A reader states her view of Teach for America’s claim that five weeks of training is enough to make their corps members “highly qualified teachers”:
I graduated college in 1965 with a degree in education. My first two years were liberal arts and my last two years were education classes focusing on various subjects like social studies, math, reading, etc. In those days you didn’t need much in the way of classroom management because it was not a major issue. My third year in college all my education classes required me to visit different schools and observe master teachers who had agreed to allow students to observe them. We came back to class to reflect on what we saw. We collected resources. My last year of college required me to do 4 days a week of student teaching and one day a week in cohort to discuss our experiences. I worked one semester in a 4th grade class in the lower east side of manhattan and one semester in a kindergarten in park slope brooklyn. The teachers I worked with were wonderful. They were helpful and allowed me to assist and also to teach, under their direction, lessons.
None of this, however, prepared me for the experience of having my own class. It was overwhelming. It took me a very long time before I thought I was worthy to be a teacher.
There is absolutely no way in the world anyone can be considered “highly qualified” in five weeks.
The suits that don’t understand that are either smoking funny cigarettes, are on someone’s payroll to push this through, or have a complete disdain for other people’s children. Or all of the above.
I have said many times that those who would consider someone with 5 weeks training to be highly qualified should have major surgery done with someone with 5 weeks medical training.
I told that once to a TFA teacher from a charter school housed in my school building and who had been a finance major at Cornell. She told me it was different because doctors learned real skills.
I think that says it all.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
TFA evidently has its own language and we would be called critical friends. If their original mission was to close the achievement gap and it has been 20 years then I guess that was not successful. TFA and their CM’s.. I think corps members, are nothing more than the minor leagues to scout for future ” leaders and reformers” to push forward the corporate takeover: break the union, open more charters and deprofessionalize teachers to create a cheap labor force. Teachers are disposable and kids are cattle while they join forces to dismantle schools and demean life long teachers all while cashing in….. a lucrative venture for the Kopp/ Barth household. Excuse typos iPhone.
I’ve tried unsuccessfully to locate specific information about what’s covered in the 5 weeks of TFA training and whether or not it occurs before or during summer field placements. Since it sounds like they use a generic one-size-fits-all approach, for everyone who will be teaching in classrooms from P through 12, which include children with special needs and English Language Learners (ELLs), I have to wonder what TFAers are learning.
I wonder if TFAers are taught how to collect and objectively report observational data, such as time samplings and frequency counts, and how to use such information to inform instruction and manage behavior. I wonder if they are taught how to create learning objectives that are observable and measurable and which have assessment embeded within. I wonder if they learn how to do task analysis, forward chaining and backward chaining. I wonder if they are taught how to use extinction and how to shape incompatible behaviors. I wonder if they are learning how use different schedules of reinforcement to build and to maintain new behaviors.
I’m alluding to some of the most valuable aspects of Behaviorism usually taught to people in traditional ed schools because, in my observations, Behaviorism tends to be the focus in short-term, alternative teacher training programs aimed at teaching students at-risk. However, future teachers in such programs seem most likely to be taught limited strategies from Behaviorism, such as those that involve controlling and manipulating children through rewards and punishments. So, I’m wondering if that is so, and/or what else they might be learning, such as skills that would enable them to break down and teach content to students at different developmental levels, including how to differentiate.
If anyone has a list of the topics that are covered during the 5 week TFA training, could you please share it with us here? TIA!
I have seen a great deal of the material that is used in training. There is a series of small bound books on different aspects of teaching with lots of anecdotes intended to describe or demonstrate the points of the lessons. I had the chance to obsevre a three-hour training of corps members in our region. The training that afternoon was on target and made sense. HOWEVER, it was framed for 4th and 5th grades and there were folks in the room who would be teaching kindergartenm or high school. BIGGER OBJECTION: these CMs had absolutely no context for the presentation. They were struggling to “get it” using their own personal experiences of schooling–the last time that they were in a classroom as a teacher. They had just completed 5-6 weeks in summer school in Philadelphia with small groups of 10-15 kids for 2-3 hours each morning. That ain’t school. That isn’t the same as being virtually locked in a classroom all by yourself with 32 3rd graders or in a high school history class with 35 disgruntled teenagers. Just you and the kids for the whole period or the whole day. Classroom observations of great teachers as college sophmores, juniors, and then student teaching as seniors in depth and for a reasonably long time set the real context for teaching and then who can forget the feelings of “lost and alone” even with that context and classroom experience.
