Showing posts with label Teach for America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teach for America. Show all posts

Friday, July 8, 2011

An Ordinary Teacher....

....Talks to Teach for America
 
Thanks to (now former) NYC teacher James Boutin for this:
Interesting take on TFA from a former NYC school teacher.
The piece not only drills deep, but the comments/debate goes even deeper.


Here is one of the latter side-bar comments that nail what teachers do and the skills they acquire:
I agree with this entire article save one point: teachers have very marketable skills if they decide to leave teaching. I know: I did it and I was hired because of those skills. I have the ability to manage 20 – 30 unwilling people; I can motivate them and explain tasks to them in a timely manner. I can preplan and be flexible when things (a fire drill, a last-minute assembly) go wrong. I can shift my communication style instantly to match the situation, from slang with the students, to authoritarian, to placating a frantic parent. I can present my ideas clearly and succinctly, able to get to the crux of the message. I am a great record-keeper and my attention to detail is spot on (I started teaching in the days before electronic grade books and had to tally all scores by hand!). I understand how people think and respond. I can get along with all types of people, even those (parents and students alike) who openly dislike me. I can maintain my professional calm in the face of irrational anger. My time management skills are superb, because with only 50 minutes to complete my day’s lesson, I am aware of the value of every second. Finally, I am compassionate and caring and want to see those around me succeed, so I will be a fantastic team player in an environment. In return, all I ask is for a little recognition–one thing that many teachers have to go without, as their students often only realize the value of a great teacher many years later.
 ---------
Lots of goodies here today: Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Follow-up: Comments on Mark Naison Teach for America Post

There has been a lot of reaction to Mark Naison's

Dr. Mark Naison - Teach for America and Me: A Failed Courtship

Some have left comments on the original post. Some have commented on the listserve. I've collated some of them below and will keep adding to them.

Erica:
Mr. Naison,

I am a current Teach for America corps member in the Mississippi Delta. I read your blog earlier today via a colleague (also Black) who teaches at the same school, KIPP Delta College Prep in Helena, Arkansas. I wanted to say that I find your comments dead on, although I risk losing my Americorps stipend for going in-depth about how I feel as a first generation Black college student from the inner-city (Compton, California specially), I will say that I was very disappointed to see the low number of students of color who would be my peers in the organization. Furthermore, I was rather distraught in the beginning with the way that the "achievement gap" is framed through TFA and made it very public, which did not make me too popular, that while we come in as individuals trying to make a difference in the achievement gap, we by no means can look at others as the reason why there is one. That was a very delicate way of getting out what I sensed in the atmosphere, that they, are not "saviors." I could actually go on for hours, so I will digress.

To be completely honest, I sought Teach for America for the wrong reasons. I, too, thought it would help in my quest to apply for law school. After having a wonderful first year of teaching (my class tested science MAP results that put us in the top 20% percent of the nation in science concepts and general science), I'm going to take a big leap and apply to law school in the fall. God willing, I can get into a Southern California institution and I will explain why that area is where I would like to be specifically.  As originally planned, I do not want to attend law school to go into law; I have every intention of committing myself to public policy and public service. I have put heavy thought into starting a non-profit organization that offers the opportunity for ALL students willing to participate, regardless of race from low socio-economic backgrounds, a pathway to college readiness and gets them ACTIVELY thinking about themselves as students who can succeed on a college campus by taking them on trips to universities, studying for the SAT, focusing on their grades and mapping out realistic goals to get them to and through college.

As I think about this idea more and more, I've put heavy thought about getting together a small group of dedicated individuals that would be willing to see something like this happen. Specifically, college graduates of color that I have met through networking as a past Chair of the Black Student Alliance at my university and being involved in planning many California student of color conferences.

I am sharing this because I would like to know your thoughts on this. I plan on returning back to the community where I was born and raised and offering whatever I can because it was done for me. After a year of being in the Delta, I have realized how much I am seen as the "other." I am still a Black woman, still from a low socioeconomic background, but I am still foreign. I think developing a non-profit organization such as this, applying for grants to fund the program, and using grassroots methods of relying on people that I grew up with, that are like me and have attained a degree can be just as powerful as the concept of Teach for America.

I look forward to your response.
Anon:
Amen, Prof. Naison, Amen! It's so good to know I am not the only one who feels this way about TFA. As an administrator at an Ivy-league institution where TFA recruits heavily, I have seen precisely the things you mention. I've had TFA teachers on my staff who have made it clear that teaching in low-income, urban schools was something to do while they studied for the GMAT, LSAT or GRE to enter graduate or professional schools to get to where they really want to be. Most of the ones I've encountered have no intention of pursuing teaching as a career or of having a profound impact on a child's education. For too many of them, (but of course, not all) there is no sense of commitment or altruism. As you state, it's just something that looks good on a resume. For the schools that rely on TFA recruits to fill teaching positions, the 2-year commitment guarantees a lack of dedication and continuity that does students more harm than good.



Wilma:


As an inner-city public school student in Philadelphia, I was exposed many
such "Urban Peace Corps" programs, but we always knew from the beginning
they were just passing through.

Teach For America however is the most insidious of all because students from elite private Liberal Arts Colleges and Ivy League Universities think SO little of public school teachers, they think the presence of their greatness for two years will elevate the "great unwashed students and teachers in urban public schools" to such an extent, a lifelong commitment is not needed.

I am certain many of them find they "cannot hang" as they were not prepared properly by TFA which blows their superior mindset out of the waters.

Still, amongst those who DO try to hang in there and make a difference, the disrespect, frustration and working conditions we teachers count as a given drive many away.

This is all a part of the "Anyone Can Teach" mantra which permits non-teachers of all stripes to dictate to education experts.  Renowned "entre-manures" tour schools and teach one lesson at the chalkboard etc. in an effort to show their commitment to urban education.  Please!

We teachers have allowed this as well, because we want to be accessible to our kids and their families.  It feels awkward to declare ourselves as education experts.

We need to get over this before it is too late!
LOTS MORE BELOW

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Dr. Mark Naison - Teach for America and Me: A Failed Courtship

UPDATED: Sat., June 26, 9AM
This June 23 post has reveived a lot of comment and interest as just about anything on TFA does. In addition to the comments below the post there have been a lot of comments on Mark Naison's listserve. I just posted a bunch of them in a follow-up.
So after reading this and the comments, check back in for lots more:

June 23


The following was sent by Mark Naison to his listserve and has sparked a number of comments which I will compile, post in another blog and keep adding to as the come in. I will post links to this piece and the follow-ups on the side panel.- Norm


   Every spring without fail, a Teach for America recruiter approaches me and asks if they can come to my classes and recruit students for TFA, and every year, without fail, I give them  the same answer:  “Sorry. Until  Teach for America changes its objective to training lifetime educators  and raises the time commitment to five years rather than two, I will not allow  TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in high poverty areas and then after two years, encouraging them to  pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity  rubs me the wrong way”

  It was not always thus. Ten years ago, when a Teach for America recruiter first approached me,  I was enthusiastic about the idea of recruiting my most idealistic and talented students for work in high poverty schools and allowed the TFA representative to make presentations in my classes, which are filled with Urban Studies and African American Studies majors. Several of my best  students applied, all of whom wanted to become teachers, and several of whom came from the kind of high poverty neighborhoods TFA proposed to send its recruits to teach in.

 Not one of them was accepted!   Enraged, I did a little research and found that TFA had accepted only four of the nearly 100 Fordham students who applied. I become even more enraged when I found out from the New York Times that TFA had accepted 44 out of a hundred applicants from Yale that year. Something was really wrong here if an organization who wanted to serve low income communities rejected every applicant from Fordham who came from those communities and accepted half of the applicants from an Ivy League school where very few of the students, even students of color, come from working class or poor families.

