Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18

Schools cut teaching positions


It's not just parents and students on tenterhooks waiting for school placements. This week is incredibly stressful for the faculty and staff at many city schools, too. As principals hand out next year's teaching assignments, some teachers are discovering that the proposed budget cuts have left them officially "excessed" -- still employed by the DOE but without an active position. (While teachers historically had been automatically transfered, the 2006 UFT contract gave excessed educators control over their job search.)

Excessed teachers who don't -- or can't -- find a new school can spend up to two years in the "reserve pool," earning full wages and benefits, temporarily assigned to schools where the principals decide their workload. Cost to the city since 2006? $81 million. Predictably, the UFT and The New Teacher Project, which has close ties to the DOE, disagree over whether or not this policy is a waste of funds.

This year, looming budget cuts may mean even more teachers in reserve; this week, when assignments are made known, the atmosphere at many schools is tense.

Tuesday, June 17

Should teachers let their politics come to school?


With the Obama/McCain showdown claiming more above-the-fold newspaper space and primetime television minutes each week, I have been considering the delicate relationship between teachers’ personal politics, and their educational obligations to their students. Children have no qualms about asking blunt questions, including “who did you vote for in the last election?” which I was often asked when I taught sixth and seventh grade social studies at IS 143 in Washington Heights.

My students really wanted to know what I believed. Most of them were immigrants or first-generation Americans, and they were learning about democracy and politics for the first time in my class. They struggled in particular to understand modern political parties, and they wanted to know what the adults they looked up to believed, so that they could begin to build their own political opinions.

But is it fair for teachers to share their personal political views with students or is it a teacher’s job to present the all of the ideas and arguments and teach the students the skills they need to form their own opinions? According the chancellor’s regulations, it is forbidden: all DOE employees “shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to all candidates,” while on the job, but in reality, this is not always followed. And remember what happened when a Bronx high school teacher and his students made a video for the Obama campaign this fall?

Stanley Fish, a distinguished professor who has worked at several prominent universities, would also argue against bringing politics into the classroom. Fish writes in his New York Times blog that it is not only possible but critical that teachers don’t share their personal political opinions with their students. Gray Lady readers, particularly those who are also professors, have responded in force, igniting a vigorous debate that Fish has now responded to twice (I have even noticed some of my own professors from college chiming in).

But the relationship between politics and teaching is not just confined to higher-education. The commentators who complain that kids don’t know enough, or care enough, about the democratic process are usually quick to blame elementary, middle and high school teachers. If teachers are passionate about politics, should they share that with their students? I am inclined to side with Professor Fish and argue that politics need to be taught but not partisan ideas.

In this presidential election year, do you think that teachers’ political opinions should be shared or silenced while they are at school?

Tuesday, April 29

Report: Non-working teachers costing DOE as much as ARIS


What has cost the DOE as much as ARIS in the last couple of years? Teachers who aren't working, according to a report being released today by the New Teacher Project, a non-profit organization that helps school districts find and train new teachers.

The report, titled "Mutual Benefits: New York City's Shift to Mutual Consent in Teacher Hiring," takes a look at the effects of the 2005 UFT-DOE contract, which ended the practice by which older teachers could "bump" younger teachers from their schools and instituted a system where teachers who are "excessed," or released from their positions at schools, continue to earn tenure and be paid while they apply for new positions — or not. The report concludes that the practice of "mutual consent" has resulted in teachers being happier with their positions but that the growing pool of excessed teachers is becoming a financial burden on the system. Half of the 600 teachers who were excessed in 2006 and early 2007 who did not find a new position did not apply for any jobs through the DOE's online hiring system, according to the report, to the tune of $81 million by the end of this school year.

