Talk:Teach For America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teach For America article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Teach for America is building the movement to eliminate educational inequity in the United States through short-term and long-term methods. In the short-term, they recruit the best college senior from all majors, training them, and placing them in low income rural and urban school districts across the country for two years. In the long-term, alumni go on to become lifelong leaders to make the systematic changes needed to address educational inequity.

The organization was founded by Wendy Kopp in 1989 during her senior year at Princeton University. Her book One Day, All Children... details the history of the organization.

doesn't seem quite neutral...aaaa

This doesn't seem to offer any criticism/analysis of the program. Selachophile 02:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I know several TFA teachers and prospective teachers who vouch for the fact that, while well-intended, the program functions in many ways as unqualified teachers reaching out to students they don't understand how to reach (due to no background in education, race/sociology, etc). According to them, a great number of TFA teachers come across as hoping very much to do good, but neither the teachers nor the program take the time or make the effort to address these problems and the nature of the "rich reaching out to the poor" dynamic of this system, nor the racial and social aspects thereof. Now, this is just my secondhand account of people's experiences, but I'm aware that some criticism exists, and if there is any more academic or reputable accounts of such criticism, I'd love to see it (and of course, if it's not clear, I don't mean to detract from the program or say it's bad in any way, I'm just trying to contribute to the article and to a better understanding of it). The article certainly isn't nonNPOV right now, it seems to be fairly neutral in presentation, but if a certain perspective or analysis of the program is missing, it should be here if we can find it. Cheeser1 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I served as a TFA Corps Member 2000 in Baltimore for one year of my two year 'commitment'. I left after a year of teaching in Baltimore because I felt that TFA sent me ill prepared into the classroom, and once I was there offered me little support. I left feeling a complete failure and sensing that I'd made little difference to the lives of my students. What I needed to know when entering the classroom was how to effectively discipline, how to communicate with and engage young people, and how to include families in education who were from a very different culture to my own. The TFA 'bootcamp' did little to prepare me for any of these needs: this probably isn't surprising considering it lasted all of 5 weeks.

I still work in the field of education, and I continue to share TFA's visions. However, I feel that TFA is so struck by its own genius that it fails to put the same energy it spends in promoting itself and recruiting more and more students each year into its existing services. I feel TFA would do better to focus on its existing teachers and programs, ensuring they are receiving support, encouragement and assistance to do a job that is incredibly difficult. Instead, each year TFA take on more and more cities and regions in which to develop their work.

The Teach For America response to the Stanford Study has either been moved within or removed from the official TFA website. Does anyone have another reference for it? For now, I'm removing the link. MissLeighding 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Kaplowitz

His very scary, but also potentially unrepresentative, experience does not really seem appropriate here. Unless there is an objection, I'm going to remove it. Kearnsdm 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. Jacobko 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. I've removed the unsourced, vague comments as a start, but I think the rest might be kept, as an example of the more broad statement that preceeds them (about the 10-15%). It's illustrative, if not typical, and does have a reference. Cheeser1 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

an article on kaplowitz did not survive it's afd, but it seems that people have a real need to see controversy on this page. I can see why, but this is an old case and he really hyped the publicity for it - it would be nice to see some other cases represented if they exist rather than still going with this slightly sketchy one. H0n0r 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the case is that helpful. As Honor indicates, it was hyped for publicity. Cheeser, the reference is merely to Kaplowitz's own article on the subject: Would you say that is really a reference? Furthermore, if it's not typical, how can it be illustrative? I still question its value, but I think it's best to get your response before removing it. Honor--you state that it would be nice to see more recent cases... are there any that you know of? If not, perhaps this is a particular anomaly. If so, we should probably try to prevent the perpetuation of this disturbing, but unrepresentative, story. That the main article did not survive an AFD is even further evidence that it may not be appropriate. Let's try to finish up the discussion in the next couple of days and come to consensus. Kearnsdm 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was pubished, that seems to qualify it as a source. It's not like they can't cite Malcolm X's biography in Malcolm X. As for hype, the more hype there is, the more notable it is. I hear it didn't survive an afd, so maybe it's not that notable, but I think it has value, perhaps if only because it's the sole example we have. If we had an example (or better yet, broader information about this) it might be okay, but to say "oh yeah, teachers leave all the time" and have no examples at all makes me feel like the article is less robust. "Perpetuating ... disturbing but unrepresentative stor[ies]" is not something that I'd necessarily think Wikipedia shies from. Just my thoughts, if there's more consensus to remove it, I would not consider it a terrible loss. Cheeser1 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's a difference about the purpose of an encyclopedia. The goal is not to include every possible view on a topic; the goal is to create a picture that represents that topic in a very neutral and accurate way. Let's presume that Josh Kaplowitz hyped the story. If that's true--and if the hype worked--that might make it a topic for a separate article, but we should not use this hyped information as it is used here, to illustrate experiences of TFA teachers in urban schools. That is why the Malcolm X analogy is not appropriate: The Malcolm X article was about Malcolm X, so it should be cited--it would be remiss if it were not. But this article is not about Josh Kaplowitz, teacher lawsuits, or the elementary school in question. In those cases, the story would be important. In this case, it is not important or appropriate.

I agree that removing the story makes the article less "robust" (in the sense of dramatic), but encyclopedias are about providing clear information, not playing into drama. I do think Wikipedia shies away from unrepresentative stories, because the purpose is to provide a succinct understanding of the topic, not every possible nuance. I'm glad you don't consider it a terrible loss if removed. Let's wait for a few other voices to weigh in and a decision can be made later this week. Kearnsdm 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and I appreciate the discussion here - it's one of the few positive ones I've had on this silly encyclopedia. Let's see what others have to say (although in my experience, they often don't say much in less popular articles like this one). Cheeser1 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

It seems to me that "Debate over educational impact" could be shortened to "Educational impact". Is it really necessary to frame this in terms of a "debate"? From what I can tell, the most controversial study about Teach For America is the questionable one in which first year TFA teachers are not shown to perform better than experienced non-TFA teachers (no surprise there). The other studies seem pretty bland too, on both sides. So why are we hyping up the "debate" instead of pulling everything we can find on TFA's educational impact. I'm curious to know what others think about this.Obietom (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)