Five years later, a quarter-century later, what has been accomplished? What do we need to change to earn more success? Are we willing to do it?
A lot of people ought to be asking questions like that, both locally and nationally, as so little improves in educational outcomes. And maybe that’s a lesson Teach for America can model for everybody.
A quarter-century after its start, Teach for America is a major player in American education. It has helped shape debate over urban education and it has been a launching point for some of the most influential figures in education. But its core idea — get bright, idealistic twentysomethings to spend their first two years after graduation as teachers in high-needs classrooms — needs, at minimum, serious review.
Five years after its arrival in Milwaukee, TFA’s track record has positives. For one thing, it’s still committed to Milwaukee, while other efforts have come and gone. But TFA hasn’t been the big shot in the arm backers seemed to expect at the start.
If Teach for America needs change, it’s getting it. Leaders have been doing a lot of rethinking, and the resulting steps signal broader changes in coming years.
There’s a lot to like about TFA. I’ve been consistently impressed with the people involved. Even as it grew into a big business with hefty ties to a lot of the nation’s richest education funders, TFA remained fueled primarily by people who had this Peace Corps-like idealism.
But does TFA’s core idea work? Can you get good results by taking even the brightest, giving them a few weeks of intensive summer training, and placing them in challenging classrooms? If it’s well established (and it is) that the first year is usually a struggle for teachers and most don’t hit their stride until several years in, what can you expect from teachers who, by definition, are in their first or second year?