Since that time, the percentage of Fordham students accepted has marginally increased, but the organization has done little to win my confidence that it is seriously committed to recruiting people willing to make a lifetime commitment to teaching and administering schools in high poverty areas.
Never, in its recruiting literature, has Teach for America described teaching as the most valuable professional choice that an idealistic, socially conscious person can make, and encourage the brightest students  to make teaching their permanent career. Indeed, the organization does everything in its power to make joining Teach for America seem a like a great  pathway to success in other, higher paying  professions. Three years ago, the TFA recruiter plastered the Fordham campus with flyers that said “Learn how joining TFA can help you gain admission to Stanford Business School.” To me, the message  of that flyer was “use teaching in high poverty areas a stepping stone to a career in business.”  It was not only profoundly disrespectful of every person who chooses to commit their life to the teaching profession, it advocated using students in high poverty areas as guinea pigs for an experiment in “resume padding” for ambitious young people

In saying these things, let me make it clear that my quarrel is not with the many talented young people who join Teach for America, some of whom decide to remain in the communities they work in and some of whom become lifetime educators. It is with the leaders of the organization who enjoy the favor with which TFA  is regarded with  captains of industry, members of Congress, the media, and the foundation world, and have used this access to move rapidly to positions as heads of local school systems, executives in Charter school companies,  and educational analysts in management consulting firms. The organization”s facile circumvention of the grinding, difficult but profoundly empowering work of teaching and administering schools has created the illusion that there are quick fixes , not only for failing schools, but for deeply entrenched patterns of poverty and inequality. No organization has been more complicit that TFA in the demonization of teachers and teachers unions, and no organization has provided more “shock troops” for Education Reform strategies which emphasize privatization and high stakes testing. Michelle Rhee, a TFA recruit, is the poster child for such policies, but she is hardly alone.

Her counterparts can be found in New Orleans ( where they led the movement toward a system dominated by charter school)  in New York ( where they play an important role in the Bloomberg Education bureaucracy) and in many other cities.

 And that  elusive goal of educational equity.   How well has it advanced in the years TFA has been operating? Not only has there been little progress, in the last fifteen years, in narrowing the test score gap by race and class, but income inequality has become greater, in those years, than any time in modern American history.   TFA has done nothing to promote income redistribution, reduce the size of the prison population, encourage social investment in high poverty neighborhoods, or revitalize arts and science and history in the nation’s schools. It’s main accomplishment has been to marginally increase the number of talented people entering the teaching profession, but only a small fraction of those remain in the schools to which they were originally sent.

But the most objectionable aspect of Teach for America –other than its contempt for lifetime educators- is its willingness to create another pathway to wealth and power for those already privileged,  in the rapidly expanding Educational Industrial Complex, which offers numerous careers for the ambitious and well connected.  An organization which began by promoting idealism and educational equity has become, to all too many of its recruits, a vehicle for profiting from the misery of America’s poor.

Dr Mark Naison

Fordham University

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Julie Cavanagh Defends LIFO in Response to Teach for America Attempt to Silence Voice of Rank-and-File Teachers on Today's LIFO Panel

As I reported (Teach For America New York presents: A (Biased) panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy in New York State)  classroom teacher Julie Cavanagh was tossed off a TFA panel and replaced by the UFT's Leo Casey (if anyone goes to this event please take notes on how Leo defends LIFO, it at all).

Here is what Julie would have said if she were on the panel, followed by her correspondence with TFA officials. While I don't agree with everything she has to say I am looking forward to GEM having its own panels on issues such as LIFO and teacher evaluation systems that would make sense.



Teach for America Silences Voices of Rank-and-File Teachers on LIFO Panel

by Julie Cavanagh
Special education teacher, PS 15, Brooklyn, member Grassroots Education Movement (GEM)

April 12, 2011

Two weeks ago I was invited to appear on a panel regarding seniority rights. The panel was being organized by Teach for America. I quickly accepted the opportunity to bring the voice of the rank-and-file teacher to the issue. A few days after I accepted, I received another email and was informed that despite my interest there would no longer be room on the panel for me because Leo Casey, UFT VP of High Schools, would be joining the panel. When one of my fellow GEM members informed Leo Casey, he said he would contact the TFA folks and tell them I should be on the panel. Needless to say, the TFA folks have not responded to the email I sent to them. (See correspondence in separate cover).

Since I am a 'T' in UFT, and since there is not one full-time public school educator on a panel that is discussing the pros and cons of seniority rights for full-time public school educators, I am disappointed and disturbed. I can't help but think that the removal of the only real teacher voice from the panel is intentional. Shame on the organizers of this event for silencing the teacher voice in this conversation!

I recently had the opportunity to make the case for LIFO in a debate with a member of E4E on NY1's "Inside City Hall" (http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=134963) and would have loved the opportunity to reiterate and expand on those points tonight. Here is some of what I would be saying tonight at the TFA panel were I not dis-invited:

Before I begin, I'd like to point out that many teacher tenure and seniority laws predate the right of teachers to bargain collectively by many years. (The UFT was not founded until 1960). These laws were passed due to rampant corruption in hiring and firing practices and were designed to protect academic freedom and basic constitutional rights.

1. Seniority rights protect not only teachers, but children.
Teachers are often the strongest advocates for their children, all too often coming up against their supervisors in doing so. Without seniority rights, teachers would be susceptible to arbitrary lay-offs based on a myriad of possibilities including race, sexuality, politics, or advocacy for children and/or parents. In my more than ten years in the classroom, and in policy and advocacy work over the last several years I have seen countless dedicated and excellent educators attacked, harassed, given U-ratings, and in some cases pushed out of the school system as retribution by administrators. Children benefit from the only objective process that keeps their teachers from being silenced, unable to speak out, or defend their rights and advocate for proper learning and classroom conditions.

2. I flatly reject any evaluation or lay-off system that is tied to test scores especially the inclusion of a merit pay system.
Over the last year in particular, the unreliability of test scores have been exposed. We have seen mountains of research, including the Vanderbilt and EPI studies respectively, point out that merit-pay schemes and other test-score-based performance measures do not have a positive impact on student achievement. Standardized tests often do little more than measure socioeconomic status, narrow our curriculum and turn our schools into inhumane places that make teaching and learning horrific experiences for teachers and students alike. I left the testing grade this year because I no longer wanted to be complicit in what I consider to be the systematic abuse of my children, particularly children with special needs. I say this as a teacher with a 'teacher report card' with a 99% rating. I am all for accountability, but until we develop objective and meaningful measures to hold teachers accountable, seniority rights for lay-offs is the only way to ensure both educators and students are protected. In terms of evaluations, I refuse to be forced into a scenario where we say the current system is flawed so therefore we must quickly make changes and move to yet another flawed system. If we are going to change the way we evaluate educators, let's do it the right way. Let standardized test scores be minimized, or better yet, no factor at all in any new evaluation system. Remember, assessment is supposed to be a diagnostic tool used to drive instruction, not used as a punitive measure to determine the value of teachers, children, and schools.

3. Experience Matters.
All the research shows that experience matters. If we want to make decisions about what teachers to keep in the profession, we have to look at what the research overwhelmingly shows: teachers with five or more years experience are better for children than teachers with less than five years experience. The Star Report highlights this particularly well because it does not just rely on test scores (which I mentioned already I question) but it also looks at adult income levels (not that I believe making money is the key to happiness, but it certainly is a key to survival and therefore the most basic measure of success). *(Research on teacher experience can be found at www.parentsacrossamerica.org.)

4. The attack on LIFO is quite simply union busting.
The corporate reformers who are behind the attack on LIFO and interestingly behind the two organizations featured on the TFA panel (Students First and E4E) are quite simply anti-union. A blind belief in the free market does not allow them to see beyond their own needs and benefits; it colors their lenses green with one central focus: money. Cost containment and unfettered top-down control are at the roots of the attack on LIFO and anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't understand the issue or is engaging in misdirection. Getting rid of teacher protections is the only way that corporate reformers can continue to privatize our public education system. Unions are the only institution that can stand in their way, along with the voting public who are growing more aware of the true intentions of the corporate reformers. I believe there are well-intentioned people who support ending LIFO — dedicated teachers who inevitably have had to work with a teacher who was not as dedicated as them, as one example. But the drive to end LIFO (and the funding for it) is not coming from these teachers or from well-intentioned individuals. Rather it is born out of a national movement to change our school system into a 'portfolio', into a consumer-driven, profit margin aware, business-like entity. We are entering very dangerous territory. Just look at the number of stories emerging of abusive principals who target certain teachers who stand up to them or do not pay the proper fealty. When this happens to even one teacher it brings a cloud over the security of every teacher. Even if your current principal is fine, there are enough loose cannons out there and it takes just a change in leadership to turn a "safe" school into a school from hell. Let us remember why we have unions: protection. Let us remember why we must have these protections: a history of child labor, unsafe conditions, unfair wages, no healthcare, no pension or other retirement support mechanisms. Instead of attacking teachers for having union protections, we should be demanding that ALL workers have these protections.

5. Ending seniority rights will have a disproportionate and negative impact on our disappearing black and Latino educators.
Does racial discrimination still exist in our society? Contrary to what E4E's position paper on this issue falsely claims, under the Bloomberg Administration our Black and Latino teachers have been disappearing at an alarming rate (new hires of Black teachers dropped from 28% to under 14% over 8 years). Seniority rights is one of the last protections we have that we know for sure will maintain the tragically low number of Black and Latino teachers we have left. In a system that serves more than 80% children of color, it is unacceptable that more than 70% of its educators are white. In addition to this issue, we already have an attrition problem here in NYC, more than 40% of our teachers leave with less than six years in! Knowing the value of having Black and Latino teachers for Black and Latino students and knowing the value of experienced educators, it is quite shocking the focus is on how to get rid of teachers easier, rather than on how to attract and retain teachers in general, and particularly, teachers of color.

6. There is no legitimate evidence that seniority rights as a system-wide determinant for lay-offs has a negative impact on our public education system.
Yes, you can find anecdotal evidence to hold up a given less experienced educator next to a more experienced educator and say, given these two, the less experienced educator looks better. But system-wide the research clearly shows that is not true. When difficult decisions like layoffs must be made (which I would argue in this case are unnecessary and manipulated for political reasons) they have to be made on a system-wide basis — in the collective interest. We are moving into dangerous ground when the individual assumes more importance than the collective. The nature of our work as educators makes us very interconnected. How we value our schools, our teachers, and workers' rights are important factors in making sure we preserve our ability to build a society rather than simply a random assortment of individuals in competition with each other. Schools must be collaborative places. Schools must be places where educators feel safe to speak up and speak out.



Finally, let me talk about what I am for, and I hope that folks will join in this conversation, because if we don't propose the kinds of systems we would like for evaluations and lay-offs, the issue will be decided for us by people who have little knowledge or understanding. I will keep my thoughts very simple. Please, please share yours:

1. Lay-offs
We should maintain seniority rights for lay-offs because it is the only objective way to release and re-hire teachers in an orderly and rational manner. The research shows that system-wide this is what benefits children because experience matters. This is the only way to ensure that lay-offs are not used politically or economically in order to cleanse the system of either outspoken or experienced/more expensive teachers. LIFO also protects even fairly new teachers, assuring even 2nd and 3rd year teachers they will keep their jobs over some first year teacher with "connections" while assuring an orderly call-back in case there are layoffs (which in fact there rarely ever been in the entire over hundred year history of the NYC school system.)

2. Evaluations
We must empower school-communities. We should look at Deb Meier's work in some of her pilot schools, and consider those models. I believe in school-based boards that are comprised of parents, teachers, school staff, and administration. I believe these boards should have oversight over teacher evaluation, administrator evaluation, and budgeting. I believe evaluations should be judged based on classroom observations, student input when appropriate, parent satisfaction, and some measure of data. I would like to see a teacher evaluated based on authentic student reading levels over a period of time along with portfolios of student work showing students' individual growth and progress rather than the snapshot we get from standardized test scores.

The views expressed here are my own.
Please feel free to contact me to continue the dialogue: gemnyc@gmail.com.

SEE MY LIVE BLOGS FROM THE PANEL DISCUSSION AND FOLLOW-UPS

At TFA LIFO Panel Part 1

TFA LIFO Panel Part 2

TFA LIFO Afterthoughts -Part 1- and Response to Gotham Report

Ed Notes in Bid Against Bill Gates for Educators 4 Excellence's Sydney Morris

 

Correspondence between Julie Cavanagh and TFA LIFO Panel Organizers

Invite
Hi there,
Brian De Vale who is a principal here in New York City recommended that we get in touch with Ms. Cavanaugh regarding a panel discussion on the LIFO Teacher Lay-off policy here in New York that Teach For America is hosting for our alumni teachers and principals. It will be held at the Urban Assembly School for Design and Construction on Tuesday April 12th at 6:30p.m. Given her outspoken, grassroots work in schools and on school issues to date, we think she would bring a thought –provoking perspective to the conversation and would like to invite her to join the panel. Could you please forward this request to her? Much appreciated! The panel currently consists of the following people and will be moderated by Lindsey Christ of NY 1:

Dr. Pedro Noguera (NYU)
Eric Lerum (StudentsFirst)
Educators 4 Excellence

We imagined the success of this conversation rooted in having a voices that represent all sides of the debate around LIFO policy to create a lively and thought-provoking conversation for the folks that attend. Ms. Cavanagh would be a great addition. I look forward to hearing back from her.
Best,
Deepa

Deepa Purohit
Coordinator, Alumni Affairs
Teach For America - New York
(Email) deepa.purohit@teachforamerica.org
www.teachforamerica.org

Dis-invite:
Hi Julie,
Thanks so much for your interest in participating in our panel. We had originally invited Michael Mulgrew from the UFT and did not hear back from him till this weekend. He has a scheduling conflict but has asked Leo Casey (VP, Academic High Schools) to represent him and the UFT. So, at this point our panel is full. My apologies as we did not have this information when gauging your interest on Friday. We hope that you are still able to attend the event, however. We would love to have you. We'll also be doing more events over the year and definitely keep you in mind should you want to participate formally in the future.
Thanks,
Jeff

My reply:
Hello,
I understand the procedural dilemma here, however I do think it is unfortunate that a rank and file member of the UFT, who has much stronger views on this issue that are not represented on the panel, is being bumped off after having been invited (I didn't express interest, I was asked).
I don't intend to sound curt here, however, it is disappointing that a panel which is being billed as a full discussion including all perspectives on lifo, will not be so, as the representatives on your panel will not fully defend seniority rights, which I, and the overwhelming majority of educators in NYC and beyond, fully support.

Thank you for the original invitation.

All the best,
Julie Cavanagh

Teach For America New York presents: A (Biased) panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy in New York State

Julie Cavanagh was invited and then dis-invited and replaced by the UFT's Leo Casey, who will not defend LIFO but argue the case against layoffs. Look for Julie's response to the organizers later today and her in depth defense of LIFO - what she would have said if she had not been tossed off the panel. So you have Sydney from E4E, a rep from Michelle Rhee's organization, a reporter who is supposedly neutral, Noguera who can be pretty good but where he stands on LIFO might be problematical and Leo Casey.
Yes, a stacked deck, but do the people running TFA really want them to hear a real classroom teacher like Julie instead of a union official, who will try to paint the union as a reasonable reformer - or deformer?  

I love Lindsay Christ as a reporter - and she is a former teacher - but she is or has to be neutral. Pedro Noguera mostly makes a lot of sense but does often run on the edge of ed deform. But it is a TFA event which they use to politicize their members to their ed deform point of view - but then TFA is all about politics rather than education.

This event came across our radar over a week ago when a principal who was invited to defend LIFO (hey, why ask a teacher?) couldn't make it and actually suggested me as a replacement. Now would I venture onto a panel with an E4E AND a Michelle Rhee-er without bringing a knife - and probably using it?