Many of the report's findings are likely verifiable, but it's important to note that the New Teacher Project has an organizational interest in making sure there are positions for new teachers and funds free to pay them — it runs the city's Teaching Fellows program. Evaluated in this context, the report's central recommendation — that excessed teachers be removed from the payroll after a "reasonable period" and allowed "for a certain number of years" to be able to return to a teaching position at the same salary and seniority level — reads like opportunism, not thoughtful education policy. And it makes Mayor Bloomberg's use of the report as a reason to reopen contract negotiations with the UFT positively inexcusable; he is planning to seek permission to remove from city payroll teachers who have gone without a job for 12 months.

The Times notes that Chancellor Klein has characterized most teachers in the reserve pool as undesirable or unwilling to look for work. We don't know exactly how many of the non-working excessed teachers fit that bill. But we do know that with budget cuts making it financially stressful for schools to maintain experienced teaching staffs, principals must make hard choices to be able to afford to hire senior teachers. And with a cadre of first-year teachers always at the ready (thanks in part to the New Teacher Project), the incentives to make those choices are slim. That's why the UFT earlier this month filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the DOE. In times like this, senior teachers need more protections, not a new rule that removes them from the system so long as schools can get along without them.

And if you're worried about unqualified teachers keeping their jobs, don't be — the Teacher Performance Unit is on the job.

Monday, January 28

Brooklyn teacher gets kids excited about science, parents out of bed


Would you wait in the cold at 4:30 a.m. to sign up for more classes with your elementary school science teacher? That's what parents from PS 261 in Brooklyn did this past week when Carmelo Piazza, known in the neighborhood as "Carmelo the Science Fellow," opened registration for the 8-week summer program he runs. The New York Times reports that parents started lining up around 4:30 a.m., and the entire summer session was full less than 3 hours after registration opened at 9 a.m. Piazza sounds indefatigable (and possibly insane), teaching a full schedule, running after-school classes at his neighborhood science joint, and entertaining at weekend birthday parties. The city needs more teachers like him.

Wednesday, January 23

Using kids' test scores, DOE conducting secretive experiments on teachers


Who knew I was already right when I hypothesized two weeks ago that the DOE was hoping to change the way teachers are evaluated? Well, besides Eduwonkette, who left a comment telling me so, and at least 140 principals whose teachers are already being judged according to their students' test scores in an initiative so top secret that even the teachers don't know about it? Very few people, it appears, according to the New York Times.

In the already-underway experiment, which the Times was the first to report, the test score gains of students at 140 schools will be used to judge their teachers' success. The DOE is setting "predicted gains" for teachers based on their students' skills, experiences, and backgrounds — and then crunching the numbers to see if the teachers meet those goals. The DOE told the Times, which broke the story, that it doesn't plan to use the results to make hiring or firing decisions about individual teachers. But Chris Cerf, who apparently has been deputized to talk up the program, said the results could be one factor used in those decisions, and that ultimately making the results public (a la the progress reports) would reward good teachers and put pressure on bad ones. Certainly, the DOE must be interested in providing more ammunition for the teacher firing squads assembled earlier this year.

Naturally, the UFT's Randi Weingarten, who has backed down in her opposition to other controversial plans, including the Teacher Performance Unit, sounds angry about this one, telling the Times that she and the city disagree on whether results from this pilot or its expansion could be used under the teachers' contract to make hiring or firing decisions. (On the other hand, the Times says the UFT has known about the experiment for four months, but we haven't heard any complaints until now.)

The initiative also appears to undercut the little agency afforded teachers in determining how performance pay is distributed this year. I'm pretty sure that we don't know how many of the schools included in the performance pay pilot elected to distribute their earnings across the whole faculty rather than to individual teachers, but I think it's safe to guess that's what happened in most schools. Now the DOE is doing the divisive, problematic work its teachers declined to do.

The Times predicts a battle this summer between the DOE and the UFT over the experiment results. Let's hope Randi Weingarten (or, potentially, her successor) is up for the fight. The DOE is abusing test score data, which aren't meant for this kind of crunching, and keeping teachers in the dark about how they're being evaluated. Regardless of the quality of the research (though even that is questionable — Eduwonkette wonders whether the experiment is ethical given that many of the research subjects don't know they are part of an experiment at all), the way the DOE has gone about this one is just not right.

Friday, January 11

After evaluating students, principals, and schools, test scores to rate teachers, too


Since the DOE has demonstrated that it will do whatever it wants, a good way to predict future DOE initiatives is to pay attention to what DOE officials say ought to be done. So when DOE bigwig Christopher Cerf participates on a panel about the "dismal" state of teacher evaluations and decries teachers' "deep antipathy" to being evaluated in a meaningful way, we can assume that somewhere inside Tweed, someone is thinking about new ways to rate teachers. Unfortunately for those of us who think the influence of test scores should be limited, Cerf also said he is "unapologetic that test scores must be a central component of evaluation,"
Education Week reports from the panel.

In fact, Cerf said at the panel that DOE leaders are working on an evaluation system that will look at how far teachers raise their students' test scores. As I recall, one of the papers presented at the Research Partnership conference in October drew on data that showed how far individual students progressed within each classroom, so evidently the bones for such a system must already exist. I imagine the larger obstacle for the DOE will be getting the UFT to agree to use a new evaluation system that relies on hard data instead of observation by other teachers. Of course, the UFT hasn't been much of an impediment to any of the DOE's other initiatives, even when those initiatives appeared not to be in the best interest of teachers.

Thursday, January 10

UFT to develop yet another school grading system


Lots of people have complained about the progress reports, saying their dependence on test scores gives short shrift to other important features of schools, including safety, class size, and the arts. UFT President Randi Weingarten plans to do something about it.

According to the Sun, Weingarten is developing a school grading system to rival the DOE's. In an attempt to predict what that grading system would look like, the Sun gives a rundown of Weingarten's opinions on the progress report grades:

She has praised the education department's emphasis on progress over absolute achievement — but denounced its reliance on just two years of test scores. She has praised the letters A, B, C, D, and F, saying "ratings help us make decisions" — but she also indicated support for giving more than one grade to each school. "Moving forward," she wrote in the same recent column, "the progress reports should give more weight to conditions like class size and safety, access to advanced courses and the availability of enrichment activities."
One would also think that a UFT-designed report card would give significant weight to teaching conditions at the school. Currently, how teachers feel about the support and professional development they get is condensed into just a few questions on the teacher surveys, which make up just 5 percent of the total progress report grade.

Wednesday, December 5

Student Thought: The first step to saving our schools


As of this year my younger brother is no longer a public school student. Like me, he attended public elementary and middle schools, however, when it came to choose a high school, he and my parents decided that he would do better at a private school. Fortunately, they made a good decision for my brother. He is now at a school that he loves, he really succeeds in and he feels does a good job in educating the students.

Out of curiosity, I asked him what the difference was between the public school he had attended and his current school in terms of educational value. His answer was quick and simple: the adults in the building have time to care about the students.

In the NYC education system, the first step to improving schools is creating a situation in which educators have time to care about the students. This can only come for significant reductions in class size and teacher load.

One problem with my brother's public school experience, he said, was the feeling that whenever he approached a teacher for extra help or just general academic support, he felt as though he was burdening them, like they didn't have the time to help their student. This is a major problem and it is not the teachers' fault.

Through my high school experience so far, I can count on one hand how many of my classes were below the union cap of 34 (even though the City claims the average is 25). As a member of the NYC Student Union, I know students from every corner of the city, and over and over I have heard the same sentiment when it comes to class size. Just as problematic is the problem of teacher load, the total number of students a teacher teaches at any given time. This number is often around 170 in high schools.

