Follow-up: Comments on Mark Naison Teach for America Post

There has been a lot of reaction to Mark Naison's

Dr. Mark Naison - Teach for America and Me: A Failed Courtship

Some have left comments on the original post. Some have commented on the listserve. I've collated some of them below and will keep adding to them.

Erica:

Mr. Naison,

I am a current Teach for America corps member in the Mississippi Delta. I read your blog earlier today via a colleague (also Black) who teaches at the same school, KIPP Delta College Prep in Helena, Arkansas. I wanted to say that I find your comments dead on, although I risk losing my Americorps stipend for going in-depth about how I feel as a first generation Black college student from the inner-city (Compton, California specially), I will say that I was very disappointed to see the low number of students of color who would be my peers in the organization. Furthermore, I was rather distraught in the beginning with the way that the "achievement gap" is framed through TFA and made it very public, which did not make me too popular, that while we come in as individuals trying to make a difference in the achievement gap, we by no means can look at others as the reason why there is one. That was a very delicate way of getting out what I sensed in the atmosphere, that they, are not "saviors." I could actually go on for hours, so I will digress.

To be completely honest, I sought Teach for America for the wrong reasons. I, too, thought it would help in my quest to apply for law school. After having a wonderful first year of teaching (my class tested science MAP results that put us in the top 20% percent of the nation in science concepts and general science), I'm going to take a big leap and apply to law school in the fall. God willing, I can get into a Southern California institution and I will explain why that area is where I would like to be specifically.  As originally planned, I do not want to attend law school to go into law; I have every intention of committing myself to public policy and public service. I have put heavy thought into starting a non-profit organization that offers the opportunity for ALL students willing to participate, regardless of race from low socio-economic backgrounds, a pathway to college readiness and gets them ACTIVELY thinking about themselves as students who can succeed on a college campus by taking them on trips to universities, studying for the SAT, focusing on their grades and mapping out realistic goals to get them to and through college.

As I think about this idea more and more, I've put heavy thought about getting together a small group of dedicated individuals that would be willing to see something like this happen. Specifically, college graduates of color that I have met through networking as a past Chair of the Black Student Alliance at my university and being involved in planning many California student of color conferences.

I am sharing this because I would like to know your thoughts on this. I plan on returning back to the community where I was born and raised and offering whatever I can because it was done for me. After a year of being in the Delta, I have realized how much I am seen as the "other." I am still a Black woman, still from a low socioeconomic background, but I am still foreign. I think developing a non-profit organization such as this, applying for grants to fund the program, and using grassroots methods of relying on people that I grew up with, that are like me and have attained a degree can be just as powerful as the concept of Teach for America.

I look forward to your response.

Anon:

Amen, Prof. Naison, Amen! It's so good to know I am not the only one who feels this way about TFA. As an administrator at an Ivy-league institution where TFA recruits heavily, I have seen precisely the things you mention. I've had TFA teachers on my staff who have made it clear that teaching in low-income, urban schools was something to do while they studied for the GMAT, LSAT or GRE to enter graduate or professional schools to get to where they really want to be. Most of the ones I've encountered have no intention of pursuing teaching as a career or of having a profound impact on a child's education. For too many of them, (but of course, not all) there is no sense of commitment or altruism. As you state, it's just something that looks good on a resume. For the schools that rely on TFA recruits to fill teaching positions, the 2-year commitment guarantees a lack of dedication and continuity that does students more harm than good.

Wilma:

As an inner-city public school student in Philadelphia, I was exposed many
such "Urban Peace Corps" programs, but we always knew from the beginning
they were just passing through.

Teach For America however is the most insidious of all because students from elite private Liberal Arts Colleges and Ivy League Universities think SO little of public school teachers, they think the presence of their greatness for two years will elevate the "great unwashed students and teachers in urban public schools" to such an extent, a lifelong commitment is not needed.

I am certain many of them find they "cannot hang" as they were not prepared properly by TFA which blows their superior mindset out of the waters.

Still, amongst those who DO try to hang in there and make a difference, the disrespect, frustration and working conditions we teachers count as a given drive many away.

This is all a part of the "Anyone Can Teach" mantra which permits non-teachers of all stripes to dictate to education experts.  Renowned "entre-manures" tour schools and teach one lesson at the chalkboard etc. in an effort to show their commitment to urban education.  Please!

We teachers have allowed this as well, because we want to be accessible to our kids and their families.  It feels awkward to declare ourselves as education experts.

We need to get over this before it is too late!

LOTS MORE BELOW




Brent:

Fantastic piece, Professor Naison, and I'm honored to have graduated from the same university you teach at (in Lincoln Center, but I took classes at Rose Hill).

Your piece speaks to me primarily because I was one of those students at Fordham who was interested in TfA who came from a low-income community, look like many of the students I teach, was also a student who previously received special education services, and graduated from Fordham with a 3.2 GPA, above the 3.0 required by the program. I have also had experience working with the same kind of children I work with currently.

I got rejected by TfA outright after the paper application.

On the paper application (and in the group interview for NYCTF), I never mentioned any aspirations beyond teaching. Though I learned enough to get to where I am today, I'm not fluent in the language of privilege and business is dreadfully boring to me (no offense to anyone who's in business). Heck, my physical appearance doesn't show the typical businessman look: I didn't wear a suit to my NYCTF interview and ties make me uncomfortable after a certain period of time. If TfA wanted a candidate they could persuade for a career in finance, law, and business, I was definitely not that candidate.

To this day, I am still perplexed by the rejection. Wouldn't programs like TfA want to foster a stronger social investment by students who lived in those communities to contribute positively through a consistent and powerful teaching presence, especially if they were qualified?

For full discourse, I ended up getting accepted by the NYC Teaching Fellows as a member of Cohort 18 that same year in a cohort with 90% career changers. I've been teaching in a good school in Washington Heights in a community that resembles the one my family and I grew up into. I was able to graduate with a 4.0 at City College with my Masters in my teaching concentration. I have no aspirations of leaving the profession, but only to continue to become a stronger teacher, a more informed citizen within the "de-form" movement, and a more-informed advocate for my students and the community I teach in as a special education teacher.

If TfA is to truly advocate for educational equity, it should recognize that its current model doesn't reflect on its motto by any means. The more experience a teacher becomes, the stronger that teacher is within all areas of what makes a teacher. Borrowing from TfA's website motto, to me, consistency and experience are both essential in order to, yes, "ensure true educational opportunity for all."

I am a teacher and, to me, a long-term commitment with a strong focus on teacher growth in all facets is necessary to foster true education growth in their students. Not a two-year stint that'll allow candidates to use the thousands of children they teach in high poverty areas as "a (metaphorical) stepping stone to a career in business.”

Thank you again, Dr. Naison.

- Brent, FCLC '09

Robert:

By now there must be hundreds of thousands of TFA vets. I don't think it makes much sense to stereotype them as slumming white careerists. Nor is it safe to assume that students
at elite colleges are children of privilege. Many students at those schools get financial aid,  work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, and go deeply in debt to pay their tuition. I agree with Mark that
it would be better if TFA teachers stayed on longer. But this is a problem that goes way beyond TFA since many non-TFA teachers leave the teaching profession within 5 years.
I do not agree with the TFA quickie approach to teacher education and think it contributes to the problems TFA teachers have and to their abandoning teaching so quickly. Much
as I dislike the program, however,  I have found  those who volunteer for it are diverse -- and  include some very committed radicals of all races -- as well as the careerists alluded to in these
e-mails.

Janet:
Hi Robert,

While you are right that not all elite college graduates are alike,some do come from the working class,you are worrying about the wrong people.  They ALL will be fine! You should be worrying about the poor students who were denied their rightful education  because their  untrained, clueless TFA teachers,as well meaning and intelligent as they are, are totally unequipped to teach urban  unskilled youth and after one or 2 years, they have hardly begun to learn how to teach.I talk from experience,from the trenches, having been a  NYC teacher for 45 years and  afterwards, a mentor to TFA and teaching fellows! Doesn't anyone care about the students?
Janet Mayer, author of AS BAD AS THEY SAY? Three Decades of Teaching in the Bronx.

Helen

I agree with most of you and your assessment of TFA.  I even agree to a slight extent with one of you who took the position that not all of the candidates are elites who are marking time while waiting to enter the career for which they prepared themselves.  I do, however, think that is a very small percentage.

Coincidently, last week, I met a prominent gentlemen who lived in one of the most affluent Chicago suburbs.  While discussing education, he revealed that his son is an executive with TFA.  I gave him my card and asked to have his son call me to discuss the failings of the program and its misguided intentions and directions.  I'm still awaiting the call which may never come!

Children don't need pity from those who feel they are doing them a favor; they don't need people who are not dedicated to enriching their lives to prepare them for lifetime learning which will lead to their success; and, they don't need teachers whose attention is divided between what they are doing and what they really want to do.

I pray that some of them will fall in love with teaching and make that their lifetime career; but, because I feel they are not properly oriented, they use this as a stepping stone for immediate employment.

