Problems with Teach for America and Suggested Solutions

Consider This:

There is a job shortage in America, but a recent solution implemented by the Obama administration has been to create infrastructure jobs through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Its tag line is “Putting Americans to Work”. Consider if, as part of this act, a new organization called The Engineers of America (EoA) was created. Recruits would be degree holders from top universities in America, and their degrees would be proof of their academic success. These degrees would span all majors and disciplines from educators to scientists to linguists to engineers. Motivated by a greater desire to improve America’s roads and bridges, these individuals would apply for and be accepted to EoA by signing a two-year contract. They would participate in a six week training program that would prepare them by teaching skills in planning, structure, and building techniques used to construct bridges in high needs areas where the bridges are dilapidated and unusable. At the end of this training period, EoA recruits would be individually responsible for their creations. Now answer me this - would you willingly drive a car containing your family across a bridge built by a biologist or English major whose only experience in engineering amounted to a six-week crash course? 

The point of my hypothetic scenario is nothing new in the ongoing criticism of Teach for America (TFA) within the field of education. This conversation has become recently relevant to my life in light of my graduation from a four year university with a B.Sc. in English Education. Founder of TFA, Wendy Kopp, was my commencement speaker, and she delivered a speech that was a thinly veiled sales pitch for her organization and life’s work towards reducing the achievement gap, a phrase popularized by her organization. The problem with TFA is not with its well-intentioned ideals, but with its execution. As highlighted above, I take particular fault with the lack of preparation given to those who commit to the program due to its implications for the teaching profession as a whole. 

Insufficient Preparation

Wendy Kopp and TFA perpetuate the myth that: “Those who can do and those who can’t teach”. This is due to the fact that TFA’s six week crash course in education implies that for adults who have been successful students in a specific content area, six weeks is sufficient preparation to make the leap from student to teacher. It is time enough to learn to not only read Individualized Education Program (IEP) reports, but also how to respond to them. Six weeks is allotted for recruits to practice curriculum planning, lesson structures, and classroom management. Unfortunately for both TFA recruits and their future students, six weeks is wholly inadequate. 

Solution: TFA recruits should be required to participate in a full year training period. This method utilized in the United Kingdom in the form of their Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) year, and it is used in some form in US teaching preparation programs in universities. The first half of the year should be devoted to a methods class that runs concurrent with a part time student teaching practicum. Assuming that TFA recruits are well versed in their specific content area because of their past academic success, the early years of a typical university education degree can be ignored because they focus mainly on content. It is the latter years of those university programs that turn toward methods. These methods classes must be coupled with a student teaching practicum as an opportunity for education students to practically apply their knowledge in the classroom. The second half of this year long training period should be dedicated to a full time teaching practicum under the direction of a mentor teacher - hopefully an established TFA member who has demonstrated success in the classroom. Their duel familiarity with the program and with teaching itself would serve new recruits well. The benefits of a student teaching practicum are simple - they allow student teachers to practice their craft under the safety net of a mentor who can offer solutions for classroom problems and step in if lessons are not going well. As it currently stands, new TFA members do not have the benefit of working side-by-side with a mentor teacher in a practicum setting. Though they are said to be observed by TFA throughout their teaching, their first few weeks in the classroom are the first few weeks of the school year, and the inevitable errors rookie teachers make are made at the expense of student learning. Students in high needs areas should not be treated as guinea pigs as TFA recruits begin the trial and error process of entering a profession with inadequate preparation and support. 

Insufficient Time Commitment 

TFA is a two-year commitment, the perfect length of time for recruits to put off law school and undergraduate student loans as they give back to the community. 

Solution: TFA should be a five-year commitment - at least. If the training period explained above was extended to a full year, it would count as the first year in the five year commitment. Yet, TFA prides itself on the large swaths of academically successful adults it is able to recruit, a number which would surely dwindle if the time commitment was extended. Two years is the length of a full time master’s degree in the United States. It is merely 730 days. But by extending the commitment, it would intrinsically weed out those who are fully committed to neither education nor long-term student learning. Those who would sign a five-year contract would most likely have a predisposition to teaching and education. They would be committing to half of decade of education improvement, and the trajectory of their teaching success would hopefully improve. School culture is at stake. High needs areas are identified as such because there is a shortage of high quality teachers in that area. They are often highly urban or rural areas. Requiring only a two year commitment to the program perpetuates the high levels of teacher turnover in these already high needs areas. Schools are unable to establish any degree of stability within their teaching staff if the ongoing cycle of new teachers continues to turn, and it aggravates an already glaring problem in these districts. 

Illogical Placements 

A common misconception of TFA concerns the placement of recruits once they have been accepted into the program. Recruits are asked to rank their desired subject area, location, and grade level. Top choices are not guaranteed. Though a recruit may have been accepted into the program for their exceptional success in chemistry, they may be asked to teach elementary students with special needs. This practice assumes that academic success as a student translates to professional success in any discipline as a teacher. The ability to not only effectively convey information to another individual, but also to differentiate that information among upwards of thirty individuals takes both training and practice, an assertion which highlights the intersection between logical placements and proper training. 

Solution: Place recruits in positions in which they will be best prepared and the most comfortable working in. The example given above of the chemist working with elementary school students with special needs is based on a real life example from a friend. My friend happens to have a degree in English Education, and though he is a trained educator, his experience does not lie with students with special needs - a group that arguably requires teachers with the most specialized training. The best educators have a predisposition toward their chosen level and discipline. Not all educators are created equally, and they cannot be carelessly assembled based on available space and need. Education interviewees will often ask prospective employers if they will be asked to teach outside their discipline - a practice that breeds inadequate education. Rather, teachers of different disciplines should be encouraged to collaborate to strengthen one another lessons instead of stretching their knowledge and experience beyond their capability. 

The Take Aways

TFA and similar programs must first redesign the structure of their training program if they want to increase the effectiveness of their program’s impact. If they are as committed to reducing the achievement gap as their literature suggests, they must consider the impact of their program on alternative factors such as school culture and the teacher turn-over rate. As an educator, I do not want to discourage intelligent adults from entering the profession after they have earned their undergraduate degree, but it cannot be assumed that a successful student can immediately transform into a successful teacher. This requires conscientious practice, reflection, and revision. Extending the length of the TFA contract is a security measure for the program to ensure that recruits are truly committed to TFA’s long-term goals. TFA seeks to utilize the talents of top tier university graduates in the classroom, but this must be accomplished with careful and logical placements. These talents can be highlighted and developed during a yearlong training period under the guidance of a mentor. These talents can be cultivated in the same way an effective teacher cultivates growth in his or her students - but assuming success based on past academic merits is both faulty and dangerous. If my proposed Engineers for America ever came to fruition, the stability of our infrastructure would be at risk. Can the same not be said for our system of education and the students we serve?

There should be an educator discount on alcohol in May.

And chocolate.