Having good teachers for colleagues helps other teachers improve. Common sense, right? This new study documents some pretty dramatic peer effects. EdWeek’s Debra Viadero breaks it down for you here.
Attention: Wendy Kopp and Teach For America: Maybe this wasn’t such a crazy idea after all?
This research also implies the opposite might be beneficial: to keep TFA teachers in tough schools so that their own work ethic and continually improving teaching practices help inspire colleagues to better their own practices.
Also, were the goals of TFA to help provide teaching talent in already excelling schools or to convince more corps members to continue to teach after their commitment, your idea would fit. As it stands, retaining the length of the 2-year commitment and letting TFA into these tough placements to continue engendering success in student learning will likely continue to be the game plan.
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 2, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Unless you believe that the TFA teacher is the best teacher in the building on Day One, Chris, (not just an incremental improvement) it makes sense to have as many top experienced pros as possible to provide the lift the study describes.
And my idea is not that TFA should “provide teaching talent to already excelling schools.” It’s that they are well-positioned to free up master teachers in those excelling school to take up the hardest jobs in the profession. I like TFA a lot, but even the most passionate TFA acolyte, I think, would agree that a top-flight experienced teacher in a struggling school would be better than the best TFA recruit. By using a few of their corp members as pinch-hitters for those master teachers, everyone wins.
That’s not TFA’s goal? Well, aren’t we supposed to be putting what’s best for children ahead of what’s best for adults?
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — September 2, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Unfortunately, the who TFA vs. experienced traditional teacher debate gives off more heat than light these days. It’s politically unwise to suggest that TFA teachers would be anything less than superstars from the moment they arrive.
It seems to me that close analysis of the study’s findings might inform mentoring programs, which have been getting a bad rap in research circles these days. I recently interviewed the founder of a Minnesota program that gets pre-service and in-service teachers to co-teach K-12 classes. The results are very stunning. Students in co-taught classrooms do substantially better than students in classes taught by only one experienced teacher. A program evaluation also suggests that the pre-service teachers become more effective and committed teachers after their co-teaching experience.
The key seems to be collaboration rather than master/disciple relationships. Perhaps the study of peer effects could help build a case for more common planning time between effective teachers and their less experienced peers.
Comment by Claus — September 2, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
We could put the TFA teacher into those schools with top-notch teachers, but this added benefit would be combined with the disadvantage of not having that teacher initially in a tough school making progress in the first 2 years of teaching. Noting this tradeoff, the opposite stance that I stated would also be effective: let the TFA teacher keep making gains in tough schools while also contributing to the improvement of his colleagues. While a TFA teacher initially might not be the “best in the building”, they likely won’t be the worst. The program facilitates the corps member to do the best job possible, and this work ethic and focus on improvement, along with other selected qualities that likely will contribute to good teaching, could be useful to have around ineffective teachers.
Your plan to get master TFA teachers into these disadvantaged schools *after* a two-year commitment at a top-notch school is at odds with the goals of the program. First, this would lengthen the commitment, lessening its appeal (particularly for the math and science students), along with removing the added benefit that teacher could have had for 2 years in a school that really needed it. TFA’s mission is not to directly prepare teachers for a career in teaching (although that certainly is what many choose to do) but rather to make the most change possible in 2 years in the classroom, and then to empower their alumni to continue working for change out of the classroom.
Finally, your idea is somewhat already in place. TFA program directors have a professional one-on-one relationship with each corps member, they themselves finished with their 2-year, and sometimes longer, commitment as a teacher. They somewhat emulate the master teacher approach you are proposing, just strictly in a mentor capacity. They are, however, much better than what you might think of as typical “mentors” in education.
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 2, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Chris, I’m not sure you’re following my point. The goal is not to get TFA teachers into low-SES schools after their two-year commitment. That would be a bonus, just like it’s a bonus if TFAers stay past two years. The point is to get the country’s best teachers into low-SES schools immediately, and deploy some TFA corps members (those who are interested in teaching past their two-year commitment) into high-functioning schools as “pinch hitters.” This way the disadvantaged kids get the best teacher today, while the TFAers have two-years to hone their craft, after which they’d be superbly prepared to take on the tougher assignment. And make no mistake, it would still be tough. But they wouldn’t have to worry about learning every aspect of their craft — classroom management, assessment, lesson planning, etc. — all at once.
The idea that a low-SES school would be disadvantaged by “not having that [TFA] teacher initially in a tough school making progress in the first 2 years of teaching” is curious. The benefit is supposed to accrue to the child, not the teacher or school. Surely you cannot seriously be suggesting that low-SES students are better served by even the most talented rookie over an accomplished veteran? If we’re serious about “the most change possible in two years in the classroom” (and we mean the most chage for the student, not the teacher) then it would be lovely (color me naive) if some program existed that allowed highly skilled veteran teachers to give two years of service where it is needed the most, while not losing their position in their home school. I’m well aware that teaching for two years on the Upper East Side might lack the gritty appeal of working in Harlem or Bed-Stuy, as a recruitment tool, but again, if putting the interests of children ahead of adults is the goal, and not a homily, then we are duty-bound to get the best talent where it can do the most good. My hunch has long been that there are no shortage of great mid-career teachers who would welcome the opportunity to serve two years where the need is greatest, if they had the option to return after having given their service.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — September 2, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
I’m not berating what you’re saying, but your proposal seems to target education reform on a different level than TFA aims. Sending corps members into good schools defeats the original purpose and appeal of the program, as it hedges the mission partly toward teacher retention and providing the skills for some TFAers to make teaching a career. Your idea is a good approach as it also targets student achievement, but it is very different from TFA’s current model, and comes with it its own unique array of logistical challenges.
I mention appeal not because I am focusing on the teachers’ interests over the students’ (as you’ve alluded to twice), but because that appeal is what is driving the increase in application numbers each year, which translates into a growing corps that can be placed into more and more regions, meaning more students who are getting a better teacher. It’d be foolish to try something vastly different when the current model is producing good results as is, and continuing to improve. It also would give subtle credence to anti-TFA claims that TFA teachers don’t belong in tough schools, even though TFA teachers do pretty darn well in their current placements.
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 3, 2009 @ 12:52 am
If I’m reading Chris argument correctly (or maybe on the cynical side of correctly), the part of the problem with having TFA teachers serve as pinch-hitters for top-notch experienced teachers who volunteer to teach in a low SES school for a year or two is that, for a TFA candidate, teaching in a comfortable, high functioning school for a couple of years while someone else goes to a low-SES school doesn’t have the “I’m working to save the world” appeal that working in a low-SES school does, and would depress the number of TFA applicants.
Comment by Rachel — September 3, 2009 @ 11:26 am
At the time, Wendy Kopp responded to my post. Here’s what she said:
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/05/27/wendy-kopp-responds/
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — September 3, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Thinking about this some more, I think the way to implement a program like this is not through TFA, but through a district-district-union collaboration, with a bit of grant-funding thrown in. The grant funding would provide stipend to teachers who want to do a “sabbatical” at a low-SES school (they’d apply, the school would get to decide if they were a good fit). The “loaning” district/school would agree to take the teacher back after the “sabbatical” ended.
Since the flaw in the plan I’ve outlined is that there isn’t much incentive for the loaning district, it might work better in a large district with both high-SES and low-SES schools so teachers would move within their districts.
Comment by Rachel — September 3, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Wendy Kopp’s reply linked above addresses your comment, Rachel.
I just find it odd how everyone has an opinion on how TFA should dramatically change this and that, and then they seem bewildered when the changes aren’t implemented. “Aren’t the children important, Ms. Kopp?”
TFA believes in their model as is. Research shows that it is a good model for students and not only that but also continues to grow to reach more communities, so it is reasonable that TFA believes in such a model.
That said, implementing X, Y, and Z changes to this model because someone else thinks it’s a good idea would be absurd. TFA has grown to handle the logistic challenges of its own program, not of the program others want it to be. Making a shift to handle these newer logistics would require a lot of time and money (taking it away from progress that could be made toward TFA’s goals right now) and would alter the mission statement, indeed likely making it lose its appeal to many almost-graduates. These aspects do incorporate success for TFA, but this success is shared with students with the growing ability to serve more disadvantaged children.
Really, the best way to put these proposed changes into action is to do like Wendy did, and start your own from the ground up, and see if it works or not.
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 3, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Robert is correct–the TFA model benefits adults more than it benefits children. Bringing barely-prepared teachers from prestigious colleges into our most dysfunctional schools for a two-year missionary stint does nothing to fix systemic ills. In fact, the TFA model reinforces the noblesse oblige, turnover culture.
The only way we will permanently address the truly terrible state of our worst schools is long-term investment: investment in stable and effective education personnel, investment in rich curriculum, investment in neighborhoods and decent health care and a focus on future opportunity, all long-term goals. Parachuting a bright and willing volunteer in for two years is a certainly a noble-sounding career-builder for the volunteer, but does little to build genuine teaching capacity or sustain student learning. “Research,” in fact, does not show that TFA is a “good model for students.” A recent piece out of Houston now shows that TFA teachers in their first two years there are the worst teachers in the district, using the state tests as metric. But guess what? By year three, they’re excelling. And by year five, only 15% remain, and most have them have done what smart teachers everywhere do–gotten themselves into a better school.
