In a recent post, I referred to a decision by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to set higher standards for those who teach the state’s neediest students, especially English-language learners.
Some readers thought this decision was unfair to Teach for America recruits, who get only five weeks of training before assignment to difficult jobs.
However, a reader who closely follows the work of the Commission described the decision, as follows:
“In a nutshell, when TFA teachers as a group are compared to other teachers in their same schools (who are also less likely to be fully prepared and certified than most teachers), they typically do about the same in reading and sometimes better in math, especially in middle / high school.
“However, when entering TFA teachers are compared to fully certified teachers, they tend to be less effective, especially in their first year (and also often in their second year) and especially in elementary reading. Some studies also find them significantly less effective in elementary math. TFA recruits become equally effective after they are certified but then they are ready to leave.
“Of relevance to the California situation are two studies finding that TFA teachers are less effective than certified novice teachers when teaching Hispanic or Spanish-speaking students.
“Anne Ware, R. Jason LaTurner, Jim Parsons, Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, Marshall Garland, Kristin Klopfenstein, Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study, The University of Texas at Dallas, Education Research Center, January 2011: Study of TFA teachers in Texas: Data on p. 16-17: Although in general, TFA teachers showed relatively strong outcomes for their students in comparison to novice beginning teachers, Hispanic students of TFA teachers had significantly lower gains than students of novice non-TFA teachers in reading / English language arts at the elementary and high school levels, and in math at the elementary level in 2009-10.
· “Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez-Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-51.Controlling for teacher experience, degrees, and student characteristics, uncertified TFA recruits In Houston were found to be less effective than certified teachers on 6 tests over 7 years, and the negative effects were largest for limited English proficient students who were tested in Spanish.
“Also of relevance to the CA situation are another two studies finding that they are less effective than certified novice teachers when results are looked at on the SAT-10 test (which measures more conceptual understanding). TFA recruits tend to do relatively better on the Texas TAKS (basic skills, high-stakes). Their training is increasingly focused on how to teach for the current high-stakes tests. This is relevant because of the state’s move to the Common Core, which aims at higher level skills, which require greater skill to teach to.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I guess it turns out we can measure teacher effectiveness?
If only we could measure administrative and political blowhard effectiveness?
Use an anemometer.
TFA supports using student test scores to measure teacher effectiveness and actively campaigns for that, so it’s only fair that test scores be used to measure their own teachers.
Funny how it’s only when TFA “teachers” design their own tests or TFA funds the research themselves that student gains are miraculous,
Thanks, just checking.
NO!!
Yes. I agree. In an effort to push back on testing, how can we then assert teacher effectiveness with the data we believe is an unfair measure of both teachers and schools. Diane, we can’t have it both ways.
I think it is reasonable to counter the TFA push from two directions: measures of what scholars believe is important (multifaceted, ongoing performance assessments), and measure of what reformers believe is important (standardized test scores). In both categories, TFA remains deficient.
Almost no one becomes proficient in a professional field in 5 weeks. There is a reason for apprenticeship and it is because it takes about 4 years to become a professional or journeyman. If it was that easy just make a 4 year degree 5 weeks and that is the equivalent. If it is not good enough for you in your business it is not good enough for our youth. They would never operate their own business or personal lives in that manner. When you are talking about individual children it can become real complex to educate all. It is when properly done a real intellectual exercise in real time. Many go into teaching for the personal satisfaction of seeing young people desire to learn and become great people. Teachers have told me that students tell them this when they run into them in the mall and such. They can really change lives for the better. That is what it is all about. You cannot analyze complex systems without training and experience and children are the same.
So, in the effort to raise the quality of education, we decide to use McTeachers to undercut veteran educators with experience. Brilliant. Give it another 5-10 years. See what happens.
Only TFA’s own manipulations of the results of studies (even some initiated by TFA) support their claims. All states should follow California’s lead. If TFA decided to scrap their master power play and team with universities and districts to properly certify new teachers and maintain a support system for them, perhaps the turnover rate would not be as great as it is, especially in schools that need stability the most.
Since there is no teacher shortage AT ALL in the United States, there is no reason for TFA to exist.
I have two questions that I hope someone could answer.
First, the last quoted paragraph is careful to compare TFA teachers to certified novice teachers, but the first two quoted paragraphs only say certified teachers. Is the comparison group there also novice fully certified teachers?
Second, if all the TFA teachers are pulled from the classroom, will they be replaced by other non fully certified teachers?
TE,
First, No! As the tfaers have historically been placed in high poverty/needs districts which have, unfortunately, a disproportionate number of non-certified teachers (due to myriad reasons, the main of which is lack of a competitive salary for certified teachers who can go elsewhere) they are being compared to their fellow teachers in the same or like schools.