Education is based on relationships, the most basic and important being that between a teacher and a student. Large class sizes and teacher loads, prevents many teachers and students from developing the relationships necessary to make education happen. Furthermore, while classes of 34 are extremely difficult to manage and teach effectively in, it should be noted that they are equally difficult to learn in. When I entered ninth grade, when confronted with larger classes, I came to an academic standstill. I tried to do the work and do well on tests, but inside I knew that I was just not learning as effectively as I had in previous schools.

Because these factors make teaching and learning just so impossible, they also prevent the clear evaluation of new academic strategies, as even the best programs are doomed to fail under these conditions. Thus, as the title reads, class size and teacher load reduction is the requisite first step to saving our schools.

What we need in New York City, is an education system that makes education possible. When educators are so overburdened that they don't have time to care about the needs of individual students, this is not the case. When the classroom is completely unmanageable and knowledge can not pass through the barrier between teacher and student because of population overload, this is not the case. And when students feel as though they are just another "problem" for the all-to-busy adults in the building, this is not the case.

It is time to cut class sizes and trim teacher loads. If we really want to save our schools, that is the first step.

Cross-posted at NYC Students Blog

Thursday, November 29

Quick! Thank your teachers before they're gone


Yesterday the DOE and the UFT announced a feel-good "Thank a Teacher Campaign" -- just in time for the holiday season, and to head off further criticism from teachers who oppose the new Teacher Performance Unit that will go after incompetent teachers. Students and public school graduates can submit short essays about teachers that made a difference. The DOE will randomly select 200 teachers from those honored to attend a party. Plus, Starbucks has donated gift cards for teachers.

A party! Starbucks certificates! I'm not sure that's what the UFT members rallying on Monday night against the Teacher Performance Unit were seeking. Other than the fact that it's clearly designed to undercut the union, the campaign is a nice one. Teachers ought to be thanked. It's too bad it took a lot of hurt feelings for the DOE to make that happen.

Send your contributions to ThankATeacher@schools.nyc.gov by Dec. 21. Some testimonials are already up, mostly from DOE officials.

Tuesday, November 20

Teacher resignations up 68 percent in last 6 years


The UFT says more teachers are resigning every year. Since 2001, the number of certified teachers resigning has increased by more than two-thirds, from 2,544 to 4,273 last year, the UFT's data show. The DOE says that these numbers are wrong. But does the DOE really care? After all, it wants to see more teachers get fired. But with all this resigning and firing, where will the 1,300 new teachers come from to staff the smaller classes the state has funded?

Monday, November 19

Student Thought: Trust and relationships in education


The key factor in both the transmission of knowledge and the growth of a student as an individual is trust. Trust is necessary to build the relationship between a teacher and student. To run a school effectively, there must be an atmosphere of trust between teachers and administration. This principle — of trust as the mortar that holds together our education system — is also fundamental to the relationship between the DOE, the city and the members of individual schools, specifically the teachers.

The city's new initiative to fire more teachers is a betrayal of this trust. The DOE's new Teacher Performance Unit, a group of five lawyers headed by a former district attorney, has been given the goal of helping principals create cases against tenured teachers and getting rid of unsuccessful young teachers before they get tenure.

The way that the DOE has handled this program reflects a pattern of disrespect that the DOE has shown to other members of the educational community. Through initiatives like the cell phone ban, the DOE has continually antagonized students, teachers and parents. Instead of engendering the trust necessary to hold our schools together, they are creating a situation filled with fear.

Students have often felt over-criminalized by policies like the cell phone ban and random scanning. By hiring former prosecutors to fire our teachers, the DOE has, as Philissa said, made being a bad teacher a crime. The program also sets principals against teachers, further dividing our school community.

In order for Mayor Bloomberg and Joel Klein's reforms to be successful, they must first end their pattern of bullying and disrespect. They must instead seek to create an atmosphere of trust: one in which the most basic relationships within the system: those between students and teachers in a classroom setting, mirror the relationship between the city and DOE and the various constituent groups within our education system. That is the only way that we can hold an education system a large and complex as the one we have together.