“I wonder if TFAers are taught how to collect and objectively report observational data, such as time samplings and frequency counts, and how to use such information to inform instruction and manage behavior. I wonder if they are taught how to create learning objectives that are observable and measurable and which have assessment embeded within. I wonder if they learn how to do task analysis, forward chaining and backward chaining. I wonder if they are taught how to use extinction and how to shape incompatible behaviors. I wonder if they are learning how use different schedules “of reinforcement to build and to maintain new behaviors.”
Man is that one of the most eduspeak babbles I’ve ever read. You’re well withing the camp that believes teaching and learning are a supposed science with that kind of talk. Pure bovine excrement. What the hell is “forward and backward chaining”? What you have attempted to say in that paragraph is part of the problem with what we are doing in public education today. Teaching and learning is an art and “data driven” exercises in mental masturbation need to be condemned and thrown in the trash bin.
Sorry, about the language, but what you have attempted to state is pure bullshit.
You crack me up….I had the same thought forward and backward chaining…I have no idea. I have a sped and reg ed degree…26 years and I can’t even imagine….it sounds like it might be painful though.
I have experience and degrees in sped and reg ed, too. Those are common terms for sped practices that all teachers should really be familiar with, in order to reach children at varying developmental levels in inclusive classrooms. Or do they only put TFAers in homogeneous classes that have no special ed kids?
I believe that teaching is both an art and a science. Behaviorism is definitely not my preferred approach, but certain aspects of it are effective with some kids with special needs.
Here’s some basic info on chaining: http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/C/g/Chaining-What-Is-Chaining.htm
I have not heard the term and we have some severely autistic children in our building, but I don’t work directly with them
It looks like a task analysis to help break down the teaching of skills into smaller steps. There is no way TFA candidates are qualified to work with our special Ed. population. That we know for sure.
Yes, after doing a task analysis, then you have choices about which chaining strategy will most likely increase the chances of the child’s success on the task.
I wonder if TFAers are taught anything about SpEd laws and IEPs.
If you work really hard and don’t give up on them like the other teachers their disability will go away and you will be their savior (all must be complete in two years). TFA is a scam, a lucrative one.
So, how do you suggest that teachers determine whether or not their efforts are effective or not, if they are not to use data to inform their instruction? Teaching is and can be an art, but ultimately it’s about whether kids learn or not. If no one learns, you’re not teaching. If teachers are not creating measurable objectives and evaluating whether or not their students hit them, how will they know how they can improve instruction to better meet the needs of the students?
There is a lot of research that shows that your assumptions are wrong. Those who teach the children with the greatest needs get the smallest gains. That doesn’t mean they are bad teachers. About 10-15% of the variation in students test scores are attributable to their teacher; about 60% to the effect of family. There are better ways to evaluate teacher quality
I wasn’t referring to VAM. I was talking about lesson planning and evaluation. Behavioral objectives include three elements: conditions for learning, observable and measurable behavior, and critera for success. They are typically based on standards.
Here’s an example of a Kindergarten ELA Behavioral objective for a constructivist lesson that I’ve implemented many times:
State Goal 1: Read with understanding and fluency.
Learning Standard A: Apply word analysis and vocabulary skills to comprehend selections.
Benchmark: 1.A.Kf Demonstrate alphabet knowledge (i.e., recognizes letters and their most common sounds).
Objective:
After viewing letter Pp and reviewing initial /p/ sound alliteration, such as Peter Piper, given a brown paper bag labeled on the outside with upper and lower case letter Pp, children will go shopping in classroom Learning Centers and fill bag with 10 items that start with the /p/ sound, with 80% accuracy.
My guess from reading posts written by TFA
trainees is some of their training, not all, is their dogma that the kids have had lazy ineffective teachers who have low expectations and they use poverty as an excuse, but you are so much more intelligent and hard working that your enthusiasm alone will make a difference…obviously a slightly jaded view but many have an extremely high opinion of themselves. TFA promotes the poverty isn’t an excuse mantra and they are not respectful of veteran teachers. You are to move into a leadership position in order be be a valued member of society. Are you sure their training methods are not on their website? I guess they are secret.
“There is a lot of research that shows that your assumptions are wrong. Those who teach the children with the greatest needs get the smallest gains. That doesn’t mean they are bad teachers. About 10-15% of the variation in students test scores are attributable to their teacher; about 60% to the effect of family. There are better ways to evaluate teacher quality.”
