Valerie Strauss of The Washington Post asks a seemingly obvious question: Should a teacher with only five weeks of training be considered “highly qualified”? The answer is obviously no..
But the question pertains to Teach for America, which has lobbied Congress to make sure that its neophytes are somehow treated as “highly qualified” under the No Child Left Behind act. The federal appeals court in California has twice said that TFA teachers are not highly qualified, and that they should not be concentrated in districts of high poverty and high disadvantage, where children actually need “highly qualified” teachers, not young college graduates with five weeks to training.
Congress is debating the issue, and TFA is exerting its muscle and lobbyists and war chest to make sure that its fresh-faced recruits are dubbed “highly qualified” by any new version of the law. As Strauss says, “Let’s see just how powerful Teach for America is with Congress.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I don’t think any new teacher ought to be called “highly qualified.” The degree and credential are a good start, but it takes years to reach HQ.
I agree.
The Kopp/Barth money, connections and hubris
will get them whatever they want and it will have
little to do with children, teaching and learning.
Veteran teachers are losing their jobs to TFA temps. Who is fighting for the professional life-long teacher in Congress?
No one it seems. We’re too expensive and knowledgeable.
Diane, How can we get involved in the dialogue happening in Congress? Is it worth it to have someone draw up a petition questioning the quality of TFA versus teachers who have a great deal more training and experience? It seems that the level of public engagement is higher in than in the past and some success has been achieved.
I suspect that granting “highly qualified” status to TFAers is a way to circumvent the rule that a school can’t normally hire under-certified applicants if a certified one is in the pool. This way, they can get away with hiring cheap labor even when there is not necessarily a shortage of certified applicants.
Yes, that would make sense considering what is
happening to our profession. They are taking jobs where there are no shortages and a surplus of already qualified teachers. This is about TFA securing more money and its future. What was their original purpose? Seems that doesn’t really matter anymore.
Alan is exactly correct. They also need state legislatures to change the rules for teacher licensure. Legislators were AMAZED to discover that each corps member cost each district an extra $10,000 per CM per year above and beyond the full teacher slaary and full teacher benefits. They were under the impression that somehow these folks were edreform “volunteers.” Not so sure if the program is intended merely to provide a cheaper labor force or to provide a training ground for future policy “leaders” who can say,” When I was a teacher,…”
First a question: I need some background on TFA. When did it begin? Who is behind it? Where does the money come from and go?
Now a comment: The Highly Qualified teacher requirement of NCLB is one of the few good things about the legislation. This requirement has led many districts to motivate under -qualified teachers to get the training they need to serve their students. I have taught some of these inservice teachers as they prepared for journalism teaching endorsements, and have joined them in courses taught by others. I have followed their work afterwards and the training makes a difference.
Do some googling for TFA background. Everyone funds TFA, from US Dept of Ed to Walton Family Foundation to Broad Foundation to Gates Foundation to major corporations, banks, Wall Street, you name it. I’ll soon be posting some important articles about TFA, so stay tuned.
Read this article by Barbara Miner
TFA: Looking past the spin
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_03/24_03_TFA.shtml
I have personally met quite a few TFA’ers who have told me right to my face that they are going to law or medical school after 2 years of teaching. Why should I or any other life-long teacher even want to help these folks when we know they are going to be gone in a year or two? Seems like way too many TFA’ers are quite fond of “slumming it” for a couple of years as a way to pad their resumes before moving on to a “real career”. Quite lame if you ask me.
It is also referred to as teach for a while, teach for a resume or TFWW…. Teach for Wendy’s wallet. Yes, they are slumming and doing their little bit for society until they find their real career.
Many of them are trying to get loans forgven by teaching in inner-city districts. I know several people who went to expensive colleges, then went to an inner city district to teach just long enouh to get their loans forgiven, then they were done. Did I mention that they hated every single second, because they had no desire to teach tobegin with (they just wanted their loans gone…………)
TTPOYL… Teach to pay of your loan
Typo again…damn! Pay OFF your loan.
