Gary Rubinstein keeps a close eye on Teach for America and watches how it shows its true colors from time to time. That happened with the votes cast on amendments to the Senate bill called “Every Child Achieves Act.”
TFA lobbyists urged Senators to support the Murphy-Booker amendments, which would have retained the worst, most punitive features of No Child Left Behind. They also publicly opposed parents’ right to opt their children out of state tests, on the flimsy claim that this would hurt poor and minority children. In fact, poor and minority children are victimized by high-stakes testing, by a greater emphasis on testing, and by closing of schools located mostly in their communities.
Rubinstein writes that the Murphy-Booker amendment:
says that the states must identify the schools most in need of intervention, which must be at least the bottom 5%. It seems that the Democrats did not learn the lessons from NCLB about the danger of putting specific numerical targets into federal law and how those numerical targets can be abused. The fact that there is always a bottom 5% no matter how good the schools are in a state. Also, schools where the graduation rate is less than 67%, a magic number for ‘failing school’ that is not grounded in any real research (not to mention one that is easy to game with different ‘credit recovery’ schemes, but that’s another issue altogether). For schools like this some of the federally mandated interventions are to inform the parents that their child is attending a failing school, to establish ‘partnerships’ with ‘private entities’ to turn around these schools, and to give the states the ability to make, and for this I’ll use a verbatim quote, “any changes to personnel necessary to improve educational opportunities for children in the school.”
So where does Murphy’s Law come in? What could possibly go wrong with this? Well for starters, there would need to be an accurate way to gauge which schools are truly in the ‘bottom 5%.’ I admit that there are some schools that are run much less efficiently than others and surely the different superintendents should have a sense of which schools they are. But as NCLB and Race To The Top (RTTT) taught us, with all the money spent on creating these metrics and the costly tests and ‘growth metrics’ that go along with those tests, it is likely to lead to way too much test prep and neglect of some of the things that make school worth going to. Then those ‘private entities’, could it be any more clear that these are charter schools taking over public schools? And as far as “changes to personnel necessary to improve educational opportunities for the children in the school”, well, firing teachers after school ‘closures’ in New York City hasn’t resulted in improved ‘educational opportunities.’ My sense is that with enough of these mass firings, it will be very difficult to get anyone to risk their careers by teaching at a so-called failing school and the new staff is likely be less effective than the old staff. So you can see why the NEA wrote a letter to the Senate urging them to vote against it. Sadly nearly all the Democrats (and Independent Bernie Sanders!) ignored the plea of the NEA.
TFA’s leaders gave their approval to an article sharply criticizing parents who opt their children out of standardized testing:
In The 74 [Campbell Brown’s website], disgraced former Tennessee Education Commissioner and TFA alum (not to mention ex-husband of Michelle Rhee-Johnston) Kevin Huffman wrote a completely incoherent comparison of parents opting their children out of state tests to parents opting their children out of vaccinations. The title of the article was “Why We Need to Ignore Opt-Outers Like We Do Anti-Vaxxers.” Not that we need to ‘challenge’ them, but we need to ‘ignore’ them. Don’t bother learning what motivates them to do what they do, just assume you know and ignore whatever concerns are causing them to want to do this. Huffman is also a lawyer, though his argument is quite weak. He says that wealthy opt-outers are selfish since they are doing something that somehow benefits themselves while hurting the other, less wealthy people. But does he consider that many opt-outers are doing it as a protest against the misuse of their students test scores to unfairly close schools and fire teachers? Or to protest an over emphasis on testing and testing subjects so they opt out to say “Since I’m opting out anyway, please teach my child as you would have before all this high stakes testing nonsense.” Now I can’t speak for every opt-out supporter, but I believe that opting-out helps everyone, especially the poor since the way the results of the state tests have been used has hurt them disproportionately with school closures and random teacher firings so the idea that all opt-out supporters do so knowingly at the expense of less fortunate others is something that I find offensive. Both co-CEOs of TFA, however, tweeted their approval of this article.
High-stakes testing and punitive policies widens the market for privatization, drives out experienced teachers, and clears the way for more positions for TFA.
