Many educational professors and theorists enjoy attacking Teach for America and similar programs. Recently, Jim Horn took over the soapbox of Change.org to publish a two-part attack on Teach for America. This attack, which frequently devolves into questionable rhetoric, deserves a rebuttal from a less involved party. Clearly, the social entrepreneurs which Jim so critically attacks are not in a good position to provide this, but Jim also isn’t operating from a neutral perspective either. As a member of the educational elite, he clearly has a vested interest in increasingly rigorous teacher training. I offer the following as an outsider, hoping that my inexperience also insulates me from the antiquated self-preserving rhetoric which many educators have adopted.
The most troubling part of Jim’s attack is how he continually strikes out against the actual teachers for America. His tone is clearly derogatory, and sadly strays dangerously close to an older man attacking younger generations out of self-preservation. In many places, he attacks the intelligence and readiness of the volunteers.
This year TFA has an operating budget in excess of $100 million, net assets of over $120 million, and a work force of over 6,000 bright, energetic, and, yes, clueless recruits engaged in on-the-job training in some of America’s most desperately-poor, low-achieving schools, where children, by the way, need most of all (beyond the need to end their poverty) the most highly qualified, experienced teachers with deep knowledge of the subjects they teach and knowledge of how to teach those subjects.
What exactly are these highly educated and intelligent recruits clueless about? Sure, a certain part of the TFA philosophy relies upon tossing recruits into the “deep end” of urban poverty, but I genuinely believe this strategy can be effective. Most situations, including teaching, can be successfully mastered by an individual with a strong will, a good brain, and a healthy dose of resourcefulness. Clearly, given their backgrounds and the application process, most recruits possess these tools. It isn’t fair to argue that TFA recruits are any more clueless than other first-year teachers.
Nor does there seem to be any moral reservation or element of doubt expressed by these idealistic recent grads who would seem equally eager to sign up… And yet for all the sunny assuaging of white middle class guilt and the successful beefing up of law school resumes skimpy on service that TFA has enabled for its thousands of past and present recruits and donors, there are some dark elements of TFA that are incubated and grown by this movement.
Jim immediately concludes that recruits should experience moral reservation, and berates the recruits for not sharing his reservations. Yet, I can see no compelling reason that there should be moral reservations surrounding this. No matter the intellectual objections surrounding methodology, the moral intent is sound. One associates moral reservations with participating in war, not with volunteering to work in impoverished schools.
Throughout, Jim attempts to paint all recruits as self-serving egoists with their eyes only for the coveted law school admission and associated wealth. Given the rigorous admissions process for TFA, one can assume recruits could easily find a more cost-productive way to spend a few years of their life, if their sole goal is wealth and power. Paradoxically, he also attempts to accuse them of naively pursuing a goal of changing the world. Here, I believe he is actually the naive one. While he theorizes about ending poverty from his ivory tower, Teach for America is pursuing the significantly more achievable task of providing a passable education for impoverished students.
Beyond the attacks upon recruits, Jim also takes up a shield to defend unions and the tenure system. In short, he argues for the past, where teaching is only a viable profession after many years of (costly) education and experience.
The fact is, Teach for America fills a need. Society presently doesn’t provide teachers with adequate compensation, particularly in areas with lower tax rolls. The majority of the strong teachers migrate to suburban areas where they can be guaranteed decent salaries.
Clearly, this needs to change. I agree with Jim in that our current education funding system has significant flaws. It serves as a multiplier of poverty, instead of a leveler. However, these changes won’t come quickly or easily — the educational and political establishment are highly entrenched in the current paradigm. Eventually, I hope this will be remedied. Unfortunately, Jim seems to be just as clueless as the rest of us about how to do so. Despite his continued attacks on TFA for only addressing a symptom, he offers no concrete alternatives.