I would put that “real career” in quotes to designate the fact that indeed “real teaching” is a real career.
if you like satire:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/my-year-volunteering-as-a-teacher-helped-educate-a,28803/
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.
Touche! I love it. 5 weeks of medical training.
As a teacher I’m infuriated that someone thinks all you need is 5 weeks of training. This is absolutely nuts. I live in the metro DC/MD/VA area. This evening I was looking at the local suburban paper’s classifieds. I generally look at schools to see who is hiring, and also to scope out the salary and benefits. I saw an ad for the local Roy Rogers. They are looking for a manager. They offer a nice package. What caught my attention was the 8-10 week “intensive training program” Need I say more?.
NO!
They are clearly seen as highly qualified to be replacement workers and scabs. In fact, they are much in demand
Somehow the states highly qualify them provisionally apparently in order to meet NCLB standards, but apparently can take their certificate during or after their TFA term is up if they are bad. The friend of the TFA who seems to be family, had problems with her principal, who was involved with the Atlanta cheating scandal, for “teaching while white” in a black, rural system and the woman said she was not going to recommend her for certification and planned to get rid of her. There were apparently no grounds since her test scores were as high as those of the lead teacher. She was a first year TFA, very young and very shy and thought it also might be a personal thing because of a piece of personal mail that went to the principal’s house accidentally. Then she backed off because she was, it turned out, leaving herself. I think the Lead pulled some strings for her. This is a system where several of the schools have been taken over by the state, including the one where the girl worked.
I don’t see how they could possibly qualify them except provisionally.
The hysteria that TFA is “lobbying Congress” is quite silly. TFA spent a little over $500,000 on political lobbying last year. Compare that to the $330 million that AFT and NEA spent on political contributions in the last five years. Even defense giant Lockheed-Martin only spent $15 million last year on political contributions.
Sources: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000057438, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577520841038165770.html, http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000104&lname=Lockheed+Martin
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare the budget of NEA and AFT with over three million members to the budget of TFA, with fewer than 10,000 teachers in the field, most of whom will be gone in three years?
The issue, Jake, is not who is spending how much, but what is the value of hiring young people with five weeks of training to replace experienced teachers who were laid off?
Does it help poor kids to have endless teacher turnover in their school?
Diane,
This is a 2000 TFA alum…appears to have taught for two years or so and now works here – Mississippi Center for Public Policy Communications Coordinator.
This appears often on his Twitter page: Reply to @KatieOsgood_ – in TN, TFA’s average “novices” are better than average veterans – according to TN Dept of Ed: tn.gov/thec/Divisions…
Another post: you just seem to care more about adults’ job security than this country’s educational achievement.
@KatieOsgood_ Important: ” #TFA are no one’s enemy.” TFAers deserve to get classrooms if/where incompetent veterans are doing harm.
The temporary savior type of TFA alum who is better than the rest of us. This is how they get their bad reputation.
Jake McGuire wrote insulting comments to me on Twitter and I blocked him. If he does the same here, I’ll knock him off. I have rules and standards of behavior, and I won’t put up with his braggadocio about how a 21-year-old with five weeks of training will come to your school to save the poor kids from the teachers who devote their life to teaching. And then leave after two years.
Love the vocabulary choice….perfect match:
brag·ga·do·ci·o
1. A braggart.
2.
a. Empty or pretentious bragging.
b. A swaggering, cocky manner.
1. vain empty boasting
2. a person who boasts
The word of the day!
It is not TFA alone who is advocating for temporary teach for a while newbies…educate yourself….read below
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2012/07/house_panel_oks_bill_to_scrap_.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignK-12+%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Politics+K-12%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Consider this Jake. (verbatim from WBEZ website) I’ve always listened to my students. They generally provide an unvarnished truth. I only wish that our politicians listened to them. They are the beneficiaries of these policies. They ought to have a say.
Hallelujah the Saviors are Here
Poet Rachel Smith, 18, is a senior and a member of Epic Sound, the Kenwood Academy Slam Poetry Team. This is her second year participating in Louder Than a Bomb (and she can also be heard performing here). Hallelujah the Saviors are Here is a condemnation of teachers who come to “the inner city” without becoming a true member of the community
http://www.wbez.org/story/hallelujah-saviors-are-here-97183
I wish we could get a print copy of her entire poem. KatieO posted her last two lines on Gary R’s blog:
“It’s time we rebuke these self-proclaimed saviors, and put our faith in the true educators–the ones who expect Masters Degrees and double majors. And not the ones just trying to do the Black community a couple favors.”
Just a response to the folks who assume that TFA staff are somehow less expensive… TFA insists that their “teachers” be paid according to the normal salary scale AND make the school pay a “management” fee for each person they’ve placed. That makes them MORE expensive than a traditional teacher.
In DC schools I believe they get a $5,000 per placement fee. In addition, they (TFA) were, until the ‘earmarks’ were pulled in Congress, receiving additional money from the Dept. of Ed. What a scam.
They are cheaper overall, if you factor in what they are saving by firing a teacher who may have maxed out on the salary schedule. In some systems that average could be as much as $25-35,000. Plus you save on healthcare, since you’re covering one person, not two or a family and on a pension. Two and done.
In Ohio, the law was revised last spring to permit TFA members to earn a Resident Educator (beginning, four-year) license based on the following criteria:
“…teach in this state as a participant in the teach for America program and who meets the following conditions:
(1) Holds a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution of higher education;
(2) Maintained a cumulative undergraduate grade point average of at least 2.5 out of 4.0, or its equivalent;
(3) Has passed an examination prescribed by the state board in the subject area to be taught;
(4) Has successfully completed the summer training institute operated by teach for America.”
Based on current Ohio requirements, #3 is the final piece of the puzzle that makes a TFA member “highly qualified” based on Ohio’s interpretation of the federal definition, assuming the TFA teacher is properly placed in a classroom that fits their specific content area. (http://bit.ly/Q8bpdC)
As a side note, Ohio’s approved ESEA waiver included a provision to eliminate HQT reporting by districts in lieu of newly adopted evaluation plans:
“To supplement the RttT and HB 153 efforts and encourage the use of evaluation data for the purposes of informing human-capital decisions, ODE will begin a phase-out of Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirements for those LEAs that demonstrate they have in place a qualifying evaluation system and policies that align with the state framework.” (Page 136, Full waiver, http://bit.ly/Ob398I)
“for the purposes of informing human-capital decisions”
Human capital decisions! Whoa nelly! (K. Jackson) Human capital decisions! Ay Ay Ay!! Human capital decisions! My head’s ready to explode.
I’ve worked with teachers, have very good friends and relatives who have gone through the steps to be named highly qualified. It took them much longer than five weeks. What a ridiculous idea….5 weeks and you’re highly qualified?
A few TFA are actually fully experienced, qualified, and trained TEACHERS. There are at least two in my county.
Did they arrive experienced? With five weeks training? Or did they gain experience like lesser mortals?
A few out of thousands. Yep, that’s a great stat!
That is not their purpose anymore. They are looking for leaders to “fuel a revolution” in education. It is proudly posted on their website….all about the work their alum are doing for our country…like Rhee, White, Sternberg, Anderson….not sure I would be bragging about them.
More here about what happened in congress…read to the bottom to see who sided with TFA and who represented certified teachers. I hope this works… No power in the dark w/ iPhone
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2012/07/house_panel_oks_bill_to_scrap_.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignK-12+%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Politics+K-12%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Since we are discussing the elitist views on education, read stupid comments made by Eva Moskowitz about her “philosophy” on spec Ed. Students and how to provide services. I doubt she even knows how stupid she sounds. Diane…, this could become a post and unfortunately this is NOT satire.
The DOE claims that the new reform is all about providing students with disabilities “increased access to and participation in the general education curriculum,” but I remain skeptical. After all, this is the same DOE that shamelessly beefs up their legal staff to fight off special education lawsuits instead of building appropriate schools, and it’s important not to forget that forcing special education students into mainstream classes saves them money.
