Teach for America
Recent article in the New York Times looks at a study that focused on the level of civic participation of those involved in Teach for America. Growing up, I remember the disdain that teachers had for Teach for America members. They felt as if they didn't really pay their dues and they weren't dedicated to being teachers. They felt as if the TforA members considered it to be domestic peace corps. They go in for 2 years, teach some underprivileged kids, then go back to their "real" lives. I guess this article shows that these people aren't any more civically engaged than the rest of us.
My gripe with Teach for America and other programs of their ilk is that it operates under the premise that anyone can be a teacher. Why is it that one of the most important professions in the world is treated as if it doesn't take any particular skill or talent to do it? This is a difficult profession and only those who are dedicated to the profession should join. If I want to be a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, appliance repairman, I have to go to some sort of specialized program. But apparently, if I want to be a teacher, I can just join an organization. And teach in some of the neediest areas of the country. How does this fit with NCLB and "highly qualified teachers"?
BBC
Posts
1 comment:
First off, kudos to you for being a school psych and writing about it. It's immensely useful to those of us considering the field.
Second, I understand the concerns regarding TFA. But to say that TFA teachers don't have special skills or talents because they didn't major in teaching is wrong. There's a pretty extensive application/interview process that ensures these people ARE dedicated and DO have the skills. TFA doesn't accept "just anyone" - I hate to say that I feel very few regularly trained teachers would make the cut (not because teachers aren't bright, but because TFA really only takes absurdly top notch kids).
Post a Comment