With falling of autumn leaves, we get another defense of the controversial program, Teach For America. The argument falls along familiar lines: TFA teachers get better results, TFA teachers don't leave after two years, TFA teachers are better than long-term substitutes.
The latest serving appeared in the Florida Times-Union Wednesday, October 18: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/2017-10-18/guest-column-don-t-make-teach-america-scapegoat-larger-educational
The writer makes three arguments, which I shall answer:
1. Given the teacher shortages that exist, TFA fills positions that would otherwise require substitutes, who don't have the necessary qualifications to bring about student learning.
Stone Eggs: You have a point. If the Yankees, playing the last game against the Houston Astros for the League Championship, needed a pitcher and none were available, I would be a better selection than a 6-year old wunderkind at T-ball. But I suck at sports. I couldn't put a pitch in the strike zone to save my life. This argument really has no merit.
Stop saying we're better than nothing and show how you are prepared, as a TFA recruit with 5 weeks of summer training, are qualified to step into a classroom. Describe that training! What are you doing in those five weeks that makes you the equal of a teacher-college graduate, who has spent four years preparing for the job?
2. 60% of TFA teachers remain in the classroom beyond their commitment, which is better than the retention rate for other teachers.
Stone Eggs: We need a source for this claim. Ooh, I kept reading your column and find that this is your personal experience as you keep up with your friends. Hmm, anecdotal evidence is not persuasive when it comes to citing statistics. Or did you get the percent from TFA, a source that is biased?
And what time period are you dealing with? Are you comparing two-year TFA retention versus 5-year general retention?
3. TFA corps members get better results than teachers, veteran and rookie, from traditional colleges of education.
Stone Eggs: You claim this because of test results. A test that is invalid and unreliable, a test that is so bad that a 28% rate of providing correct answers is deemed a passing score.
This is where all educational 'reform' falters. You say you produce better test results and pretend that means students learned better under your tutelage.
You are wrong. Could I ask what research you follow? Because everything that I read, done under carefully-controlled studies to eliminate the odd variable, says that test-preparation (and frankly, that is what you are trained to do) produces better test results, but a more poorly educated student.
Attack me if you will. No, I don't get the best test results in my building, much less my district. But my students are desired by teachers in the next year because they are the best prepared to move on, because I work on actual learning and understanding.
That is the irony of the Common Core. It creates the circumstances that produce the exact opposite of what it says it is after: critical and creative thinking.
Now for what you won't say: TFA is a <expletive-deleted>, yes I come from the Nixon era, expensive program.
If I give you all that you claim, you would still fail on a cost-benefit analysis. The latest DCPS contract with TFA (http://news.wjct.org/post/school-board-approves-new-tfa-contract) would bring in TFA recruits at a cost of $6,000 or higher.
That is not money that goes anywhere except into the very rich pockets of Teach For America, which at the end of 2016 held $343,162,094 in net assets. https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/annual-reports
Let me put this into perspective: 343 FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS! WHY DO THEY NEED TO CHARGE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR EACH POSITION!!
I don't think I need to say anymore. TFA is a pecuniary, self-serving institution that decades ago lost sight of its (unneeded) mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment