J. Crew is raising money to help Teach for America, which has $300 million in assets and many high-level employees with six-figure salaries.
Why don’t they use the proceeds to hire nurses and librarians for public schools in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Cleveland.
Like, you know, poor kids?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Glad to see they have a contact e-mail. I’ll be emailing them to let them know what I think of this. erica@jcrew.com
I just did….not interested in the Tshirt or the store. Wendy has plenty of extra cash laying around.
Diane….
Well, certainly not because poor kids and poor families don’t buy J. Crew.
David
I support anything that helps schools. TfA has a noble goal and supports strong academic performers who didn’t get a teaching degree. Diane, if you want to complain about wasting money, write to your congressman/woman – they get 6 figure salaries and barely accomplish anything (and seem to always be on school break).
This not about helpin schools Dave2. This is an example of the marketing of education that includes all the usual suspects under the guise of “children first.” – Choice (have it your way), cutting quality to increase profits (TFA and so-called alternative certification to avoid benefits and salary contracts) you name it. Buyer Beware has never been more apropos.
Actually this is helping schools, in fact the schools that need it most. TFA is not “Alternative certification.” There are many certified teachers that enter TFA. What could be a better cause than sending our nation’s brightest in to teach our nation’s poorest?
I couldn’t agree more. First JCP (J.C. Penney) and now J. Crew. What ever happened to your local school or community. Raising money for a teacher placement agency is just not in the holiday spirit. (Do they even have a clue? Take to Facebooks and we’ll see.)
Boycott and protest. I’ll do my part.
Long day. Facebook. Also a tweet on Twitter to get a reaction.
I noticed that West Elm is also raising money for Teach for America, through its “charity mugs” sale. Hmm…
I was just in there yesterday. I saw a t-shirt for teachers, and I was impressed. Then I read that it was Teach for America. Maybe they don’t know what Teach for America is. If J. Crew wants to help our public schools, donating to a local school would be the best. Of they could start a grant program, could model after Kids in Need application, it’s easy and is for supplies for creative projects to improve student learning. I would be happy to evaluate applications for them if they need help!
I’m guessing:
(1) TFA approached them for money and your local school didn’t.
(2) TFA guarantees them a lot of national press goodwill PR that you local school can’t.
The GAP family of stores (GAP, Banana Republic, Old Navy) also do fundraising for TFA; they do an annual or bi-annual event where they donate a specific percentage of profits to a few organizations. This isn’t surprising given the relationship between that organization and KIPP, etc.
I’d concur with Jon Awbrey. On this website itself, you’ve lampooned the use of private funds in public schools. TFA is willing to take the money and will ask for it.
T shirts for America (I wonder where they are made?)
Teach for a while
Teach for Wendy’s Wallet
Please help build her multi-million dollar surplus while children are homeless and hungry probably not too far from an NYC J. Crew.
I always wondered why the Kipp/Barth kids do not attend KIPP? That would be a ringing endorsement!
What else do you expect out of these elitists? They, unlike FDR and Eleanor, are only out for their own and to hell with everyone else even though they get their money from us. There are not enough rich people to make them rich they need us. As long as we have this total corruption in our government nothing will change and if anyone thinks Obama is not corrupt they are really crazy. Has he done anything about the financial crisis, of course not. Has there been any prosecutions, of course not. Even under Reagan in the S & L Crisis there were 1,800 prosecutions and many went to jail and that situation was only in the U.S. This one is world wide and nothing happens. In fact it is worse now as a situation than it was as they are way too much bigger to fail and still are not making loans. Why should you loan when you borrow at 0% interest and buy treasuries and make 3%? What kind of fools do we think they are anyway.
My point is that TFA and J.Crew are both businesses, commercial enterprises, and so they can do business with each other in ways that public schools cannot. In the exchange, J.Crew gets a quality of national feel-good advertising that it could not get so cheaply any other way, plus it gets a tax deduction for the very money it spends on this form of advertising.
Isn’t it obvious? Those kids can’t afford to shop at JCrew.
call me a socialist, but I am totally against any & all fundraising for public schools. We as a nation should provide all our children equally with the highest possible standards we as a nation can afford. Private schools can do their own thing, whatever they can afford. (though it is my understanding that private schools pay teachers less than public schools). I don’t support or contribute in any way to fund raisers for either private or public schools. It sickens me that our children are sent out selling candy & holiday wrapping paper & cans of popcorn to raise money for special programs like art, gym, music in their schools, and that teachers have to help fund raise as well. I want to see education as the highest priority in this nation, and all public schools on equal footing, at least within each state. My higher preference is for the nation to equalize public schooling, so that every public school, no matter where they are located or the average income of their districts or the value of the homes in their districts, provides the same education to all students. Of course we have to retain the freedom for private schools, but privatizing education is a whole different matter. And when non-profit foundations start supporting education, it takes away from the responsibility of the citizenry to do so, and distorts and hides what is really happening to to public education.
I saw a bumper sticker one time that read something like, “We will have achieved peace when education is fully funded and the miliary has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”
“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”— John Adams 1785
Just a point of clarification – private school teacher salaries vary widely. Some schools pay less than the local public schools, but others in the same town may pay twice as much as the teacher would get paid at a local public school. I taught at a private school where one teacher who left for public schools got an $11000 raise while another one who left for a different private school in the same town got a $20000 raise. So there really isn’t a hard and fast rule.
Thanks for that clarification about private school teacher pay,
To the casual observer, it makes it look like TFA is a “charity” and like giving money to them supports education. This needs to change.
Teach for America is a nonprofit. And giving money to them most certainly supports education.
So, I take exception to your characterization of Teach for America as “Rich Kids” as that’s not 100% accurate, and I find that it distracts folks from an underlying valid point in your argument which I agree with – that TfA is probably less deserving of fundraising compared with many other organizations that might have more need.
EdEd: TFA does not pay the salaries of the kids they send to temp in schools for a couple years, the school districts pay. So I took Diane’s characterization of “Rich Kids” to mean the folks who are running the program, like Wendy Kopp and her numerous six figure executives, since they’re the people who really benefit from donations. TFA is a scam on many levels, including as a “charity”.
People can contact J.Crew regarding their “Social Responsibility Program”, which TFA is a component of, at this email address: socialresponsibility@jcrew.com
Thanks for the reply Prof W – I think it’s important to note that many school district employees (including those working at low-income schools) as well as other nonprofit employees make 6 figures. Most don’t consider that to be a “scam” as it’s considered important to recruit and retain top talent in terms of managing the organization and implementing programs. So, simply knowing that an organization had “many” employees who made 6 figures would not be enough information to discredit the organization.
Still, I agree with the underlying assumption that TfA isn’t the wisest charity in which to invest, even I disagree with characterizations made and some of the rationale behind the arguments, though I suppose we are all most in agreement that TfA’s mission in terms of filling holes in teacher shortages has since expired in recent years.
My large urban school district pays pretty well and I can readily look up the salaries of the many people I know working there, as I have done numerous times, but I’ve only found administrators earning six figure incomes, not teachers with decades of experience and advanced degrees.
Again, starting a new post I’ll label “Response #2”
TFA is not a worthy target of charity. It is a super-rich organization with $300 million in assets. Charity should go to the needy, not to the rich and powerful. TFA is not needy.
Diane, I agree that TfA’s mission isn’t the most critical in the education world, but your facts are simply wrong. Consider the organization’s most recent 990 on file:
Revenue: $213 million
Expenses: $177 million
Excess: $27 million
I’m assuming your quote of $300 million in “assets” is really referring to total revenue, which of course doesn’t measure an organization’s “wealth,” but fundraising capacity. To the extent that an organization wisely and efficiently spends its revenue on mission-related activities, it would be unwise and inaccurate to characterize that organization as excessively wealthy, but – on the other hand – as effective and efficient. As a question to further drive home this point, are you saying that all organizations with annual operating budgets the size of TfA are “rich” and “not deserving of support?”
What charities would you suggest as an alternative? What are the annual revenues of those organizations, as salaries of those top professionals? The most recent salary listed for Wendy Kopp is $351,000 – well under the amount of some other similarly-sized organizations.
Diane, as I’ve pointed out in other posts (e.g., students protests at NYU & Columbia, e.g.) you have some valid points, but you often express them offensively, as well as inaccurately. Here, instead of critiquing the relative effectiveness of TfA (which I’d agree with you on), you’ve chosen to attack the organization’s financial structure with facts that are inaccurate and misleadingly quoted. I’m wondering if you are more concerned with attacking your “opposing side.” or being accurate? I’m wondering if you use these characterizations, like folks such as Rush Limbaugh, to rile your base and drive up support? Surely, you don’t expect to change hearts or minds with a post such as this?
Please read this news story about TFA. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48688907/ns/us_news-life/t/has-teach-america-betrayed-its-mission/
See paragraph two, which says that TFA has “$300 million in assets.” Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Thanks for your response Diane. My primary argument is that “cash in bank” does not make an organization “rich” if that cash in bank is being spent efficiently on programs. It also does make them “less deserving” as the organization simply has a bigger bill than organizations with smaller programmatic footprints.
According to the the organization’s 990, their fundraising efficiency was $0.08, admin expenses at 8.6%, and fundraising expenses at 9%, all of which at Charity Navigator’s highest/best rating in terms of financial management of funds. In short, while the organization raises a lot of money, it spends a lot as well, and most of it on programs.
As such, it’s simply not accurate to claim that TfA does not deserve funds because of it’s current financials. If you want to attack the mission, I’m with you. But, if you want to attack the financials, you’ll have to go hard against almost every other nonprofit out there as well.
By the way, nothing in your comment refers to TFA’s assets, only to its revenues. The Reuters article says it has $300 million in assets. Again, please produce any evidence you have that proves this untrue: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48688907/ns/us_news-life/t/has-teach-america-betrayed-its-mission/
Diane, please see the organization’s most recent 990 as evidence. Included in “assets” is end-of-year cash in hand used to primarily fund the organization’s operational expenses in the upcoming fiscal year. While the organization has $300 million, most of that will be used to cover expenses of the org. Having an operating reserve is not a sign of richness or bloatedness, but of healthy organization development and organizational security.
Sorry, Ed, but I don’t see an organization with $300 million in assets as an appropriate “charity,” on par with feeding hungry children or helping schools that don’t have a nurse or a librarian or books in the library or a million other worthy causes where there is need. What is TFA’s need for more money, as compared to real need?
If you disagree, that’s your right.
Diane, I’m not sure you are understanding the concept of nonprofit development and accounting here – the organization has simply raised enough money to support its operating budget. To make things a bit more simple, perhaps, why don’t you suggest a national nonprofit of similar size that you happen to find worthwhile, and we can compare numbers. I think what we’ll find is that TfA is not as dissimilar as you may be thinking, but let’s do that comparison see what we come up with.
The Red Cross has over 2 billion in assets. Does that mean we should stop giving?
There are many reasons not to give money to TfA, but the 300 million figure is not one of them.
To be eligible for TfA, one has to be a graduate of one of the elite universities. Most such graduates are rich kids.
Dienne, on more than one occasion, I’ve never experienced that you’ve made a statement as fact, but had it wrong. It would be better if you said, “my understanding is that….” because that would reflect a lack of certainty.
In this particular situation, there is no eligibility requirement for TfA candidates to have graduated from a particular university. I’d encourage you to google “teach for america qualifications” – the first link will take you to the official TfA page which states you simply need a degree from an accredited university.
Dienne, you aren’t serving your cause or children that may be supported by your cause by citing incorrect facts, as it makes you look less than credible, and which will leads folks to not take your other arguments seriously, doubt everything you claim to be “fact,” and associated your potentially worthy causes with folks who are not credible in their words.
EdEd, Look into the history of TFA. They wanted just ivy league grads in their early years. After they realized that resulted in few people of color going into schools with high minority populations, they broadened their scope to include more colleges.
Starting a new post Prof W…
All of the bins at the TSA lines at the airport over Thanksgiving were laced with TFA ads. Boo…
Prof W, I’m certainly not intimately familiar with the roots of the organization, and actually have multiple objections to their current practices. However, I think it’s important to be fair and honest when having a discussion, so my post wasn’t meant to stand up for TfA’s intentions, but to address the inaccuracy of Dienne’s statements.
More than anything, that’s what my participation in this thread has been about – let’s be honest, accurate, and clear with what we’re talking about. If we have an issue with TfA programs, let’s be specific and address those programs directly.
Sizeable numbers of graduates from elite colleges do come from white affluent backgrounds, and while TFA may have expanded the colleges they accept applications from, not everyone is aware of this change.
Also, TFA did not alter the basic principle upon which the program was established: that people with no aspirations to become career educators could be “transformational” teachers, in a two year commitment to serving some of our most vulnerable populations of students, with only 5 weeks training and 15 – 20 hours of summer school experience, just by virtue of their being top college grads. That does seem rather elitist.
I agree with you prof w – again, what you’re saying is accurate. What Dianne said was not.
Who give a crap if it’s elitist or not!? Should we not want the wealthy, powerful, and educated of our country committed (and passionately) to serving our poor and vulnerable. You all act like this is a bad thing. Wake up!
“Response #2” – in Response to Prof W above…
Prof W, in terms of salaries of administrators, I’m not seeing your main point. In both large school districts and TfA, it seems that administrators are making 6 figures while lower level employees aren’t. Given the size of TfA as an organization, are you aware of data suggesting salaries of TfA employees are higher than comparable nonprofits?
School district administrators usually have training, experience and certification in education, including an advanced degree in educational administration, depending on the state and district.
For top positions at TFA, such as “Vice President, Teacher Leadership Development”, they require only a BA and no degrees or experience in education or educational administration, just 10 years of “profesional experience” and “previous management experience”. They tend to pull from their ranks of TFAers but, ostensibly, they could hire experienced managers from J.Crew, too.
Degree earned is only one qualification, and even qualifications – as a whole – are only one variable in determining pay structure. Many national level positions in similar size nonprofits will have similar salary structures, with or without advanced degrees. Your point is valid when critiquing the quality of those folks – that they may not be very prepared – but not salary.
Sounds like the Peter Principle at play in non-profits, though, by and large, that has not been my experience. (All this talk about “efficiencies” leads me to believe I am talking to another economist.)
You may not want to get into practices, but many people here are already familiar with the not so hidden agenda of TFA and other corporate sponsored “reformers” to vilify formal teacher training in child development, learning and teaching, which is very disconcerting to many career educators.
While TFA is a 501(c)3, they created Leadership for Educational Equity (LEE), a 501(c)4, to influence public policies in education. They also encourage TFAers to secure high ranking education positions, such as superintendents and state commissioners.
They have participated in lobbying Duncan to require that colleges of education change their teacher training programs, including requiring the same kind of high-stakes testing policy they encourage for evaluating, rewarding and firing teachers for schools of education –which they did in the name of TFA, not LEE: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/09/04/tfa-implores-obama-administration-to-hold-teacher-preparation-programs-accountable/
The is like a five week midwife training program claiming there is no value in medical school and then telling medical schools and doctors how to do their jobs.
