MG goes to bat for TFA in an NYT online discussion on the heels of a piece regarding TFA's selectivity and retention.
Michael Winerip (best name ever for an armchair critic) re-opened an old debate around TFA's ability to keep their good teachers teaching beyond their 2-year commitment. His opening is loaded, to say the least. "Teach for America has become an elite brand that will help build a resume, whether or not the person stays in teaching." What's up with the NYT recently?
MG points out that TFA 'dropouts' aren't turning in their eduwarrior badges at all. They run school districts. They start CMO's. OMG, they even run boutique teacher training programs. In my four years in the education sector here in Boston (where they just started placing last year), TFA alums seem to be everywhere.
So let's try to move past this whole chestnut. Again. Never mind that the "dropouts" are better than their average replacement--by a mile--during their two years. TFA gets fantastically motivated people into classrooms for two years. A good chunk of them stay in education and/or become educational philanthropists and/or vote for ed reform politicians, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if their post-Corps numbers looked very similar to MATCH Corps alumni.
Could our stay-in-classroom rates me higher? Sure. Are our former teachers "failing" the cause? Hardly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment