Simply stellar education journalism.

Dennis;

I'm not prepared to agree with you about traditional teaching methods, but I can help on doing a better job portraying non-traditional teachers in action. Here's a link to the story I wrote about the odds-beating school in Chicago where I first saw some TFA alums in action: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/01/20/25049/distinctive_disci...

One gets tired of watching Mr. Swift display, again, his ignorance of education. Odd for someone who works so hard on his vocabulary. Nonetheless, I’ll once again point out that they’re not “government” schools. They’re Mr. Swift’s schools. And mine. And Ms. Hawkins’. When Mr. Swift can name a teacher – anywhere in the country – who seriously believes “one for all, all for the lowerst [sic] common denominator,” I’ll buy him lunch. I rest secure in the knowledge that I’ll never have to pay up.

And since I’ll never have to buy that lunch, I can move on to say that TFA represents an interesting trend. I remain somewhat skeptical, but what Beth is reporting is encouraging to some degree. Offhand, I’d like to know why – if these people are, in fact, as energetic and successful in the classroom as seems to be the case at least some of the time – a third of them are leaving the classroom, where their skills have brought success, for administration, where their contact with children will be minimal, and usually substantially constrained.

I was a very good teacher, but I was never interested in administration precisely because what I enjoyed about teaching was working with kids and my subject matter. Moving to administration would not only have dramatically reduced the amount of time I had to interact with those kids, it also would dramatically alter the *kinds* of interactions I had with those kids.

People who move to administration, writing, advocacy, and other education-related fields are, in my experience, people who do not want to teach. They want more money, more influence, more prestige, more control over their working lives and conditions, more… something else besides the decidedly non-material satisfaction that comes with a job of teaching well done. For me, at least, that’s a negative factor, though yes, it may well be a good thing to see some newer, younger voices becoming part of the educational establishment. That “good thing” label is tempered by the knowledge that two years is not a career, and that they’ve left the more important job just about at the time when they began to know what they were doing.

Moreover, by “moving on,” even if – perhaps *especially* if – they’ve been doing a superb job in the classroom, they’re depriving faculty room colleagues and their own school administrators of an example with real credibility.

What I’m looking forward to are studies done with those TFA members who stayed in the classroom for a decade or more. Were they able to maintain their energy, enthusiasm, innovative curiosity, and most important, their effectiveness? If so, then by all means, this might well be a model that schools of education ought to jump on and ride hard. At the same time, what about the third of the group that left teaching, but stayed in education? Similar questions about energy and innovation ought to be asked, and results arrived at. And, lest it be assumed otherwise, I want to know why the other third of the group left education altogether.

It’s an interesting trend, but I want more information before I jump on that bandwagon.

So glad that TFA personnel are succeeding in the Charter school setting where parents choose to send their kids and disruptive kids can be expelled. Tell us some stories about TFA performance in regular public schools where teachers get classes filled with kids who have had no exposure to learning or school readiness except TV, whose parents use the schools for child care and don't support the educational programs and where one disruptive child (emotional, behavioral or other), who cannot be expelled, can disrupt the entire class. Then tell me again how wonderful TFA teachers are and how much progress they have made in their classrooms. Private schools have proven for years that discipline, parental involvement and support, and the ability to choose your students makes for successful education. Now tell me how it works in the inner city public schools.

"I’d like to know why – if these people are, in fact, as energetic and successful in the classroom as seems to be the case at least some of the time – a third of them are leaving the classroom"

Going out on a limb here...*maybe* they don't like the idea of having their compensation set by a system that completely (and quite deliberately) ignores the fact that they *are* energetic and successful, while sub-standard colleagues are rewarded for how long they have warmed a chair.

That is to say, they wish to pursue a professional career over a slot in a blue collar, trade labor union's membership roster.

Thanks for the spel-chek servises.

What if the TFA teachers are successful *because* it's a limited time committment? Teaching at a high level is an intense activity and few rise to the level of "Master Teachers." Few can sustain the effort over a career. Perhaps a model that works more like the military, with time-limited terms of service should be considered.

William, Most teachers are decent, reasonable people, who try to do their best and aren't any more lazy or stupid than the rest of us. Collectively, however, they stand in the way of reform because of the inexorable logic of the closed shop union. They must join the union to get a job. The union is run by those who have been there the longest without advancing, who of course highly value seniority, conservatism in all matters, and lack of pressure to perform as they get close to their pension. Teachers need to act like professionals, but they're stuck in unions that force them to act collectively like assembly line workers. Teachers do need unions, as they are facing a monopoly employer (the state), and often get caught between parents and the school system in battles over individual children, battles which people rightly take very seriously. But the teachers' unions should be more like professional associations than industrial unions. Allowing teachers to join whichever union or association they wanted, including none at all, would be a big step forward towards reform. When teachers become valued professionals rather than unionized laborers, teaching will once again attract bright and motivated graduates.

Student success is most highly corellated not with good teachers or good schools, but with good parents. Parents of any income level who drill into their kids' heads the importance of education, who stress written rather than visual media, and who support the actions of their childrens' teachers and schools produce consistently successful students.The generation that survived the Depression and WW2 was able to provide a better life for their children, with lots of food and free time and fun, and few of the deprivations and horrors that had gone before. This indulgent behaviour was reinforced and amplified in the generations that followed. We're now way too easy on our kids for their own good. Schools will never really succeed until parents force their kids to take education seriously, and allow hard work and discipline to be the watchwords at their children's schools. Teachers need to ask more of students, and adults need to stand resolutely in the face of their beloved yet lazy children, and force them to deliver. In the end, that will be the real reform.