Starting a new post below for more space…
TFA no longer serves the intended purpose. They are now scabs taking jobs away from certified teachers. TFA benefits the Kopp/Barth venture. They should be ashamed to take money that could go to a true charity: hunger, homelessness, etc. This is brand building and it has nothing to do with children, teaching and leearning. Enough of the defense of the elite know nothings.
typo…learning…
To TE:
This is another example of your ASSumptions. You do not decide for all of us and tell us what is and isn’t an acceptable reason.
You say: “There are many reasons not to give money to TfA, but the 300 million figure is not one of them.”
Guess what? It is a very good reason for ME…..I make my own decisions based upon reasons and that is ON OF THEM.
This is why you annoy people. You belittle others who do not agree with you. Get over yourself puhlease!
ONE of them
If you do not give to TfA BECAUSE no charity should have 300 million dollars on hand, you must not give to the Red Cross BECAUSE it has over 2 billion dollars on hand.
Have I every called you or anyone here a name? Have I ever questioned any posters motives? Please point them out so I can apologize to those posters.
Red Cross and TFA…not analogous.
You can compare any two organizations on comparable measures such as budget size and fundraising efficiency. We are not talking about program outcomes here.
These two organizations are not remotely analogous for the purposed of this discussion.
Are you being disingenuous?
Ang – starting a new post below…
I don’t think Linda said that it was just about their assets. For me, it’s about their assets, mission and practices. $300 million in assets for a temp agency filling positions for two year teaching stints with people who have only five weeks training and 15 – 20 hours of summer school experience, in schools with large numbers of children in poverty, is no comparison to the mission and practices of the Red Cross, which employs many well trained professionals to serve high needs populations.
Linda, I find your comment offensive even though it wasn’t directed at me. I believe we’re trying to have a healthy discussion for the greater purpose of helping kids. Calling names isn’t appropriate
To address your comments in terms of content, you seem to be misinterpreting the concept of budget size. Larger organizations will have larger budgets because they serve more people. Take your favorite national nonprofit – they likely have a budget that is similar if not more. It’s not just a comparison with red cross, but with ALL national nonprofits of similar size. If you are attacking TfA on grounds of budget, you are by default attacking all nonprofits of similar or greater size.
Notice that no one is objecting to arguments made about the mission of TfA – we all have legitimate concern. Budget though is not an accurate concern based on fact.
Bottom line…TFA doesn’t need the money…they are now scabs. Buy a couple dozen tshirts and deliver them to a homeless shelter if you believe the cause is worthy. I do not and it is just Kopp working on her brand. So I disagree and I don’t need to be lectured to by TE.
Which comments of TE would you characterize as “lecturing” as opposed to civil disagreement? What comments created such a strong reaction that led you to use profanity in your response?
You mean because I capitalized the first three letters of assume? Actually you are cracking me up. You two are birds of a feather. You seem to think you are here to police everybody. TE has been on many posts for many months. Sorry but I don’t have to prove anything to you, but I will go sit in time out for ten minutes. 😦
EdEdEdEdEd . . . . . Same old empty words rhetorical debate.
This really is a bummer…I have always liked J Crew because they offer a 15% discount to teachers.
To Ang:
The original purpose of this discussion was in response to Diane’s comments that TfA isn’t worth because of their financials. The original post mentioned nothing of the mission or activities of TfA, so my responses have directed there as such. Others have brought in mission/activities of TfA, but that wasn’t part of the original post.
With nonprofits, it’s absolutely possible to compare the relative efficiencies of any two organizations, even if unrelated. One could compare the fundraising efficiencies, for example, of a breast cancer support organization and an organization founded to save the Everglades, because fundraising efficiency is not mission-dependent.
One last try:
“Others have brought in mission/activities of TfA, but that wasn’t part of the original post.”
Because we are all well aware of the mission/activities of TFA. This was assumed background knowledge.
TFA has been discussed on this blog many times.
The general feeling is that TFA is VERY well funded and since it does not spend its money saving lives or responding to emergencies or funding cancer research or anything else that can be sudden and extremely costly, many of us are not sure why they need 300 million in the bank or why they are begging for donations at a major retailer.