Second, hypothetical questions cannot, by definition, have a definitive answer and therefore any answer is in the realm of opinion which begs the question.
Duane
I discount all of the nonsense about teacher “effectiveness” in terms of “student outcomes” since it is up to the student to learn. The teacher can only deliver content but can’t make the kid learn.
Yes, one can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. And the Spoede corollary comes into play here: “And I’m not going to suck on the back end to make it drink”.
So if a teacher “can’t make the kid learn” because it is all up to the student, do you differentiate between good teachers and not-so-good teachers?
How do you tell the difference between a reformer and a shyster?
Jeff,
Yes, one can “differentiate” between good and not so good teachers. That is the administrator’s job. And that differentiation has been occurring as long as there have been schools. A good teacher does their best to motivate a student to learn, however, if the student doesn’t do the required work and or chooses not to put in the time to learn the subject matter, they probably won’t learn.
Actually, parent involvement plays a critical role in student success at school, too. Do you believe that parents be evaluated as well? I know people, who are not educators but who work with parents, who think that parents should be held accountable for their children’s behavior and academic performance in school. How should parents be evaluated?
You are attempting to have a conversation with a banker who is married to the CEO and founder of Achievement First, a charter chain in CT, NYC and RI. He has never taught in public schools. He makes many generalizations, which drip with disdain for public schools teachers.
Why isn’t anyone talking about evaluating administrators. They are the real problem. Many should be in jail today just for breaking the child abuse laws in California including the LAUSD superintendent, Deasy, and the general counsel, Holmquist. They have broken both the reporting in 36 hours and interfering in investigations child abuse laws.
Thanks for the info, Linda. Sounds like just the sort of person who would require parents to make monetary payments for their children’s non-compliance in school, as they do at a charter chain around here, which was NOT my intention to promote –and certainly not what public schools can require of parents.
George, you are absolutely right. Administrators are let off the hook all too often, while principals set the tone of school climate and evaluate faculty –and administrators are the ones who rake in the big bucks. I worked at several schools where it was readily apparent which car in the parking lot belonged to the principal, because teachers could not afford to buy that Jaguar or Land Rover.
Duane, up until very recently the urban districts in CT generally have not provided any meaningful feedback or evaluation of teachers – ever. Putting that aside, what types of criteria would a competent administrator use to provide a meaningful and fair evaluation?
“up until very recently the urban districts in CT generally have not provided any meaningful feedback or evaluation of teachers – ever”
How would a banker know this to be true?
I believe that that citations should reinforce the reasoning that such a thing as the
“learning curve” is more than just an abstract concept.
To establish any differential between two groups, far more studies would have to be examined as would the comparability of the student subjects.
One or two exceptionally dedicated individuals ( who might well be in either population )
could radically skew the results of the comparison.
There are a lot of exceptional individuals who are committed and highly effective who were were unaware that the schools that most TFAs attend even exist. Having even one of these can be an exceptionally compelling factor.
I think the real issue is that no one should be allowed in a teaching position without having gone through enough training. Five weeks is not enough.
This is all common sense. It is sad that the state actually has to debate about this.
Buffalo, a city desperate for jobs that will allow young people to remain in the area and mitigate the “brain drain,” is on the verge of hiring 60 TFA temps. The Buffalo News, which has published an editorial supporting this decision, is not interested in publishing my piece:
Another Voice: TFA: Mistake or Malevolence?
The decision to bring TFA to Buffalo Schools will have negative consequences for students, teachers, and the community. Although it has been promoted (this is a key word) as successful and beneficial, it is worthwhile to consider the facts that emerge when the shiny surface of TFA is scratched.
Myth 1: TFA workers are extraordinarily committed. TFA temps, despite being lauded for their commitment to the profession (Brown and the News) are not demonstrably more committed than teachers who have intentionally chosen teaching as their profession. The claim that TFA temps are more dedicated than fully credentialed teachers is ludicrous, yet it is repeated. Unlike certified teachers, who often incur debt to earn their degrees and certifications, TFA temps do not pay for their minimal training. In fact, they are paid to participate as they learn to teach in the classrooms of unsuspecting children.
Myth 2: TFA temps benefit the district financially. It costs a great deal of money to hire and induct teachers. Even if local businessmen agree to cover “certain” administrative costs, the district will eventually have to fill those positions – unless they intend to provide TFA with 60 permanent/temporary slots.
Myth 3: TFA temps are effective at teaching. In its editorial supporting TFA, the News repeated criteria for success that is unrelated to student achievement. TFA temps are considered “effective” if they remain in the profession. This is odd, since longevity alone is generally considered a flaw in the profession. Touting as “success” a persistence rate of 15% after five years – without any evidence of student achievement, is absurd.
