Charles, I want to start by saying that the field of education is lucky to have someone as dedicated as you devoting an entire career to inner city education. That being said, here's my analysis of your 'argument' with Ceaf and a few opinions of my own as a TFA alum: Why are you lashing out? Why are you poking fun at Ceaf taking offense to you? Frankly, what you said was a bit offensive. You blatantly wrote that Ceaf supported people using TFA as a resume booster, and all Ceaf said was that you can utilize your experience as a means to an end while teaching and teaching well at the same time. That's just being realistic. And it's clear that you are the one taking offense judging by your tone at the beginning of this post. Ceaf didn't miss your point for the 4th time, nor did you miss hers. You both have your beliefs, but yours is of a utopian society of polished, highly-educated, unyieldingly dedicated educators devoting a lifetime to education. That is just unrealistic. I think you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not only annoyed with TFA, and maybe offended by its existence as a 'necessary evil', but underneath it all, you are a bit jealous. And you aren't hiding it well. "But the principle of the matter is this, how would you feel if someone less qualified than you earned the same amount as you" That's the principle of the matter? Really? Don't you think that might be a small sliver of the matter rather than the principle based on your position as a member of a top-notch, thorough education program? Are you sure this is the principle of the matter? I have a feeling this is the same sort of sloppy typing that made you (possibly unwittingly) accuse Ceaf of supporting a program which people use just as a resume booster. I think you need to come to grips with the realities of this country. Poor educators can come from anywhere, from any institution in any region of this country. TFA Corps members are not the bottom rung. They teach in subject matters directly related to their field of study in college. You and Ceaf weren't really disagreeing on all that much; you were sort of screaming at each other on points that never collided. You 'merely' ask that TFA participants become involved in education reform in the future, which is happening as I write this ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. I am going into education reform myself. My girlfriend (TFA alum) is getting her Master's at Duke in educational public policy. And let's say, for example, that the ONLY reason 50% of TFA alums go into educational reform post-TFA is because that is the only field they can specialize in based on their teaching experience...does that make them less worthy as educators? Do their motives automatically make them less capable of their jobs? You are struggling to accept the fact that most educators aren't as purely motivated as you are. Perhaps if they were, it would show in their performance in the classroom, but perhaps not. You need to give the average educator a little more credit. I would like to think that even if a teacher went into teaching as a calculated career move, they still put it upon themselves to do just as good a job as someone who has devoted a lifetime to education reform, or someone who graducated from a prestigious teaching program. After all your points are layed out, you were never arguing with anyone, because who could really contest your points? You're simply repeating them after Ceaf delves into your belief in an unrealistic, utopian teacher society. If you are so dedicated to edcucation, then how could you possibly hold an expectation that all teachers will graduate from a program such as yours and join the educational work force as you plan to? People come from all types of socioeconomic backgrounds and aren't always in a position to attend top notch programs. This is something you should have a better grasp of since you will be teaching in impoverished areas (I believe you said that) with students who may strive to do something as noble as you are but with less adequate means. I personally was an English major unsure of my future until I came across TFA as a senior in college. I joined it because it was something great for this country and great for myself. Does that make me less 'noble'? Should I be condemned as an educator because I didn't devote my life to education from an early age? And if you would argue that educators should attend 4 year programs in education, where do you draw the line? Are educators from less prestigious programs less 'noble'? TFA's intensive training program is better than many of this country's lower-level education programs from less reputable universities. I hope that doesn't sound conceded, it is just common sense. It is more than 6 weeks of training. It is 2 years of continual support that not only teaches you and critiques you while you are teaching, but also challenges you to reach higher while you are teaching. I don't think your education program can boast that type of follow-up support, and I believe that makes up for much of what a TFA Corps member misses out on with programs such as the one you are in the middle of. Please don't think I am claiming that TFA's program is better at developing educators than some of the best collegiate education programs in the country. But it offers intensive training and ongoing support and teaching throughout your teaching experience, which levels the field significantly. Honestly Charles, you are looking at education in this country from a very privileged view, a view that only a minority can actually claim to get. "I feel that students deserve qualified teachers. And this is not impossible or unreasonable." I truly hope that you are more careful and concise with your wording as a teacher in the classroom because what that sentence DIRECTLY implies is that TFA teachers are simply unqualified. Is that an argument you are truly prepared to back up? Do you REALLY know enough about the program to make a claim like that? Or do you just know that we get $10,000 stipends, get trained for 6 weeks, and earn a starting teacher's salary? And don't retort by telling me not to 'threaten' you as you did Ceaf. I am simply doing what she did, which is to take you by your word in a forum about education. What else do I have to go on? If you didn't mean to make that direct implication, be more careful with the things you say or type. "I have a passion for teaching, i have always dreamed of being a teacher, my point of being is to be a teacher. No amount of money can ever equate to that." I'll start from the last sentence backwards: if money doesn't factor into your feelings on education, why is a TFA member's starting salary the 'principle' of your argument? I really think you need to be a little more honest with yourself because it's clear you are contradicting yourself and that you are exposing your frustrations. If it helps, try and think of it like this: as a teacher in low-income schools, we all go through the same hardships throughout the course of the year whether we were educated at a TFA Institute or at Peabody. Frankly I would not think it unfair if TFA members earned slightly less, but this is a necessary attraction to get some of the best this country has to offer into education. Again Charles, your passion and dedication to educating is rare in this country. We live in an extremely greedy, self-centered, altruistic society and it does no one any good to pretend it were otherwise. I know you have worked hard to get where you are, in the program you are in, but hopefully some time in an inner-city classroom with inner-city families will give you a better perspective on the realities of this country. The cards aren't stacked evenly, and due to countless variables, teachers are developed through many programs, some more intensive than others. It is just unrealistic and biased to view teachers from other programs as 'unqualified' on account of their background and motives. At the end of the day, to a man, it is on the individual to perform in the classroom, Peabody-trained or not. A solid teacher will make the necessary changes in the classroom based on their daily experience and interactions. Being educated at a prestigious institution and desiring to educate all your life may help you personally, it may help your drive and motivation, but a TFA teacher may become Teacher of the Year and a Peabody grad may crash and burn in a classroom and waste a year in the life of a child. Or vice versa. You can never tell, because it's on the individual to decide, and to say a TFA Corps member is more likely to 'use' a teaching postion is both biased and uninformed. I truly hope you become more moderate in your views of educator development, and again, it's nice to know there are people like you in education.