Opt-out can also put TFA out of business if we can grow it to all communities in the nation. This is what TFA fears, sending in the 5-week-wonder newbies to displace veteran teachers only to find the kids are refusing to take the tests, shutting the door on the commercial conquest of the public schools.
Diane, did you say this policy “clears the way for more positions for TFA”? Hallelujah!!!!
Can I get some TFA rejects (TFA rejects 90% of its applicants even though they are well qualified) to teach my kids? Pretty please…
Btw, have you seen this research from UNC where TFA teachers beat out EVERY single other cohort of teachers at EVERY grade level and on EVERY subject? In fact, they even beat out “visiting faculty” (whatever that is) and definitely beat out “master teachers”. I’ll pay extra to get me some “TFA rejects” in my kids’ class too. Whadya say?
Virginiasgp,
Have you read the research on TFA by Julian Vasquez Heilig? http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teach-for-america-return
Would you want members of your submarine crew who are likely to leave the service in a year or two?
Diane, no I have not. Thanks for sharing.
Actually, that’s how the Navy force works. On the officer side, most stay in the service for their 4-6 year commitment, make O-3, and then leave. Since the management structure is a pyramid, that is necessary since fewer higher-ranking officers are needed. The same applies on the enlisted side. While our sub sailors all went to 2+ years of school in the Navy prior to reaching the sub, most didn’t have to stay more than 4 years. So there were always guys who were “short” (about to leave the service). Since their skills were highly sought after in the private nuclear industry, the Navy was often forced to give them $15K/yr bonuses to reenlist for 4-6 more years. Some reenlisted. Others got out and obtained their college degrees with the GI bill.
I do not think most teachers are dishonest. That is why I was surprised you wrote an article about teachers being “forced” to cheat. But I can tell you this. I don’t care if a sailor was about to leave the service the very next day, I never questioned when he told me a valve was shut or a door secured. Those actions or non-actions can endanger others lives. At least in my experience in the Navy, nobody cut corners for personal gain. I tend to think the vast majority of teachers are the same even if their evals may suffer a little because of lower academic growth by their students.
Are you telling me that a first year teacher with five weeks of training supposedly “beat” teachers with 15 or 25 years’ experience??? Do you HEAR yourself, Virginia? I’m really glad you’re not in my state.
As a parent, I would not agree to allow my children to be taught by a TFA person. Though many of them mean well, they are not qualified, and do not really understand how education works — no one does, without at least 4-5 years’ experience. My daughter worked (not as a teacher) in a school that had some TFA teachers who were lazy, hungover, uncommitted and seemed to do nothing except trash-talk the school’s stable faculty members. They were also counting the days until their job was up, as they were resume-building, not interesting in actually becoming teachers.
I know this is anecdotal, but, the only TFAer I’ve known did it solely to have his grad school tab paid off.
They were not compared to master teachers under properly controlled circumstances. Go to your local charter and have all the TFA people you want. Start your own charter and hire them.
The measurement is test scores only, big deal and if they are so great why aren’t they in the wealthy suburbs and all the private schools where the elite said their children: Sidwell, Lakeside, Miss Porters, Choate, Exeter, etc.. You can have them GSP…they’re all yours.
Well for two years anyway and then you can get a new crew to adore you. Churn baby churn. CCS is dying and opt out is growing. Catch up.
From the executive summary: “We compare the performance
of UNC traditional undergraduate programs to the 11 other portals in terms of the amount of value added to student test scores on two
elementary grades assessments (reading and mathematics), four
middle grades assessments (reading, mathematics, Algebra I, and science), and four sets of ii high school assessments (English I,
mathematics, science, and social studies) as well as high school assessments overall. . . Also, we matched students’ test scores to their prior test scores, which allows us to estimate the additional learning Portal Report or “value added” during each of the academic years being studied. Finally, numerous other student, teacher, and school characteristics were merged into these files and used in the analysis to adjust for factors other than the portal preparation that may affect student achievement”
From just a cursory review of the report, the one thing that stands out is the usage of standardized test scores as THE defining factor in judging teacher effectiveness. Well since those STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES are COMPLETELY INVALID as proven by Wilson any RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS drawn are COMPLETELY INVALID. That fact alone is enough to discredit the study.