Great teachers are born!  Great teachers love what they do for children!  Great teachers inspire and motivate students to reach their full potential!  Unless one has this calling, that person does not belong in a classroom.

We have to be on guard and wary of the military/industrial complex, the prison/industrial complex and now the education/industrial complex.  Those who are filled with greed have found yet another revenue source and they are exploiting it for all it's worth.  We must fight for public education!  We must fight to be respected as the professionals we are!  We must stay united in order to do what is in the best interest of children.

TFA is not that entity!  Helen

Mark Naison:

Robby and Janet

I would like to see someone do a longitudinal study comparing what happens to a group of TFA recruits, and the students they have worked with, for a period of 10 years I would bet large amounts of money that the differences in how their lives turn out would be astounding- a veritable "tale of two countries."  I would venture to say that very few, if any, TFA members will end up in prison, unemployed, or living in poverty, while a portrait of their former students would tell a different story.

This is not TFA's fault, but their failure to acknowledge  the limited impact their organization has had on entrenched poverty and racism in the US, as well as the reputation
joining TFA has gained as a form of resume padding for  careers outside teaching, suggests we can count on little help from this organization in combating social inequality in
the US. Unless TFA corps members are radicalized by their experience, TFA is more part of the problem than part of the solution!

Best Mark,

Dr. Mark Naison - Teach for America and Me: A Failed Courtship

UPDATED: Sat., June 26, 9AM

This June 23 post has reveived a lot of comment and interest as just about anything on TFA does. In addition to the comments below the post there have been a lot of comments on Mark Naison's listserve. I just posted a bunch of them in a follow-up.
So after reading this and the comments, check back in for lots more:

Follow-up: Comments on Mark Naison Teach for America Post

June 23


The following was sent by Mark Naison to his listserve and has sparked a number of comments which I will compile, post in another blog and keep adding to as the come in. I will post links to this piece and the follow-ups on the side panel.- Norm


   Every spring without fail, a Teach for America recruiter approaches me and asks if they can come to my classes and recruit students for TFA, and every year, without fail, I give them  the same answer:  “Sorry. Until  Teach for America changes its objective to training lifetime educators  and raises the time commitment to five years rather than two, I will not allow  TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in high poverty areas and then after two years, encouraging them to  pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity  rubs me the wrong way”

  It was not always thus. Ten years ago, when a Teach for America recruiter first approached me,  I was enthusiastic about the idea of recruiting my most idealistic and talented students for work in high poverty schools and allowed the TFA representative to make presentations in my classes, which are filled with Urban Studies and African American Studies majors. Several of my best  students applied, all of whom wanted to become teachers, and several of whom came from the kind of high poverty neighborhoods TFA proposed to send its recruits to teach in.

 Not one of them was accepted!   Enraged, I did a little research and found that TFA had accepted only four of the nearly 100 Fordham students who applied. I become even more enraged when I found out from the New York Times that TFA had accepted 44 out of a hundred applicants from Yale that year. Something was really wrong here if an organization who wanted to serve low income communities rejected every applicant from Fordham who came from those communities and accepted half of the applicants from an Ivy League school where very few of the students, even students of color, come from working class or poor families.

Since that time, the percentage of Fordham students accepted has marginally increased, but the organization has done little to win my confidence that it is seriously committed to recruiting people willing to make a lifetime commitment to teaching and administering schools in high poverty areas.
Never, in its recruiting literature, has Teach for America described teaching as the most valuable professional choice that an idealistic, socially conscious person can make, and encourage the brightest students  to make teaching their permanent career. Indeed, the organization does everything in its power to make joining Teach for America seem a like a great  pathway to success in other, higher paying  professions. Three years ago, the TFA recruiter plastered the Fordham campus with flyers that said “Learn how joining TFA can help you gain admission to Stanford Business School.” To me, the message  of that flyer was “use teaching in high poverty areas a stepping stone to a career in business.”  It was not only profoundly disrespectful of every person who chooses to commit their life to the teaching profession, it advocated using students in high poverty areas as guinea pigs for an experiment in “resume padding” for ambitious young people

In saying these things, let me make it clear that my quarrel is not with the many talented young people who join Teach for America, some of whom decide to remain in the communities they work in and some of whom become lifetime educators. It is with the leaders of the organization who enjoy the favor with which TFA  is regarded with  captains of industry, members of Congress, the media, and the foundation world, and have used this access to move rapidly to positions as heads of local school systems, executives in Charter school companies,  and educational analysts in management consulting firms. The organization”s facile circumvention of the grinding, difficult but profoundly empowering work of teaching and administering schools has created the illusion that there are quick fixes , not only for failing schools, but for deeply entrenched patterns of poverty and inequality. No organization has been more complicit that TFA in the demonization of teachers and teachers unions, and no organization has provided more “shock troops” for Education Reform strategies which emphasize privatization and high stakes testing. Michelle Rhee, a TFA recruit, is the poster child for such policies, but she is hardly alone.

Her counterparts can be found in New Orleans ( where they led the movement toward a system dominated by charter school)  in New York ( where they play an important role in the Bloomberg Education bureaucracy) and in many other cities.

 And that  elusive goal of educational equity.   How well has it advanced in the years TFA has been operating? Not only has there been little progress, in the last fifteen years, in narrowing the test score gap by race and class, but income inequality has become greater, in those years, than any time in modern American history.   TFA has done nothing to promote income redistribution, reduce the size of the prison population, encourage social investment in high poverty neighborhoods, or revitalize arts and science and history in the nation’s schools. It’s main accomplishment has been to marginally increase the number of talented people entering the teaching profession, but only a small fraction of those remain in the schools to which they were originally sent.

But the most objectionable aspect of Teach for America –other than its contempt for lifetime educators- is its willingness to create another pathway to wealth and power for those already privileged,  in the rapidly expanding Educational Industrial Complex, which offers numerous careers for the ambitious and well connected.  An organization which began by promoting idealism and educational equity has become, to all too many of its recruits, a vehicle for profiting from the misery of America’s poor.

Dr Mark Naison

Fordham University

Julie Cavanagh Defends LIFO in Response to Teach for America Attempt to Silence Voice of Rank-and-File Teachers on Today's LIFO Panel

As I reported (Teach For America New York presents: A (Biased) panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy in New York State)  classroom teacher Julie Cavanagh was tossed off a TFA panel and replaced by the UFT's Leo Casey (if anyone goes to this event please take notes on how Leo defends LIFO, it at all).

Here is what Julie would have said if she were on the panel, followed by her correspondence with TFA officials. While I don't agree with everything she has to say I am looking forward to GEM having its own panels on issues such as LIFO and teacher evaluation systems that would make sense.



Teach for America Silences Voices of Rank-and-File Teachers on LIFO Panel

by Julie Cavanagh
Special education teacher, PS 15, Brooklyn, member Grassroots Education Movement (GEM)

April 12, 2011

Two weeks ago I was invited to appear on a panel regarding seniority rights. The panel was being organized by Teach for America. I quickly accepted the opportunity to bring the voice of the rank-and-file teacher to the issue. A few days after I accepted, I received another email and was informed that despite my interest there would no longer be room on the panel for me because Leo Casey, UFT VP of High Schools, would be joining the panel. When one of my fellow GEM members informed Leo Casey, he said he would contact the TFA folks and tell them I should be on the panel. Needless to say, the TFA folks have not responded to the email I sent to them. (See correspondence in separate cover).

Since I am a 'T' in UFT, and since there is not one full-time public school educator on a panel that is discussing the pros and cons of seniority rights for full-time public school educators, I am disappointed and disturbed. I can't help but think that the removal of the only real teacher voice from the panel is intentional. Shame on the organizers of this event for silencing the teacher voice in this conversation!

I recently had the opportunity to make the case for LIFO in a debate with a member of E4E on NY1's "Inside City Hall" (http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=134963) and would have loved the opportunity to reiterate and expand on those points tonight. Here is some of what I would be saying tonight at the TFA panel were I not dis-invited:

Before I begin, I'd like to point out that many teacher tenure and seniority laws predate the right of teachers to bargain collectively by many years. (The UFT was not founded until 1960). These laws were passed due to rampant corruption in hiring and firing practices and were designed to protect academic freedom and basic constitutional rights.

1. Seniority rights protect not only teachers, but children.
Teachers are often the strongest advocates for their children, all too often coming up against their supervisors in doing so. Without seniority rights, teachers would be susceptible to arbitrary lay-offs based on a myriad of possibilities including race, sexuality, politics, or advocacy for children and/or parents. In my more than ten years in the classroom, and in policy and advocacy work over the last several years I have seen countless dedicated and excellent educators attacked, harassed, given U-ratings, and in some cases pushed out of the school system as retribution by administrators. Children benefit from the only objective process that keeps their teachers from being silenced, unable to speak out, or defend their rights and advocate for proper learning and classroom conditions.

