Wes' TFA Adventure

Changing the public image of Teach For America

There are many misconceptions regarding Teach For America corps members (CMs). Are these misconceptions simple observations about the organization and its membership or something deeper? Critics of the organization have many complaints about CMs: naïveté, inexperience, youthfulness, and unrealistic ambition. Some of these complaints are valid, but not for all CM’s. However, from my many hours spent reading and integrating into the organization, I have noticed that overall, the organization does little to mount a PR offensive against biased views, preferring a strategy of non-engagement and otherwise re-enforcement of the skeptical views. I believe that a greater effort on behalf of TFA needs to be put in place to go against these “misconceptions.”

As Teach For America grows from an outside force for change into an establishment body to make systemic change possible, a closer look needs to be taken of how the organization puts itself forward to the general public. I strongly believe that the current model is outdated and is in need of a refresh in order to truly reflect the diverse membership and to effectively counter biased misconceptions of the brand.

The supporters and the critics alike have some heavily conceived notions of the general make-up of TFA CM’s and staff they usually include the following observations:

Wealthy

Privileged

Elite

Young

Single

Ambitions

Childless

To an outsider with no prior knowledge of the organization the above list represents many supposed truths. Teach For America’s PR doesn’t even attempt to counter these personal traits which many associate with corps members, despite the fact that they are overwhelmingly untrue. While these traits may fit in with the pre-TFA recruits, they in no way reflect the people who are teaching in chaotic, stressful, and difficult environments.

I will give credit where credit is due. TFA has focused on accusations of a lack of experiences and naïveté but in my opinion has done little to refute the claim of resume padding and elite thumb sucking. They instead enforce this narrative, which paints CM’s as elite and disconnected from the average American way of life.  One can hardly be surprised that senior teachers express skepticism at CM’s when all they see of TFA are nice numbers on topflight recruits, and blossoming careers post TFA service.

The worthy cause of teaching in a low income/ high needs area is almost always overshadowed by the equal and even greater focus on success after the corps in an effort to recruit the best talent on behalf of TFA. Lofty press releases about how many Ivy League Seniors applied to TFA, the high GPA of corps members, or the section on their website encouraging parents to support their golden and coddled adult children through this experience all stink of snobbery.

I must admit the glossy website makes me feel proud to be an incoming TFA CM. But I also understand that to the traditional teacher who puts him or herself through a two year teaching program is a little upset that all of this praise is being bestowed upon passion, extracurricular involvement, Alma Mater and high undergraduate GPA.

If Teach For America were a person, I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them! They come off as an egotistical, self-absorbed, coddled coalition of young adults. The website is usually the place where first and lasting impressions are formed. I haven’t visited the TFA website in great depth since after I got accepted, ironically. But I visited today and formed impressions that made the above character associations understandable, even though I know from experiences with other CM’s that such is quite far from the reality on the ground.

The first impression screamed out to me: We’re going to fix this injustice in our country with professional high achieving college grads in expensive dress. That’s vastly different than what my impression of Teach for America is through my experience: A humbling experience with many challenges that will make you a better person and your nation a healthier one. There is not much difference in the TFA application process than that of applying to a highflying graduate program or a coveted summer internship spot at a Wall St. Bank.  While I understand this is a way to attract top talent who otherwise wouldn’t take TFA seriously, such marketing is no longer necessary.

Last year alone, over 35,000 applicants applied for just 4000 slots. If TFA stopped recruiting entirely, I believe the applicant pool would still continue to grow exponentially. The need to come off a viable and competing option with Harvard Law and Leman Brothers is no longer necessary; or rather, doesn’t require active marketing. The “brand” now speaks for itself. 2008-2009 was a paradigm shift in post-graduate career options and the focus needs to be less on fancy recruitment and more on the reality of the devastation within the schools in which TFA’ers get placed.

TFA strongly is in touch with the reality CM’s face daily in their classrooms. However this is not portrayed accurately (nor enough). It has yet to be placed front and center in the frame of conscience of that average Mr. Joe teacher who currently sees TFA as a threat to his livelihood and the overall culture of public education. Currently the PR message is a picture of general elitist character traits that overpower the great work on the ground.

Please do not misinterpret my critiqued as an attack on the organization. Kerci Marcello Stroud and the entire communication effort of her colleagues at TFA have been very successful in putting forth a consistent image. Lets see more profiles of CM’s with children and families working the long hours, features from the TFA bloggers living on ramen noodles and waiting to buy that new car until they’re done with the corps. Lets see the older professional disgruntled by the corporate life making an entrance into a High School Science class. We all know the story of the young childless, unmarried 21 year old who goes into the corps, but what about the CM that most Americans or traditional teachers can identify with? With that I do believe that turning the public image of TFA into the “we are just like you and we are America too” will go a lot further in changing more hearts and minds for the cause than the current recruitment and donor driven approach. 