And those “other student, teacher and school characteristics are not delineated nor is there any way to determine the “value added” characteristics, so without such information the study is nothing more than typical edudeformer horse manure written up in a pretty fashion.
.
Are the responses enough attention for today, Brian?
The claims or “growth” at TFA’s institute
are suspect. Read the following all the
way through:
———————————-
Mercedes Schneider knocked it out of
the park again with her perusing the
on-line chats that TFA folks have with
one another:
It’s nice to see this refreshing
honesty (BELOW) from one TFA
person who chimes in about his
experiences during TFA’s
their Summer Institute.
He clearly sees through all that is TFA,
but will stick it out because if he quits,
there will be a “stigma” on him that will
negatively impact his post-TFA future..
Note how he debunks TFA’s “more successful
or as successful as veteran teachers claim”…
Basically, it’s all a test prep scam:
———————————————–
Another TFA chatting on-line:
“There’s a lot of truth in (Naison’s) article. I’m in the midst of my summer training for TFA now, and the vast majority of my (fellow TFA institute Corp Members-in-training) co-workers don’t REALLY care about these kids. It is a stepping stone, and a guaranteed job, by and large. I also have developed a tremendous amount of animosity towards the organization as a result of what I’ve seen in these past few weeks. This organization is NOT in it for the kids… it’s in it for the ‘Corps Members’ and their experiences.
“They have us teaching summer school after only have ONE WEEK of formal training. These kids are getting REAL grades in subjects that many of the teachers have no prior knowledge of. I, for one, typically learn the subject I’m going to teach the night before the lesson plan is due. It’s disgusting that these kids are used as our guinea pigs.”
—————————————————
Here’s where he blows the whistle on TFA’s claims of the “student growth” their teachers claim to bring about…. and what that “growth” really means.
————————————————–
“Even the way their success is measured is a damn scam.
“The students (taught by TFA teachers-in-training at theTFA institute teachers-in-training)are given the final exam on the first day and given 30 minutes to complete it. For the remainder of summer school, we are then forced to teach our objectives to this specific test, and it is given again on the last day of classes.”
“They then are given 2 hours at this point to complete it, after having been taught essentially identical questions the entire summer. The questions we give on the final is the EXACT SAME as the ones given on that 1st day too. It’s real easy to say that…
” ‘Little __________ made a 48 point gain in his subject’…
“… when you have those particular conditions. The sh– is sickening.
“I joined to try and do some genuine good, but this organization is no different than many of the private for-profit organizations. At least they’re honest with their intentions. I would leave after seeing this, but there’s too much of a social stigma attached for my professional ambitions to do it (i.e. quit TFA). smh.”
I read the full article and have no issues with it overall. Newsflash: lots of company offer internships not because they believe the intern will actually be productive but because they are either conducting a long-term interview or actually trying to recruit that student after they graduate.
Take my fellow sailors on the submarine. Most would not stay past their initial enlistment. In fact, the system cannot support that model. The sailors received ~2 years of free education while preparing to serve on subs while they were getting paid to do so. Then, they might serve 4 additional years on a sub. Many were planning their post-military careers including going to college. They naturally had lots of questions for the junior officers who had already attended and observed their classmates pursuing private sector careers. Those sailors are extremely honorable regardless of whether they intended to spend 20 years or 6 years.
I attended a foreign exchange program with the Japanese Defense Forces after my junior year in college. They wined and dined us like crazy. Why would they do that? We would never serve in their military. They wanted to increase understanding of Japan and their military for members of the US armed forces. I was very impressed with their professionalism and country as a whole. They understand that participants establish relationships and will be naturally more interested in Japanese-American relations going forward.