The big charter school chains, often criticized for underserving special needs students, are very clear about their objectives and also proud of their record. According to one of Success Academy’s recent teaching position job postings, they believe in “graduating children out of special education services as quickly as possible.” Founder Eva Moscovitz recently revealed in a WSJ article that “about 7% of disabled students at Success Academy move out of ‘special education’ classification.” Ms. Moscowitz claims they do it “through intensive instruction.”
Is it really possible that she doesn’t understand the implications of her statement? How it infers that my husband and I and all the caring and compassionate professionals over the years that have tried to help my son, many of them doctorate-level specialists in their fields, have simply not employed enough “intensive instruction?” And that everything would be different if we had simply used more of her school’s core values: “elbow grease, grit and perseverance? Excuse typos please still in the dark.
http://insideschools.org/blog/item/1000407-why-special-ed-reform-misses-the-point
Linda, I haven’t read the article you link to yet, but wanted to add a few comments as a special educator, primarily of students with moderate to profound disabilities. I’ve personally seen the benefits of providing increased access to the general education curriculum for special education students. I’ve also seen the ill effects by schools not providing that access. I’ve heard teachers say that “He’s so retarded, he couldn’t possibly learn this material,” or some variation of that. I’ve heard a teacher express similar sentiment, then later say that she was surprised at what a student could actually learn when he was faced with increased expectations. These increased expectations came about as a result of increased access to the academic curriculum vs. basic “life skills” instruction without any or many expectations.
Yes, I agree, but there has to be a balance and they should still be
educated. I have seen sped. Students who cannot make change for a dollar, tie their shoes or even have one to one correspondence sitting
in 8th grade algebra doing nothing more than breathing the same air. The want to count as much time in their day as “time with non disabled peers” so the hours on the IEP look good, but they are learning nothing. They sit in flex periods during silent reading and they cannot read. Why not work with them 1:1 and give them the skills they need rather than making it look like they are just like their peers. Districts are still responsible for providing them with an education and we need to use common sense not just abide by one person’s interpretation of a now much time they must be in the mainstream especially when they are learning and doing nothing
productive. A balance is needed; education must be provided…not a false front that looks good.
I do agree, Linda. There needs to be balance, but I still think the scales are tipped towards the “they can’t do grade level work, so why try to teach them?” direction, which needs to change.
And any good teacher or administrator knows tht placing these kids in inclusion or mainstream setting is mea ingress unless you do provide them meaningful instruction. Accommodate. Differentiate, engage them. It’s not as easy as just placing them into the c,ass, but many still don’t realize that.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but I’ve spent some time in a high needs school (that is likely to have some TFA teachers this coming year).
The times I’ve been there, the teacher absentee rate was about 18 per day (out of about 75). The teacher attendance rate was actually lower than the students’. There were some teacher positions that they had trouble filling, so they were taught by either a sub or another teacher during their planning period.
Is it better to have TFA teachers fill those slots or just leave them be? I understand the logic for which TFA was created–to fill the slots in schools like these that were difficult to otherwise fill. Add to that if we can’t get their actual teachers to show up, the ones who might actually be HQ, what are schools to do?
I have no problem filling slots. My objection, and that of others is that they are replacing teachers. If 100,000 teachers lost their jobs in June, why is anybody hiring anyone from TFA or TNTP and paying that organization a “placement” fee?
Because a new teacher costs a lot less than an experienced one. And then when they move on they can be replaced also with cheaper newbies-to hell with the children.
Mark,vagain I don’t disagree. However, in the School I referred to, and I suspect others in this urban district, they can’t get the teachers who are there to consistently show up for their job, or in some cases they have open positions they can’t fill. I believe they went the full year with only 1 7th grade math teacher for about 300 students. Half had a revolving door of subs. I can sadly see why years of that would lead them to try TFA. Where are the teachers who need jobs?
Granted, this is just part of the story. High immigrant population, >90% free lunch, little to no parent involvement. It’s a sad situation tat no doubt is replicated across the country. Something needs to change, though I don’t know what the answer is.