2. I flatly reject any evaluation or lay-off system that is tied to test scores especially the inclusion of a merit pay system.
Over the last year in particular, the unreliability of test scores have been exposed. We have seen mountains of research, including the Vanderbilt and EPI studies respectively, point out that merit-pay schemes and other test-score-based performance measures do not have a positive impact on student achievement. Standardized tests often do little more than measure socioeconomic status, narrow our curriculum and turn our schools into inhumane places that make teaching and learning horrific experiences for teachers and students alike. I left the testing grade this year because I no longer wanted to be complicit in what I consider to be the systematic abuse of my children, particularly children with special needs. I say this as a teacher with a 'teacher report card' with a 99% rating. I am all for accountability, but until we develop objective and meaningful measures to hold teachers accountable, seniority rights for lay-offs is the only way to ensure both educators and students are protected. In terms of evaluations, I refuse to be forced into a scenario where we say the current system is flawed so therefore we must quickly make changes and move to yet another flawed system. If we are going to change the way we evaluate educators, let's do it the right way. Let standardized test scores be minimized, or better yet, no factor at all in any new evaluation system. Remember, assessment is supposed to be a diagnostic tool used to drive instruction, not used as a punitive measure to determine the value of teachers, children, and schools.

3. Experience Matters.
All the research shows that experience matters. If we want to make decisions about what teachers to keep in the profession, we have to look at what the research overwhelmingly shows: teachers with five or more years experience are better for children than teachers with less than five years experience. The Star Report highlights this particularly well because it does not just rely on test scores (which I mentioned already I question) but it also looks at adult income levels (not that I believe making money is the key to happiness, but it certainly is a key to survival and therefore the most basic measure of success). *(Research on teacher experience can be found at www.parentsacrossamerica.org.)

4. The attack on LIFO is quite simply union busting.
The corporate reformers who are behind the attack on LIFO and interestingly behind the two organizations featured on the TFA panel (Students First and E4E) are quite simply anti-union. A blind belief in the free market does not allow them to see beyond their own needs and benefits; it colors their lenses green with one central focus: money. Cost containment and unfettered top-down control are at the roots of the attack on LIFO and anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't understand the issue or is engaging in misdirection. Getting rid of teacher protections is the only way that corporate reformers can continue to privatize our public education system. Unions are the only institution that can stand in their way, along with the voting public who are growing more aware of the true intentions of the corporate reformers. I believe there are well-intentioned people who support ending LIFO — dedicated teachers who inevitably have had to work with a teacher who was not as dedicated as them, as one example. But the drive to end LIFO (and the funding for it) is not coming from these teachers or from well-intentioned individuals. Rather it is born out of a national movement to change our school system into a 'portfolio', into a consumer-driven, profit margin aware, business-like entity. We are entering very dangerous territory. Just look at the number of stories emerging of abusive principals who target certain teachers who stand up to them or do not pay the proper fealty. When this happens to even one teacher it brings a cloud over the security of every teacher. Even if your current principal is fine, there are enough loose cannons out there and it takes just a change in leadership to turn a "safe" school into a school from hell. Let us remember why we have unions: protection. Let us remember why we must have these protections: a history of child labor, unsafe conditions, unfair wages, no healthcare, no pension or other retirement support mechanisms. Instead of attacking teachers for having union protections, we should be demanding that ALL workers have these protections.

5. Ending seniority rights will have a disproportionate and negative impact on our disappearing black and Latino educators.
Does racial discrimination still exist in our society? Contrary to what E4E's position paper on this issue falsely claims, under the Bloomberg Administration our Black and Latino teachers have been disappearing at an alarming rate (new hires of Black teachers dropped from 28% to under 14% over 8 years). Seniority rights is one of the last protections we have that we know for sure will maintain the tragically low number of Black and Latino teachers we have left. In a system that serves more than 80% children of color, it is unacceptable that more than 70% of its educators are white. In addition to this issue, we already have an attrition problem here in NYC, more than 40% of our teachers leave with less than six years in! Knowing the value of having Black and Latino teachers for Black and Latino students and knowing the value of experienced educators, it is quite shocking the focus is on how to get rid of teachers easier, rather than on how to attract and retain teachers in general, and particularly, teachers of color.

6. There is no legitimate evidence that seniority rights as a system-wide determinant for lay-offs has a negative impact on our public education system.
Yes, you can find anecdotal evidence to hold up a given less experienced educator next to a more experienced educator and say, given these two, the less experienced educator looks better. But system-wide the research clearly shows that is not true. When difficult decisions like layoffs must be made (which I would argue in this case are unnecessary and manipulated for political reasons) they have to be made on a system-wide basis — in the collective interest. We are moving into dangerous ground when the individual assumes more importance than the collective. The nature of our work as educators makes us very interconnected. How we value our schools, our teachers, and workers' rights are important factors in making sure we preserve our ability to build a society rather than simply a random assortment of individuals in competition with each other. Schools must be collaborative places. Schools must be places where educators feel safe to speak up and speak out.



Finally, let me talk about what I am for, and I hope that folks will join in this conversation, because if we don't propose the kinds of systems we would like for evaluations and lay-offs, the issue will be decided for us by people who have little knowledge or understanding. I will keep my thoughts very simple. Please, please share yours:

1. Lay-offs
We should maintain seniority rights for lay-offs because it is the only objective way to release and re-hire teachers in an orderly and rational manner. The research shows that system-wide this is what benefits children because experience matters. This is the only way to ensure that lay-offs are not used politically or economically in order to cleanse the system of either outspoken or experienced/more expensive teachers. LIFO also protects even fairly new teachers, assuring even 2nd and 3rd year teachers they will keep their jobs over some first year teacher with "connections" while assuring an orderly call-back in case there are layoffs (which in fact there rarely ever been in the entire over hundred year history of the NYC school system.)

2. Evaluations
We must empower school-communities. We should look at Deb Meier's work in some of her pilot schools, and consider those models. I believe in school-based boards that are comprised of parents, teachers, school staff, and administration. I believe these boards should have oversight over teacher evaluation, administrator evaluation, and budgeting. I believe evaluations should be judged based on classroom observations, student input when appropriate, parent satisfaction, and some measure of data. I would like to see a teacher evaluated based on authentic student reading levels over a period of time along with portfolios of student work showing students' individual growth and progress rather than the snapshot we get from standardized test scores.

The views expressed here are my own.
Please feel free to contact me to continue the dialogue: gemnyc@gmail.com.

SEE MY LIVE BLOGS FROM THE PANEL DISCUSSION AND FOLLOW-UPS

At TFA LIFO Panel Part 1

TFA LIFO Panel Part 2

TFA LIFO Afterthoughts -Part 1- and Response to Gotham Report

Ed Notes in Bid Against Bill Gates for Educators 4 Excellence's Sydney Morris

 

Correspondence between Julie Cavanagh and TFA LIFO Panel Organizers

Invite
Hi there,
Brian De Vale who is a principal here in New York City recommended that we get in touch with Ms. Cavanaugh regarding a panel discussion on the LIFO Teacher Lay-off policy here in New York that Teach For America is hosting for our alumni teachers and principals. It will be held at the Urban Assembly School for Design and Construction on Tuesday April 12th at 6:30p.m. Given her outspoken, grassroots work in schools and on school issues to date, we think she would bring a thought –provoking perspective to the conversation and would like to invite her to join the panel. Could you please forward this request to her? Much appreciated! The panel currently consists of the following people and will be moderated by Lindsey Christ of NY 1:

Dr. Pedro Noguera (NYU)
Eric Lerum (StudentsFirst)
Educators 4 Excellence

We imagined the success of this conversation rooted in having a voices that represent all sides of the debate around LIFO policy to create a lively and thought-provoking conversation for the folks that attend. Ms. Cavanagh would be a great addition. I look forward to hearing back from her.
Best,
Deepa

Deepa Purohit
Coordinator, Alumni Affairs
Teach For America - New York
(Email) deepa.purohit@teachforamerica.org
www.teachforamerica.org

Dis-invite:
Hi Julie,
Thanks so much for your interest in participating in our panel. We had originally invited Michael Mulgrew from the UFT and did not hear back from him till this weekend. He has a scheduling conflict but has asked Leo Casey (VP, Academic High Schools) to represent him and the UFT. So, at this point our panel is full. My apologies as we did not have this information when gauging your interest on Friday. We hope that you are still able to attend the event, however. We would love to have you. We'll also be doing more events over the year and definitely keep you in mind should you want to participate formally in the future.
Thanks,
Jeff

My reply:
Hello,
I understand the procedural dilemma here, however I do think it is unfortunate that a rank and file member of the UFT, who has much stronger views on this issue that are not represented on the panel, is being bumped off after having been invited (I didn't express interest, I was asked).
I don't intend to sound curt here, however, it is disappointing that a panel which is being billed as a full discussion including all perspectives on lifo, will not be so, as the representatives on your panel will not fully defend seniority rights, which I, and the overwhelming majority of educators in NYC and beyond, fully support.

Thank you for the original invitation.

All the best,
Julie Cavanagh

Teach For America New York presents: A (Biased) panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy in New York State

Julie Cavanagh was invited and then dis-invited and replaced by the UFT's Leo Casey, who will not defend LIFO but argue the case against layoffs. Look for Julie's response to the organizers later today and her in depth defense of LIFO - what she would have said if she had not been tossed off the panel. So you have Sydney from E4E, a rep from Michelle Rhee's organization, a reporter who is supposedly neutral, Noguera who can be pretty good but where he stands on LIFO might be problematical and Leo Casey.

Yes, a stacked deck, but do the people running TFA really want them to hear a real classroom teacher like Julie instead of a union official, who will try to paint the union as a reasonable reformer - or deformer?  

I love Lindsay Christ as a reporter - and she is a former teacher - but she is or has to be neutral. Pedro Noguera mostly makes a lot of sense but does often run on the edge of ed deform. But it is a TFA event which they use to politicize their members to their ed deform point of view - but then TFA is all about politics rather than education.

This event came across our radar over a week ago when a principal who was invited to defend LIFO (hey, why ask a teacher?) couldn't make it and actually suggested me as a replacement. Now would I venture onto a panel with an E4E AND a Michelle Rhee-er without bringing a knife - and probably using it?

But as TFA alumna Anna Martin says in her dynamic 3 part series:

Of course, not only Teach for America teachers come and quickly leave, but it’s hard not to see fault with a two-year sell-by date. In fact, if a corps member is perceived as effective after the two-year commitment, then they are often almost immediately recruited out of the classroom to work for Teach for America or to begin funneling into the school leadership pipeline. After my fourth year of teaching in the same school, TFA realized that I wasn’t budging and stopped hinting. Something feels wrong about an organization that draws its most talented teachers out of their classrooms to help achieve its vision.

Teach For America New York
presents
Who Should Teach Our Students?
A panel discussion on the "Last In, First Out" teacher layoff policy 
in New York State 

Dr. Pedro Noguera 
Professor of Education - New York University

Leo Casey
VP Academic High Schools - United Federation of Teachers

Lindsey Christ 
Education Reporter - NY 1

Eric Lerum
Engagement Manager - StudentsFirst

Sydney Morris 
Co-Founder, Executive Director - Educators 4 Excellence

While most people agree we should try to avoid massive budget cuts to education, opinions vary on what teacher layoffs should look like if they become a reality-and many signs indicate that teacher layoffs in New York City are imminent for the first time in three decades. To date, much of the conversation has focused on the "if", but given the current reality, this conversation will examine the "how" by presenting and debating the merits of alternative teacher layoff proposals currently being considered in the New York State Assembly and Senate.

Time: Tuesday, April 12, 6:30p-8:30p

Location:  
Urban Assembly School for Design and Construction
525 West 50th Street, 4th Floor (between 10th and 11th Avenues)

RSVP here: to reserve a seat for this event now!

A TFAer Who Hasn't Jumped Ship

"When a student or former student brings in their younger sibling, a toddler or 5th grader, they believe me when I talk about having them in my class someday."

- Anna Martin, A love-hate relationship with Teach for America - Part 1: The 2-Year Commitment

I'm fascinated by the ruminations of Teach for America alums who remain in the classroom (not just "education" as TFA likes to brag). My co-blogger M.A.B. is one of them.

Valerie Strauss featured an article by 7-year TFAer Anna Martin who has remained in her original placement school for the entire time, apparently one of the few TFAers to do so. As someone who spent 27 years on one school, I can appreciate the points Anna made. Teachers being rooted in the community is a no-no for the ed deformers as is the very concept of community-based schools. How would the Eva Moskowitz's of this world make any headway of there were effectively functioning community based schools?

Being the rare bird who has stayed with my placement for seven years gives me a unique, if slightly tortured perspective.
I didn’t migrate when the administrative leadership at the school changed, not once, but four times, as administrators are wont to do in the kind of low-income, high-need districts where TFA places their young teachers.
I haven’t flown the coop as all four other corps members from my year placed at my school finally did – or the 10 other corps members from later years who have come and gone during my time here. Many have stayed four or five years, itself a small miracle in terms of TFA’s teacher lifespan at placement schools. Some were forced out by weird district forces that are symptomatic of the need for change.
But why, I frequently ask myself when thinking rationally about career trajectories and multi-hour commutes, can’t I bring myself to leave?
I think the answer lies in the one issue that almost kept me from accepting TFA’s offer in the first place: my uneasiness with only committing two years to a community.
It seemed presumptuous to assume that I could come in, transform kids’ lives, and leave again two years later. I was skeptical then — and at this point I don’t think it can be done. I don’t believe two years is enough, which is why seven years later, I think my school community still needs me and other teacher leaders committed to staying and making change where change is needed most.

Even though TFAers are encouraged to stay in education, though not the classroom, as policy-makers, Anna also points out that even those who stay at the teaching level do a lot of school-to-school hopping, not conducive to setting down community-based roots.

 Interestingly, at the summit’s opening caucus, Wendy announced that over 3,000 of the 10,800 people in attendance were current corps members. Don’t try to tell me they were all just there for the free drink tickets. Nope. As the hiring booths and flyers advertising for alum to come teach at new schools attested, I believe the majority were looking for their next job prospect after finishing their initial two-year commitment.
 

If Anna stays through more than one generation she may have the pleasure of teaching her students' children (how many did I see have babies at 14?) Or their grandkids. Or ---

Read the entire series.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
--------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

Teach for America 20th Anniversary Alumni Summit: Conclusions, Questions, and other Ruminations

by M.A.B (The Summit Blogger)

When the opportunity arose to attend the 20th Anniversary Teach for America Summit, I wasn’t inclined to participate. But I was curious how TFA would present itself and what its messages would be. With a bit of trepidation, I agreed to go with a friend with an idea to do some live blogging to capture my spontaneous reactions. [See below to inks to blogs].

As TFA alum who did not leave the classroom after my two year stint, I didn’t have any illusions about what I was walking into ­– that attending this summit would be an adventure. I would hear things that made me angry. The education reform conversation would champion charter schools. Conversations would likely be one-sided. My stomach would churn when the likes of Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein grabbed the microphone. TFA would self-promote, self-congratulate and try to “inspire” us all. I knew all of this before I left for D.C. yet I was still shocked by what I saw and heard.

I joined Teach for America in 2006. I wanted to study education in college but the program offered by the school of education did not attract me. Instead, I enrolled in an individualized study program and designed my own curriculum. I took classes in philosophy, psychology, urban studies and education. When I graduated I was very satisfied with the depth and content of my program. I wanted to be a public school educator, but I had a major problem—no teaching license. I naively took a position as an assistant teacher (“educational associate” was the fancy business name the school gave this position) at a new charter school. The school was quite dysfunctional and its leader had little experience. I was fired after a year for asking too many questions. (I’ll write more about this in another post soon.) From there, I went on to work at a brilliant, but private, Montessori preschool. TFA was a short cut to becoming a teacher in the NYC the public school system.

From the beginning I had mixed feelings about Teach for America. Its mission was based on a good enough idea, but I always viewed it as a bit too grand. How could an organization that placed people in the classroom for only two years truly put an end to educational inequity? Sure, it claimed the two years would “inspire” its members to dedicate themselves to education in one way or another, but it seemed a flawed plan. What our children need most is consistency—at home and in school. TFA places teachers in schools that often already struggle with turnover and desperately need educators who will stick. Could teachers trained for only 5 weeks be in the best position to help our neediest children? Of course the majority of one’s learning as a teacher comes from the experience of being in the classroom, but it takes more than two years to truly fine-tune the craft. Wasn’t it naïve of TFA to claim its teachers would revolutionize these schools? In my mind, TFA had many shortcomings, but my fellow corps members did appear to have pure and honest intentions and a real desire to contribute something positive.

I completed TFA’s intensive five week training institute and began teaching kindergarten at a school in the South Bronx. I went to the TFA graduate school classes and met with my TFA adviser when necessary, but I never clung to the organization or its teachings. I was learning every day in the classroom from my students and fellow teachers. I didn’t get wrapped up in TFA’s philosophy and viewed it mainly as a vehicle towards my certification and career in public education.

I was constantly frustrated by TFA’s placement of teachers in charter schools and the incessant discussion about what we would all do “after our two years”. I wanted TFA to focus on our public schools and to push people to stay in the classroom. And I stated this on every feedback form I ever filled out. (And there were a lot!) Public education is one of the pillars of our democracy, but TFA never truly seemed to champion this notion. It talked about changing our students’ lives through high expectations, dedication and commitment (and the use of data, data, data), and constantly told us we could close the “achievement gap.”

Over the years since completing my TFA assignment, I had seen the organization aligning itself more and more with the corporate reform movement—a movement that blatantly seeks to uses competitive, free-market business principles to improve our schools. I was baffled. Was this Wendy Kopp’s intention all along? Had the organization simply been co-opted by its “benevolent” funders?


Charter Schools and Privatization

I expected the charter presence to be strong and forceful at the summit, but, by the end of the day, it felt like the only force. How did other public school teachers feel about this? Did they leave feeling left out? Offended, like me? Did they leave with bags full of charter gear and brochures, contemplating a move from public to charter?

The story of the public school educator was generally missing. Randi Weingarten was present but hardly painted public school educators and their unions in a good light. One session showcased public school educators who had dedicated themselves to the classroom above and beyond their two-year commitments. But overall the conversations presented were one-sided, slanted and misleading. No one spoke about the need for public schools to be empowered to innovate. No one acknowledged the inherent problems of a privatized system. No one spoke about the incessant attacks on teachers. No one spoke of the other factors that impact student learning. No one spoke of the things (lack of resources, high class sizes, lack of support, the over-focus on test scores, etc.) that truly stand in the way of our public schools succeeding.

A couple of speakers pointed out that charter schools do not educate all children, but this wasn’t discussed at length nor was it brought forth as a serious concern. While I could not attend every session offered, the line-ups for nearly all panels included charter school leaders, teachers or promoters with little or no dissenting voices. (Ten public school educators were listed in the summit program’s list of over 100 speakers.)

In addition to their over-representation on summit panels, charter schools were busy promoting themselves all day. They handed out buttons, stickers, bags, necklaces, water bottles, and even sunglasses, all emblazoned with their logos. Achievement First tagged the sidewalks around the conference center with its emblem. KIPP placed logoed chocolate squares on all of the 11,000 seats before the day’s closing plenary session. Easels held posters advertising meet-and-greets with charter school operators. Fancy brochures promoting the joys of working in a charter school were in all of our “gift bags.” Many charter school employees walked around wearing branded shirts and jackets. Forget NIKE and Adidas, NOBLE and KIPP were the big names in fashion this weekend. Charter education was a product at the summit. It was wrapped, packaged and pushed in our faces. Why is this self-promotion necessary? Is their teacher turnover so high that they are left with no other choice than to push their brand so desperately? Or was it simply an “I’m better than you” contest to see who could outdo the other? My public school doesn’t even have money to buy crayons or copy paper, much less make our own chocolate squares.

Charter schools are a reform I cannot support for many reasons, but the central one is because of what they represent—the privatization of one of our most important public institutions. Access to a free and quality public education is a right—it isn’t something we should have to win in a lottery. It is something we have a right to be a part of. Charter schools are governed privately, with little or no oversight. They are allowed to get rid of students they do not know how or are not willing to serve. I was disturbed by how the summit speakers did not acknowledge privatization as a legitimate concern. One moderator said, “Charters are seen as privatizing education…How do we bring [charter schools] into the public dialogue and change that perception?”

TFA has always presented itself to its corps members as a very knowledgeable and reflective organization. When it is out front like this, pushing an agenda of privatization, I worry about its impact. What did the other alumni walk away with? Were they convinced, like Bill Gates, that charter schools are the only hope? (“Thank god for charters because there is NO hope for innovation in the standard system,” he has said.) The public system hasn’t been offered a true chance to innovate and succeed. Resources are being stripped from our public schools left and right—how can we succeed without the funds and support we need?


Rah-Rah vs. Reality
If we are all thinking alike then we aren’t really thinking.

Riding back to New York on a bus full of TFA alums on Sunday, I heard one word more than any other: “inspired.” Emails came in the next day as well encouraging us all to share our “inspiring” summit stories on tfanet.org. But I wasn’t inspired. What was it that so many people there found inspirational? Was it sitting in a room with 11,000 seemingly like-minded individuals? Was it the floorshow provided by men in Asian outfits stir-frying noodles on raised platforms during the receptions? Was it the lineup of speakers at the day’s opening and closing plenary sessions? Was it listening to big names like Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Geoffery Canada and Kaya Henderson? Was it John Legend’s performance?

How could my reaction be so very different from the majority of people I spent the day with? When I sat in the plenary sessions I felt disgusted by many of the people TFA trotted out onto the stage. In the name of educational equity, they promoted Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, Geoffery Canada and the KIPP schools leaders whose efforts have actually increased educational inequity in the cities where they worked. Klein worked relentlessly to close struggling public schools in New York rather than support them. Rhee fired D.C. teachers with great enthusiasm without considering what might actually be done to improve the process of teaching and learning. Canada operates a network of hedge fund backed charter schools that have been shown to counsel out students who do not perform. KIPP schools have been accused of using overly authoritarian practices, counseling out students and falsely promoting their graduation rates. (It’s not a 100% graduation rate if 50% of the students left.)

This is what I thought about when these people took the stage. But most everyone around me was clapping for Klein. They laughed lightheartedly at things Michelle Rhee said and they called Canada an inspirational man. How could our reactions be so different? Unfortunately the day offered little time for interaction and conversations of this nature, so was I left only to speculate and question. Time between sessions was limited and getting around the convention center proved time consuming, while the panels themselves were structured in a way that didn’t foster dialogue within the audience. We sat back and we listened. Is this exemplary pedagogy?

When I first joined TFA I was overwhelmed by its messaging. It bombarded us with lingo, catch phrases and worked to get us to adopt its philosophy. Many corps members actually joked about this, especially TFA’s affinity for acronyms. Looking back on these experiences I realize that TFA always presented itself as such an authority—we were provided with the information and there was very little questioning of their approach. In many areas, the organization promoted important and valid ideas. We had to hold our students to high expectations. Check. We had to have clear, focused, and productive lesson plans. Good idea. We needed to consider our students backgrounds and family lives in our approach. Of course. We needed to approach teaching with rigor, dedication and commitment. Certainly. These were good things to drill into our heads. But now TFA was presenting a narrow and unreflective vision of what was needed to improve our country’s schools. Was no one else bothered by this approach? Did anyone hunger for some real dialogue as I did?

What frustrated me most about the ideas touted at the plenary sessions was their vagueness. Wendy Kopp pronounced, “Incremental change is not enough, we need transformational change.” Klein soon followed and told us that transformational change wasn’t enough—we needed “radical change” in education. People around me applauded and cheered. But what did their statements even mean? Testimonies continued in this empty, but seemingly motivational fashion. In the evening, in a prerecorded message to the group, President Obama talked about the importance of teachers and the key role they play in shaping the lives of our nation’s children. Of course, this was nice to hear, but what policies have we seen Obama promote that really help teachers or support our work?

By the end of the day, I felt defeated, not inspired. How could anyone be inspired by the mirage TFA had created? But what was I to do? Should I shame TFA for presenting these narrow views or its alumni for settling for what they were being told?

After spending the day blogging about the summit and my reactions, I received some interesting feedback from other TFA alumni. One wrote that she was also disappointed by TFA’s overall message, but focused mainly on my lack of agreement with TFA. I was asked why I had even come to the event if I didn’t agree. I responded with questions as to why my opinions were so alarming. Shouldn’t our educational system focus on fostering divergent thinking? Shouldn’t an organization that claimed its mission to be education-based encourage debate and diversity of opinion? Were my critics just reacting defensively because I challenged something they viewed as so perfect?

I felt like an outcast during the summit – that no voice on the panels I attended represented my points of view. I was looked upon with disdain as I attempted to distribute literature exposing the truth about charter schools in New York City. I was surrounded by 11,000 people, yet I felt almost completely alone.


Corporate Cooption?

Flipping through the summit brochure as I rode back on the bus, I noted the hefty donations from groups and individuals I have seen promoting the corporate reform agenda. Twenty million dollar donations had been received from the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, the Robertson Foundation and others. The summit’s first listed sponsors were Ford, Bill and Melinda Gates and State Farm Insurance. Other sponsors included Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx, Comcast, Fidelity Investments, Wells Fargo, Prudential and Chevron. Reading this list of sponsors and funders made me think deeply about where TFA gets its philosophy. Who was driving its decisions, its philosophy, and its message at the summit? Its board of directors contains a wide mix of individuals—many university and college presidents/professors, leaders and CEO’s from various industries, one TFA alum, and of course, John Legend—but do they shape TFA or does that money so benevolently donated come at a price?

Having read one of Wendy Kopp’s books and been through her program, it seemed that TFA was started with very pure and honest intentions. Did Kopp foresee her organization becoming co-opted by corporate interest? Did she envision aligning herself and her organization with the movement to privatize our nation’s schools? How did this unfold?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised at all. Our cities have been going through the same process of cooption for years. Governments should be run like businesses, we are told. Corporations are taking more and more control and perhaps TFA has simply fallen prey like so many others. The donations coming into TFA are enormous, but are ideals being sacrificed for money? And how long will these donations keep pouring in?


How to move from criticism to conversation

After a day of feeling alone and alienated, I wondered how, if at all, I could engage with my fellow alums about what I saw as TFA’s many missteps. I was sure there were others who would sympathize with my perspective, but I knew (especially after receiving comments on my blog posts) that there were huge and seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion. But I couldn’t allow myself to think that our differences were irreconcilable, could I? The summit didn’t offer enough time for dialogue with fellow alums and I wasn’t sure how to start such a presumably difficult conversation. But I think it is these conversations and efforts that are the most crucial. I know that most of the 11,000 people I sat with in the convention center joined TFA for a good reason—they see education inequity as a problem and wanted to help do something about it. My intention is not to demonize the corps members of TFA, but to ask them to think critically about what they heard at the summit and the message TFA puts forth. It is my hope that we can perhaps begin a true, honest, and critical dialogue.