The same applies to TFA. Regardless of whether they become permanent teachers, they (1) assist during their 2-yr stint with superior performance measured by UNC, (2) become education advocates for the rest of their lives even if they don’t always agree with your “solutions” and (3) take that experience into the private sector world if they choose that route. For the time that they teach, they inspire the students about what they can be. Teaching is admirable but sometimes hearing about how their recent Ivy League graduate plans to make a career in finance or marketing or tech can inspire students to try/study harder. Just like I am not as capable in inspiring minority students, teachers may not be able to inspire all kids. We need lots of role models and not just on the “career day” presentations.
I have not attended their summer school program. And I’m sure there are many great, experienced teachers who are superior to these newbie TFA teachers. But given the comments on here by many math teachers who clearly don’t really understand math, I’m positive those TFA teachers can have a positive impact on so, so many classes.
Virginiasgp, did you ever have a trainee on your submarine with only five weeks of training, who was not asked to assist, but invited to be a full-fledged sailor or even an officer?
That’s an interesting question Diane. We had lots of visitors, often those of the political sort who thought it would be fun to take a joy ride on a submarine for a day. That meant we had to start up the reactor at 3am and stay on the sub that day until about 8pm+ shutting it down and stowing everything for their day’s amusement. But alas, I don’t think that is the heart of your question.
The answer is yes, we allowed our guests to participate in the day’s activities. Sometimes they were very adept if they had a nautical background. For example, folks with high math aptitudes immediately understood how we charted out contacts we could not see. On a sub, you use passive sonar to listen to the sounds that other vessels make. You only get a direction of the sound (a “bearing”) and not a fixed location like you would in GPS or radar. We need to determine the range to that “target” or “enemy”. So the sub changes track (the direction it is moving) and takes another bearing. We can determine the angular shift of the vessel when we are travelling on each track. Comparing the two allows you to remove the target’s speed from the equation and determine a distance or range to the target.
It took all of about 10 minutes for our talented visitors to understand what takes weeks for some sailors to learn in school. We allowed them to chart the contacts and even to give directions to the helm on the appropriate course so we could verify the contact’s position. This is similar to education in which some physics or math majors can very likely come into any high school STEM classroom and instruct the students as well as the current teacher based solely on their deep knowledge of the topics. Many current teachers (not all mind you) simply don’t truly understand their subject area, at least not how it is used beyond the walls of their classroom.
Yes, people need training in highly technical jobs such as operating nuclear reactors or sonar equipment. And it obviously helps to provide training to teachers (one might note that based on teachers’ comments about their prep schools, the current training is not very good). But in the end, it’s about whether people can comprehend the subject matter and convey that material in interesting ways to the students. If they do, it doesn’t matter where they come from. If they can’t, it also doesn’t matter. Let’s evaluate their effectiveness and judge them appropriately.
(One clarification I’d like to make about roles on a submarine. Enlisted personnel generally specialize in a given area such as engineering, or electronics, or mechanical equipment. However, they often have as much or more knowledge in those areas as the officers. The officers are expected to know something about everything but for at least half of the officers on the sub, many enlisted are more knowledgeable than the officers. The captain and engineering officer would be the most knowledgeable on the boat however, I just didn’t want folks to get the impression that there is this two-tiered level of importance between officers and enlisted. Everybody on the sub is top notch and very knowledgeable).
Virginiasgp,
I eagerly await the creation of 5-week training programs for officers to run nuclear submarines. Shall we call it Submariners for America?
Diane, that’s funny. Nobody can ever say you don’t have a sense of humor.
Here’s a proposition.
1. How many submariners could successfully complete the training for teaching?
2. How many teachers could successfully complete the training for submarines?
I’m guessing the answer to #1 is about 98%. The answer to #2 is about 5-10%. Beg to differ?
Virginiasgp, you are limited to four comments a day. I have to choose which. Responding on my blog should not be a primary activity in your life.
Just kind of a huge let-down after Democrats spent years running against NCLB.
I think it’s become painfully obvious they simply don’t have another approach. They had years to think about it. If someone in DC had a different idea they certainly had time to develop it.
It’s only a let down if you believed them to begin with.
