Teacher attrition is high enough that "No Excuses" charter schools could not keep their doors open without a constant infusion of new blood from Teach for America and penal preparation programs like Relay. In the chapter below from Work Hard, Be Hard . . . contributed by Dr. Barbara Veltri, who published a book about TFA in 2010 entitled Learning on Other People's Kids: Becoming a Teach For America Teacher, Veltri provides an encapsulation of TFA's place in keeping corporate ed reform dreams alive.
Chapter
9
Teach For America’s Socialization and Manipulation
by Barbara Veltri
It’s like the Peace Corps. But, you know,
creepier. --D. Chernicoff, Yale Daily News, (2006)
This
chapter chronicles the evolution of Teach For America’s (TFA) rebranding, from
a teaching-as-service non-profit, to a leadership network with a voracious
appetite for expanding and creating new revenue streams. I examine how Teach For America’s corps
members are selected and socialized to support the organization’s revamped
trajectory away from teacher supply to leadership expansion. Data for this
chapter included a range of sources, from insider interviews to TFA annual
reports, business plans, tax returns, web sites, public records, and other
documents. A cautionary tale illuminates how private venture philanthropy and
“public good” corporate education reform initiatives[i]
are managed and manipulated.
The
Mission Design of America’s #1 Educational Non-Profit
Twenty-five years ago Princeton
University Sociology major, Wendy Kopp, founded Teach For America. It’s
mission: recruit, train, and place recent college graduates without education
credentials into poor rural and urban schools for two-year teaching commitments
(Kopp, 2003). The new non-profit organization, subsequently dubbed America’s
National Teaching Corps (Veltri, 2010) was charged with addressing the shortage
of qualified teachers in underserved regions of the U.S. (Kopp, 2003; Veltri,
2010). In 1994, Teach For America was
granted 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit organization, which permitted donors
to claim exemptions from income taxes, too.
Teach For America targeted areas to
field-test the education reform agenda in America’s poor communities, where
high populations of children of color reside. These urban and rural areas were
never properly funded in any way imaginable, and they had gone mostly unnoticed
by the business community until Ms. Kopp recruited recent grads from select
colleges to begin teaching there.
With substantial financial support from
corporations and foundations in hand by the mid-1990s, Ms. Kopp focused her
attention on garnering support from the federal government. This ongoing
support from the federal government was provided principally through The
Corporation for National and Community Service, CNCS), commonly referred to as AmeriCorps
(Kopp, 2003). Under an arrangement with AmeriCorps,
TFA teachers may receive up to $11,290 during their two-year stints to repay
student loans. Too, TFA has received
generous federal grants. In 2010, alone,
TFA and KIPP (Wendy Kopp is married to KIPP’s President and CEO, and TFA alum,
Richard Barth) each received separate $50,000,000 Investing in Innovation
grants from the U. S. Department of Education.
The
Socialization of Teach For America’s Corps
Socialization of corps members-as-future-leaders
in the reform pipeline depends heavily on incorporating a unifying message and
philosophy to its incoming teacher trainees (Kopp, 2003; Kopp & Farr, 2011;
Brewer, 2014). Teach For America safeguards the training of its recruits at a
dozen Corps Training Institute locations across the country. A singular, robust, and paternalistic
socialization of its Corps Member teachers remains a foundational element to
the mission of TFA.
Toward this end, Teach For America
espouses its own brand, image, logo, color scheme, scripted training program,
division of labor, sanctions and rewards, and public persona. In 2014, Teach For America accepted 15% of
its applicant pool (Teach For America, 2014). Corps applicants are selected
based upon particular TFA-identified criteria, and principal among them is the
crucial measure of “fit” (Dobbie, 2011), a metric based largely on belief and
commitment:
The last TFA measure is fit,
which measures whether an applicant believes TFA’s goals are attainable through
the TFA approach. The fit variable is scored using overall interviewer
impressions of knowledge, and commitment to the belief in the ability of
children to achieve, and the belief in the TFA focus on raising student
academic achievement (p. 6).
TFA encourages
a oneness mindset that relies upon an expectation that a singular, unifying
belief, will be commonly held as a prerequisite for success and belonging
(Veltri, 2015) within a “community of feeling’ that breeds “identical judgment”
(Lyotard, 1991). Teach For America’s
insiders recognize this “community of feeling” as the crux of the enculturation
into the TFA philosophy (Brewer, 2014; Sondel, 2014; Veltri, 2010). This
socialization most often leads to an ongoing commitment that persists beyond
one’s two-year teaching affiliation with the organization.