A place to start could be with questions raised in a summit session on Segregation in America. Pedro Noguera (a Professor of Education from NYU and perhaps the only critical voice at the summit) challenged the “choice” movement and strongly argued that the current reform movement is leaving the neediest students behind to be educated by the least experienced teachers. He said TFA is complicit—aware this is happening, yet continuing without altering its path. He said education is inherently political, far from the narrow view of education put forth by TFA.

I work with educational activists in New York and it is often a struggle to dialogue with those with whom we do not see eye to eye. But if we hope for anything to change, we must begin with learning to listen to each other and finding the things—like our belief that children deserve better—that we can all agree on.


M.A.B. has been a New York City public school Kindergarten teacher for 5 years. Previous to this she worked in a charter school and a Montessori Preschool. She has been involved with the Grassroots Education Movement for the past 2 years.


Posts from Teach for America Summit Blogger

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit

Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten

Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session

Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary

More on the TFA Summit

"You ask us what we are "doing." We're teaching, every day, just as we have been for years and hope to continue to, unlike the overwhelming majority of TFAers who parade their passion, their excellence, their commitment to children and then...stop...teaching. But after all, TFA is not really about teaching is it? No, as Wendy Kopp herself says, it's about "leadership." In other words, it's really about identifying, training and grooming cadre and leaders for developing policy, managing the schools, and instituting the business model of its funders, which is by its nature anti-democratic."

Michael Fiorillo responding to comments on TFA Summit blogger

Our TFA Summit Blogger's posts on Saturday has gotten quite a response and some interesting channels have opened up. I'm trying to entice Summit Blogger to do a regular gig here at Ed Notes. The two of us are co-editors of the GEM newsletter and we work very well together.

So, here is another view of the TFA summit from another blogger. As you'll see, this blogger is a former Tweedie and a proud supporter of TFA, though she does have misgivings, which she may blog about.

Somehow through some strange Twilight Zone events, we have gotten to know each other a bit. Though I'm often rabid here on the blog, I am capable of having a dialogue and we do and hope to continue the dialogue. We may even get together for a pow wow with Summit Blogger.

Her take on the summit:

I found there was an emphasis on staying in teaching in the messages I heard and saw at the Summit. I also took a bus from New York City with mostly younger corps and I heard about how they wanted to stay in teaching.

This will be great if true and not a PR blitz from TFA to counter the charges that people like Fiorillo make. It will take a lot of convincing to make me believe that there is greater interest in staying in the classroom than in doing ed policy or other work related to "adult" work rather than the focus on children. But we'll see. I hope TFAers do stay, as Summit Blogger did - in the long run they will move away from ed deform and towards working with the Real Reformers. We certainly can use their passion and commitment in the ed wars.

I often hear people say great and inspiring things. Even Randi Weingarten. But as I always say, watch what they do, not what they say.

Here is the full post. Teach for America #TFA20 Recap and Reflections: Part 1

Where we diverge is that she looks at what TFA can bring to the educational table. I look at TFA as a political movement that in the long run will have a deleterious impact. There's a lot for us to hash out.

In the meantime, below the fold are some of the interesting comments - Summit Blogger's responses and others:

I don't think that you have to agree with TFA in order to attend the Summit; it just seems like a better use of time to attend an event that you'd might get more out of instead of mere antagonistic feelings. In regards to your questions: 1. I attended "Getting things done in a politically charged environment", which I found to have a fairly spirited and insightful debate. I also attended the chat that was done with Randi Weingarten where her and the moderator also engaged in dueling (but respectful) repartee about the various factors inside the teaching profession 2. I attended the pathways to district leadership panel didn't have a charter operator/employee on it, and there wasn't any actual discussion about promoting (or removing, mimimizing, etc) charters. Ditto for the Weingarten one. I actually didn't attend any other sessions due to time constraints (I spent a lot of time talking with old friends and people I know) In regards to your closing comments, I'd say that it was less about "promoting" the charter agenda, and more about reflecting the times that we're in; you can have your head in the sand about the existence of charters due to vehment disagreement to their existence (that's what I'm gleaning from your commentary at least), but it's also foolish to act as though they haven't, for good or ill, become a viable part of the education conversation. I myself have a middle-of-the-road opinion of charter schools; I ultimately lump them with traditional schools, thinking that these conversations are better spent identifying what's working in good schools period--whether that you feel that to mean some charters, some traditional, etc. I can't say, so I will not try to defend or refute, the idea that the Summit had more charter presence than others--but I will say that anyone worth their salt would agree that those that promote charters are promoting the ones that they feel are working, just as they would also challenge the existence of ones that aren't performing well as it dilutes not only from the charter movement, but from delivering quality education to children. I must say, that I find diatribes like this blog post--which, while intelligently constructed, seems rather shallow and dogmatic--to often be accusatory and churlish without being meditative and forward-thinking. I get that you found the Summit's offerings wanting; I'll have to respectfully disagree but respect your differing opinion, but I'd be curious to hear about what sessions you attended then, and what you may have learned from any of those that you found insightful or at least worthwhile to share with peers to better ourselves. Otherwise, this just comes across as internet sniping....

February 13, 2011 10:35:00 PM EST

SummitBlogger said...

I also attended the Randi Weingarten session, but hardly felt there was a meaningful debate. I wrote about this on the blog. I do not have my "head in the sand" about the existence of charters. I am well aware that they are all the rave right now in many circles. You say that is OK to be promoting the charters that are "working", but it seems like you are not truly thinking about what is at stake here. Which charters do you believe are working? KIPP? Harlem Children Zone? The Standford Study from 2009 asserts only 1 out of 5 charters is successful. Did you look at the charts I posted at the beginning of the day? These charters and many others are not keeping their students. Attrition is high and it is common knowledge that many charter schools counsel out their most struggling students. Their numbers might look good now, but any one can get the results they want if they weed out the most needy. This is not reform. We cannot support a reform that isn't aimed at providing for all children. Charter schools, even those at the summit, do not educate equal numbers of ELLs, special education students or students with free lunch plans. We cannot support reform that seeks to privatize one of our last public institutions. With privatization comes the destruction of community, parent and teacher voice and power. I believe by posting what I have that I am helping people to "better themselves." My goal was to report on what I saw at the summit and hopefully start a conversation that encourages people to think twice about what they believe. I hope you will read my posts again and think more deeply about the arguments I am making.

February 14, 2011 6:25:00 AM EST

Anonymous said...

I think in some respects we're actually in agreement--I left a prior popsition with a charter school where I live for just that reason--it wasn't serving ALL the students. Like you, I'm critical of the success of some charters, too--I think some of them, SOME, have built their success based on skewed populations/results. I agree with you that the content of that session--I was too hasty to add that one to the list, but then I'm not sure why you might feel that that's TFA's fault for not having "meaningful dialogue"--it's been my experience that very few panel discussions hosted by ANYONE is able to make that into meaningful conversation. Do I realize what's at stake? Certainly. As an African-American male from an urban city, a teacher for 3 years (in two very differnt traditional public schools, a youth/adolescent coordinator in urban cities, a development and an admissions director at two different charter schools, and an engaged alum since doing TFA in 2001, I do indeed have a sense of what's at stake personally and professionally. Plus, I continue to have members of my own family, both immediate and removed, who either have children or are children participating in a system that doesn't service their educational needs fully, so yeah, I think I have a sense of what's at stake. And so, amongst the things that I've learned is that people's lives and futures are at stake--people from the very communities, both ethnically and geographically, that I have much kinship with--and that at the end of the day, much of our conversations about ideologies, conspiracies and the like ring hollow for families and children that want what many of us in this country take for granted: good schools and good teachers. I think it's also important to note, certainly with the experiences that I've had and others that I know of too, that even our traditional schools, while TAKING every child, have varying degrees of EQUITABLY SERVING every child--so in that sense, I don't think charters are a culprit anymore than a lot of brick and mortar schools. With tracking, crowded classrooms, wild variability in teacher quality, low- to little- resources, there are many things hampering our ability to educate children--and I say "our" because I feel it's an obligation that we all share as educators, and is yet another reason why I don't subscribe to the idea of villainizes charters anymore than traditional public schools, or superintendents, or boards--there's plenty of responsibility and blame to go around, and pointing fingers rarely gets anything constructive done. I think there's about a 1,000 different ways to make quality education happen for families that need them: pure, open-admission charters; quality traditional neighborhood schools; principal (as opposed to centralized) selection; student-centered curriculum; better teacher preparation--I mean, I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea--a lot. So let's change focus here instead then--what DID you like about the Summit? Was there any session that you DID learn something interesting/worthwhile from? Or did you at least have any conversations with folks that were enlightening, interesting or challenging?

February 14, 2011 10:47:00 AM EST

ed notes online said...