What we can learn by watching others

Learning Matters followed seven Teach for America Corps members in New Orleans (NOLA). All but two were first year CM's. The differences in their experiences was striking and revealed the characteristics that made strong teachers and weak teachers. These videos offered me a wake-up call on what such teachers face, especially new CM's, everyday. What I was able to pinpoint by watching these are some key outlooks the successful corps members had over those that were not successful. 

I consider success to be returning for your second year, establishing a good rapport with your students, and achieving some type of advancement within your classroom. Four of them succeeded by my criteria: Lindsay Ordower, Zitsi Mirakhur, Colleston Morgan, and Kady Amundson*. Two of them did not: Jeylan Erman and Daniel Hoffman. The third category is reserved for Bayoji Akinbola, who due to circumstances completely out of his control was not able to achieve a good rapport and measurable achievement. However Bayoji did return for a second year seeking re-assignment so he could achieve positive objectives. 

*Kady Amundson's profile is set to air on Tues. Feb. 2nd

The three who's videos I viewed who were successful seemed to be focused on the students. Clearly Lindsay Ordower from day one wanted be plugged into the personalities of her students. 

She connected with them by doing a failed activity of identifying who the students were "tight with". While trying to interact with her students regarding the New Orleans Saints, Lindsay at least opened the door to respect for student individuality. Student attendance was a major obstacle to success in Lindsay's science classroom but it didn't seem to bother her. She didn't flip out by trying to control the students by punishment, yelling, or calling the assistant principal. Quite candidly she stated that one of her students was homeless and pushing the heavy hand of order wasn't going to make his situation any better. 

Colleston, a second year CM had a lot in common with Lindsay. His students to him were people with individual personalities and experiences. I was struck by his straightforward view of their life experiences. Carlton states that "some of his students are more mature than he was at 18." Respect for students was primary in establishing an excellent rapport. To him,15 year old male students simply wanted to push the boundaries and to be seen as men. His response is that "teaching is psychology." Through this understanding, Colleston is able to focus on a classroom of respect for himself and his students rather than "command and control" of the classroom. 

I found Zitsi Mirakhur's first half of her first year starting off with all of the negative qualities of the unsuccessful CM's. But she quicky rebound by the second half. What was impressive was her realization of being more relaxed while focusing on the positive. Zitsi found an excessive amount of waste in classroom time and energy focusing on "controlling" her students. Breaking into groups, having her students work more independently, and having student feedback integrated into lessons meant less time in front of the class barking about behavioral issues. I was in awe of her quick adaptablity. By the end of her video Zitsi looked like she was a mature experienced teacher, not a 21yo straight out of college. It was amazing to see this transformation in just the short 5 minute clip. 

Now for the the unsuccessful corps members: Heylan Erman and Daniel Hofman. These two videos I learned the most from. Jeylan and Daniel came into the classroom with HUGE and lofty ideals. Before classes had begun, they stated that they wanted or expected to have control of their classes, for their students to all learn a lot, and to quickly rise to their vision of success. Jeylan started her first day practically bragging about her college experince and how much money she could have made on Wall St. Her students seemed disintrested. Daniel started his first day by asking his students if they knew of any leaders he mentioned, trying to force participation by telling students to all give a thumbs up or thumbs down. 

Jeyla thought she could control her class and have an ideal "utopia" of learning. Daniel was obsessed at the fact that he didn't have control of his classroom. A quote of his I found telling was the following: "Ive become more lax, something I know I shouldn't be doing." It appears from my point of view that Daniel views giving his students more freedom in their own learning is indeed a problem. The lines between discipline and learning are all blurred, only to be clearly defined when he is at the top of the class directing lessons. I also noticed he did an excessive amount of talking at his students, not interacting with them. 

I am by no means a professional nor have I ever been at the front of a classroom teaching. These are all observations of watching other teachers in action. It is not my objective to criticizes one over another but my goal is to illustrate clear distinctions in teach styles that successful CM's had over unsuccessful CM's.  

I encourage you all to watch the videos and please do leave comments if you noticed points I haven't brought up. We can all learn from one another. 

Misconceptions on what it takes to be accepted into Teach For America

After being forwarded the article What Makes a Great Teacher ,I was expecting a read about teacher quality and education reform techniques. That was there too, but what was most surprising was the fact that this article perfectly laid out how Teach For America comes to decide who gets in and who is rejected. The process, according to this article, is quite simple and based on Teach For America's on research on "good teachers. I have delved into it below.

