Teach for America, a nationwide program available to new college graduates, has been sending teachers into low-income schools since 1989. According to Teach for America’s webpage, the organization hires “high-achieving college graduates and professionals with a passion for social justice and [a desire to] accelerate their path into the teaching profession” (Teach for America, Inc. 2012). TFA specifically looks for candidates they feel will be successful despite not having a personal education within the education sphere. These young adults are given five weeks of highly intensive training before beginning teaching in a public elementary or high school. The summer training, or “institute,” includes teaching, observations and feedback, rehearsals and reflections, lesson planning clinics, and curriculum sessions (Teach for America, Inc. 2012). With so little background in education for most TFA teachers, debate has surfaced as to whether or not they can truly be effective.
In Steven Brill’s Class Warfare, many of the key players began their teaching careers with TFA and have since gone on to work as administrators as well as advocates for bettering the public school systems. These former TFA teachers look back on their experiences as a time in which they were extraordinarily challenged, yet they do not accredit that to a lack of training. The teachers struggled because they were in new situations and dealing with students they had not previously worked with. Having been successful in nearly all of their previous endeavors, the teachers in Class Warfare did not readily accept failure. They continually tried new teaching methods and innovative ways for their students to learn and be successful in the classroom.
In no way are all TFA teachers perfect, but statistically speaking, they do return for their second year of work more often than regular teachers; 90% of TFA corps members return while only 83% of teachers in low-income communities nationwide return (Teach for America, Inc. 2012). This can be attributed to a higher level of intrinsic motivation but may also be associated with TFA’s resources available. One key aspect of the teachers’ successes within TFA is the support system. Teach for America matches each corps member with a manager of teacher leadership and development, MTLD, who will provide coaching, support, and guidance throughout the year. This enables teachers to make changes during the year to enhance their leadership capabilities and in turn improve their teaching.
If Teach for America teachers are successfully teaching students, it begs the question as to the necessity of teaching degrees such as a bachelor’s or master’s in education, a teaching credential, or other often required certifications. If teachers can effectively teach with roughly a month of training, are the aforementioned qualifications a misuse of time and money in rebuilding the nation’s public education system? Can teachers be given a shortened educational period and an experienced mentor and effectively teach while saving thousands of dollars?
Comments
3 responses to “TFA Teachers: Untrained Educators or Young, Innovative Graduates?”
TFA does challenge us to think more carefully about teacher preparation. At the same time we should probably look beyond TFA’s own research about is productivity before we make any radical changes. Just to broaden the conversation, here is a quote from an article by Linda Darling-Hammond (2011) published on the 20th anniversary of TFA that is based on her own research:
“Where some studies have shown better outcomes for TFA teachers—generally in high school, in mathematics, and in comparison with less prepared teachers in the same high-need schools—others have found that students of new TFA teachers do less well than those of fully prepared beginners, especially in elementary grades, in fields such as reading, and with Latino students and English-language learners.”
She further notes that only 1 in 5 TFA teachers are still in teaching by year 4.
Such statistics are a bit dated. I wonder what the situation is today? Also, I don’t think these stats negate need to look at TFA as we think about ways to improve teacher preparation. Your questions about reforming teacher education are pertinent and deserve further consideration.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2011, March 16). Teacher Preparation Is Essential to TFA’s Future. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/16/24darling-hammond.h30.html
Thank you. I find the information about the success of TFA teachers in high school very interesting. With the subjects and style of high school teaching, I completely see how TFA teachers, who are well-versed in their subject and highly motivated to succeed, would be very successful in this atmosphere. Elementary education involves a lot more than simply learning material. Alex mentioned this in class saying a lot of elementary school is learning to interact with your peers, which TFA teachers may struggle to facilitate if they have little training.
I see that Linda Darling-Hammond reports that only 1 in 5 TFA teachers are still teaching at year four, but that raises a new question: is it necessary for teachers to remain in the field for a long period of time? Some may argue that teachers learn from past experiences and improve over time, but many teachers also get burnt out and do not give as much effort as the initially did.
I think that I view TFA in a positive light because to me it provides opportunities for students who may not have as many resources available to them. While, yes, I agree that it might take away from those who go to college to get their teaching degree, I do not think that is necessarily the point of this program.
I find the statistics provided that more TFA teachers return to the lower income communities than those with regular teaching degrees fascinating, and to me, this is why I am an advocate for the TFA program.