There is no shortage of Charlie Browns in the Democratic camp who keep thinking that “This time, Lucy will not pull out the football at the last second”
some folks never learn.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Just as Huffman proposes ignoring us, we should ignore him and the tests. When the majority opts out let’s see them ignore that. Economists do not understand that not everything is society is based on competition and rankings. To Virginiasgp who has questioned our knowledge of markets, we understand but we envision a different society. Once capitalism has created it’s unsustainable monopolies and cartels, and destroyed the middle class, we may learn from it and rebuild. As Keynes said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wicked of men will do the most wicked of things for the greatest good of everyone.” For proof, look at IBM during WW2 and look at Krupp international just for a few examples. Everyone knows war is good for business. It’s nothing personal. See also Jefferson on corporations. Don’t worry Virginiasgp, they like your ilk, they’ll sell you last.
Economists,who look at the same quantifiable data, pronounce different findings. Many economists
cherry pick data for analysis.The profession has no ethical standards nor,sanctioning process so, any value it purports to have,is suspect.
It’s not just that they cherry pick data, but perhaps even worse is the fact that economists all too often simply assume that data are valid for their purposes and then proceed to perform “mathematical analysis” that is junk from the getgo (mathturbation).
William Black notes that economists like Raj Chetty equate data with “fact”, willfully ignoring the inconvenient truth that fraudulent and otherwise invalid data necessarily yield garbage results
in the cases of the S&L scandal and housing bubble, ” the economists’ dogmas caused them to implicitly constrain the range of alternative hypotheses to exclude accounting control fraud as a candidate explanatory variable” [and to therefore exclude the garbage data that it produced leading them to conclude that the most fraudulent banks were actually the best-preforming ones ]
“I will discuss several examples of why Chetty’s “scientific experiments” have repeatedly produced what economists assured us were “compelling answers to specific policy questions” that were disastrously wrong. It turns out that the scientific method that economists purport to embrace is frequently the thinnest of fancy veneers hiding a core composed of the cheapest pressboard. Economists who study fields beset by financial frauds, for example, are overwhelmingly betrayed by ideology and conflicts of interest.’
“Economists do not study fraud. They have a primitive tribal taboo against using the word. This, of course, is because economics is assuredly not “firmly grounded in fact.” Ignoring fraud is a pure ideological construct that requires economists to ignore fraud, particularly private-sector “control fraud.” Economists do not study the criminology literature on elite white-collar crimes. Economists do not study and do not understand sophisticated financial fraud schemes.”
//end of Black quote
The question of fraud is obviously directly relevant to student test data which can be fraudulent due to cheating (eg in Atlanta) but it’s not just fraudulent data that can ‘lead” the economists (and everyone else) astray. It is any data that are not valid (or simply not validated) for the purpose for which they are being used.
Economists are pathological purveyors of GIGO.
Certainly, Michelle Rhee wrote her hubby’s opinion piece, because he is as dumb as a basketball, and his opinions are her opinions. Secondly why hasn’t Campbell Brown come out against Rhee’s hubby’s penchant for underage students?
Donna, you may be confusing MR’s ex-husband (think Kevin Huffman got law degree after TFA) with husband #2.
Seems quite confounding that TFAers with so little training could have such stellar track records even if it is based solely on exam scores. But if 90% of candidates are weeded out and the remaining folks have some natural knack for either teaching or imitation, are willing to spend extra time prepping students during lunches and after school hours (not married, no kids) maybe even on weekends, are quite intelligent and knowledgeable in their content area (know how to prep kids for standardized tests in part because they themselves excelled on them and recall being prepared for them by their own teachers not so many years back), and are usually placed in schools with zero tolerance discipline policies that are heavily enforced (so lack of experience doesn’t play such a role in class management issues), then you can see how these stellar performances were produced. I’m sure many are exceeding talented, but if they had discovered magic bullets in terms of instructional practices, I’m sure they would be the first to want to own and trumpet them. So, that’s my rant.
Exceedingly talented
they (TFA) would want to own and trumpet them.
Interesting that it’s all about “choice” and constitutional right to equity…until parents choose to pursue these through opting out of high stakes tests that reduce choices and equity.
The comments at that site are terrific. I’m sure Campbell and Huffman just expected to pass off their BS with no counter arguments. Surprise!!