Comments on: The Differentiation Dilemma

By: Barnett Berry

Barnett Berry — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:39:06 +0000

Let’s get clear: Some studies have also found that some highly selected entrants — from routes such as Teach for America, who receive most of their university training while they teach in high-needs schools — do as well or better than other teachers who teach in the same schools, where those teachers are not highly selected or well-prepared themselves. Researchers have noted, however, that new TFA recruits are less effective when compared to fully prepared teachers, until they themselves gain experience and certification Furthermore, more than 80 percent of TFA recruits are gone from the classroom after their third year, just as they are becoming more effective.

Other studies have found that entrants from strong teacher education programs both stay in teaching significantly longer and achieve stronger student achievement gains that those of either alternative route entrants or weak traditional programs. Check out the teacher education effects data in Louisiana where graduates of NE Louisiana-Monroe outperform other recruits, including TFA, those from the New Teacher Project, and traditional graduates from the state’s “R1″ university – LSU. However, the researchers found (like others elsewhere) that there is more variation within different types of routes into teaching than between them. But preparation (and in the case of LA, certification in the content) matters for student achievement.

One fact is certain: Poorly prepared teachers (from whatever source) who exit the profession quickly leave their students to be taught by the next round of ill-trained novices who routinely replace them. This does not mean high quality alternative certification should not be part of a long-term strategy to recruit and retain effective teachers for high needs schools. Not at all.

It is time for some fresh thinking, including rethinking FTE and how we organize teacher leadership in schools so that less prepared TFA-types who may not stay very long in teaching, can work under the tutelage of experts who will. See my recent Ed Week commentary at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/05/20/32berry_ep.h28.html – and “end the battles over teaching.”

By: Fran Lo

Fran Lo — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:18:52 +0000

Isn’t “Doctors for America” a straw man? How is TFA all that different from many states’ “alternate route to certification?” And that has turned out some pretty good teachers.

As to the arguement that many will leave teaching – isn’t this also another straw man? We’ve already got new teachers from all sorts of sources leaving teaching in droves. Some TFA teachers might discover they love teaching and decide to stay.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:40:19 +0000

Once TFA recruits are employed they become part of the teacher union in the school district. It seems to me then that the NEA objection is based on principle rather than concern about membership or anything else.

The principle is simple. TFA undermines the profession by suggesting that there is no knowledge base for the teaching profession. Individuals with very little training in teaching can go into the most difficult classrooms for two years, and then go on to real and more lucrative careers outside of education.

Imagine an initiative to create “Doctors for America” wherein we recruited the best and brightest four year degree graduates, gave them five weeks of training in medicine, and then asked them to practice medicine in our inner cities for two years. After two years they could go on to law school or teacher education. Sounds absurd doesn’t it.