Why most of the criticism levied against TFA is done to maintain the status quo

By Raymond Arroyo, Senior, University of Michigan, New York City Public School Student, Accepted TFA member NYC 2014

disclaimer: This is my personal blog and I do not speak for the Corps in any capacity. My opinions are only my own.

                Many people have a lot of valid criticisms of Teach For America. Many of these students are being implanted into neighborhoods they have basically no experience with (true in some sense). These students are just using it as resume padding (moot point in my opinion, but nonetheless true in some cases). And that many of these kids are just idealist who don't actually understand the gravity of the situation they are entering (very true). But among the most invalid criticisms are these two: TFA corps members are unprepared to teach and TFA corps members are taking jobs from actual teachers. The former is invalid because plenty of studies have shown that TFA corps members either do better than normal first year teachers (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/Education/TFA_snapshot_9_2013.pdf) or do just as well (http://educationnext.org/what-you-should-know-about-tfa-and-the-value-of-experience-2/). So when people discuss how unprepared TFA corps members are, they are making a factually untrue statement. The fact of the matter is TFA corps members are being placed in the toughest schools with the students who need the most help. If someone expects teachers from even the best programs to do exceptionally well in these districts, then perhaps they are the naive one. Secondly, the claim that TFA corps members take the jobs of experienced teachers is partially false. It takes two to tango and the schools need to first get rid of veteran teachers for TFA corps members to "take their positions". Many argue TFA corps come at a cheaper price tag, thus explaining why schools are dumping veterans for TFA corp members. But this is an overly pessimistic view of the system, which doesn't even assign blame to TFA, it assigns blame to administrators. A perhaps more realistic picture is that budgets are being cut drastically due to the slow recovery, causing schools the need to dump veteran teachers who come at a higher price tag. To insinuate that schools simply want to save a buck is overly pessimistic. These schools might have to save a buck. The reason they are taking TFA members over young teachers is because TFA members are out performing these young teachers and are cheaper. 

          So now that I've disarmed some of the harshest criticism let's look at the purpose of TFA. It integrates very successful students from top universities into the education system. The idea is that most of these students are going to end up in other sectors: business, law, policy, engineering, etc., that determine many of the policy decisions and technologies afforded to education. However the massive disconnect between those in power and those working "in the trenches" was wide. Thus TFA provides a bridge, allowing a student who would normally just enter a lucrative job at wall street a chance to see how difficult things really are. The result is hopefully a life changing experience that turns the student into a TFA alum who is devoted to the fight for education equality. This trend doesn't mean that students just resume pad and then leave. Many TFA members stay on as teachers, many of the becoming administrators and opening up their own schools. 

        The valid criticism. Aside from ad hominems (i.e. TFA members are idealistic) there is some actual constructive criticism to be made about the program. First, TFA seems to be very focused on test based success, which some could argue maintains a system of standardizing testing that is outdated and ineffective. Furthermore, the culture gap is a real thing that can be argued to gentrify and culturally invade spaces for people of color and low SES. Also, the large partnership with charter schools also sends a jaded message, but charter schools like TFA are typically criticized with what I dub as "status quo maintenance". This sort of criticism will only argue against change and refuses to admit glaring issues with the status quo first. This approach makes no sense because policy changes take time for reform to get it right (e.g. the ACA), especially if policy changes are largely achieving their main goal such as programs like TFA. 

     In the end the criticism doesn't hold much water for grounds of boycotting the program similar to what this haughty Harvard student suggested in this biased article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandra-korn/why-i-said-no-to-teach-for-america_b_4151764.html. There are definitely changes that should be made to prevent TFA teachers from "replacing" veteran teachers, but that cannot come from the program itself, but from the government who needs to stop cutting budgets. Furthermore, we can see a trend in new policy and reform being resisted in almost all history. It doesn't surprise me that there is such harsh criticism being levied against TFA because TFA is actually trying to be bold. TFA rejects the culture of poverty and inserts a strong belief that kids can be taught and their recruits can teach them. A TFA member enters expecting to fight a war for their students and many of them do so successfully. I can't say anything for certain about my experience that's upcoming with TFA, but I do know I refuse to give up and to accept that my students can't learn till the very last day of the year. People might think this is arrogant talk but as someone who went through the public education system in NYC (which is where I will be teaching at), I think I have pretty good handle on how difficult and how bad things can get in schools.

Questions that should be asked about the status quo:
Why are veteran teachers who outperform all incoming teachers being dumped?
Why are TFA members outperforming incoming teachers with formal training?