If you disagree, that is your right.
You may run right out to JCrew and get a T-shirt.
Enjoy
The reason you disagree with TfA is not because they have $300 million – it’s because they aren’t doing work you agree with. If you agreed substantially with the mission, the $300 million would be different. That’s the point.
Here’s how this blog post could have been differently, and more accurately, phrased: “J Crew should not be raising money for the organization because I believe the mission isn’t valid.” Talking about “rich kids,” size of operating budget, and salaries has no material effect on the quality of the organization’s work, and therefore is irrelevant.
While we whine, they dine. While we complain, they beef up their game. Life is a game learn to play or get struck out.
Too busy teaching kids how to read, write, think and speak and evidently, I am ruining out country at the same time. Who knew?
Linda: You certainly don’t have to prove anything to me, but should certainly expect to be challenged when you make claims without support. In terms of “policing,” I discussions like this as being the same as a room of us sitting around a table and talking. If someone is inappropriate in their interactions with another member, I don’t see anything wrong with another member expressing concern. If more communities operated out of a sense of mutual and self accountability, we’d probably be in a better place.
Prof W: Thanks for your reply. I’ve definitely seen the Peter Principle at play – seems to be the rule rather than exception in several nonprofits I’ve worked with.
I’m essentially on board with you about the other critiques of TfA. I do think there are strengths to the organization, including their ability to market difficult teaching jobs to folks who otherwise wouldn’t consider education, their pre- and in-service training (though not enough, what does occur seems to be very good), and their level of professional/social support to beginning teachers.
I’ve advocated that TfA should reconsider working with existing school districts to provide supplemental training and support to teachers who also meet traditional pre-service requirements such as a relevant degree and practicum experience. 10 years ago, there was a shortage of teachers and it made sense to try to fill those spots. Today, that shortage has essentially vanished, yet TfA continues to operate “business as usual.”
So, I’m definitely not wholly in favor of TfA, but I find that inaccurate statements and arguments do more to hurt than help legitimate critiques. To me, the organizational efficiencies and fundraising capabilities have nothing to do with the flaws of the organization in this particular case. As such, focusing more on the mission – rather than economics – seems to make more sense here. By contrast, imagine if the organization spent 35% of its revenue on administrative expenses. That would be direct evidence that administrative salaries were bloated relative to program costs, and thus place those budgetary conversations back within the scope of relevance.
On an even broader level – beyond the scope of TfA – I’ve found myself, on more than one occasion, agreeing with some underlying points made on this blog, but disagreeing with presentation or specific arguments because I’ve found them either prejudicial or misdirected, such as this particular thread/post. I’m actually quite similar in overall perspective, but like a reasonable conservative listening to the propaganda of Rush Limbaugh, I find myself disagreeing with arguments based on their prejudicial presentation, not underlying concepts. If others feel the same way, this is extremely problematic if the goal is to spread a message and pursue shared understanding, rather than simply “preaching to the choir” and riling one’s base.
“10 years ago, there was a shortage of teachers and it made sense to try to fill those spots. Today, that shortage has essentially vanished, yet TfA continues to operate “business as usual.””
According to their 990 from last year, they advocate for the “expansion of charter schools”. Since 1/3 of TFAers now teach at charters, that looks like an effort to CREATE a need for spots they can fill, in schools with different populations and resources than their original mission intended to target.
That sounds problematic indeed. Thanks for pointing that out Prof W.
I should have said “lobby” instead of “advocate”, since that’s what TFA indicated on their IRS form.
Here in Seattle, we protested Apple’s support of TFA and they backed off. We should do it at J.Crew (I have to laugh – J. Crew is EXACTLY where I would picture a TFAer doing their shopping.)
Hi Melissa,
TFA-er here, just to let you know that I can’t afford this t-shirt on my public school salary. Just a bit of info for all involved, TFA doesn’t pay the teachers it hires, the schools we work for do. So no, we’re not all at J. Crew all the time.