But as TFA alumna Anna Martin says in her dynamic 3 part series:
Of course, not only Teach for America teachers come and quickly leave, but it’s hard not to see fault with a two-year sell-by date. In fact, if a corps member is perceived as effective after the two-year commitment, then they are often almost immediately recruited out of the classroom to work for Teach for America or to begin funneling into the school leadership pipeline. After my fourth year of teaching in the same school, TFA realized that I wasn’t budging and stopped hinting. Something feels wrong about an organization that draws its most talented teachers out of their classrooms to help achieve its vision.


Teach For America New York
presents
Who Should Teach Our Students?
A panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy 
in New York State 

Dr. Pedro Noguera 
Professor of Education - New York University

Leo Casey
VP Academic High Schools - United Federation of Teachers

Lindsey Christ 
Education Reporter - NY 1

Eric Lerum
Engagement Manager - StudentsFirst

Sydney Morris 
Co-Founder, Executive Director - Educators 4 Excellence

While most people agree we should try to avoid massive budget cuts to education, opinions vary on what teacher layoffs should look like if they become a reality-and many signs indicate that teacher layoffs in New York City are imminent for the first time in three decades. To date, much of the conversation has focused on the "if", but given the current reality, this conversation will examine the "how" by presenting and debating the merits of alternative teacher layoff proposals currently being considered in the New York State Assembly and Senate.
Time: Tuesday, April 12, 6:30p-8:30p

Location:  
Urban Assembly School for Design and Construction
525 West 50th Street, 4th Floor (between 10th and 11th Avenues)

RSVP here: to reserve a seat for this event now!

Sunday, April 10, 2011

A TFAer Who Hasn't Jumped Ship

"When a student or former student brings in their younger sibling, a toddler or 5th grader, they believe me when I talk about having them in my class someday."
- Anna Martin, A love-hate relationship with Teach for America - Part 1: The 2-Year Commitment

I'm fascinated by the ruminations of Teach for America alums who remain in the classroom (not just "education" as TFA likes to brag). My co-blogger M.A.B. is one of them.

Valerie Strauss featured an article by 7-year TFAer Anna Martin who has remained in her original placement school for the entire time, apparently one of the few TFAers to do so. As someone who spent 27 years on one school, I can appreciate the points Anna made. Teachers being rooted in the community is a no-no for the ed deformers as is the very concept of community-based schools. How would the Eva Moskowitz's of this world make any headway of there were effectively functioning community based schools?
Being the rare bird who has stayed with my placement for seven years gives me a unique, if slightly tortured perspective.
I didn’t migrate when the administrative leadership at the school changed, not once, but four times, as administrators are wont to do in the kind of low-income, high-need districts where TFA places their young teachers.
I haven’t flown the coop as all four other corps members from my year placed at my school finally did – or the 10 other corps members from later years who have come and gone during my time here. Many have stayed four or five years, itself a small miracle in terms of TFA’s teacher lifespan at placement schools. Some were forced out by weird district forces that are symptomatic of the need for change.
But why, I frequently ask myself when thinking rationally about career trajectories and multi-hour commutes, can’t I bring myself to leave?
I think the answer lies in the one issue that almost kept me from accepting TFA’s offer in the first place: my uneasiness with only committing two years to a community.
It seemed presumptuous to assume that I could come in, transform kids’ lives, and leave again two years later. I was skeptical then — and at this point I don’t think it can be done. I don’t believe two years is enough, which is why seven years later, I think my school community still needs me and other teacher leaders committed to staying and making change where change is needed most.
Even though TFAers are encouraged to stay in education, though not the classroom, as policy-makers, Anna also points out that even those who stay at the teaching level do a lot of school-to-school hopping, not conducive to setting down community-based roots.
 Interestingly, at the summit’s opening caucus, Wendy announced that over 3,000 of the 10,800 people in attendance were current corps members. Don’t try to tell me they were all just there for the free drink tickets. Nope. As the hiring booths and flyers advertising for alum to come teach at new schools attested, I believe the majority were looking for their next job prospect after finishing their initial two-year commitment.
 
If Anna stays through more than one generation she may have the pleasure of teaching her students' children (how many did I see have babies at 14?) Or their grandkids. Or ---

Read the entire series.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
--------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Teach for America 20th Anniversary Alumni Summit: Conclusions, Questions, and other Ruminations

by M.A.B (The Summit Blogger)

When the opportunity arose to attend the 20th Anniversary Teach for America Summit, I wasn’t inclined to participate. But I was curious how TFA would present itself and what its messages would be. With a bit of trepidation, I agreed to go with a friend with an idea to do some live blogging to capture my spontaneous reactions. [See below to inks to blogs].

As TFA alum who did not leave the classroom after my two year stint, I didn’t have any illusions about what I was walking into ­– that attending this summit would be an adventure. I would hear things that made me angry. The education reform conversation would champion charter schools. Conversations would likely be one-sided. My stomach would churn when the likes of Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein grabbed the microphone. TFA would self-promote, self-congratulate and try to “inspire” us all. I knew all of this before I left for D.C. yet I was still shocked by what I saw and heard.

I joined Teach for America in 2006. I wanted to study education in college but the program offered by the school of education did not attract me. Instead, I enrolled in an individualized study program and designed my own curriculum. I took classes in philosophy, psychology, urban studies and education. When I graduated I was very satisfied with the depth and content of my program. I wanted to be a public school educator, but I had a major problem—no teaching license. I naively took a position as an assistant teacher (“educational associate” was the fancy business name the school gave this position) at a new charter school. The school was quite dysfunctional and its leader had little experience. I was fired after a year for asking too many questions. (I’ll write more about this in another post soon.) From there, I went on to work at a brilliant, but private, Montessori preschool. TFA was a short cut to becoming a teacher in the NYC the public school system.

From the beginning I had mixed feelings about Teach for America. Its mission was based on a good enough idea, but I always viewed it as a bit too grand. How could an organization that placed people in the classroom for only two years truly put an end to educational inequity? Sure, it claimed the two years would “inspire” its members to dedicate themselves to education in one way or another, but it seemed a flawed plan. What our children need most is consistency—at home and in school. TFA places teachers in schools that often already struggle with turnover and desperately need educators who will stick. Could teachers trained for only 5 weeks be in the best position to help our neediest children? Of course the majority of one’s learning as a teacher comes from the experience of being in the classroom, but it takes more than two years to truly fine-tune the craft. Wasn’t it naïve of TFA to claim its teachers would revolutionize these schools? In my mind, TFA had many shortcomings, but my fellow corps members did appear to have pure and honest intentions and a real desire to contribute something positive.

I completed TFA’s intensive five week training institute and began teaching kindergarten at a school in the South Bronx. I went to the TFA graduate school classes and met with my TFA adviser when necessary, but I never clung to the organization or its teachings. I was learning every day in the classroom from my students and fellow teachers. I didn’t get wrapped up in TFA’s philosophy and viewed it mainly as a vehicle towards my certification and career in public education.

I was constantly frustrated by TFA’s placement of teachers in charter schools and the incessant discussion about what we would all do “after our two years”. I wanted TFA to focus on our public schools and to push people to stay in the classroom. And I stated this on every feedback form I ever filled out. (And there were a lot!) Public education is one of the pillars of our democracy, but TFA never truly seemed to champion this notion. It talked about changing our students’ lives through high expectations, dedication and commitment (and the use of data, data, data), and constantly told us we could close the “achievement gap.”

Over the years since completing my TFA assignment, I had seen the organization aligning itself more and more with the corporate reform movement—a movement that blatantly seeks to uses competitive, free-market business principles to improve our schools. I was baffled. Was this Wendy Kopp’s intention all along? Had the organization simply been co-opted by its “benevolent” funders?


Charter Schools and Privatization

I expected the charter presence to be strong and forceful at the summit, but, by the end of the day, it felt like the only force. How did other public school teachers feel about this? Did they leave feeling left out? Offended, like me? Did they leave with bags full of charter gear and brochures, contemplating a move from public to charter?

