A teacher in Chicago asked this simple question in an article on Huffington Post.
He noted that TFA was created to fill “chronic teacher shortages,” and he quotes Wendy Kopp saying so.
He asks why Chicago is hiring TFA when 2,000 certified teachers have been laid off and remain jobless.
He notes that some of the teachers who were laid off are nationally board certified.
Why are these experienced teachers being replaced by young college graduates with only five weeks of training?
This is a good question.
Is there a good answer?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The purpose of TFA, like the purpose of The Relay School and the charter school movement (all part of the standardization/privatization paradigm) is to undermine (ultimately destroy) teachers unions and deprofessionalize education. The latest higher ed extensions of RTTT (program profiles and the Pearson-developed Teacher Performance Assessments) are also part of this endeavor.
If teaching can be reduced to a technical activity that is easily monitored and measured, it can be done cheaply (by inexperienced teachers and through online schools). And since public education serves the 99%, these reforms will not affect wealthy reformers whose children attend schools that are not subject to their policies.
All public entities are being affected by this neoliberal agenda. The postal service is being set up to fail in much the same way that teacher education programs are. Solidarity is our only hope. We must stand together or our democracy will fail.
I have heard TFA alums defend the scab movement by saying that the city had a contract with TFA, so that had to honor the contract. It is my understanding so did the certified competent teachers but they had no problem breaking their contract.
Nowadays TFA is nothing more than a temporary scab agency who is joining forces with the anti-union, anti-public school teacher, privatization profiteering deform bowel movement.
One gets the impression that the original purpose, whatever it was, has been subverted — that TFA has now been weaponized, like charter schools and so many other WellMeaningAtFirst ideas, on the war against public education and professional educators.
A reasonable inference, Jon.
How does Kopp sort out all the potential conflicts between TFA and KIPP? Assuming there is actually any longer a real need for TFA (see learningfirst, infra), she should step aside and let someone with equivalent ability but no obvious ethical entanglements step forward to lead TFA, which is avowedly a voice for PUBLIC education, not the charter movement.
Given the six figure salary she pulls down as CEO of TfA, I doubt she’ll ever follow your advice, though it is very appropriate. I can’t help but think the real goal of TfA was to develop a client base and then begin making tons of money.
Since there is NO teacher shortage ANYWHERE in the country, TFA should be disbanded instead of allowed to continue.
Perhaps what we need to encourage is a willingness among our union leaders that teaching positions in high poverty/low achieving schools should be allowed to carry bonuses in order to encourage experienced teachers to take on those more difficult duties. That would put TfA out of business quite quickly.
There is a great comment in reference to Rhee and her TFA days on this thread. Last comment by Norman Holmes, Jr. She was not a very good teacher either and left rather quickly. How did she get this reputation as educational leader?
It’s not just TFA. Many of the Teaching Fellows programs led by The New Teacher Project (AKA TNTP, which was founded by Michelle Rhee) are operating in school districts where teachers have been laid off. I recently participated in one of these programs, although I subsequently dropped out once I realized what the program was all about. Prior to the beginning of our 2012 summer training, we received an email co-written by representatives from TNTP and the school district reassuring us that, although the district was gearing up to lay off hundreds of teachers, we would have no trouble securing jobs for the fall.
I think I have an answer, but it a, and they were both outstanding. Now my answer. TFA provides school districts with another pool from which districts can select teachers. Further, these districts know that most of the TFA teachers use their teaching experience as a way to beef up their applications to law,medical and business schools. Because most of the TFA teachers do not make teaching a career, they become a cheaper alternative to the rest of us who would rather do anything but teach.
Very simple answer. TFA teachers do not cost as much. They will not be around long enough to become vested in other teacher benefits, which as we know are also slowly being attacked and attempts made to take them away.
I’m guessing TFA — that’s AFT spelled backwards — also serves the purpose of supplying a cadre of prospective absentee managers, who will be able to claim expertise in education without really trying, but who won’t be polluted with too much sympathy for the plight of those who are dumb enough to remain in the trenches.
I have a problem with TFA being lauded as if it were something like the Peace Corp. Ivy league volunteers headed out to serve the underprivileged. As a teacher I am offended. Teaching is a profession, not a volunteer program. Even though in may cases, we are compensated as if it is a charitable service.
Why are Board Certified teachers being laid off? Why are experienced teachers being replaced by TFAs? There is one answer: money. Sounds simplistic, but it fits with the ongoing war against the 99%. The attackers know what they’re doing. The scandalous, possibly libelous, words and deeds of those who would take down public education are just the tip of the iceberg. The headlines and narratives on education (the recent Campbell incident, for example) and other public assets (entitlements) are but a ruse, a distraction from a super-funded, politically contrived attempt by the 1% to take over all aspects of global capital and transpose all life on the planet to the will of capital.