Hi JJ. This is a reply to your July 20, 2012 at 12:41 am comment where you stated: “…any good teacher or administrator knows tht placing these [sped] kids in inclusion or mainstream setting is mea ingress unless you do provide them meaningful instruction. Accommodate. Differentiate, engage them. It’s not as easy as just placing them into the c,ass, but many still don’t realize that.”
I believe we are fooling ourselves to think that most / many teachers can effectively differentiate for the diversity of needs in secondary classrooms today. “Meaningful instruction” is nigh impossible unless a student is ready and willing to engage at some level, taking into account any limitations of his/her disability. If an aide, or two, is available to assist and support the teacher, and adequate space and resources are available, the likelihood for meaningful instruction increases considerably.
Realistically, teachers with 150 students a day are faced with a near impossible mission to intuit changing student-specific interests that map appropriately to the myriad of standards per subject. I get the intent. It is honorable and a laudable goal. I wish it happened daily in classrooms throughout America. But it does not since it is a “bridge too far” expectation.
In my opinion, the education field causes more harm than good when it gives the impression that student-specific differentiation is achievable by any except the most talented of experienced teachers, and even in those cases I believe they need to be in a school culture that nurtures students and supports teachers in manners that enable their mutual success. In other words, it is in rare instances that the many factors that impact student learning align sufficiently for an individual teacher with 30-40 students per period, with five different periods per day, to accommodate ELD, RSP, GATE, or other special needs such as 504 plans.
Unless, and until, a realistic deployment of resources commensurate with the task besetting a teacher are readily available, we are fooling ourselves that meaningful instruction is possible, much less within reach. I wish it were otherwise. Regardless, I will continue to do everything in my power to make it so. Its just that with a quarter of a century experience facing difficult challenges with resources, I have a pretty good sense for what is realistic, and what is wishful thinking.
I have interviewed over 30 TFA teachers and all but one was very well-intentioned. I object to people attacking the motivations of TFA teachers as a whole.
That said, they are not close to well-qualified and almost all of them will readily admit this.
Classifying them as well-qualified is a political stunt to try and make us all feel that less fortunate children and schools are getting “well-qualified” teachers. They are not.
You may object, but we don’t have to agree. It is more common that the excellent TFA teacher who stays in the profession and doesn’t move on to another career is rare.
Hi Diane.
As a new, second career teacher, I find it amazing that the adverb “highly” is prepended to “qualified” for any teacher with less than ten (10) years experience. What profession designates its rookies and junior staff with the same descriptor as if they were on par with veterans and experts in the field?
While I believe select alternate certification programs can be advantageous for second career professionals, and in times where supply cannot meet demand, programs like TFA can help bridge the gap, but blindly believing that youthful passion will save the day is naive, and anointing them “highly qualified” is absurd.
I wrote about these descriptors in early 2011 in the following posts.
Highly Qualified” Interns – a Mendacious Misnomer: http://mathequality.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/mendacious-misnomer/)
Dashboard Delusions – The ED’s Ineffective Measure of Effectiveness: http://mathequality.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/dashboard-delusions/
Dave
As many have pointed out, no new teachers are “highly qualified.” While some new teachers may be more prepared than others, many years of teaching experience is necessary to become a truly effective (and therefore highly qualified) teacher. So not only are TFA teachers certainly not highly qualified, they are not even very well prepared. While some of them may have strong academic backgrounds and lots of motivation, why is that enough? Shouldn’t we demand that our the people who teach our own children not only have strong academic backgrounds, but also strong backgrounds in education? I graduated with a bachelor’s in science from one of the top universities in the country, taught college students there for a year, got my master’s degree in education there (one of the top teacher prep programs), have the benefits and support of three teaching fellowships that constantly push me to be a better teacher, and I still know that, going in to my 3rd year of teaching, while I am doing a good job, but I have a long ways to go to be a truly transformational teacher for all of my students. And I want my own children to have nothing less than that. Why is it okay to concentrate inexperienced teachers in high poverty districts when that would not be acceptable elsewhere?