Teach For America’s socialization efforts
promote; (1) corps conformity, (2) corps identity, (3) corps competition, (4)
corps collaboration, (5) corps cohesiveness, and (6) corps cliques. Insiders are adept at perceiving
contradictions between TFA’s official narrative and the methods used to attain
its ends:
TFA is an incredibly
hierarchical organization where there is a tremendous amount of leadership by
passive-aggressive use of fear. You can really see this at Institute,
particularly with the school directors who are under intense pressure from the
Institute's managing director to produce 'transformational gains' from
students in, literally, 10 days of teaching. (Andrew)
Teach For America’s “truths” refine,
streamline, and reinforce a singular message, and that message speaks often,
speaks louder, speaks to a network of supporters in high places, and rarely
allows for differing viewpoints. Many
TFA insiders face a dualism in how they respond to and/or acknowledge their own
self-efficacy as corps members and alumni (White, 2013).
Some comply, embrace, or cope during
their committed affiliation with TFA, doing what they have to do to get by
(Brewer, 2014; White, 2013; Veltri, 2010; Veltri 2015). Others subvert surreptitiously and are
determined not to lose themselves in the TFA enculturation, and these Corps
members “see” through the information presented to the public. Corps members who assume personae that remain
compliant and eager to embrace TFA methods and non-teaching duties during the
two-year TFA teaching assignments find favor in post-teaching roles within the
TFA organization.
The Role of
the TFA Corps Member in Education Reform
TFA adheres to a strategic policy of
recruiting young, recent college graduates who generally do not challenge the
organization during their first two years, while they “learn the ropes ”in
order to later reap the benefits of “being a good corps member.” “Good” corps members complete the task at
hand with enthusiasm and later recognize financial advantages of their TFA
affiliation, post-teaching. Teach For America also employs niche
recruiters who target evangelicals, dreamers, veterans, Native Americans, and
LGBT candidates. (Teach For America, 2014).
Teach For America’s applicants are
not recruited just for the short-term teaching positions they accept but are,
in effect, recruited for their future worth to the TFA network and its agenda.
Many TFA teachers are groomed by the organization and vetted for leadership positions
following their two years of service.
Regardless, all Corps members are expected to remain loyal to the cause:
So like yes, we’re supposed
to keep it, education reform, in the forefront and no matter what you do after
the 2 years are up, you’re supposed to stay focused on education because you’ve
been there. So you can take any influence you may have in your future and use
that towards education reform (Jackie).
A barrage of e-mails inundates corps
members with opportunities for leadership and policy roles within the TFA
alumni network of charters, including KIPP and other total compliance
schools. Teach For America has become
the feeder system (Taylor, 2010) that is crucial to sustaining charter
management organizations: “simply put, Teach for America,
Inc. has become an employment agency for charter schools” (p. 1). One TFA teacher said,
Of the most
touted alumni in a particular community, how many work in public school
districts in a position that has a direct impact on teaching and learning? Most
of the heroic tales of TFA alums come from charter systems, ‘education reform’
groups, and roles in government bodies that are undermining public education.
For example, here in ______, the alums who are most held up as examples of the
power of TFA are charter school founders and leaders, people who work for the
state's charter school association, or head up not-for-profits focused on
education reform that are very cozy with those who most threaten our schools
(Caryn).
With five weeks of pedagogical preparation
that includes practice teaching time, Teach For America attempts to drive home
the message to power constituencies and legislative bodies that TFA novices
should be considered as highly qualified and effective beginning teachers. This mantra reverberates as TFA “truth,” even
as novice corps members struggle in out-of-field teaching assignments, Special
Education or resource placements, and other site-based duties for which they
are not qualified:
The program is
atrocious—the TFA training is completely worthless and inadequate when it comes
to actually preparing people how to teach, they are so full of biased/worthless
statistics, the staff is a bunch of cliché-spouting TFA robots, etc. and
the list goes on (Darrell).
Corps member insiders report that the
organization creates lists of those considered for leadership positions, and
leadership begets privilege. Elisa
Villanueva Beard, co-CEO of Teach For America states, “Civic leaders call
regularly and say, ‘We want to know who is available and ready to take on a
bigger role’… And we will always have names at the ready” (Simon, 2013, p.
