. The ed schools promote such approaches, and the recruits in large numbers keep the ed schools going. Yes, even with that, the teachers may bring about improvements. Energetic and committed teachers often do, regardless of what is taught. But the improvements will only go so far if the students are not mastering subject matter.
Teachers who know and love their subject matter can have tremendous impact on their students. I would like to see the North Carolina TFA study controlled for educational background. How would those 69 TFA teachers fare in comparison with experienced traditional teachers with a BA or higher in an academic subject from, say, UNC? The study gives no insight into this question. The study lumps “traditional teachers” together though they come from widely varying circumstances. I am confident that if the study went deeper, its results would be subtler.
But the cry for rapid change is rarely subtle.
I suggest that TFA has in this proposal, an opportunity to once again turn the teaching world on its head again.
Before TFA, almost everyone in education insisted that the best teachers come through education schools and the traditional development pipeline. After TFA, we have learned that such a contention is not necessarily true. That is the power of what if?.
So here is the next what if? Do years of teaching experience really matter more than motivation and subject matter knowledge? TFA data would suggest not, but TFA has the ability to provide education researchers with a real world experiment. TFA corps members could be paired against experienced teachers in the same school or similarly situated schools with similar demographics and achievement levels. The hypothesis would be that teachers with 20 years of experience in classrooms with successful students should do better at improving the grades and test scores of low income, disadvantaged school kids than some rookie teacher from TFA.
If the hypothesis is true, what has TFA lost–nothing. TFA will no doubt continue with its mission and wonderful opportunities. If the hypothesis turns out to be false then TFA will have achieved something new again–radically altering the concept of teacher training and the value of credentials and experience. Think of the possibilities.
This is a brilliant idea that doesn’t have to be adopted wholesale, just on a large enough scale to provide reliable data.
Perhaps we’re looking at this the wrong way. Maybe instead of recruiting young college kids to fill-in for experienced teachers, TFA should start another branch just for experienced teachers. Jennifer Steinberger Pease wrote about the idea of an “urban teaching corps” in EdWeek a couple months ago. Why doesn’t TFA start this? There will be others willing to fill in for the experienced teachers that leave.
I have a lot I want to say to respond to this idea. I am a TFA Alum. Over three years ago I was an idealistic college grad who wanted to make a difference and believed strongly in the idea of educational equality. I had a very untraditional TFA experience and worked in three schools in two years. At each I faced very different problems but in the end I constantly felt that my efforts were being thwarted. I loved the subject matter I taught. I majored in both of the subjects I taught. I had experience teaching. And yet I still do not feel that I was able to live up to my potential as an educator. I learned a great deal during this experience and it certainly solidified my interest in working to end the achievement gap. In fact I am about to go back to school to study education policy (something I certainly would not have done if not for my TFA experience).
Sometimes I wish I was still teaching. I am haunted by the memories of my past students. Kids who were being failed by the system whether they were striving in class and reading on grade level or five years behind. Like Robert, I found that it was the high achieving students who were failed the most. I saw that they weren’t being challenged, I tried to find better ways to engage them, and yet I had so many other things I needed to tackle as well. I taught middle school, what many consider the hardest placement. I constantly consider whether each student I taught will be able to make it through high school. The graduation rate in their community is 40%. I’m not sure I did enough to alter my students trajectory and this certainly bothers me.
I have met corp members who have had incredible gains with their students; but they are certainly not the norm. I like Robert’s idea although I do recognize that college students would not flock as rapidly to this Fellowship. I heard last year that Uncommon Schools and KIPP were forming their own program to certify teachers and I truly wished that such a program had existed when I graduated. I observed a first year TFA who was placed in a KIPP school and was 100% supported by veteran teachers. He didn’t teach a full course load until mid year. He was given time to develop the skills he needed. I would have loved to start in a school like that. But I feel that way now; I’m not sure what I would have thought when I applied.
That being said, I embrace the idea of creating more opportunities to bring quality educators to low income schools.
I just finished watching Wendy Kopp being interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS. As an inner-city teacher, I was anxious to hear some of her wisdom and insights on the urban classroom. However, at every attmpt by CR to draw her out on specifics, she deftly skirted the issue by not answering the question asked and by restating her philosophy in over-generalized comments about how ‘deeply’ caring the recruits for TFA are and how there is no ‘magic bullet’ for better teaching in economically deprived schools. I was very disappointed, not to mention annoyed. This is my first exposure to Ms. Kopp; I hope that as I discover more about her, the intellectually-oriented edu-babble that I saw on Charlie Rose is not her norm.
I also saw Wendy’s interview on David Rose’s show - as well as the interview shown after it with Bob Wise, Alliance For Excellent Education. It occurred to me to wonder if they had ever spoken to each other, because seems to me that their skills are complementary and objectives are similar.
My comment about Teach America is, you need to get your success stories out into every newspaper and on every radio and TV program in the US. Why haven’t I heard about you before???
People do respond to evidence of success, and if you have had the successes you spoke of during that interview, you should be broadcasting them much more than you are doing.
If you study the successes that some other grass-roots social entrepreneurs have had (for example, Muhammad Yunus, Karen Tse, Inderjiy Rhushika, you will find that the key to having an idea adopted on a wide scale is replication. If you want to really change the system of education in America it will take firstly, enough replication so that everyone knows that your system or technique, or approach, or whatever it is, works. This is the only way you will be able to overcome an ENORMOUS entrenched system which will oppose you at every turn. When I took teacher education courses, I was amazed at how much absolutely useless garbage I was required to learn, none of which made me a better teacher. You are facing a system that is entrenched, from school bureaucracies, to teacher-training programs. Just like the opposition of the American Medical Association has been a major force in jettisoning various health plan initiatives, this will be a major obstacle for you. You either have to go around them, or recruit them as allies (divide and conquer is one technique). The reason I suggested talking with Bill Wise is that he is already thinking about how to approach the question of system-wide change. And I thank you for your work.
This blog and conversation has been interesting. I am a recent completed corps member in Greater Philadelphia-Camden who came with an education degree and background to Teach for America. I student taught before my stint with TFA and even all my undergraduate training and student teaching could not fully prepare me for the challenges that I faced in the school I was out. While I was a TFA Corps member I saw many teachers who were regularly trained and sometimes experienced teachers (5+ years in Urban School) leave MY school because of the extreme challenges in the environment. I understand where you are coming from when you say experienced teachers would be even better then un-experienced teachers. However, sometimes different experiences can help you be a sucessful teacher, not necessarily just time in the classroom.
Way up above someone mentioned KIPP schools as an example of a high-achieving high-poverty school, what perhaps is most interesting about this, is that KIPP was FOUNDED in Houston by two Teach for America alum, who’s experience in the classroom guided them to start KIPP schools. I also know that many KIPP schools are staffed by former Teach for America teachers who are aware of what a great model KIPP schools are.
Just some thoughts…