Until these issues of poverty and education can be remedied, the fact remains that urban schools need teachers. The highly trained teachers whom Jim insists are needed don’t seem to be willing to fill this void until the funding issues are resolved. Jim himself has a good, safe position at Cambridge College, which I imagine pays decently. Meanwhile, the blog host, Clay Burell, has spent years working at international schools. These examples just illustrate the fact that there is a lack of qualified teachers willing to work in urban schools today. Teach for American fills this void, by providing highly educated individuals ready to work in poor districts.
While TFA itself may be a stop-gap, I also believe it can be part of the final solution. Though many recruits will only teach for a few years, this is not entirely a bad thing. These successful individuals are clearly on their way to positions of power, in both politics and business. Hopefully, having some classroom experience will help them to be cognizant of the issues classroom teachers face. With this experience, they will be less likely to regulate ineffective solutions and more open to equitable distributions of funding. TFA is providing valuable on-the-ground experience for future leaders.
Teach for America clearly has some issues, but it is not entirely bad. The recruits are certainly not idiots, and Jim Horn would do well to aim his scorn at more deserving subjects.1 When debating educational politics, we would all do well to examine our own prejudices, whether they be towards the educational elite or business. Instead of attacking people trying to make a difference, we should all do more to make a difference ourselves.
What do you think of Teach for America? Is it a helpful partner in change or a dangerous cancer?
Forty-five years ago, a great bit of history was made. Eight years ago, we saw a different sort of history. That history didn’t turn out so well.
Tomorrow, history will be made. The only question left is what sort of history it will be.
Today, I didn’t have school. School was closed in honor of a great moment in history, and the man who inspired it.
Tomorrow, history will be made. While it is made, I will be taking my math exam. I will be able to tell my grandchildren about quadratic formulas.
For an interesting assignment for both English and History, I wrote a dialogue exploring Lord of the Flies from the viewpoint of Enlightenment thinkers. Upon the encouragement of Grady, I am posting it here. My apologies in advance for the poor style and tone.1 In lieu of more focused posts, enjoy!
Scene: A smoke-filled room, somewhere in London. The dark walls are hung with remnants of a bygone age, with paintings hanging in the backdrop of three men and their thoughts. Sitting around an oaken table, the men are absorbed in a game of poker. One man (Hobbes) scowls at his hand as he places the first bet.
Hobbes: “Three quid.”
Locke: “I’ll see your three, and raise you five.”
Machiavelli (his face hidden in shadow): “A fearsome hand I have here… I’ll raise you thirty.”
Hobbes: “I fold.”
Locke: “I’ll see your thirty.”
Hands shown.
Hobbes: “Looks like you were too optimistic again, John.”
Machiavelli: “You should know by now I’ve always got the upper hand.”
A servant walks in, head down, and hands Machiavelli a note. She quickly hurries out, with fear in her footsteps.
Machiavelli: “The boys have landed on the island.”
Locke: “I’m sure they’ll be fine. Nature has an abundance for them to harvest.”
Hobbes: “I wouldn’t count on it.”
Locke: “Want to bet?”
Hobbes: “How does two hundred quid sound?”
Locke: “Sounds like I’ll be buying a new watch.”
Machiavelli (dealing): “Place your bets.”
Locke: “Maybe I’ll have better luck this time. 5 pounds.”
Many hands later, the servant enters again, handing another note to Machiavelli, who growls at her to get out.
Machiavelli: “Looks like they’ve elected a leader through democracy.” (disparaging tone)
Locke: “Great! They’re already on their way to civilization.”
Machiavelli: “Hardly… unless this Ralph character bucks up they’ll just weaken.”
Hobbes: “There’s no chance any government will be able to exist on this island. All of them will just look out for themselves.”
Locke: “We’ll see…”
Hobbes: “Back to the game… I raise you 5.”
Locke: “I’ll see your 5.”
Machiavelli: “As will I.”
Hobbes discretely slips some coins back into his pocket.
Locke: “Hey! You’re cheating.”
Hobbes: “Says who? If you want to keep your propety, keep a better eye on it.”
Machiavelli: “I do, that’s who. Unless you want to leave in a rather unpleasant manner, I suggest you put those back.”
Machiavelli: “Jack is proving himself to be a far better leader than Ralph.”
Locke: “Never… Ralph was chosen by the people.”
Machiavelli: “And the people are idiots. Ralph is weak. He’ll never maintain power.”
Locke: “Thomas, back me up here. Ralph is the good leader, right?”
Hobbes: “I’m going to have to side with Niccolò. If anyone can exercise absolute power, it’s Jack.”
Machiavelli: “Exactly. He protects his power through military might.”
Hobbes: “A bunch of boys running around with sticks isn’t a military.”
Machiavelli: “Maybe, but Jack is explointing fear well. If the others think he is the only one who can protect them from the beast, they’ll trust him.”
Hobbes: “Stupid kids.”
Many games later, Machiavelli gets another note from the fear-stricken servant.
Machiavelli: “Looks like we’ve had a death.”
Hobbes: “See, what was I telling you John. Who?”
Machiavelli: “Simon, the recluse.”
Hobbes: “Serves him right for not protecting himself.”
Locke: “It must have been an accident. They’re just kids after all.”
Hobbes: “Kids are closer to human nature than we are.”
Locke: “Hardly… most of them don’t even have any thoughts yet. Some of them are barely beyond the tabula rasa of infancy.”
Karl Rove and David Axelrod enter, led by the butler.
Axelrod: “Mind if we join you, John?”
Locke: “By all means, sit down.” (Glances at Machiavelli.) “That is, if Niccolò is okay with it.”
Machiavelli: “As long as you’re ready to pay.”
Rove: “As long as he can tax a little first.” (Laughter.)
Hobbes: “We were just talking about the experiment island.”
Axelrod: “Who was running that, again?”
Machiavelli: “Golding is. He’s sending my updates.”
Locke: “So, David, who do you think is the best leader?”
Axelrod: “Well, I think Ralph is wise to listen Piggy, but his weakening of intelligence concerns me.”
Rove: “Well of course you’d say that. It’s always about smarts with you liberals, isn’t it.”
Hobbes: “Save it for RNC meetings, Karl.”
A few hand later, the servant enters again and gives Machiavelli another note.
Machiavelli: “Well, Ralph finally got some guts. But it’s too little, too late.”
Rove: “What’s going on?”
Machiavelli: “Well, the ocean is enjoying Piggy’s guts. The tribe is hunting Ralph.”
Axelrod: “Savages, but they probably just think its a game.”
Hobbes: “Or maybe they’re showing us what humans are really like.”
Rove: “Brits, maybe.” (Axelrod and Machiavelli laugh, while Hobbes and Locke glare.)
A few minutes later, Machiavelli is given another note.
Machiavelli: “Will is calling off the experiment, says it’s getting too dangerous. He sent in a Navy officer.”
Axelrod: “Finally, these boys should have been taken home a long time ago.”
Hobbes: “Nay, they gave us some good insight into human nature. Speaking of which, it’s time for John to pay up.”
Locke: “What for? I was right… none of them starved.”
Hobbes: “How can you say that when two boys are dead?”
Locke: “Well it proves nature is abundant. The island had plenty to eat.”
Hobbes: “No, it just shows that human nature creates scarcity everywhere.”
Locke: “Fine, I’ve got to leave anyways. Here’s your money.” (Leaves)
Machiavelli: “Well, they would have done better if Jack had led from the start.”
Rove: “I agree. He saw that fear controls people best.”
Axelrod: “A fat lot fear did for you in November.”
Rove: “That was just “straight-talk” John doing what he does best–screwing things up.”
Axelrod: “Or maybe the American people have finally caught on to your game.”
Machiavelli: “No, I just think your ridiculous term limits are to blame. What’s the point of designing a government to be unstable?”
Rove: “Exactly. I had them under my thumb, but Montesquie’s stupid balance of powers kept us from total control.”
Axelrod: “Thank god.”
Rove: “Save it for the stump.”
Machiavelli: “That’s enough, boys. We better quit before you fight even more.”
Rove: “Fine, but David better watch his back.”
Hobbes: “And you better watch your winnings… you have no right to them.”
Machiavelli: “I’d like to see you try, Tom.”
Hobbes: “If I were younger…”
Axelrod: “Thanks for hosting this, Niccolò”
Machiavelli: “Good night, everyone.”
exeunt omnes
I will be returning to my regularly scheduled writing soon.
One of my favorite things about President-elect Obama is that he is the first president to truly understand the power of technology — to a large extent, it got him elected. Already, he is beginning to bring his powerful technology platform into government. I hope by that the end of his term we will see government data opened up with accessible and non-proprietary formats (like XML) which can be accessed by all citizens. The availability of this data will truly give news organizations, technologists, and students new ways to easily and effectively monitor government activity. Ethan Bodnar has written an excellent letter which reflects these principles and offers specific advice on what to do. Thankfully, these changes can easily be implemented, given the right team, and are (or should be) decidedly nonpartisan. I hope President-elect Obama learns from his success with technology on the campaign trail and brings that same edge to government.
America needs a new direction. For the past 8 years, the politics of fear and hate have divided Americans and thrown the economy into tumult. We need a president prepared to rise above those politics and steer us in a new direction. Barack Hussein Obama is the right man for the job, at this time.
More than anything, my support is based upon his economic positions. John McCain and Sarah Palin have lost no time in tying him to socialism, a suspicious claim at best. The fact is, we have seen a vast redistribution of wealth in the past 8 years: redistributed upwards. Despite once opposing them, John McCain now proposes to expand and renew the Bush tax cuts. Let us not forget the vast government bailout pushed for by the present administration, which John McCain was so quick to “suspend” his campaign to fight for. Though in some ways necessary, the structure of the bill was designed to disguise its true socialist nature. Republicans have been largely responsible for one of the greatest handouts of history, which they are so quick to attack with straw man arguments when coming from Democrats. Naturally, this added to the vast debt which the present administration has pushed onto America.1 The Republican Party has become the Socialist Party of America. Except it is a cruel brand of socialism, which guarantees the wealth of the rich and lets everyone else fend for themselves.
For years, the Republican party has sought to win elections through character assaults. For the most part, it has worked: Americans are consistently distracted from the fact that Republican policies are only good for 1% of Americans. They tried the same thing this year: they have attempted to smear Obama with everything in their barrel, or even with pure fabrication. Despite this, I truly believe it has backfired. As Americans see how cool and pragmatic Obama is in response to every issue confronting him, it becomes clearer that he truly does have the better character. Republicans wanted to make this election about character, since with the economy they’d lose. To their surprise, they’ll lose on this front too.
If I was born in a different time, I would probably be a conservative. I am consistently uncomfortable on a philosophical level with many Democratic policies. Fortunately, with this election, we can elect a true conservative.3 Simply, a conservative is one who thinks that solutions which have worked before will probably work again. Despite his inspirational talk of change, Obama is at heart a pragmatic policy wonk. He has considered policies from other nations across the globe, and constructed a practical agenda. While John McCain makes decisions based upon emotion and ideological dogma, Obama takes a reasoned approach built on common sense, careful planning, and research. Barack Obama’s best experience is how he has run his campaign. If he runs the country as well as he has run for it, he may truly take America in a better direction. Of the many (on both sides of the aisle) who have articulated this, I believe Wick Allison (former editor of the National Review) articulates it best:
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
I do not agree with Barack Obama on all fronts: many of his plans are irresponsible and make me nervous about deficit spending. However, the thought of John McCain (or, worse, Sarah Palin) controlling this nation is far scarier. For this reason, I have done what I can to elect Barack Hussein Obama,4 and encourage you to help make him the first great president of the 21st century.
Latest Comments
Comments Feed