Today, I got challenged once again on what I stand for and for the first time I felt truly on the otherside.
Education in America has become something that Moore Hall has been grappling with for years. Never have I left an education class not interested, not intrigued, not inspired to continue the work as an educator. Never have I left an education course infuriated either, until today.
This past weekend at TFA Induction had been some of the most formative conversations I've had in quite a while. I thank all of my professors and colleagues up to this point at UCLA for allowing me the space to grow in complex notions of social justice and critical race theory. But that's exactly what it stays at, theory.
Today, we begin a class project on creating a model on Complex Adaptive Systems. Today, was one of many days where I will be faced with a question that has haunted me through out my learnings here at UCLA.
"Why do all of the low income schools get all of the least experienced teachers?"
- Layoffs. Yes
- Tenure. Yes
- Emergency Credentials. Yes
But does that mean that these teachers are not qualified or not ready to create change in the classroom? Now that is a question.
From the nodding heads of my classmates it seemed like the general consensus ran true for my colleagues "Programs like TFA do more harm than good".
I chose to bite my tongue instead of hers. I do more harm than good? hmm good question.
Lets break this down: all in all, novice teachers do more harm than good. Sounds logical to me.
But what about the chance that these novice teachers are doing more good than many of the complacent teachers out there with tenure. What if these novice teachers were chosen from a group of the top achievers in America. What if these novice teachers will have more experience in the field, struggling, learning, reflecting and change making 2 years prior to the so called more prepared teachers who go through a graduate program. Wait, a graduate program? What if Teach for America teachers actually went through Graduate programs too.
But those are all What ifs, there's no way that that can be true right? Well in that case maybe we should be all against getting the most excited educators straight out of college into the classroom.
"That would be fine if there were evidence that Teach for America was failing young people, that its teachers were inadequately prepared and that students suffered as a consequence. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. A recent study by the Strategic Data Project at Harvard examined teaching in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and it concluded that Teach for America teachers had a modestly greater effect on their students' performance than did other novice teachers."
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/07/opinion/la-ed-0307-credentials-20130307
So let's model this out. Let us make a computer model to prove that the novice teachers are the problem. That low-income schools should get the "older experienced teacher". Let's model that out. I will model alongside with you.
But after we create our model, after we write our paper, after we come to a conclusion that in fact Teach For America is the poison of education, call me in 1 year. Tell me if our model could measure the heart, drive and support that TFA corp members exhibit. If you can put a code of 0s and 1s to my heart and desire to teach you tell me.
Until then you can keep your models.
one day.
