Teaching for or against America?

In a previous post on charters, I noted that aside from their very mixed performance, charters seem wasteful because they suppose that you should scrap the entire old public system for a new, semi-public system. The organization Teach for America (TFA), which essentially takes recent graduates of elite universities and puts them in challenging classrooms across the U.S. for two years, seems problematic in the exact same way. It effectively replaces our old set of teachers (many who happen to be more experienced and unionized...and thus expensive) and replaces them with untrained teachers who may be smart and have unbridled passion, but often have little else that qualifies them for teaching (unless they've taught before, TFA corps members receive a 6-8 week "boot camp" in a summer school program as their only experience). I have met some extraordinarily talented TFA corps members who do an amazing job and do beat the odds (just as I've met amazing teachers that went through normal channels), so my critique is of the organization's purpose and goals, not individuals. (full disclosure: I applied and was admitted to TFA in 2010, though I ultimately rejected the position.)


The Issues with Teach for America

A recent Washington Post blog entry by Andrew Hartman on Teach for America, ties the organization and charters in a different way, asserting that both charters and TFA advance a Conservative agenda to privatize education. The author notes that the organization does so by undermining unions (most TFA recruits are low-paid, non-union recruits that can replace a more expensive unionized teacher), by promoting standardized testing as the means to measure whether kids are learning (TFA is very driven on having teachers be able to bridge an achievement gap between rich and poor, minority and white that is only measurable through such tests), by going outside of the political system to make any reform (which is my big concern, given that education is a universal right and public good), and by pretending that regardless of your origins, an enthusiastic enough 22 year old from Harvard can fix your life and send you to college (which I also question as a goal for all kids).

Hartman also notes that the organization fails to deliver on its four stated goals. It is designed to raise the prestige of teaching, yet the organization's existence is predicated on teachers not needing training, many TFA members do not stay beyond the two year commitment and use their participation as a rung in the ladder to higher education. TFA is also designed to accommodate a short-fall of teachers in more challenging schools, yet there is no shortage in teachers applying via normal channels, especially given mass layoffs since 2008. Third, TFA would craft a corps of ambitious professionals armed with experience in challenging environments to "fix the system." This one has proven most true, with many teachers going into policy work (my public policy program at Georgetown was no exception, many of my colleagues were TFA alums), though they have yet to fix the system and seem to perpetuate (if you look at former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee) solutions outside of the system. Finally, TFA is supposed to bridge the so-called "achievement gap" between the wealthy and the poor and between whites and minorities in educational success. Julian Heilig and Su Jin Jiz conducted an extensive study on TFA that found that TFA teachers do only comparably well to normal public school teachers based on their level of education and training.

Put simply, TFA is not delivering. This should not be a surprise, as it is a bandaid solution: you cannot permanently attract cheap, quality teachers with experience and keep them there by supressing their wages, showing they are easily replaceable, signaling that a profession requires no training, and assuming that being poor, living in a dangerous area with no extracurricular resources, and having parents with low education levels (or a parent, or no parents at all) has no impact on a child's success. Teach for America is doing as well as, but not better than, the public school system. If it is duplicative and cannot even offer improved outcomes (except in some cases where TFA taught math better), why duplicate our public school teacher corps?


How Does TFA Compare to the World's Best Education System?

An interesting counterpoint, and one I will likely return to in a future post, is Finland, which is consistently the best performing school system in the world (and also quite equitable). This amazing summary of Finland's model and success by the Atlantic highlights some key features of the Finnish system: there are NO private schools (charters!), schools rely on less homework and almost no standardized testing, teachers are all highly-educated and -trained, teachers are given great autonomy and do their own assessments of student progress, and all students are given access to feeding, health care, and psychological programs. You will note that all of these directly contradict the ideas behind privatizing education through charters and TFA. Promoting such policies will entrench stagnation and inequality in the U.S.


Why TFA Is Worth Fixing

Despite failing (on average) on its mission and feeding into a system of inequality, I still think TFA has accomplished a lot:

• It helped raise the profile of education and appreciation of quality teaching enormously.