The story of the public school educator was generally missing. Randi Weingarten was present but hardly painted public school educators and their unions in a good light. One session showcased public school educators who had dedicated themselves to the classroom above and beyond their two-year commitments. But overall the conversations presented were one-sided, slanted and misleading. No one spoke about the need for public schools to be empowered to innovate. No one acknowledged the inherent problems of a privatized system. No one spoke about the incessant attacks on teachers. No one spoke of the other factors that impact student learning. No one spoke of the things (lack of resources, high class sizes, lack of support, the over-focus on test scores, etc.) that truly stand in the way of our public schools succeeding.

A couple of speakers pointed out that charter schools do not educate all children, but this wasn’t discussed at length nor was it brought forth as a serious concern. While I could not attend every session offered, the line-ups for nearly all panels included charter school leaders, teachers or promoters with little or no dissenting voices. (Ten public school educators were listed in the summit program’s list of over 100 speakers.)

In addition to their over-representation on summit panels, charter schools were busy promoting themselves all day. They handed out buttons, stickers, bags, necklaces, water bottles, and even sunglasses, all emblazoned with their logos. Achievement First tagged the sidewalks around the conference center with its emblem. KIPP placed logoed chocolate squares on all of the 11,000 seats before the day’s closing plenary session. Easels held posters advertising meet-and-greets with charter school operators. Fancy brochures promoting the joys of working in a charter school were in all of our “gift bags.” Many charter school employees walked around wearing branded shirts and jackets. Forget NIKE and Adidas, NOBLE and KIPP were the big names in fashion this weekend. Charter education was a product at the summit. It was wrapped, packaged and pushed in our faces. Why is this self-promotion necessary? Is their teacher turnover so high that they are left with no other choice than to push their brand so desperately? Or was it simply an “I’m better than you” contest to see who could outdo the other? My public school doesn’t even have money to buy crayons or copy paper, much less make our own chocolate squares.

Charter schools are a reform I cannot support for many reasons, but the central one is because of what they represent—the privatization of one of our most important public institutions. Access to a free and quality public education is a right—it isn’t something we should have to win in a lottery. It is something we have a right to be a part of. Charter schools are governed privately, with little or no oversight. They are allowed to get rid of students they do not know how or are not willing to serve. I was disturbed by how the summit speakers did not acknowledge privatization as a legitimate concern. One moderator said, “Charters are seen as privatizing education…How do we bring [charter schools] into the public dialogue and change that perception?”

TFA has always presented itself to its corps members as a very knowledgeable and reflective organization. When it is out front like this, pushing an agenda of privatization, I worry about its impact. What did the other alumni walk away with? Were they convinced, like Bill Gates, that charter schools are the only hope? (“Thank god for charters because there is NO hope for innovation in the standard system,” he has said.) The public system hasn’t been offered a true chance to innovate and succeed. Resources are being stripped from our public schools left and right—how can we succeed without the funds and support we need?


Rah-Rah vs. Reality
If we are all thinking alike then we aren’t really thinking.

Riding back to New York on a bus full of TFA alums on Sunday, I heard one word more than any other: “inspired.” Emails came in the next day as well encouraging us all to share our “inspiring” summit stories on tfanet.org. But I wasn’t inspired. What was it that so many people there found inspirational? Was it sitting in a room with 11,000 seemingly like-minded individuals? Was it the floorshow provided by men in Asian outfits stir-frying noodles on raised platforms during the receptions? Was it the lineup of speakers at the day’s opening and closing plenary sessions? Was it listening to big names like Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Geoffery Canada and Kaya Henderson? Was it John Legend’s performance?

How could my reaction be so very different from the majority of people I spent the day with? When I sat in the plenary sessions I felt disgusted by many of the people TFA trotted out onto the stage. In the name of educational equity, they promoted Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, Geoffery Canada and the KIPP schools leaders whose efforts have actually increased educational inequity in the cities where they worked. Klein worked relentlessly to close struggling public schools in New York rather than support them. Rhee fired D.C. teachers with great enthusiasm without considering what might actually be done to improve the process of teaching and learning. Canada operates a network of hedge fund backed charter schools that have been shown to counsel out students who do not perform. KIPP schools have been accused of using overly authoritarian practices, counseling out students and falsely promoting their graduation rates. (It’s not a 100% graduation rate if 50% of the students left.)

This is what I thought about when these people took the stage. But most everyone around me was clapping for Klein. They laughed lightheartedly at things Michelle Rhee said and they called Canada an inspirational man. How could our reactions be so different? Unfortunately the day offered little time for interaction and conversations of this nature, so was I left only to speculate and question. Time between sessions was limited and getting around the convention center proved time consuming, while the panels themselves were structured in a way that didn’t foster dialogue within the audience. We sat back and we listened. Is this exemplary pedagogy?

When I first joined TFA I was overwhelmed by its messaging. It bombarded us with lingo, catch phrases and worked to get us to adopt its philosophy. Many corps members actually joked about this, especially TFA’s affinity for acronyms. Looking back on these experiences I realize that TFA always presented itself as such an authority—we were provided with the information and there was very little questioning of their approach. In many areas, the organization promoted important and valid ideas. We had to hold our students to high expectations. Check. We had to have clear, focused, and productive lesson plans. Good idea. We needed to consider our students backgrounds and family lives in our approach. Of course. We needed to approach teaching with rigor, dedication and commitment. Certainly. These were good things to drill into our heads. But now TFA was presenting a narrow and unreflective vision of what was needed to improve our country’s schools. Was no one else bothered by this approach? Did anyone hunger for some real dialogue as I did?

What frustrated me most about the ideas touted at the plenary sessions was their vagueness. Wendy Kopp pronounced, “Incremental change is not enough, we need transformational change.” Klein soon followed and told us that transformational change wasn’t enough—we needed “radical change” in education. People around me applauded and cheered. But what did their statements even mean? Testimonies continued in this empty, but seemingly motivational fashion. In the evening, in a prerecorded message to the group, President Obama talked about the importance of teachers and the key role they play in shaping the lives of our nation’s children. Of course, this was nice to hear, but what policies have we seen Obama promote that really help teachers or support our work?

By the end of the day, I felt defeated, not inspired. How could anyone be inspired by the mirage TFA had created? But what was I to do? Should I shame TFA for presenting these narrow views or its alumni for settling for what they were being told?

After spending the day blogging about the summit and my reactions, I received some interesting feedback from other TFA alumni. One wrote that she was also disappointed by TFA’s overall message, but focused mainly on my lack of agreement with TFA. I was asked why I had even come to the event if I didn’t agree. I responded with questions as to why my opinions were so alarming. Shouldn’t our educational system focus on fostering divergent thinking? Shouldn’t an organization that claimed its mission to be education-based encourage debate and diversity of opinion? Were my critics just reacting defensively because I challenged something they viewed as so perfect?

I felt like an outcast during the summit – that no voice on the panels I attended represented my points of view. I was looked upon with disdain as I attempted to distribute literature exposing the truth about charter schools in New York City. I was surrounded by 11,000 people, yet I felt almost completely alone.


Corporate Cooption?

Flipping through the summit brochure as I rode back on the bus, I noted the hefty donations from groups and individuals I have seen promoting the corporate reform agenda. Twenty million dollar donations had been received from the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, the Robertson Foundation and others. The summit’s first listed sponsors were Ford, Bill and Melinda Gates and State Farm Insurance. Other sponsors included Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx, Comcast, Fidelity Investments, Wells Fargo, Prudential and Chevron. Reading this list of sponsors and funders made me think deeply about where TFA gets its philosophy. Who was driving its decisions, its philosophy, and its message at the summit? Its board of directors contains a wide mix of individuals—many university and college presidents/professors, leaders and CEO’s from various industries, one TFA alum, and of course, John Legend—but do they shape TFA or does that money so benevolently donated come at a price?