To Anon 10:47 We appreciate the time you took to leave such a thoughtful comment. I don't want to zoom in on just one point but this struck me: I just want to zoom in on this piece: "I think there's about a 1,000 different ways to make quality education happen for families that need them: pure, open-admission charters; quality traditional neighborhood schools" What we are seeing here in NYC and probably across the nation is that the charter movement results in the wiping out of traditional neighborhood schools. Summit blogger and I are part of the Real Reform movement that is willing to engage the very parents you talk about in a battle to make every neighborhood school a place where your family would be comfortable place to send their children. We see charters as undermining this battle - they offer the parents who are most engaged - and I was in the system for 35 years and saw vast differences in engagement in my own school and my own classes - the option to opt out of the public schools and leave a deteriorating hulk in their place. Please watch the video I put up of the New Orleans school system - new orleans nightmare by clicking on that link on my sidebar. norm

February 14, 2011 12:20:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

Norm, I appreciate the time and tone of your reply in response to my previous posting--though I'm equally embarrassed to see that I had so many typos too (such is the risk you run commenting on the sly when you're supposed to be working). While I applaud the work that you're doing in terms of engaging the parents of these communities, doing so with the bent of "charters are ruining our system" is just the sort of line-drawing that I think does more harm than good. I also take offense with well-trotted out notion that charters are places that "engaged parents" take their kids to; I can speak, as someone who has worked in two charter schools, and has friends in over a dozen here at home, that that sort of generalization is wildly untrue. Are there some parents that are more engaged than others? Sure. Does that capture the entire charter populace? Certainly not; I can show you droves of kids whose parents are virtually absent or ignorant of what's going on with their kids. I think teacher and community galvanization is vital to ed reform, and is largely a part that, I think, is going to really help steer where we're going as a nation. Unfortunately, from the sounds of things, your organization/group seems more interested in keeping kids/families in situations than universally advocating for better schools. If people are voting with their feet, shouldn't you perhaps aggressively go about understanding WHY? A Pew study came out not too long ago that cited safety as one of the primary reasons that parents were in favor of charters vs traditional schools. I think taking into account what matters to the community and not what matters to us (educators) is a helpful way of having a more productive conversation about what reform needs to be. Until then, it just seems like your group is into casting stones. You say, "the Real Reform movement that is willing to engage the very parents you talk about in a battle to make every neighborhood school a place where your family would be comfortable place to send their children". Please share with me--what are you doing?

February 14, 2011 1:59:00 PM EST

SummitBlogger said...

To Anonymous: I believe our public schools do need serious attention and reform and I am aware that there are serious issues of equity within our public schools. The problem with this charter school movement is that so many see it as a panacea. I am not seeking simply to point out blame, but rather, to help others to engage in a critical examination of what these charter schools represent. As Norm wrote, we are seeing public education become undermined and ignored as charter schools take public space and students. Our public schools do face serious challenges and they need serious attention. But, in New York, what we are seeing is all of that attention (from the mayor, his chancellor and his board of education)put into charter schools. Issues of safety in the public schools are not addressed. Our lack of resources is not being addressed. The public school parents, teachers and students are being ignored and pushed to the side as those in power work to privatize New York's education system. Why not take the energy that is being put into charter schools and redirect to our public schools? Allow them to innovate. Fund them properly. Lower class size. I'm sure we can agree this list could go on, too. Can you see the destructive nature of this charter school movement? As to your question about what I did like at the summit...I mentioned a few things in my posts about comments I appreciated. The session about early childhood education offered some good discussion about what that kind of education should look like. However, no public school representation on that panel either. I also enjoyed my conversation with one of the KIPP leaders--this is also in my post.

February 14, 2011 4:51:00 PM EST

Michael Fiorillo said...

Anomymous, You state,"I think there are 1,000 different ways to make quality education happen for families..." You may believe that, but does Wendy Kopp, her husband, (a KIPP Board member, and former executive at the for-profit Edison Schools), TFA board members and funders (who overlap in a dense web of interlocking administrative positions and/or Board memberships) feel the same way and act upon it? Hardly. Observe their actions versus their throwaway sound bites: in practice, TFA is disproportionately represented in charter expansion and privatization nationwide, and where it has members in the public schools they often operate as a divisive force (Educators4Excellence in NYC as a prime example) among teachers, pushing pro-management policies in the guise of "helping kids." You bring up "safety," as an issue, but that's a red herring, as charters, like Catholic schools, have far more say over the composition of their student bodies. Allow the public schools to turn away disproportionate numbers of needy kids, and security is bound to be a less of an issue there, too. You say that we are casting stones, again with that persistent "you're so negative" response. But the reality is that we are dissenting from what is in fact anti-social behavior, on a institutional and policy-making level: actual schools and communities are having their facilities, resources and voting rights taken away from them by private interests, interests that TFA is deeply interlocked with. We're not casting stones, we're defending our children, our students, our professional working conditions and public education as an institution (flawed and in need of reform as it is). You ask us what we are "doing." We're teaching, every day, just as we have been for years and hope to continue to, unlike the overwhelming majority of TFAers who parade their passion, their excellence, their commitment to children and then...stop...teaching. But after all, TFA is not really about teaching is it? No, as Wendy Kopp herself says, it's about "leadership." In other words, it's really about identifying, training and grooming cadre and leaders for developing policy, managing the schools, and instituting the business model of its funders, which is by its nature anti-democratic. At the moment, charter schools are the preferred vehicle for this transformation, but that can change, as it certainly will for the small, community-based, mom-and-pop charters after they've outlived their usefulness and been closed or merged with the chains, for whom the logic of the market compels them to scale up. We're not discussing the personal morality of individuals or the success of particular schools, but rather TFA's institutional involvement with private policy-making, private control of schools and private takeovers of public facilities. That's what the business model of education is in practice, with destructive results for the majority. To me, that's negative, and hostile.

February 14, 2011 6:58:00 PM EST

ed notes online said...

hey Anon, I appreciate the issues you raise. I find it interesting that you buy the "people leaving with their feet" line when in NYC we often see that as manufactured with charters having enormous budgets for advertising to create phony demand while public schools have to struggle to tell their stories. Just a week ago we saw an elem charter voted into a high school building and constricting the space of a small high school that has a thousand person waiting list. Public schools applying to be allowed to grow are told "no" while every charter request at the expense of public schools is OKayed. The Real Reformers through our Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) has been working with parents and students to organize a political movement. Many of the teachers involved are NYC public school classroom teachers like Summit blogger - most of your generation - they are outraged at having to see their special ed kids get services on staircases while charter schools gobble up their space often for specious reasons (they lie about their enrollment.) I was in a public school in Harlem the other day - a school co-located with a charter. The teachers in the public school are overwhelmingly black and older while the charter school teachers are almost all white and young. The charter will push out the public school eventually and the public school teachers will be vilified. what message does that send to the children and parents of color in Harlem?

February 14, 2011 8:50:00 PM EST

UPDATED: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, Part 4 With Closing Plenary

NOTE: See below for 4:45 added update
"6:05 PM It’s after 6. Drink tickets are now valid. Hoping to see Kaya Henderson at the bar"

Also NOTE: Another former TFA teacher video on negative aspects of TFA

On Saturday, Feb. 12, a Real Reformer member of the Grassroots Education Movement went down to DC for the TFA 20th Anniversary Summit. The blogs came through all day with extensive coverage from the perspective of someone who is not a true believer. Let me say that Summit Blogger is still teaching a self-contained elementary school class years after most TFA's have gone on to other things. Here are links to each segment.

Part 1: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit
Part 2: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit - Randi Weingarten
Part 3: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, - Afternoon Session
Part 4: Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, With Closing Plenary

The audience is eating this up. It sounds tough. But do our schools and children need this sort of toughness? Education is not a business, but this panel believes it is. It is unbelievable how one-sided this summit is. 

Diane, are you reading this? We need you here pronto. I’ll pay your travel expenses and help you storm the stage. 

Kaya Henderson, DC schools:

Where is the Pepto? I can’t stand this woman. She has the potential to be a more frightening monster than Rhee. (She spoke this morning in the opening brainwashing session.)

She is touting the success of D.C.’s 126 charter schools: “We have a robust charter school movement.” She claims these schools are so successful because they have the autonomy they need.

I’ll take some of that autonomy. Sign my public school and me up. Oh, I guess she isn’t offering that.  

3:10 Just arriving to session entitled, The Future of Schools Systems:

How to get through this session? Is smells like the destruction of public education in here. Check out the panel:

1. Richard Barth: President, CEO KIPP

2. Kaya Henderson, Interim Chancellor DC Schools

3. Rebecca Nieves Huffman, VP of the Fund for Authorizing Excellence, National Association of Charter School Authorizers

4. Paul Pastorek, State Superintendent of Education, Louisiana Department of Education

Moderated by Ted Mitchell, President and CEO, New Ventures Fund

Paul Pastorek begins. Says we need to “Break up the monopolies.” Why? “Because we have to define what will be a truly great school. We need the flexibility to innovate. We need the city to get out of the way.” He discusses Louisiana’s effort to decentralize the school system and how he is relying mainly on charter schools to provide the innovation LA needs.  32% children who are not on grade level, and he says charter schools are the only hope.