• It created a network of highly-educated, dedicated people who are working to improve education policy and administration.



• It helped people of higher-income backgrounds to experience the challenges that have-nots face and understand people different from themselves.



• It has made recruitment for teaching into something that is very competitive even at elite universities without improving the pay (though this, I would argue is temporary and needs to be accompanied by increasing pay with experience).

How Can TFA Be Put to Better Use?

Just as I think it is a waste to give up on the public system, I think it would be equally wasteful to give up on TFA as a force for change IN the public education system. I have some alternative ideas for how the program can be put to better use:

1. Maintain TFA as a recruiter of inexperienced, but very educated university students, but put them in the highest performing classrooms. "WHAT?!" you say? Many TFA recruits are not accustomed to low-income areas or their needs and are really overwhelmed (some quitting before their commitment is up, others simply moving on after two years). If we put an inexperienced teacher in classroom with fewer issues, they can develop classroom experience and become qualified to teach in the worst classrooms. If they have more confidence before entering a difficult classroom, they may be more capable and more likely to stay later on. Meanwhile, I would suggest we use TFA allow Master Teachers with a lot of experience who would be much more likely to do better in a challenging classroom to do a one or two year rotation to a low-income classroom.



2. Use the program to recruit teaching assistants or secondary teachers for more challenging environments (low income, special ed, etc.) so that we can tackle the issue of high classroom sizes and allow students with greater needs to have more resources.



3. Use TFA to start up a system of early childhood education so that students are more likely to get the education they need while they are young that our nation is not delivering on.



4. Tie TFA more closely to Schools of Education to increase the likelihood that corps members stay in Education, that the profile of ALL educators is increased thus drawing more talent, and that TFA recruits receive a stronger network of support and training. I could also see TFA coordinating student teaching for Masters students as a service to Schools of Education that would improve the practicum requirement for rising teachers.



5. Use TFA to recruit for public school systems, but expand their recruitment beyond college graduates to professionals or civil society members who are adept at conveying information and connecting with people in challenging circumstances.

Speak out!

Have you applied for TFA or were you a Corps member? I'd love to hear more about your experience and your ideas for improving the organization.

How else could TFA serve the public education system? What other strengths or weaknesses do you see in the model?

Are Universities Universally Desirable?

All children should go to college, right? You get paid way more and you are guaranteed a job, so it’s a no-brainer. When I look at friends from my Master’s program waiting tables or scrambling to find an internship after paying $75,000 at a “good school," I have to wonder. If our kids often get a subpar basic education and no support to have a goal they pursue in their educational career, why the hell would we send them to college?

So much of what I got out of college and grad school came from learning languages, traveling, working, and volunteering (not from my classes). So much of my love for learning exploded out of me after graduating (this blog is a great example). I look at my job, which is related to my masters, and I realize that I was clearly able to do this job without the “required” masters degree (I started at the same time as grad school and was able to do the same things when I started that I do now). I have to ask, what was the value?

I’ve been asking this of many friends applying to advanced degree programs, much to their chagrin. It is so ingrained that they have never gotten the “well, are you sure you need a Masters?” conversation before. I’m not trying to dissuade them, but to help them focus on what they really want and the best way to get there. Looking at my student loans, I ask the question at least once a month. You'd be surprised to hear how many aimless folks are pouring into grad schools "because the economy is bad, and hopefully it will be better when I get out." Yikes! In this post, I will attempt to dispose of the assumption that college/grad school is desirable for all students.

An appalling study released in January 2011 revealed that a large chunk of students are not learning in college, and many barely study. Apparently, 36% percent of college students make no improvement in critical thinking, reasoning, or writing skills during four years of college (45% of students learn nothing during the first two years of college, which is depressing for those getting 2-year associates degrees or dropping out early with debt but no degree). Much of this probably has to do with students averaging less than 20% of their time in class, studying, or doing homework compared to the over 50% they spend on socializing. Now, I am the first to note how important social development is in college, but you are paying oodles of cash to develop intellectually and cognitively not to shoot the breeze with others who are equally excited to be moving out of years of agonizing puberty.