This sounds way too much like the South Park “They took our jobs” routine.
There are well over 3million full time teachers in this country. There will be 10 thousand TFA teachers this upcoming school year. That is less than .3% of the workforce. That seems like a tiny niche market much more than a hostile take-over.
At the end of the day it comes down to improving student outcomes. I’d let my kids be taught by a monkey if that monkey could help transform them into creative and critical thinkers and positive contributors to society. Like that monkey though, I would demand evaluation and proof that teachers, traditionally trained or not, reliably achieve those outcomes.
Instead of simply dismissing programs like TFA as some sort of domestic outsourcing, you should seek out proof that their methods and approach are having the desired outcomes for low-income students. As long as they can do that even moderately convincingly, they’ve earned their spot in the education community.
If scores on standardized tests are the only outcome measure that matters, then your kids might as well be taught by a monkey. But they won’t be creative and critical thinkers.
Jason:
Your calculations on the ratio of TfA teacher is half right, as I understand it. The 10,000 is new, first year teachers, I believe. There are about 8,000 second year teachers & an unknown quantity of 3rd, 4th, & 5th year students. But you point still stands; about .6% of the whole.
The issues here are not just the numbers, but the objective & the trend. If qualified teachers & nationally certified teachers are being laid off & replaced with TfA candidates, the objective begins to sound more like breaking the union than improving education. The trend appears to be an ever increase trend toward disrespect for teachers & a tendency to treat them all as second class citizen & economic parasites.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the six figure salaries being paid to the top ten staff members of TfA. Not the sort of thing you cone to expect from a program designed to be in service to America.
Why is it acceptable for poor children to be taught by “teachers” with only 5 weeks of training? And why is acceptable if they are only moderately convincing? Schools in poor neighborhoods are not “niche markets” that have unique characteristics best served by inexperience. When TFA is invited into a school in a wealthy neighborhood only then will their model or methods begin to have legitimacy.
Ken and Diana,
Thanks so much for the thoughtful replies.
I agree that it is unfortunate, counter productive and downright sad that the education reform movement that sought to fix the educational inequality in the United States has instead often alienated those closest to our children, veteran teachers.
I also agree wholeheartedly that if school districts are accepting alternatively certified teachers as a way to inexpensively replace high quality veteran teachers, they are doing a great disservice to our children.
On the other hand, if a school could demonstrate that it is laying off its lowest performing teachers in favor of entry level candidates with the greatest potential for success from a competitive pool of traditionally and non- traditionally trained teachers, I wouldn’t be concerned with breaking the union.
To Diana’s.point. Yes, judging teaching effectiveness and student achievement is an extraordinarily challenging task, and building a system solely around test scores is very bad indeed. If you have a proposal for how to do this, or know of an exemplar, please share. If it does nothing else good, the blatant ineffectiveness of test-only strategies will be the motivating factor to find better models.
We need to be cautious to not throw the baby out with the bath water with programs like TFA. Even in the face of it’s imperfection, it has given countless success stories and helped to inject new talent and energy to debates like this one. The fact that TFA has such a high profile given its relatively small market share speaks to the success of it’s activism and advocacy.
TFA is in the awkward pubescent years of it’s lifespan as a business. Past the years of bootstrapping and highlighting small, individual successes. At the same time, not yet solidified as an effective and productive citizen in the grown-up education community.
Instead of being titled, “What’s the purpose of Teach For America?” I think a more appropriate question is, “If TFA is with us for the long haul, what is the best role they can play?”
TFA has the clout to talk top college talent to commit to relocating and serving the most challenging educational settings. TFA has a track record for building a leadership pipeline. TFA has 20 years of alumni at the ready in all sectors to serve and help improve student outcomes. TFA has a brand identifiable to a vast majority of college students. Recently, TFA has a particular focus on recruiting candidates whose backgrounds match those of their students.
So we can use forums like this to wish TFA out of existence, or we can use this opportunity to devise the best methods for leveraging and building on these strengths for the good of our children.
Diane – Very sorry for misspelling your name on your own blog! Very rude of me. Apologies. Thanks for providing such a great forum for discussion!
-Jason
Easy to make a typo. I do it all too often.
Jason:
That’s a huge “if”, as current efforts suggest. Obviously, I don’t feel that your “if” condition can be established, but the matter deserves some serious research. And, even if research does confirm that the “lowest performing teachers” are the ones being laid off, there’s still no research that says the TfA candidates are the greatest potential for success.
Now, I’d appreciate clarification of this remark, “…., I wouldn’t be concerned with breaking the union.” That phrase can be interpreted many ways. I’d like to hear your interpretation, and not jump to conclusions.