Having read one of Wendy Kopp’s books and been through her program, it seemed that TFA was started with very pure and honest intentions. Did Kopp foresee her organization becoming co-opted by corporate interest? Did she envision aligning herself and her organization with the movement to privatize our nation’s schools? How did this unfold?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised at all. Our cities have been going through the same process of cooption for years. Governments should be run like businesses, we are told. Corporations are taking more and more control and perhaps TFA has simply fallen prey like so many others. The donations coming into TFA are enormous, but are ideals being sacrificed for money? And how long will these donations keep pouring in?


How to move from criticism to conversation

After a day of feeling alone and alienated, I wondered how, if at all, I could engage with my fellow alums about what I saw as TFA’s many missteps. I was sure there were others who would sympathize with my perspective, but I knew (especially after receiving comments on my blog posts) that there were huge and seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion. But I couldn’t allow myself to think that our differences were irreconcilable, could I? The summit didn’t offer enough time for dialogue with fellow alums and I wasn’t sure how to start such a presumably difficult conversation. But I think it is these conversations and efforts that are the most crucial. I know that most of the 11,000 people I sat with in the convention center joined TFA for a good reason—they see education inequity as a problem and wanted to help do something about it. My intention is not to demonize the corps members of TFA, but to ask them to think critically about what they heard at the summit and the message TFA puts forth. It is my hope that we can perhaps begin a true, honest, and critical dialogue.

A place to start could be with questions raised in a summit session on Segregation in America. Pedro Noguera (a Professor of Education from NYU and perhaps the only critical voice at the summit) challenged the “choice” movement and strongly argued that the current reform movement is leaving the neediest students behind to be educated by the least experienced teachers. He said TFA is complicit—aware this is happening, yet continuing without altering its path. He said education is inherently political, far from the narrow view of education put forth by TFA.

I work with educational activists in New York and it is often a struggle to dialogue with those with whom we do not see eye to eye. But if we hope for anything to change, we must begin with learning to listen to each other and finding the things—like our belief that children deserve better—that we can all agree on.


M.A.B. has been a New York City public school Kindergarten teacher for 5 years. Previous to this she worked in a charter school and a Montessori Preschool. She has been involved with the Grassroots Education Movement for the past 2 years.


Posts from Teach for America Summit Blogger

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit

Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten

Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session

Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

More on the TFA Summit

"You ask us what we are "doing." We're teaching, every day, just as we have been for years and hope to continue to, unlike the overwhelming majority of TFAers who parade their passion, their excellence, their commitment to children and then...stop...teaching. But after all, TFA is not really about teaching is it? No, as Wendy Kopp herself says, it's about "leadership." In other words, it's really about identifying, training and grooming cadre and leaders for developing policy, managing the schools, and instituting the business model of its funders, which is by its nature anti-democratic."
Michael Fiorillo responding to comments on TFA Summit blogger

Our TFA Summit Blogger's posts on Saturday has gotten quite a response and some interesting channels have opened up. I'm trying to entice Summit Blogger to do a regular gig here at Ed Notes. The two of us are co-editors of the GEM newsletter and we work very well together.

So, here is another view of the TFA summit from another blogger. As you'll see, this blogger is a former Tweedie and a proud supporter of TFA, though she does have misgivings, which she may blog about.

Somehow through some strange Twilight Zone events, we have gotten to know each other a bit. Though I'm often rabid here on the blog, I am capable of having a dialogue and we do and hope to continue the dialogue. We may even get together for a pow wow with Summit Blogger.

Her take on the summit:
I found there was an emphasis on staying in teaching in the messages I heard and saw at the Summit. I also took a bus from New York City with mostly younger corps and I heard about how they wanted to stay in teaching.

This will be great if true and not a PR blitz from TFA to counter the charges that people like Fiorillo make. It will take a lot of convincing to make me believe that there is greater interest in staying in the classroom than in doing ed policy or other work related to "adult" work rather than the focus on children. But we'll see. I hope TFAers do stay, as Summit Blogger did - in the long run they will move away from ed deform and towards working with the Real Reformers. We certainly can use their passion and commitment in the ed wars.

I often hear people say great and inspiring things. Even Randi Weingarten. But as I always say, watch what they do, not what they say.

Here is the full post. Teach for America #TFA20 Recap and Reflections: Part 1

Where we diverge is that she looks at what TFA can bring to the educational table. I look at TFA as a political movement that in the long run will have a deleterious impact. There's a lot for us to hash out.

In the meantime, below the fold are some of the interesting comments - Summit Blogger's responses and others:

Saturday, February 12, 2011

UPDATED: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, Part 4 With Closing Plenary

NOTE: See below for 4:45 added update
"6:05 PM It’s after 6. Drink tickets are now valid. Hoping to see Kaya Henderson at the bar"

Also NOTE: Another former TFA teacher video on negative aspects of TFA

On Saturday, Feb. 12, a Real Reformer member of the Grassroots Education Movement went down to DC for the TFA 20th Anniversary Summit. The blogs came through all day with extensive coverage from the perspective of someone who is not a true believer. Let me say that Summit Blogger is still teaching a self-contained elementary school class years after most TFA's have gone on to other things. Here are links to each segment.

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit
Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten
Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session
Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary
The audience is eating this up. It sounds tough. But do our schools and children need this sort of toughness? Education is not a business, but this panel believes it is. It is unbelievable how one-sided this summit is. 

Diane, are you reading this? We need you here pronto. I’ll pay your travel expenses and help you storm the stage. 


Kaya Henderson, DC schools:
Where is the Pepto? I can’t stand this woman. She has the potential to be a more frightening monster than Rhee. (She spoke this morning in the opening brainwashing session.)

She is touting the success of D.C.’s 126 charter schools: “We have a robust charter school movement.” She claims these schools are so successful because they have the autonomy they need.

I’ll take some of that autonomy. Sign my public school and me up. Oh, I guess she isn’t offering that.  


3:10 Just arriving to session entitled, The Future of Schools Systems:

How to get through this session? Is smells like the destruction of public education in here. Check out the panel:

1. Richard Barth: President, CEO KIPP
2. Kaya Henderson, Interim Chancellor DC Schools
3. Rebecca Nieves Huffman, VP of the Fund for Authorizing Excellence, National Association of Charter School Authorizers
4. Paul Pastorek, State Superintendent of Education, Louisiana Department of Education

Moderated by Ted Mitchell, President and CEO, New Ventures Fund

Paul Pastorek begins. Says we need to “Break up the monopolies.” Why? “Because we have to define what will be a truly great school. We need the flexibility to innovate. We need the city to get out of the way.” He discusses Louisiana’s effort to decentralize the school system and how he is relying mainly on charter schools to provide the innovation LA needs.  32% children who are not on grade level, and he says charter schools are the only hope.

Yuck. How can all these people sit here and listen to this? I know there are public school teachers here, as I’ve seen their name tags. Are they not outraged? I am, but you knew that already.

Pastorek then asserts the keys to his success: “We seed, feed and weed in Louisiana.”
              Seed: Bring new schools in.
Feed: Provide support if they want it, but don’t push it.
Weed: Remove schools that do not meant the standards.
Pastorek closes with “We need to engender competition.”

The audience is eating this up. It sounds tough. But do our schools and children need this sort of toughness? Education is not a business, but this panel believes it is. It is unbelievable how one-sided this summit is. Diane, are you reading this? We need you here pronto. I’ll pay your travel expenses and help you storm the stage.

After a day of this, I’ll be lucky if I can still think for myself. It feels a bit like the Fox News studio here. So much propaganda…

LOTS MORE

Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, Part 3 - Afternoon Session

"I ask him next about attrition. While his Houston schools seem to have low attrition, can he explain New York’s? (See KIPP chart from earlier post this morning.) He appears surprised to see the numbers in my hand, but says he is aware of this “challenge.” He criticizes the KIPP school leaders who claim 100% graduation rates even though they have had 50% attrition in their schools. He does not, however, offer any insight as to where these children go. He simply says that it is “harder” to hold on to middle/high school kids than elementary kids. He says this is why his school has such low attrition: “When we start with them young, they stick.” He does not offer a response to my question about whether or not KIPP schools counsel out kids. He says he knows the KIPP Infinity school leader and couldn’t imagine him doing this. But, he offers NO explanation as to why the attrition is so high."