Cross-posted at NYC Students Blog

Thursday, October 11

City building a few apartments for teachers


The big news for teachers last week -- that the city is planning to build two low-rent apartment buildings in the Bronx for teachers only -- will ultimately affect only a very few of them. The 234 units will start at about $800 for a studio and will be available by lottery to middle-income teachers and their families. Unlike other union-backed housing development efforts, however, the Bronx development will stay small because expanding it would cost the city and the teachers union retirement plan too much. If only the city had invested in this solution years ago, it wouldn't have had to compete with deep-pocketed developers for land in the Bronx and Brooklyn!

The Times' Elissa Gootman asks whether teachers will really want to live with the same people they work with all day. The UFT's Randi Weingarten says she isn't concerned about demand. Teachers work so hard and are home so little, though, that the development seems ripe for a resurrection of the (possibly apocryphal) New York City apartment time-share.

Wednesday, October 3

Student Thought: Jonathan Kozol on Why We Should Love Our Teachers


In his new book Letters to a Young Teacher, Jonathan Kozol tells the truth about education in America: segregation is as bad a problem as it's been since Brown v. Board of Ed; high-stakes testing and other failed policies are driving students and teachers into the ground; and the often overlooked process of teaching and learning is a beautiful thing.

Last year, I met Mr. Kozol at a conference on New York City's dropout rate. There, Kozol gave the greatest speech I have ever heard. He preached with fire and dirt in his voice and held nothing back as he took the activists, politicians, and journalists in the crowd to task. My friends from the NYC Student Union and I, who came to the conference as representatives of New York City's hundreds of thousands of public high school students, were instantly captivated by this short old man with his sleeves rolled up to his elbows (as though he was ready to plunge his fists deep into the muck of the New York City School System), telling this group of very important people that they had got it wrong.

Kozol pointed out that all of them, seated together in this stuffy florescent-lit conference room, had made the same mistake as many policy makers in America. They had skipped over the one issue that when spoken aloud made everyone in the room simultaneously cringe: Race.

As Kozol points out in Letters American schools are at worst levels of segregation since the 1950's. Stuyvesant High School, New York City's flagship elite high school, has gone from being 13% African American 25 years ago to now being only 2%. You read that correctly. The school that has been called the greatest public school in America, a beacon of hope for the oppressed communities of one of the world's most diverse cities, is only 2% African American.

But as Kozol notes, this situation is not the worst aspect of the segregation. In New York and California, seven out of every eight black students attend a school that is entirely African American. The problem of segregation is not an end in itself.

As our primary and secondary schools become more segregated, their failures multiply. In New York City and Chicago, Kozol says, the two school systems that educate a combined 10% of all African American students, 70% of students fail to graduate in four years and most of them never graduate at all. As we now see, when these schools fail, the problem of inequality continues into higher education. Over the last fifteen years, the number of African American enrollment in law schools has declined severely. Hopefully, a decline in the number of African Americans in political office and other important leadership positions does not decline as well.

Poor education systems seem to follow low income and minority students. According to Kozol, this failure results from poor national education policies. The No Child Left Behind Act has created a culture that makes low performing schools worse. It's emphasis on high stakes testing has crippled teachers and students in many low income areas. Slowly more money is allocated towards testing and test prep and less time is spent on actual teaching and learning. This stifles the creativity of America's teachers and demeans their profession, making them mere voice boxes for poorly constructed curricula instead of the intelligent and interesting people they are.

This system also leaves low-income students with less access to special tutors or small classes reach the third grade, they are slotted into gifted, regular or remedial tracks and are usually stuck with these "castes" until the end of their academic experience. Kozol puts it perfectly when he says:

There's something deeply hypocritical in a society that holds an eight or nine year old accountable for her performance on a high-stakes standardized exam but does not hold the Congress and the President accountable for robbing her of what they gave their own kids six or seven years before.