Can you site your sources?
*cite.
This is a good start to understand the flaws in value-added-assessment: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/05/24darlinghammond_ep.h31.html
You can also read my chapters on teacher research in “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” (chapter 9 and 11).
And read the post yesterday about why VAM is flawed, which contains a link to an article called “Mathematical Intimidation” by John Ewing.
Google it
Goldhaber said in the following article that research showed out-of-school factors such as student and family background characteristics account for 60% of achievement, with 21% attributed to school factors and 8.5% to teachers. He also said that Hanushek’s research indicated a minimum of 7.5% teacher factors and that this accounts for the strongest in-school influence. No citations nor analysis of other in-school factors were provided:
http://educationnext.org/the-mystery-of-good-teaching/
I think it’s important to note that neither Goldhaber nor Hanushek advocate for addressing those 60% out-of-school factors and, instead, focus on teachers. Goldhaber indicated support for TFA, and corporate sponsored education “reformers” often cite Hanushek.
Here’s a summary of UK studies which indicate that 14% of student achievement is attributed to school quality. It demonstrates that reaching children in poverty is not just a US problem and that out-of-school factors must be addressed:
Click to access 2123.pdf
I checked but couldn’t locate an agenda for the 5 week training, which is what I’m most interested in seeing.
I’ve heard the dogma. It’s hard to understand why they would waste valuable training time conveying so much propaganda, as if having ideals, self-confidence, scorn for those with experience and a holier than thou attitude were the ingredients in a secret formula for teaching all kids in poverty. Can’t imagine any profession where that would be considered a cure-all.
Gary Rubenstein’s blog is fairly descriptive about the TFA experience, since he was once closely involved with them.
This is yet another example of total lack of respect for educators in our society. Why? Because they (Teach For America) believe “anyone” can be trained to teach and to do it with better success than an experienced teacher. Actually there are also those who believe a “virtual teacher” in a “virtual academy” does the job just as good, if not better. Imagine there was a “5 week quick course” for a pro football player, baseball player or basketball player ( many of whom pull in a salary that could fund a whole school system). That would not bode well with the sports fans who fork over a lot money to watch their professional sports.
I will not allow these arrogant, ignorant people take away the pride I feel in touching hundreds of lives over the course of my 24 year career. I have helped to prepare many with the skills and knowledge they will need to make the world a better place. I am a proud veteran !!!!!!
From what you wrote, your academic education consists of two years of college courses. You didn’t major in any academic discipline at all. How could you be qualified to be a teacher?
The reader who states her view at the beginning of the chain graduated in 1965. Teaching was one of the few options open to women at that time. If she had graduated in 2012, she probably would not have become a teacher, since there would have been many more career options available to her. Unfortunately, in 2012, entering teachers come from the lower ranks of their graduating classes. TFA is an attempt to bring in a higher caliber of teachers and to give high achievers who will probably enter other fields a perspective on and a lifelong interest in education. What we really need to do is to make teaching more attractive to the highest caliber young professionals.
What a lie. Take your nonsense elsewhere.
Be careful not to confuse “higher caliber” with “higher class”. TFA often conflates these ideas. Their “best and the brightest” is code language for upper class and culturally white. Also remember that teaching is such an easy target in part because it is still to this day a female-dominated field. So when you talk about TFA bringing in “higher caliber people”, I read that as richer, whiter, and more male characteristics (competitive, single-minded drive, etc.)
Some of the most powerful teaching I’ve ever seen has been with teachers who did not graduate from an elite college or are your version of “high achievers”. But they had honed their craft, knew their kids, and performed magic in their classrooms through strong community relationships and respect.
In fact, I would argue that the type of person who would “succeed” in our cutthroat capitalist society is the opposite of what a caring, compassionate, inclusive, patient, thoughtful, high-caliber teacher would be. I don’t want future bankers, lawyers, and politicians teaching our nation’s children. I think those professions should learn a thing or two from our nation’s good-hearted teachers.
I only got three days of training in my alternative program and was very unprepared for the classroom. I don’t think that all the edreform junk is meaningful at all but there do need to be ways to get into teaching other than traditional prep programs but they have to expose people to the reality of what public Ed looks like in an high poverty urban area. The students in our schools deserve better than what they got out me my first year and I think this is the experience of lot of folks with alternative certification.