TFA spends millions every year in public relations and advertising (a perk unavailable to public schools). A friend (former TFAer) who is now in their organizational hierarchy as a recruiter talks about how they go for the most visible campus leaders– they’re headhunters– and stress the Peace Corps aspects. When clusters of TFAers are placed in high-needs schools, they are trained to believe that the teachers who are already there are not to be trusted, and the PD provided by schools is no good, isolating the TFAers who never become a true part of the faculty or mission. TFAers are there to raise the scores, then get out. It’s a low-trust model: we know better how to solve your problems. And since that’s never worked in government, it’s hard to see how it could work in education.
Of course, TFA believes in their model. It serves their clients: college graduates who want to be missionaries in their own land, and build their resumes–and the anti-public-school movement.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — September 7, 2009 @ 9:25 am
There have been a number of research studies (and not “research” with the snide quotes you applied) that have shown TFA teachers *are* effective. You mention a research study in Houston: can you give a citation?
Are you referring to Linda Darling-Hammond’s study in 2005, a known critic of TFA since the early 90s? The one that generated its fair share of criticisms and a reply from Mathematica reminding us that Mathematica had the better experimental design?
(1) http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/education/teach4amercomment.asp
(2) http://www.teach-now.org/newsdisp.cfm?newsid=77
(3) http://www.givewell.net/TFA
A 2001 Houston study had nothing but positive things to say about TFA:
http://credo.stanford.edu/downloads/tfa.pdf
Another report on the HISD commended the district for utilizing TFA, and claimed TFA teachers go “above and beyond the call of duty”
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Perf_Rvw_PubEd/hisd/HoustonISD.pdf
And this fall HISD is anticipating its largest new batch of TFA teachers ever, the HISD superintendent claiming that “Teach for America’s teachers have been a vital part of our city’s efforts to accelerate student achievement for nearly 20 years. I am pleased to welcome such a large group of our nation’s best and brightest young people into Houston’s classrooms next fall.”
http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-teachforamerica-story,0,4947759.story
We also don’t “know” that TFA teachers leave at much higher rates, as some studies suggest there is little difference in teacher retention.
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/Donaldson.TFA.AERA.pdf
The rest of your post was either lucid imagery of how TFA corps members enter their work as “missionaries,” or slanderous in claiming we’re led to be distrustful of other teachers and our school’s PDs, so there’s not much else to reply to there.
Finally, I want to plug an essay that I wrote about TFA and some responses to common criticism I’ve seen of it:
http://thecatalytictriad.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-i-learned-while-teaching-secondary_07.html
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 8, 2009 @ 3:17 am
There have been a number of research studies (and not “research” with the snide quotes you applied) that have shown TFA teachers *are* effective. You mention a research study in Houston: can you give a citation?
Are you referring to Linda Darling-Hammond’s study in 2005, a known critic of TFA since the early 90s? The one that generated its fair share of criticisms and a reply from Mathematica reminding us that Mathematica had the better experimental design?
(1) http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/education/teach4amercomment.asp
(2) http://www.teach-now.org/newsdisp.cfm?newsid=77
(3) http://www.givewell.net/TFA
A 2001 Houston study had nothing but positive things to say about TFA:
http://credo.stanford.edu/downloads/tfa.pdf
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 8, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Another report on the HISD commended the district for utilizing TFA, and claimed TFA teachers go “above and beyond the call of duty”
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Perf_Rvw_PubEd/hisd/HoustonISD.pdf
And this fall HISD is anticipating its largest new batch of TFA teachers ever, the HISD superintendent claiming that “Teach for America’s teachers have been a vital part of our city’s efforts to accelerate student achievement for nearly 20 years. I am pleased to welcome such a large group of our nation’s best and brightest young people into Houston’s classrooms next fall.”
http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-teachforamerica-story,0,4947759.story
We also don’t “know” that TFA teachers leave at much higher rates, as some studies suggest there is little difference in teacher retention.
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/Donaldson.TFA.AERA.pdf
The rest of your post was either lucid imagery of how TFA corps members enter their work as “missionaries,” or slanderous in claiming we’re led to be distrustful of other teachers and our school’s PDs, so there’s not much else to reply to there.
Finally, I want to plug an essay that I wrote about TFA and some responses to common criticism I’ve seen of it:
http://thecatalytictriad.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-i-learned-while-teaching-secondary_07.html
Comment by Chris Smyr — September 8, 2009 @ 1:13 pm