Myth 4: TFA temps are “worth a try.” Whatever its initial goals might have been, TFA has become a tool for shifting the profession of teaching to a low-wage job. Numerous former TFA workers have come forward to share their experiences and describe how class-divisions are reinforced through this program. If TFA is valuable, why is its implementation limited to needy districts? Why aren’t elite schools and wealthy suburban districts begging to be allowed to bring in TFA workers? Clearly, those schools prefer to hire qualified, certified educators for their children.
The Buffalo Board of Education should not allow TFA to rob 60 jobs from local, certified teachers. Buffalonians, including the News, continuously bemoan the loss of local talent; TFA creates a system that guarantees that local graduates will have diminished access to teaching positions. If TFA is allowed into the Buffalo schools, the decision reveals leadership that is either ill-advised or immoral.
The students and families in Buffalo deserve qualified, certified teachers who are committed to the field and the community. TFA is not a solution. It is a tactic intended to further weaken the profession of teaching; children are merely collateral damage.
Julie Gorlewski, State University of New York at New Paltz
“TFA temps do not pay for their minimal training. In fact, they are paid to participate as they learn to teach in the classrooms of unsuspecting children.” The word “temps” seems to me pejorative. I don’t like the TFA program, but “temps” is not fair to the young people who take on the role of teacher in the worst of our schools. Their 5-6 weeks of training was paid as part of their salary, yes. What’s wrong with that? But that’s not the whole story.
I taught the technology integration course required for certification in DCPS as an adjunct for American University. TFA teachers have to be working on certification to be employed in DCPS. My students were a TFA cohort who were in fact paying a premium price for their grad school education. While they did have some tuition off-set through a grant, they still were paying private school tuition to work on their masters in education and certification at the same time they were full-time teachers. That to me was the craziest part of the situation.
Most of the time they came to my class expressing discouragment about working conditions, lack of support by their colleagues and their administration. Of the 19 TFA participants in my course, only 2 stayed in DCPS after completing their certification program. They meant well. They believed that they were making a difference. They were deer in the headlights not knowing which way to leap. I fault the program, not the individuals.
People who go into a program that requires no formal preparation in education and just a two year commitment are indeed “temps” and very different from people who spend years in Teacher Education programs and go into teaching with the intent of that being their career. Clearly, the reason why most TFAers pursue teacher certification is because it’s required by the school district in order for them to keep their jobs, not because they intend to become career educators.
All the accolades given to TFAers for “volunteering” are very disconcerting. TFA is not “volunteer work.” TFAers receive the same salary and benefits as certified teachers, which was over $47K last year in my district for first year teachers. That’s a very hefty salary for new college graduates, let alone for those those with no formal training or experience who are working out of field. With graduate school grants, as well as student loan waivers, it would not be difficult for most to pay for even private grad school courses –which often cost less for education majors than students in other fields.
TFA is a far cry from “volunteer work.” I came from an upper-middle income background very similar to many TFAers, where doing volunteer work in order to make a meaningful contribution and give back to society was encouraged by my family. As a high school student, one summer, I taught full time in an inner city Head Start program. Following that, I volunteered to tutor students at-risk weekly for a year. The next summer, I worked as a full time counselor for inner city youths. I received no remuneration whatsoever for any of these volunteer positions. After I graduated college, I volunteered on a Kibbutz in Israel for a year, where I worked wherever there was a need, for no pay. This experience was very similar to the Peace Corps, as we were only given a modest (shared) room and board and small stipend for toiletries, so I find it very disconcerting whenever TFA compares itself to the Peace Corps. Additionally, in grad school, I was required to complete two separate semesters of internships, in two different settings, and although I could have chosen other programs, I signed up for two that each required me to make a commitment to volunteer in their program for a full calendar year, both of which I completed for no pay. I have done a lot of other volunteer work throughout my career as well –none of which was ever for pay.
I do list my volunteer work on my resume, albeit as “service learning,” because I’ve had so many wonderful learning experiences while serving society. But I also did not volunteer and expect to be paid, nor did I volunteer in order to pad my resume, nor did I volunteer to get a step up into a completely different field. as so many TFAers aim to do. I volunteered to give back to a society that had treated my family well, but others very poorly and inequitably. (And, BTW, in my many decades of experience working in education, few prospective employers have ever commented about my service learning experiences, so I suspect that real unpaid volunteer work might be rather common for professional educators.)
My comments are not meant to reflect negatively on the individuals, but they are, in fact, temporary workers. This is in contrast to candidates who seek certification before being hired to run classrooms.