However, for all his harsh criticism of American education there is an unmistakable love for the process of teaching and learning in Letters. We see this in the playful nickname he gives a young girl he meets in a low performing elementary school: Pineapple. This is a man who loves children and like many great teachers, seems to gain as much wisdom from them as he gives to the rest of us.

That love of education is what made this short old man, with sleeves rolled up to his elbows, who spoke with fire and dirt in his voice, so special. There was more than anger in his words. There was the experience of really being a teacher and with that all of the difficult, joyous and sometimes too complicated to describe moments that a young teacher faces... and that those who make educational policy too often do not understand. There was also a warm admiration of all of those who fight in the trenches of American public schools, a proud recognition of the hard work and caring it takes to bring students from groups that are so often pushed aside in our society into successful participants in Democracy.

If nothing else, what one should take from Letters to a Young Teacher is a profound sense of respect for all of these men and women who pursue a low-paying, low-class job for the greatest good our country can produce: a future.

In the best school systems in the world (namely Finland and Alberta, Canada) teachers are revered and given the same societal status as doctors and lawyers. This respect for teachers seems to help them have a greater, more positive effect on their students and brings graduates from the top third of their college classes (as opposed to the bottom third in the US) into the teaching profession.

What we need in American schools, maybe more than anything else, is a respect for these teachers and their opinions on how schools should be run, whether that means lowering class sizes, reducing the number of high stakes tests, editing stale curricula or anything else. It's time that policy makers looked at those who are actually in our schools from day to day for the answers of how to fix America's schools.

Cross-posted on Open Left

Friday, September 7

Student, parent, teacher survey results now out


Remember the "learning environment" surveys the DOE was pushing parents, teachers, and students to take last spring? Their results are now available in the "statistics" section of each school's DOE website. Each report has a ton of information to wade through, but the New York Times has a useful summary. Some of the most interesting tidbits:

  • 26 percent of parents overall answered the surveys, far fewer than the DOE originally said it wanted but a reasonably good sample (though not representative — response rates were much lower in schools with poorer students).
  • Most parents' responses indicated that they are generally happy with their schools, just as researchers have discovered pretty much every time they've ever surveyed parents, regardless of the quality of schools from which those parents are drawn.
  • Perhaps for this reason, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum thinks the survey was "nothing more than a multi-million dollar P.R. effort."
  • But there's actually a surprising amount of criticism of principals, coming mainly from teachers. I checked out the reports of a couple of schools that I know are having leadership problems, and it looked like teachers reported freely that their principals don't adequately respect or support them. I wonder whether the DOE will take a closer look at schools like these, even if the final grade into which the surveys are being factored isn't low.
  • A quarter of parents said the single improvement they'd most like to see in their kid's school is smaller class size, a request that Mayor Bloomberg immediately downplayed. Small class size advocates mobilized around the surveys, so the results might be a little distorted, but it's still telling that parents almost universally chose class size reduction over "more effective school leadership" and "better communication with parents." And it's simply bizarre to see the disdain Bloomberg has for an idea that makes an unimpeachable goal, even if it isn't immediately attainable.
I'm impressed that the DOE released the survey results in such a straightforward manner. The next step is for the DOE to give parents, teachers, and students a real say in crafting the surveys (that way, perhaps special education would get addressed) and to translate the wealth of information into a language that's more understandable for those of us who aren't trained to analyze data.

Thursday, August 9

Teaching Fellows still frustrated


If you're concerned about teacher quality and retention, take a look at "Your Own Blackboard Jungle," a long article in this week's Village Voice about the training and support that Teaching Fellows receive. (The article is similar in both structure and content to Insideschools' May 2005 article on the subject.)