2). TFA acts as an incubator for
education-industry business and educational governance organizations, political
offices, NGOs, non-profit corporations, foundations, and think tanks.
Tracy-Elizabeth
Clay, TFA’s General Counsel, addressed Teach For America’s alumni at Harvard
Law School, focusing on the organization’s initiatives to better harness TFA’s
alumni in law: “The
long-term vision is to create a ‘talent pool’ from which school districts, CMOs
and legal advocacy groups can draw from” (TeachForUS, 2012). Corporate education insider, Rick Hess, predicts, “five,
ten years out, we’re going to be talking about hundreds of TFA [political]
candidates in all likelihood” (Wieder, 2012).
Alliances with Friends in High Places
Teach For America did not work in
isolation to achieve their goals. Its “mission” was, and continues to be
advanced, by a network of supporters from the corporate, legislative,
university, media, and political spectrum.
For over a decade, Teach For America has directed its efforts towards expanding
the donor pool and to deepening political leaders’ commitment to TFA’s
policies. It has also concentrated on
quadrupling leadership placement of TFA alums across the entire political
landscape, while protecting the brand and successfully contributing to the
stream of alumni-led Charter Management Organizations (CMOs).
TFA has continued to grow by charging
fees for teachers it delivers to school districts in poor communities, while
urging network alliances to help TFA continue its rhetorical campaign to eliminate
educational inequity—even as childhood poverty in the United States of America
grows worse (Wieder, 2012; Jehlen, 2012).
Those who capitalize on education innovation
propel Teach For America’s mission. Quazzo, Cohn, Horne & Moe’s (2012)
Global Silicon Valley Advisors report that the global education market is worth
$4 trillion dollars and have partnered with Teach For America: “Talent has poured
into the sector from leading not-for-profits like Teach For America and
elsewhere where bright, talented young people have witnessed educational
inequity and can visualize solutions” (p. 24).
Most TFA post-teaching educational
careers projectile is classroom based. Evidence suggests that TFA has become
less of an alternative pathway to teaching children in poverty, and more of an
insulated training ground for corporate, media, and philanthropic hierarchies
motivated to reform public education across the PK-16 landscape. (Kamenetz,
2014; Kovacs, 2007; Simon, 2013; Wieder, 2012; TFA, 2012). Increasing numbers of TFA’s alumni are
leading large scale school districts, state education departments, and virtual
and charter school networks (Simon, 2013).
With generous support of their alliance
of policy makers, corporations, foundations and philanthropists, Teach For
America has remained flush with cash as it has grown its network of teachers
and former Corps members dedicated to the TFA mission. So what happened to America’s
Teaching Corps? The non-profit’s
energies today are more directed toward recruiting potential leaders, building
an enduring movement, seeking and finding funding and favor from corporations,
lobbyists, university presidents and deans, the media, philanthropists, and
national and state policy makers. As one
source reported, “what is happening beyond the
2-year commitment seems to be much more important now than ever before. What
has changed is how much emphasis TFA places on this goal (at the expense of the
shorter-term goal of developing successful classroom teachers)” (TeachForUs,
2012).
At the same time, TFA has grown
increasingly focused on countering document concerns and criticism (Joseph,
2014) through “obsessive PR games to cover up its lack of results in order to
justify greater expansion. ” Teach For
America perpetuates a revolving teacher syndrome and “disruptive turnover
cycles” (para 1) that does nothing to limit the educational inequity to which
TFA pays lip service. Teach For America is not a solution to what ails
education in America’s poorest communities, yet policy makers and the public
are persuaded to believe so.
From the U. S. Department of Education to
Congress to the Office of the President, and across state executive and
legislative bodies, TFA finds favor. As one former head of Florida’s Office of
Evaluation and Assessment told me, “TFA
are the sweethearts of education policy. People fall over themselves to support
them.” That favor translates to a
burgeoning financial base. Teach For America reported $1.15 billion dollars in
revenue for 2009-2013. Teach For America
invests millions in public relations to keep its critics at bay.
Teach For America runs a conveyer belt of
new teachers in and out of communities who learn to teach on poor people’s
children (Veltri, 2010). The overwhelming and overwhelmed TFA novice teachers
enter communities and schools in under-resourced areas, across America, without
strategies, support, or training. One
mentor of special education said,
Everyone of our E.D.
(Emotionally Disabled) kids is taught by TFA. I went into a class of
emotionally disturbed middle schoolers. The teacher is TFA, a very bright,
recent grad, top-tier school, TFA. The kids were very quiet when I walked in. I
sensed that something was wrong. The teacher imploded on the kids. They were
not permitted to eat in the cafeteria. They are E.D. You cannot threaten the
kids, but she was doing that in front of me. So, why is the district hiring
them? 43% are new TFA, and 23% are the 2nd year TFA (Dr. B. mentor,
SPED teachers).
Teach For America does not address the
pressing demands and needs of its novice teacher-trainees, who are still learning on children in the most
impoverished and segregated schools in the country. An Atlanta public school
teacher (4th year) was surprised to find a first year TFA
teacher sitting on the floor outside her classroom, crying in the hallway. She
asked supportively, “Which one [student]
would you like me to take out of the classroom for you?" The novice corps
member sobbed, “Take them all, I can't do this.”
Sadly, rookie CMs (corps members) often
have to reach out to friends and family in education for help, or go under the
TFA radar to seek help from credentialed teachers. Corps members find fewer
veteran educators at their schools, because in far too many classrooms,
especially charter managed urban schools that recruit high populations of
minority children of color, TFA rookies are often the only teachers hired. As one
CM told me, “those TFA teachers who are doing ‘well’ are those placed at some
of the best charter schools in the area, so their success has nothing to do
with the support TFA offers.” (Jaqueese
Sara noted that 11 of the 12 teachers at
the Phoenix area charter school, where she worked as a bilingual teacher were
TFA. The biology teacher shared that she was leaving in May. Unsure of what that meant, Sara asked
innocently,
"But you just got here last year,
right? Where are you going?"
"My plan is to go to medical
school," the biology teacher replied emphatically. "I'm not here to
be a teacher for more than I have to."
Sara shook her head:
“It
all makes sense now. They are all going somewhere, and the kids are just a
means to advance their plan, for their life. They might know biology, but
they are not really teaching it. It's more like they are commanding the kids to
learn it. I'm in their classrooms. I see what’s going on. Some of them
are trying, and many of them are smart, but they are not really teaching. I can
tell that their heart isn't in it, you know?”
Between one and five percent of
Teach For America teachers are certified
educators who majored in elementary, secondary or special education in a
college or university program.
Manipulation
of Education for the Public Good
The corporate, governmental, and
philanthropic supporters of Teach For America publicly claim to advocate for
children, but with checkbooks and legislative directives, they choose instead
to pledge allegiance to a non-profit wolf in sheep’s clothing that has
ransacked the educational landscape. George Soros (2010) cautions,
The trouble is, that special
interests also seek to disguise themselves as protectors of the public
interest, and it takes a discerning eye to discriminate between the genuine and
the phony, especially since both sides are forced to resort to similar methods
of persuasion (pp. 93-94).
But, whose interests does Teach For
America protect? My research tells me
that veteran educators across the country (particularly those of color),
children of color in high poverty communities, and struggling corps trainees
are not benefitting from Teach For
America’s expansion, leadership, and movement building. Corps members confirm that they are required
to lobby their own legislators with scripted correspondence prepared by TFA to
insure the organization’s best interests are retained, a duty not advertised by
TFA’s recruiters when canvassing campuses (Veltri, 2015).
Teach For America’s operationalizing
strategies lack transparency, and they play fast and loose with the facts. As
Duke psychology professor, Dr. Dan Ariely (2013) points out, however,
“collaborative cheating” is not uncommon among ideological altruists whose
arrogantly rationalize misappropriation of both public trust and public
dollars: “We found that altruism is a strong motivator for cheating. Based upon
these results we could speculate that people who work for ideological
organizations such as political groups and not-for-profits, might actually feel
more comfortable bending the moral rules—because they are doing it for a good
cause and to help others” (p. 232).
Teach For America’s network hides behind
the TINA thesis (There is No Alternative) (Saltman & Gabbard, 2003, p.
6). The favor granted to TFA is
repeatedly justified by those who claim Teach For America uniquely addresses educational inequities through recruitment of
bright and innovative applicants for service that is tantamount to a civil
rights campaign. But the lack of
transparency appears to be catching up with America’s Teacher Corps.