On Saturday, Feb. 12, a Real Reformer member of the Grassroots Education Movement went down to DC for the TFA 20th Anniversary Summit. The blogs came through all day with extensive coverage from the perspective of someone who is not a true believer. Let me say that Summit Blogger is still teaching a self-contained elementary school class years after most TFA's have gone on to other things. Here are links to each segment.

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit
Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten
Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session
Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary


12:45 A hunt for lunch ensues. Corralling 11,000 people into a cafeteria is not easy work. Rushing to make the next session, I get stopped by a TFA film crew, asking if I want to be interviewed. Pushing down my great fear of cameras, I agree. I ‘m asked about my perceptions of the achievement gap and I talk about how TFA uses this as such a buzz word. I’m also asked why I came to the summit, which gives me a chance to talk about my concerns about the current positions and direction of TFA. I talk about the privatization of public education, TFA’s blind support of charter schools  and the strong anti-union sentiment I feel at the summit. The interviewer seemed surprised by my responses, and luckily I’m wearing my GEM button, so my message cannot be mistaken. Well see if they use the footage! Doubtful, as it seemed they were looking for some “Rah! Rah! Go TFA” clips.

1:15 Found a box lunch. Making my way to my next session and run into two people from my corps year. They are both working at charter schools (Achievement First and Girls Prep). Gave them some GEM literature, had a brief chat with both.  It’s a challenge to figure out how to talk to people who work in charter schools in a way that I can explain my perspective while still being respectful. But, these conversations are crucial.

1:40 Arrive at my Lunch session twenty minutes late.

From Cradle to Kindergarten: The role of early childhood education in ending educational equity.

1. Aaron Brenner, KIPP Houston
2. Shana Brodaux, Senior Manager of Early Childhood Programs, Harlem Children Zone
3. David Johns, Senior Education Advisor, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

*I missed David Johns piece, and came in while Shana Brodaux was speaking.

HCZ=
Shana Brodaux talks about HCZ’s early childhood program and their efforts to educate the “whole child,” improve educational outcomes and “end generational poverty.”She talks about how their program starts when children are “in the womb” and offers them an education all the way through early childhood. They are then feed into HCZ Promise Academies. She says they spend the most money on their 4-year old program. There are 5 teachers in every class of 20 kids, with a focus on school readiness.

I want to ask her about HCZ’s attrition that I mentioned this morning when Canada was speaking. Everything she says sounds good on paper. Her program of Early Childhood Education appears successful in the way she is painting it, however I wonder what she is leaving out? How can this program be called “successful” if these kids are not making it through their school long term. Will try to speak to her at the end.

KIPP, Aaron Brenner:
He talks about the KIPP SHINE in Houston. He claims they started with 114 kids in a Pre-K type program. He says they were 98% free reduced lunch, 67% ELL’s. Drastically different stats than what we see in New York. He next says that 103 of these kids “made it through to 5th grade.” He touts their successes on a whole range of standardized tests and claims they are all “at or above grade level.” But what does it mean to “make it through” ?

I wonder where those 11 students went. Were they counseled out as seems to be the practice with KIPP schools in NYC? I am surprised that there was not more attrition.

He describes his school’s approach to early childhood and stresses the importance of Kindergarten teachers, claiming they are the “most deserving of our admiration.” The first thing I’ve heard all day that made me feel just slightly good. He mentions the importance of song, play and free time in early childhood education and even goes as far as to say that it should be a part of middle and high school education.

I wonder what his KIPP colleagues who work in middle and high schools would say about this? KIPP has been exposed for its use of authoritarian practices in many of its schools.  What to believe? I would love to ask him, but will have to attempt when the session is over, or try my luck with a note card. Again, in this session, we are required to write questions down on note cards and pass them to the front. No face to face contact between the panel and the audience. I guess that would be too personal.  

There are no public school teachers or leaders on this panel. TFA is painting charter schools as the only organizations that are doing anything to change education. This panel shared a lot of good information about the importance of early childhood education, and as an early childhood educator I appreciate the affirmation of the importance of my work.  Yet, TFA is offering a narrow perspective to its alumni—why isn’t this discussion about how to make Pre-K universal?

Question from the audience (via note card): Is the work of HCZ/KIPP scalable?

KIPP response: “We believe our approach is scalable” and that “we can silence our critics” with our success. He does not, however, explain how it is scalable.

HCZ response: Talks about the need to partner with public schools and share best practices. Says that charter schools cannot shoulder all the burden and that public schools need to be able to expand their Pre-K programs. This is the first acknowledgement of the day that charters may not be the panacea, and from an HCZ staffer. It’s not much, but I’ll take what I can get today. 


2:45 Session ends and I race to the panel to try to ask Brenner from KIPP some questions. He’s very receptive to my questions and speaks frankly.

I ask him about KIPP’s “drill and kill” reputation, which he mentioned as something he does not want happening at his school in Houston. I ask him how he perceives KIPP schools in general? Do they use the drill and kill? Are they authoritarian? He says that his school in Houston is not and that the reason he took the job there was to have a chance to do something different than what KIPP generally does. (KIPP mainly operates middle and high schools. In Houston he started an elementary.) But, he admits that KIPP schools are characterized that way because many of them have a history of being that way. He claims it is all “in the past” and that each KIPP school is making efforts to be more nurturing, less controlling. I’m not so sure I believe him, but he is quite convincing.

I ask him next about attrition. While his Houston schools seem to have low attrition, can he explain New York’s? (See KIPP chart from earlier post this morning.) He appears surprised to see the numbers in my hand, but says he is aware of this “challenge.” He criticizes the KIPP school leaders who claim 100% graduation rates even though they have had 50% attrition in their schools. He does not, however, offer any insight as to where these children go. He simply says that it is “harder” to hold on to middle/high school kids than elementary kids. He says this is why his school has such low attrition: “When we start with them young, they stick.” He does not offer a response to my question about whether or not KIPP schools counsel out kids. He says he knows the KIPP Infinity school leader and couldn’t imagine him doing this. But, he offers NO explanation as to why the attrition is so high.   

I rush out to head to my next session, which guarantees to enlarge my current ulcer—its about the future of school systems and its bound to be a charter party!

Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, Part 2 - Randi Weingarten

 When I joined back in 2006, I didn’t think TFA was about privatization, but there is no debate now. How is it that the people in this room have been tricked into believing that education reform is as simple as getting rid of bad teachers? 

Conclusion: A strange session overall. Weingarten was apologetic for her opinions and Hess was painted himself as possessing the “right” opinions, and the crowd seemed to side with him.

---GEM TFA Alum at the Summit
 
On Saturday, Feb. 12, a Real Reformer member of the Grassroots Education Movement went down to DC for the TFA 20th Anniversary Summit. The blogs came through all day with extensive coverage from the perspective of someone who is not a true believer. Let me say that Summit Blogger is still teaching a self-contained elementary school class years after most TFA's have gone on to other things. Here are links to each segment.

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit
Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten
Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session
Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary




11:45 Breakout sessions begin. There are sessions on everything from school leadership to segregation in our schools to workshops on teaching practices.

I chose to go to:

A Discussion with Randi Weingarten on the Role of Teachers’ Unions in Education Reform

The session begins with us all being given note cards. We are told that we can write our questions on these cards and pass them to the middle. There will be 20 minutes at the end for questions and they will read as many as possible. I hope this isn’t the trend in each session, but I have a feeling it will be. Sort of takes the power out of the question when the person asking it doesn’t get to attach their face and voice to it.