The fact that "seven weeks of crash-course training and summer school student teaching, [recent fellows] say, is no preparation for the realities of city classrooms" comes as no surprise to anyone who has spent a moment in the city's schools as a teacher, parent, student, or even observer. More interesting are the article's revelations that even in high-needs schools, new fellows may receive the highest-need students, especially those in special education; that 25 percent of all math teachers and 18 percent of special ed teachers are fellows; and that administrators are aware of the vast "room for improvement" in the flimsy graduate programs set up just for fellows.

I'm also always excited to hear teachers with concrete proposals for how to improve the profession; in the article, one teacher advises the DOE to let fellows work as assistant teachers for a year before getting their own classrooms. I'm less interested in reading about young professionals who feel duped by "gauzy subway ads" into becoming teachers, only to find out that teaching is actually hard. That complaint sounds to me like smokers' claims that they just didn't know the cigarettes they were smoking could cause lung cancer. Except, of course, that teaching can be worth the risk, as some of the Teaching Fellows who have stuck with the profession have found.

Wednesday, July 11

So simple, yet somehow so hard for many to understand


The On Education column this week in the Times, by reporter David Herszenhorn, addresses a simple idea that, if actually understood by legislators and the general public, could dramatically change the way schools are governed: "Working with children looks easy. It is not."

Herzsenhorn writes that covering the schools has shown him that the challenges facing people working in schools are broader than most on the outside imagine. He writes:

School professionals are called upon not only to educate children, but also to nurture curiosity and civic values, and even to teach the most basic manners. ... Not only do professional educators have to know how to deal with children, they have to be clever about soothing an even wackier bunch: parents.

The daily work in schools is so hard that most educators in the system do not distinguish between the chancellor’s office and the mayor, the labor unions and state government, the teachers’ contract and the federal No Child Left Behind law when they complain, frequently, that the “system” is against them.

Forces above and beyond school level often make the work in classrooms more difficult. And the work in classrooms is difficult enough.
While this notion might seem like a no-brainer, the fact is that teachers and administrators are continually asked to improve students' performance -- measured in standardized test scores -- without being able to address kids' vast "non-academic" needs. And when teachers struggle to raise scores, their quality is impugned. Sometimes criticizing teachers is justified, but often it's a smokescreen to distract from the more complicated factors underlying student performance.

A quarter of kids in New York City live in poverty (as do 1 in 6 kids nationally). The city's expansion of the summer meals program underscores the reality that many kids here are often hungry. This reality, like many others beyond teachers' control, makes it hard for kids to learn. Not until legislators sincerely address the "forces above and beyond school level" can successfully teaching kids get easier.

Monday, June 18

Teach for America grad new DC schools chief


Last week, when Washington, D.C., named Michelle Rhee, a Teach for America alum who was running the New Teacher Project, its new schools superintendent, some pointed to a TFA "insurgency" in public education. Teach for America began placing graduates of top universities in hard-to-fill teaching positions in 1990, and the oldest of its 12,000 alums are now nearing age 40. The ones who have stuck in education have almost two decades of experience and are poised to make the leap from classrooms to leadership positions.

Critics of Teach for America say the program's structure — requiring its participants to teach in a high-need classroom for two years — does little to address the national problem of teacher retention, and they complain that the young teachers are ill prepared for the most challenging classrooms. These are legitimate critiques. Still, I've visited schools in the city where the infusion of youthful energy and enthusiasm have benefited the entire school. I've also met several young principals of new schools who launched their careers in education through Teach for America; according to the organization, more than 80 administrators in New York got their start in TFA.

Rhee's position as a superintendent marks a watershed moment for Teach for America, but it shouldn't come as a surprise. As much as it has been positioned as outside the mainstream, TFA actually promotes only what we all know works to improve schools: dedication, teacher quality, and a healthy dose of innovation. The ascendancy of TFA grads in educational leadership — whether in traditional bureaucracies or in non-profit reform organizations like KIPP, which one could argue are more influential right now — reflects less an "insurgency" than the trickle-up effect of getting smart young people hooked on teaching and reforming schools. There's little for critics to fault in that.