Here is a list of the most common misconceptions of what people believe would make a great TFA applicant:

Experience in low-income areas

Ability to self reflect

Charisma and passion

Ambition

Extroversion

Straight A’s or a B-A student.

Education classes, early childhood experience, and desire for a life in education.

 These qualities are not bad. Having them is an asset but having them exclusively and trumpeting them up in the application process will not serve the aspiring corps member well. Why is this the case based on Ripley's analysis of Teach For America? Teach For America’s hard data on effective teaching shows that these factors don’t make a teacher “good.” The best teachers may posses some of these factors, but they all have in common most of or all of the below list of what TFA sees as an extremely desirable.

An extremely desirable candidate will have/and or demonstrate the following:

They are able to achieve goals despite horrid conditions that are conducive to failure

Achieved success in extracurricular activities during situations of challenge

They have an ability to motivate others in the face of insurmountable challenges

An exhaustive planner and list-maker

Always setting high goals and relentlessly pursues them by all means necessary

Able to present tangible gains in success

            -Such as increasing club membership tenfold

            -Mediocre grades transformed to excellent achievement later in college

Good attitude in life/ optimist

Unlikely that this person is interested in a career teaching position- rather is interested in solving huge goals like the socioeconomic challenges facing our nations public school system, specifically overcoming the achievement gap. Typically in the long run such candidates are pursuing politics/law, Grad School, etc within the context of this social movement/understanding.

These values were determined by extensive internal Teach For America research according to Ripley. Successful teachers for the most part shared ALL had the points which TFA now sees as extremely desirable. These items in each of these categories are not mutually exclusive but more often than not having more of the demonstrated will help in making a positive acceptance outcome.

To test personally the validity of Ripley’s claims I took a close view of my own candidacy.

I did have a low-income background, and have worked in low-income communities. In applying last go-round, this experience was brought into the discussion in a way that it was not in my letter of intent on my first application. I can only hypothesize that the amount of attention I gave my most recent summer experience working with low income populations was the result of my receiving a phone interview rather than the direct advancement to the final interview (which I received the year prior where such points were not stressed).

The ability to self-reflect was not stressed in either application, while a lot of attention was given to charisma and passion last year. Ambition is a loaded term, but my work with the governor and the emphasis on that experience in Spring 2009 showed I had ambition to work in places of power- but that is not as important to TFA as resilience and perseverance in the face of challenges especially when you are not working in a "glamours" position like a classroom- a much different atmosphere than the Governors Mansion. 

Grade point average was always the trickiest point of my candidacy in both years. I graduated in May with barely a 3.0. Again in both interviews, experience with early childhood/education field desire was not highly emphasized. 

This go around, my candidacy seemed to jive nearly flawlessly with the points Ripley laid out on what TFA looks for based on their studies. My interviews were in a much more personal tone focusing on my resilience the past year. Specifically, dealing with the recession through my work-study position during my last semester, job-hunting, maintaining a household, the hardships of this environment while having a dependent, and continued leadership despite being dealt a bad hand.

The nuanced approach I took in demonstrating areas of growth and success from January 2009 up to my final interview in October 2009 was painstaking, but well worth it because it told a story of rising to the occasion. Not only did I achieve the goals set forth of providing an income- I was reaching out to my community, I was bettering myself, and I was taking steps to improve the situation. Most notably, I was re-applying for TFA after being waitlisted by the recession that landed me flat on my ass just months earlier.

These are the stories that show one’s ability to excel no matter what the situation. Stories of personal and/or professional success in horrid conditions are important to tell and are critical components. Teachers are typically placed in underperforming schools that are under-resourced and are facing massive amounts ineptitude. If you have already overcome nasty circumstances and surpassed all expectations previously than you may possess the vigor to set high goals for your classroom despite the abominable environment you find yourself surrounded.

To conclude, there is no magic formula for getting into Teach For America. The right candidates have the right mindset, I believe before they even get to their final interviews. I do believe that a lack of understanding about what TFA is looking for means that some great corps members are being overlooked. I also think that a smart enough person could “lie” their way in- look at all the traits and make themselves look like the ideal candidate. I also believe they would only end up unhappy and overwhelmed down the road, thus deserving the organization, their students, and the community in which they work. The future good teachers who fall through the cracks in TFA's screening process are people to have the tangible experiences that demonstrate effectiveness but fail to showcase them through the interview process. Understanding these misconceptions I hope will allow more qualified people to be led into the program. 

-Wes