This raises questions about the constant push to increase the amount of students going to and graduating from college. According to the Obama Website, “President Obama has doubled our investment in scholarships and financial aid so that students from working- and middle-class families can access and complete the college education they need to get the good jobs of the future” (emphasis his, not mine). In fact, policies like these have worked with college enrollment surging from 8.5 million in 1970 to over 20 million in 2009. It is good that Obama is focusing on funding elements of education that do not increase debt for students, while reducing the maximum loan payments in time and amount paid.

That said, Obama’s goal and the status quo it now represents may be quite faulty. Should everyone go to college? I would argue that the answer is no. Should everyone have the opportunity to, most definitely. I think it is really sad, however, that more and more jobs that once required no degree now require a BA, and MA, or a Ph.D. I got my Masters while working at the Department of Labor, and I can honestly say that my Masters was worthless to my job (and I got a job in the exact field I studied for). In many cases, even if the student is learning (that other 64%), what they are learning may not be close to enough for their job. That means you have people locked away in academia either not learning or not learning applicable skills for 4, 6, or even 10 years. That is up to a decade of not supporting themselves, of accruing loan debt, of often not contributing to society and the economy.

I wish more people would question the hegemony of college degrees as the golden ticket. If my plumber can quote Aristotle, that’s great, but he shouldn’t have to study Greek philosophy to do a completely unrelated job…and that’s where we are heading. There is a really interesting blogger James Altucher who notes that there are many ways to learn much more directly at the same or a lower cost than college. He lists 8 different ways of learning beyond high school that are much more productive, integrated with the real world, and diverse enough to cater to a wide variety of learning styles that are not well suited to four more years of education for the sake of a degree. The alternatives can be summarized as “create something, master a skill, or explore and reflect on the world.” Specifically he mentions things like starting a business, writing a book, mastering a skill or a sport, creating art, making people laugh, traveling the world, or volunteering for a charity.

I think some people do well in college, learn a lot, and are able to contribute to society. In the end, they often get their money’s worth. That said, to assume that everyone should or could progress down the same path is not logical. Nobody learns the same way. Further colleges are often distanced (the so-called “bubble” or “ivory tower”) from reality, so solutions developed in the academic vacuum have less practical value than one would hope. Further, with stringent cuts to departments and majors that offer concrete skills or produce products and services (languages, research facilities, etc.), the value of a college degree for those who do learn well is in question. Worse, colleges are accepting more kids without upgrading capacity or increasing teaching staff (this is a big problem in law schools,though not exclusively).

The important thing is to find the learning style that’s right for you, and the learning environment that most helps you develop. I think Altucher offers many great ideas for alternative ways to develop the same skills that college can cultivate. That said, Obama is right to make college more accessible to all people regardless of race or income. For me, college was worth it, but grad school perhaps was not. Each person is different and it would be great if we could encourage these differences. I would now like to see policies that enable people of any level to become entrepreneurs, volunteer, or create value for society in alternative venues if college is not right for them.

Speak out!

• If you didn’t go to college, what would you have done with the time and/or money?
• If you know you aren’t a good school learner but you get a full scholarship, should you still go to college for the sake of it?
• What are some ways to get the most out of your college/grad school education? What are other pursuits besides college that you can think of that would cultivate similar development or skills?
  

Act on it!

• Before you ship your kids off to college or before you yourself decide to apply for a Master’s degree without an actual goal in mind beyond the piece of paper…consider what will really contribute to your goals and if you need to.
• Help a high school kid to identify their goals and understand the financial burdens they may be taking on before they go to college (according to this nifty calculator, turns out I should be making nearly $200k to pay the amount of money I pay per month for my grad school debt…if only!)
• Identify extracurriculars you can take on or specific skills you can develop through your program to ensure that you emerge from college or grad school a more capable and fulfilled person.