TFA alumni have interrogated the Teach
For America ‘truths’ for a decade and are organized and vocal. The #ResistTFA
social media movement deconstructs the organizational rhetoric presented in the
public domain, and alumni researchers offer significant and solid evidence of
inconsistencies in the TFA ‘mission’ rhetoric and outcomes, (Brewer, 2014;
Kretchmar, Sondel, & Ferrare, 2014; White, 2015). College seniors at elite universities such as
Penn, Harvard, and Berkeley increasingly scoff at being patronized by an
organization that dangles a charter network affiliation prize upon completion
of teaching for two years in an under-resourced school (Jehlen, 2012; Wieder,
2012; Fischer, 2013).
In 2014, the United Students Against
Sweatshops (USAS), a nation-wide coalition of savvy university undergrads,
became TFA’s worst nightmare. Operating on college campuses, the USAS traveling
program, “The TFA Truth Tour,” exposes the dark side of corporate education
reform (Ascherman & Li, 2014). USAS seeks to remove TFA from campuses
nationwide. They are aware of TFA’s
promises and rhetoric, and know that their peers will serve as the human
capital fueling TFA’s pipeline of corps teachers to public and charter schools
in poor communities (Ascherman & Li, 2014).
To add to TFA’s public relation woes,
many stakeholders are no longer willing to give TFA a free pass. District administrators, school boards,
parents, students, teachers, researchers, TFA alumni corps members, and savvy
college seniors (the real game changers) are on to the non-profit’s “hide and
seek” schemes and practices. Offering temporary teachers with minimal
preparation for poor children of color seems like an inadequate corporate solution
to a very public problem, especially when it funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate
and federal charity that could be spent on efforts to end poverty or to create
diverse schools. Manipulating a legitimate desire for public good to fit narrow
corporate objectives is not meritorious. The time has come; the rules,
consequences, and alliances could be about to change.
References
Ariely,
D. (2013). The (honest) truth about
dishonesty: How we lie to everyone–especially ourselves. New York: Harper
Collins.
Brewer,
J. (2014). Accelerated burnout: How
Teach For America’s academic impact model and theoretical culture of
accountability can foster disillusionment among its corps members.
Educational Studies, 50 (3), 246-263.
Chernicoff, D. (2006, October 27). I want you, Yalie, to teach for America. Yale
Daily News. Retrieved from
http://yaledailynews.com/weekend/2006/10/27/i-want-you-yalie-to-teach-for-america/
Dobbie, W. (2011). Teacher characteristics and
student achievement: Evidence from Teach For America. Journal of Labor
Economics, 9 (25), 95-135.
Fischer,
B. (2013). Cashing in on kids: 139 ALEC bills in 2013 promote a private,
for-profit education model. Center for
Media and Democracy’s Special Report. Retrieved from http://www.prwatch.org/node/12175
Jehlen, A. (2012). Boot camp for education CEO’s: The Broad
Foundation Superintendents
Academy. Rethinking Schools, 27 (1), 29-34.
Kopp,
W. (2003). One day, all children: The unlikely triumph of Teach for America
and what I learned along the way.
New York: Public Affairs.
Kopp,
W. & Farr, S. (2011). A chance to
make history: What works and what doesn’t in
providing an excellent education for all. New York: Perseus Books Group.
Kovacs,
P.E. (2006). Are public schools worth saving? If so, by whom?
Kretchmar,
K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America,
charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29 (6), 742-759.
Lyotard.
J.F. (1991). The inhuman: Reflection on
time. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Quazzo,
D.H., Cohn, M., Horne, J., & Moe, M. (2012). Fall of the wall: Capital flows to education innovation: GSV Advisors’ white paper. Retrieved
from gsvadvisors.com
Saltman, K.J. & Gabbard, D. (2003). Education as enforcement: The militarization and corporatization of schools. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Soros,
G. (2010). The Soros lectures at the Central European University. New York: Public Affairs.
Veltri, B. (2010). Learning on other people's kids: Becoming a
Teach For America eacher.
New York, NY: Information Age Publishers.
Veltri,
B. (2015). Voices of revitalization: Challenging the singularity of Teach For
America’s echo chamber. In T. Jameson Brewer & Kathleen deMarrais (Eds.), Teach For America counter-narratives: Alumni
speak up and speak out. New York: Peter Lang Publications.
White, T.
(2013). Teach for America (TFA) and the
"endangerment" of communities: Counter-stories from TFA teachers of
color. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
White, T.
(2015). Beyond dupes, disciples, and dilettantes: Ideological struggles of
Teach For America corps members. In T. Jameson Brewer & Kathleen deMarrais
(Eds.), Teach For America
counter-narratives: Alumni speak up and speak out. New York: Peter Lang
Publications.