Moderator is Rick Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also writes for a blog “Rick Hess Straight Up,”

Randi begins. She gives a little history of herself and why she was drawn to teaching/labor issues. She says she thought  the labor movement was the way to change society, education is the way to change society. “The union is an empowering organization for teachers….most of us don’t have individual power…we need to create structures that create this power…we need you to be part of that.”

Waiting for Superman=she is talking about the contract signed with a GreenDot school in New Jersey. 97% of the kids are on track to graduate. 100% passed their math regents. She points out that this is a unionized school, so Guggenheim should have acknowledged this.

Hess: He says…In NY state, you and the union fought to keep student performance out of teacher performance evaluations and you fought against charter school cap being raised. He asks why she fought against these agents of change. 

Why is this the man moderating this? The TFA agenda is so clear to me know. It's disappointing to see. When I joined back in 2006, I didn’t think TFA was about privatization, but there is no debate now.

Weingarten: Responds that the data system was flawed. Then goes into a discussion about how large school systems are like factories. She tells the crowd to email her if they see union problems:

Hess:  “How come you haven’t been more vocal about calling out management?” He is referring to management  (school leaders) not getting rid of “bad” teachers.

Why are we so focused on placing blame? It’s always about blame.


Weingarten: She says something about the budget crisis. “I stopped calling them out when the recession hit…” She refers to the fiscal crisis of the 70s. She says “you are right,” referring to Hess’s claim that we need to “call out” management.

“When the union leader does it (calls out blame), then it turns into a fight…it takes us away from the true problems…conflict makes great headlines…but it doesn’t help reform systems to help kids.”

 “Let’s have 360 degree accountability. Lets not just have top down, lets have bottom up. Shouldn’t teachers have a chance to evaluate principals…We gave Joel Klein an evaluation. What was interesting…70-80% filled out the evaluations. They want a voice.”

Not a bad sound bite.


12:00 I’m looking through the TFA handbook for the summit. Big companies sponsoring this event: Chevron, Fidelity, Wells Fargo, Comcast, Coca-Cola, Fed-Ex, Google, and the list goes on.

*This discussion is quite disjointed. Somewhat hard to follow. Doing my best to convey its tone/content.

Weingarten: ATR’s! Let’s see where she takes this. She is talking about the shift to allow free transfers. Now, she’s moving on to excessing, and how she cautioned against it when the DOE wanted to do it.  

She is telling a story about someone who worked in two failing schools.
“We have to get to a different system where we figure out who can teach and who can’t…a system that is fair.”


Hess: “We understand that the union has to protect its members, but it seems like the union is more concerned with protecting teachers’ due process rather than helping teachers who have to shoulder the burden of working in a system with so many bad teachers.”

There is a strong applause, loudest of the session. How is it that the people in this room have been tricked into believing that education reform is as simple as getting rid of bad teachers? 

Weingarten: Responds by saying, “Any union that does that, shame on them.” Then, she goes on to explain how she isn’t about protecting “due process” as her central goal. She is walking a fine line here, definitely trying to win over the crowd, which seems pretty split on their opinions of her.

Hess: “Last in, first out…AFT has stood by this… WHY?”

The questions are so leading. Paints the union as the enemy as well as Weingarten. Not that I’m a huge fan of hers, but still…this room is full of young teachers, though, who don’t want to lose their jobs, and who have been told (both directly and indirectly by TFA) that they are the best teachers—that they are the only hope for change in education. It is scary what this ignorance is doing.

Weingarten: “I’m not saying that seniority is the best way to make layoff decisions…the magnitude of the cuts to schools across this country are devastating…that’s what we should be fighting against. These cuts are devastating for kids. I am fighting to stop the magnitude of these layoffs.”

Hess: “School spending for 3 generations has gone increased. We’ve added adults to the system at twice the rate of students.” He’s gone on to talk about tax increases and how Americans don’t want to spend more on education.

Weingarten: “The American public wants to invest in education…I think there is wasteful spending in our system. We waste $ 7 billion on attrition. In Finland, you have almost no attrition with new teachers.”

Hess: “Let’s talk about the labor market…” Accusing that her wasteful spending claims don’t add up.

Weingarten: She’s been doing a great deal of apologizing on the stage. Why? When she says very pointed things, she concludes with a pitiful, “I’m sorry.” She is pleading to the audience, which is that last thing she needs to be doing. Speak with confidence, woman!
“My job is about public education…”
Why is she going around helping charter schools sign contracts?

Hess: School pensions in New Jersey. “We don’t have the dollars to afford these…they are being offered generous packages at the expense of the students.”

Weingarten: “600 dollars a month is what teachers in New York are getting.” She is pointing out how it isn’t really as “generous” as Hess just alleged. “We need to actually use pension funds to do things about infrastructure….my point is this…there are a lot of new things that need to happen in American…how do you become a fair society.”

12:35 PM
Question and Answer session begins, questions are read by Hess, not by those who have them. Is he choosing the questions to ask?

Question 1: How can teachers who are dissatisfied with unions do anything?
Weingarten:  “Get involved. We need you and we want you.
Question 2:  Oakland teacher who is his union rep wrote:
“Our kids are graduating at a high enough rate. When I raise this at meetings, no one wants to talk about teacher quality. What can I do to help them see this connection?”

Weingarten: “You can’t point fingers...regardless of what you think the problem is you have to engage with your colleagues…We can’t do it alone.”

 I think she is trying to hint at how teacher quality isn’t the only factor and that perhaps other things in our education systems need to change, but she doesn’t really come out and say anything specific. Again, she is walking that fine line all of us in New York saw when she was in charge of the UFT.  She changes her story for her audience. She clings to general statements that can be spun to her liking.

“I hate the status quo. I am not here to defend the status quo.”

Question 3:  Starts with a compliment to her for being her and a criticism of the head of the NEA not being here. The question is about her opinion of NEA.

Perhaps the NEA isn’t here because TFA doesn’t want them here? I’m not sure but I wonder what their president would be saying to this crowd?

Weingarten: “I’m not going to trash the NEA.” She doesn’t say much.

Question 4: “As states like CO, LA, roll out new evaluations for teachers and schools, what are the 3 key things to keep an eye out for?”

Weingarten:
1. We cannot reduce education to a test score! (applause)
She doesn’t give two others, but explains this at length.

Conclusion: A strange session overall. Weingarten was apologetic for her opinions and Hess was painted himself as possessing the “right” opinions, and the crowd seemed to side with him.

Only 4 questions were allowed. There are at least 300 people in this room. This is a not a very interactive


12:45 A hunt for lunch ensues. Corralling 11,000 people into a cafeteria is not easy work. Rushing to make the next session, I get stopped by a TFA film crew, asking if I want to be interviewed. Pushing down my great fear of cameras, I agree. I ‘m asked about my perceptions of the achievement gap and I talk about how TFA uses this as such a buzz word. I’m also asked why I came to the summit, which gives me a chance to talk about my concerns about the current positions and direction of TFA. I talk about the privatization of public education, TFA’s blind support of charter schools and the strong anti-union sentiment I feel at the summit. The interviewer seemed surprised by my responses, and luckily I’m wearing my GEM button, so my message cannot be mistaken. Well see if they use the footage! Doubtful, as it seemed they were looking for some “Rah! Rah! Go TFA” clips.

1:15 Found a box lunch. Making my way to my next session and run into two people from my corps year. They are both working at charter schools (Achievement First and Girls Prep). Gave them some GEM literature, had a brief chat with both.  It’s a challenge to figure out how to talk to people who work in charter schools in a way that I can explain my perspective while still being respectful. But, these conversations are crucial.

1:40 Arrive at my Lunch session twenty minutes late. Need to eat. More soon.

From Cradle to Kindergarten: The role of early childhood education in ending educational equity.

1. Aaron Brenner, KIPP Houston
2. Shana Brodaux, Senior Manager of Early Childhood Programs, Harlem Children Zone
3. David Johns, Senior Education Advisor, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

*I missed David Johns piece, and came in while Shana Brodaux was speaking.