Why I Stopped Writing Recommendation Letters for Teach for America
slate.com
slate.com
Not only is there little to no support for teachers, but it sometimes feels like because there are a few bad teachers floating around in the system, that everyone needs to be punished and inconvenienced. I like job security as much as the next person, but I was a huge advocate for getting rid of tenure as a result.
I'm still incredibly passionate about education, but suspect that being a teacher is the best way to create change. Even in my short tenure, the amount of bureaucracy had increased exponentially. When asked for advice on becoming a teacher by a college student recently, I recommended against it—which broke my own heart, because I believe that it's an incredibly important profession—just not one I would give my twenties to again knowing what I know now.
At many universities (certainly my undergrad) the mean and median students in the Education department are weaker than students in other departments. Taking the weakest to bring out the best in our students seems very odd. There is some research that suggests teacher certification can actually be counterproductive. [1] If we were in the situation of Finland (teachers are in the top 10% of their class) then we would not need this type of intervention.
An increasing amount of research shows that TFA recruits perform at best no better, and often worse, than their trained and certified counterparts. I do not believe this to be conclusive. TFA teachers are being tossed into failing schools and systems and meeting or exceeding their supposedly more well trained peers.
Would a biology professor write a recommendation to medical school for an English major who’s never taken any core science courses? That would be strange. It would be even stranger if the professor knew the English major was just going into medicine for a few years, as a way to boost his resume, before ultimately going on to a career in public relations.
This is the one true, and serious complaint. TFA has turned into a place for smart high achievers to spend two years before going to grad school. Ideally many stay involved in education, but not all of them. But... It still does more for society than sending another couple percent of our best and brightest into banking and consulting.
[1] http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/dobbie_fryer_re... Bottom of page 2, top of page 3.
To the degree to which this is accurate,this flips the cause and effect. Finland, as a society, invests in its teachers and in teaching as a profession. In the US teaching isn't a terrifically paid job and isn't respected as a profession. If we invested more in teachers and teaching then we'd see those ratios start to change, maybe generationally. As it stands, though, teachers tend to get the brunt of the blame for "failing" schools - by both the right and the left politically now.
We are in the converse of that: Teachers are not respected -> The bottom want to become teachers -> Teachers are not respectable.
I'm not putting all of the blame on teachers. Some part of the problem is individual teachers. Some is the stupidity of their unions. Some is poor administration. Some is society for not demanding more out of everyone involved in education.
Universities have no incentive to steer students away from their areas of interest, but if it's this hard for a humanities major to earn a living wage, we're producing too many of them. Humanities departments have a vested interest in maintaining their output but I can't help but think that they're hurting themselves in the long run.
Humanities are an important part of a well-rounded student, and there are lots of instances where a humanities minor with a technical or business related major is a powerful combination. I'd hate to see the humanities die, but can they keep living like this? There should be more outrage among their graduates ... when that happens (and I've seen a few articles), things will get much harder for them.
As an aside, making 0xx and 1xx level introductory classes in the humanities, which are required as part of the GenEds or BDRs (Basic Degree Requirements) too hard is in many cases teaching students in other disciplines to hate you ... you should draw those students into your minors programs.
There's another side to that--the cool thing about history as a major was that the dept. structure was flatter. It was basically about doing interesting research. You could take 600 level classes with your TAs if you thought you could hang with them in reading. Definitely not the case in the more skill based fields.
Research, of course, is a skill, which is probably what they ought to be teaching more of in 100 level classes. Most kids when they get to college have not been asked to say, write a paper only from primary sources.
In terms of usefulness, I do find they help a lot in combination with practical degrees. Philosophy on it's own - not so useful. Philosophy with Computer Science - now you have someone who understand logic and linguistic processing. English on it's own - useless. English and Accounting - now you have someone can explain complex jargon-riddled Accounting statements in plain English.
I had a late class and overlapping the end was a TfA class next door for people who were currently teaching. We did some joint work occasionally and I could almost always at least hear what was going on in their sessions. It was far more like going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting than a class. Students basically sat and traded horrible stories every day for at least half the class or more. There was very little instruction in proper discipline. I'd say 25% were not visibly overwhelmed by their teaching jobs and almost all of them were involved with education or they were psych majors who had been heavily involved in schools.