Hey Charles,

I think you're missing the point of TFA. TFA is an organization that is devoted to reducing education inequities between students in high income and low income communities. It is not simply just a new teachers' organization.

TFA's mission is dual pronged. On one hand, it is to directly help the students that have TFA corps members as teachers (most studies agree that TFA corps members' students acheive at a higher rate than other first year teachers, and other students in low income communities). But in the longer term, it is to develop a alumni of elite young people who care deeply about the cause of education reform, because they have experienced the hardships of teaching in a low income community.

As forOver 60% of TFA corps members stay in the field of education, and whether it is through law, public policy or teaching, work to end education inequities. It is this second prong of TFA's impact that is especially powerful in reforming education.

Nobody contends that a Peabody teaching graduate is more prepared to be an effective teacher than a TFA corps member. But the problem is that the overwhelming majority of new teachers are not graduating from such a distinguished institution like Peabody.Most young people who graduate from outstanding education programs do not teach in low income communities. Most gravitate towards more attractive teaching opportunities.So low income communities usually don't benefit from having the best education graduates who are dedicated to making a difference.

I don't think its fair to brandTFAcorps members as being simply interested in "resume boosting". Most generallydesire to make a difference in the livesof young people, and to reform education.

TFA takes incredibly talented people and exposes them to inequities in the American education system. Without TFA, these talented people would likely never have considered the deplorable gap between education acheivment in high income and low income communities. Because TFAcorps members experience both inspiring and depressing circumstances, many end up devoting much of their lives fighting against this tremendous injustice.

Ben Felton '04

TFA Corps '07

 

 

 

"My first point is that Teach for America belittles my career plan and simple." Again, I don't see how this is the case since you are committing your life to education and reaping a lifetime of intangible rewards those who stay in for two years and two years only will not receive. "But the principle of the matter is this, how would you feel if someone less qualified than you earned the same amount as you?" If we were both starting at an entry-level position, I would be mildly annoyed about it but that's to be expected upon just entering the workforce. You, however, have options non-Peabody-degreed educators do not. "Or think of this, how would you feel if their was a doctor shortage and we just picked America's "Best and Brightest" to train for 6-weeks and help fill in the gap?" If we had a shortage of doctors anywhere near comparable to the one we have of teachers, I would definitely support some sort of program in which motivated people could help ease the burden on more specialized doctors. "What people fail to realize is that Teach for America is not another community service opportunity." The reason Teach for America is so prestigious is BECAUSE people realize it is not just another community service opportunity. "Teaching is PROFESSIONAL CAREER." Nobody is saying that it's not, but the fact of the matter, plain and simple, is that we do not have enough professional teachers to meet demand. So, we as a society can either close the gap somehow as best we may, or we can scale back educational services to those who need them most. Again, I say some help is better than none. "Just like lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc proper training and education is a necessity. Teaching is more than merely standing in front of a classroom. There are laws and pedagogy that is learned through education programs that one cannot simply be obtained through 6-weeks of training." Agreed, but, to continue your doctor analogy, if I were bleeding to death and just needed to stop the bleeding until I could get to the hospital I would accept any help I could get rather than demanding an M.D. arrive on the scene posthaste. "If you were to do your research on Teach for America you would note that they also start on a first year teaching salary just like I will and will also receive a $10,000 stipend." I have done my research on Teach for America and even thought about applying; I decided that although it is a worthy program it is not for me. However, I would submit that if the money matters to that degree Peabody graduates could teach at private schools on a very temporary basis. They could not only earn a higher salary for a year or two, but they could then enter underprivileged areas earning the salaries their new experience commands. Of course, the entire point of Teach for America is that these underprivileged areas cannot afford as many highly qualified and experienced teachers as they would like, so seeking a higher salary may be counterproductive, and teachers earn so little to begin with that busting Teach for America salaries any further would hurt the situation more than it helps. "My second point is just because you are a graduate of Vanderbilt does not make you a Jack of All trades." Of course not; nobody is saying it is. A Vanderbilt graduate is better than no teacher at all, however, which often is the only option. "Teaching is not about the teacher, it is about the students. Every teacher has the potential to ruin a student or make the difference." I agree wholeheartedly and I have already stated your second point above. "And to me, that is something that should not be played with." A gamble is better than no chance at all. "So for you to suggest the idea of using this to make oneself look good is something I will never agree with." Nice strawman argument. In the future I expect greater care on your part not to put words in my mouth. I am not advocating that Teach for America be used simply as a means to make one look good. I am saying, however, that one can both want to make a difference and to improve their career path, all at the same time, and that there is nothing wrong with that, particularly if said career path leads to greater achievements in the future. People who simply want to make more money and don't give a damn about the difference-making tend not to apply to Teach for America. "What were students doing before Teach for America to help them get into law/medical school? They were working hard, making the most of every opportunity their undergraduate years afforded them." And now Teach for America is another opportunity. The graduates accepted into Teach for America also work hard and make the most of opportunities throughout their undergraduate careers; I think you underestimate the selectivity of the program. Teach for America allows one to make a difference in the lives of others, develop personally, and, yes, to work hard; why shouldn't this opportunity be both offered and taken? "I want Teach for America candidates to be life-long advocates for education, paying attention to the issues, making political and economic contributions to the schools that need the attention. Our schools are in desperate need improvement and desegregation." For the nth time, nobody is disagreeing with this. I merely disagree that a Teach for America teacher is worse than no teacher at all. "The students taught by Teach for America are at a greater risk and I want candidates of the program to realize that as well." I disagree. What would these students have without Teach for America teachers? Either no teacher at all or huge class sizes that make learning impossible. I would say the worst case scenario with a Teach for America teacher is better than the status quo of no learning at all. "Let me say that not all education majors are guaranteed to be successful but here at Peabody we have the exposure and experience in the classroom that spans over a 4 year period." And Peabody is a very well-regarded education college. However, if you are going to hold everyone up to Peabody standards, the teacher shortage will only get worse. To continue your medical analogy, it is as if we dismissed all doctors who did not graduate from Johns Hopkins. Would the average doctor be brilliant and highly-capable? Yes. Would we have nearly enough doctors? Of course not. This implicit demand that every teacher in America be as qualified as someone with your opportunities and experiences is quite frankly unreasonable at this time in history.

I'm not entirely sure that you can simply state that a Teach for America teacher will earn the same pay you do, for one thing. By definition, Teach for America teachers work in many of the most underfunded schools in the country, while your education major makes many more opportunities available if the pay is important to you, including private schools if that opportunity should ever appeal to you. In addition, you will continue to accumulate pay increases as you stay in the field; it is not as if twenty years from now, even if you work in an underfunded district, a Teach for America member fresh out of college will earn as much as you do, especially since by then you may be involved in administration or a similar higher-paying branch of the educational system. Also, while I have not done any studies on this or anything, I would imagine that many Teach for America alumni DO continue to be advocates for education through their later chosen fields. Two years is a very long time for a student fresh out of college, so the experience is not one to be dismissed lightly even if it is not a career spanning decades. Professional teachers are among America's greatest assets; they do face and overcome tremendous obstacles and they are to be commended for it. But, as you have noted, there is a shortage of professional teachers and why not employ an even greater portion of America's best and brightest to help ameliorate the situation until such time as the educational system as a whole can be evaluated and overhauled? As for the dichotomy between maintaining concern with education and making oneself look good for graduate work, I don't see why one can't do both and I suspect that is our main point of contention.

While I agree with you in principle, I take issue with two statements made in this letter. First of all, I would submit to you that two years of service is better than no service at all; an attitude of "if you can't change everything, don't bother" is at best counterproductive and at worst destructive altogether. I do agree with you that many people use Teach for America as a resume booster, but, honestly, the only reason the program acts as a resume booster is because it does good work and is well respected and honestly I don't see anything wrong with that; people who truly cannot even be serious about teaching for two years are weeded out by Teach for America's high rejection rate. I would also respectfully disagree with the assertion that standardized test or the lack thereof make one qualified or unqualified; such tests measure qualification; they do not bestow it. I honestly know nothing about Peabody's new placement test, but I did look up the PRAXIS exams. The PRAXIS I tests, according to their website, "are designed to measure basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics." Teach for America applicants are a self-selected group of the best American universities have to offer; if they, the cream of the crop, cannot be presumed to possess basic linguistic and mathematical skills, our nation has greater problems than resume padding. PRAXIS II measures "knowledge of specific subjects that K-12 educators will teach, as well as general and subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge." Again, if the products of our universities cannot recall the basic foundations of the specialized knowledge accumulated over the course of their previous four years, there are greater problems for America than people increasing their chances of becoming a professional. I will grant that PRAXIS III, which evaluates a teacher's performance in the classroom, is important even for highly qualified college graduates, although, not having taken the test, I cannot see how objectivity in grading results for such a subjective idea as teaching performance (see those professor rating sites for examples of how teaching evaluation can be subjective) can be guaranteed. Still, it seems like the brightest students in America should be up to the challenge, particularly if they are as motivated as many Teach for America applicants. In an ideal world, would we need Teach for America? Probably not. But we do not live in the best of all possible worlds, so, as you state, it is "a necessary evil." I find the chance that an underprivileged student might discover a lifelong love of learning appealing enough that I am willing to take the risk that his teacher, who made it possible, might pursue other interests a year down the line.