Yuck. How can all these people sit here and listen to this? I know there are public school teachers here, as I’ve seen their name tags. Are they not outraged? I am, but you knew that already.

Pastorek then asserts the keys to his success: “We seed, feed and weed in Louisiana.”

              Seed: Bring new schools in.

Feed: Provide support if they want it, but don’t push it.

Weed: Remove schools that do not meant the standards.

Pastorek closes with “We need to engender competition.”

The audience is eating this up. It sounds tough. But do our schools and children need this sort of toughness? Education is not a business, but this panel believes it is. It is unbelievable how one-sided this summit is. Diane, are you reading this? We need you here pronto. I’ll pay your travel expenses and help you storm the stage.

After a day of this, I’ll be lucky if I can still think for myself. It feels a bit like the Fox News studio here. So much propaganda…

LOTS MORE

Rebecca Nieves Huffman: Continues the “charter school silver bullet” mantra. But does offer a little criticism charters are not educating as many ELLs and special education students. She wants to increase accountability to ensure that charter schools serve these students, but offers no plan.

Kaya Henderson, DC schools:

Where is the Pepto? I can’t stand this woman. She has the potential to be a more frightening monster than Rhee. (She spoke this morning in the opening brainwashing session.)

She is touting the success of D.C.’s 126 charter schools: “We have a robust charter school movement.” She claims these schools are so successful because they have the autonomy they need.

I’ll take some of that autonomy. Sign my public school and me up. Oh, I guess she isn’t offering that.

She says, “We need to storm the Bastille and take over the school district.” To France we go! She is really plugging for a complete charter takeover of D.C. schools.

Richard Barth, KIPP:

“We are working to ensure every KIPPster can leave the world better than they way found it.” Nothing like creating inequity to better the world, Mr. Barth.

I’ll have to try to get up there at the end and ask him about KIPP’s attrition.

Barth asserts KIPP asks itself some important questions to guide their work:

1. Are we serving those who need us most?

2. Do they students stay?

3. Are they making progress?

4. Are they going to college and graduating?

5. Is the school sustainable from a people’s perspective?

6. Is the school sustainable from financial perspective?

He stresses the importance of the freedom his schools have.

Why can’t we give public schools this freedom?

He closes by saying that there are good and bad charters. “We shouldn’t defend things that aren’t good for kids.”

Can’t wait to try to catch his ear at the end of this charade.

Rebecca Nieves Huffman

Quotes and praises Michelle Rhee. Talks about her “doing whatever it takes even if it means breaking rules” speech.

Does Rebecca not read the newspapers? Rhee was found to have improperly fired teachers in D.C. Rhee lied about the test scores of her students. Rhee taped her students mouths shut. Is Rebecca saying these are the behaviors we should encourage?

Kaya Henderson, D.C. schools:

I did not find any Pepto, but I am clutching my free drink tickets. Can I redeem them now?

“No one thought DC could win Race to the Top and now people are acting like it is ‘this whole new thing.’”

 What is she talking about?

Now she says “We can’t do this if our game is weak.”

Paul Pastorek

Hungry to please the crowd, he claims that Teach for America teachers in Louisiana are better than other veteran teachers in Louisiana. He doesn’t mention any data, but he swears it is fact. Everyone is applauding. There’s nothing like applauding an outright insult to teachers who have dedicated their lives to educating children in Louisiana. The arrogance of this man is shocking.

Moderator:

“Charters are one of the solutions we have discussed today. ”

Uh, no, it’s the only one my friend.

“Charters are seen as privatizing education. Really quick reflections panel: how can we bring charters into the public dialogue?”

Diane, are you out there. I can’t do this alone anymore. Charters are “seen” as privatizing education? They are shaping privatization as an illegitimate concern!

 

 4:20PM
*A few responses follow, mainly more of what we’ve already heard, but then,
Kaya Henderson, is back on the mic.

“I was out drinking last night.” Audience laughs. “I need a nap…What you gotta do is not be comfortable where you are. I didn’t want to be a superintendent.” She goes on and on, the audience is laughing.

The Moderator is now leading a “Kaya, Kaya, Kaya, Kaya!” chant. I do not want a school system leader who brags about her drinking habits. This is who TFA wants leading the schools here?!

He announces the D.C.’s mayor is here and that we are ending our session early so everyone can get to the closing session of the day. No time for Q and A. Not time for any one to think for themselves.

4:30 I scramble to hand out some “Truth About Charters Brochures” but can’t really accomplish much. I want to talk to people before handing this to them, but they are all rushing out, and they all work for charter schools (as their name badges claim). I need to find, somehow, the people who might be thinking the questions I so desperately want to ask, but how?

Off to the finale of the day, Duncan is alleged to be there!


UPDATED: 4:45PM

4:45 Closing Plenary

I find my friends, who have been at different sessions, and feel relief. One mentions that she was in a session about Segregation in our Schools and that one panel member, Pedro Noguera (Education Professor from NYU), offered some sharp criticisms of TFA and was well received by the 1,000 + audience members. I will report more on this session later. Seems like that would have been a better place for me to find people who might be receptive to my literature. Ah, an opportunity missed. But, I’m relieved to here that some sort of an alternative perspective was discussed today.

4:55 PM

Closing Plenary begins:

Opens with a KIPP school’s orchestra, and then, wait for it… a message from President Obama:

“Wendy believed it was possible to harness the desire of young people to make a difference.” He compliments the TFA teachers for their work and TFA is now 28,000 strong. He then steps away from talking about TFA, and simply talks about teaching.

He echoes his state of the union address. “Anyone who is a teacher deserves our respect and support…We want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the next years…I am encouraging young people to become teachers. I want to thank those who have stayed beyond 2 year commitment…Thank you for showing us the difference a great teacher can make.”

Generally, a pleasant message. No mention of charter schools. No mention of closing “bad schools.” No mention of “bad teachers.” A good change of pace from what I’ve listened today.

Vincent Gray, D.C. mayor:

Boasts: “40% of D.C. kids are in charter schools.” Then goes on to say, “This creates an environment in which we are motivated to improve our schools.”

He promotes mayoral control and its ability to strip away the layers that used to hold back education. I think he is referring to the community’s voice—yes, Gray, that has been stripped away.

He claims he has a strong team working with him in D.C. and sites his self-admittedly hung over interim schools chancellor. The crowd goes nuts again.

Arne Duncan, keynote:

Standing ovation, 98%. Starts his speech with a MLK story. “Everyone here is here today because at some point along the way, we had the great fortune of having a great teacher, a great education.”

“What Wendy Kopp did 20 years ago, and what you have done, is extraordinary.”

“Poverty is not destiny…Education can be a respected profession.”

“I know how hard your work is…You may not get the support you need. You may not have the resources you need…”

He then launches into a story about how a “failing” Chicago public school was failing, but when it was replaced with a charter school it became to show results: “Same children, same community, same poverty, same violence…Different adults, difference sense of expectations…that made all the difference in the world.”

He closes.

Standing ovation repeats. 99.8% now. My friends and I may be the only ones sitting down.

5:20 PM John Legend is now performing with the KIPP orchestra. He is now on the Board of Teach for America.

5:25 PM Video Clip

Principal, parents and students from BRICK Academy in Newark, NJ are on screen speaking joyfully about their school. A teacher there says, “A child deserves a proper education. One day, every child will have that.”

The video ends with “What role will you play?”

5:30 PM What Role Will You Play? Testimonials:

A series of speeches by TFA alum about the “roles” they now play.

1. Dominique Lee, BRICK Academy principal is on stage telling her story.

2. Miguel Solis, March Middle School, Dallas, Texas. Our first Public School educator, “To see I teach is an understatement.” He’s advocating for people to stay in the classroom longer, “There is no way that two years can be enough.”

He talks about a desire to promote educational equity. The first speaker who has said absolutely nothing that offends me.

3. Amy Spicer, Stand for Children, Colorado Policy Director. Promotes teacher evaluations based on observations and student achievement data. Many in the crowd clap.

4. Evan Stone, Co-Founder, Educators for Excellence. Tells the story about when he learned about he could possibly be laid off due to budget cuts. He was disgusted that he, a “good teacher” could be laid off simply because of when he was hired. He claims this was the impetus to create E4E, which has launched a serious campaign to end “Last in, first out.”

5. John Legend, “proud TFA board member.” Promotes his new album with the Roots called, “Wake Up.” He needs to wake up. He plugs, “Waiting for Superman.”

6. Mike Feinburg, KIPP, Co-founder KIPP, Superintendent KIPP Houston I need a nap.

7. Camika Royal, Ph.D. Candidate, Temple University

8. Mike Johnston, Colordo State Senate and Bill Ferguson, Maryland State Senate

I’m reminded of my institute training. They used to parade people like this in front of us every week. Got to motivate the troops.

6:02 PM John Legend Performs again. Motivating continues.

6:05 PM It’s after 6. Drink tickets are now valid. Hoping to see Kaya Henderson at the bar.