Talk:Teach For America

Not neutral?

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)

  Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC): I agree that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. All of the "counter arguments" to the effectiveness of TFA have been removed, save one. Even others are apparently (?) misrepresented. It is heavily biased toward TFA being the most effective teaching program. See [ Normal 0 false false false http://prorev.com/2009/01/media-muddled-story-of-teach-for.html this article], this article, this series of articles and the Stanford Study of 2004 that has mysteriously disappeared from the "Educational Impact" section (and the external link at the bottom is broken). You've got a 3-to-1 ratio of praise to criticism on its effectiveness, which certainly indicates a bais.

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)

Sorry guys, but any one of you are smart, but collectively you guys are stupid.

Does it belong in the article?

Does the Janet jackson wardrobe malfunction belong in Super Bowl XXXVIII?

Kearnsdm says no, because it does not reflect what happens at every super bowl

Hono0r says that if Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy were to be deleted, then the corresponding section from the superbowl article should also be deleted. The notability was about the incident, not about the person. If a large notable meteor landed in my backyard, that would not make me notable. If I hyped up the meteor and temporarily got my own wikipedia article, then it didn't survive the AFD, then it would not make the freak meteor landing in wimauma georgia article any less notable.

I don't edit this encyclopedia, because it has no central guarantee against vandalism; but when i came here looking for the information I needed (akin to the wendy's chili finger incident) I expect to not have to dig up some old version that a TFA supporter "politely, civilly deleted" in an effort to make the article not outshined by the notable incident which everyone may have heard of back in 2001.

It was notable, it was talked about, just like that person on Oprah who inadvertently caused someone's dying wish to be cancelled (you can google it). Just like any other type of pie in the sky movement to make the world a smug place, all you have to do is to believe it to make it true. Wikipedia is not the instrument to silence the most famous negative incident to have arisen in the history (15,000 success stories admittedly), but there have been a few terrible ones, and a lot in between. If one of the teacher-student sex scandals involved a TFA teacher, it would certainly belong on this article too, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.148.101 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What does Kaplowitz' unique if questionably notable experience have to do with the Teach For America experience? Why does it belong on this site? Unless I'm mistaken, Kaplowitz' association with Teach For America has virtually nothing to do with what happened to him. (Crazy things happen to teachers all the time, TFA or otherwise.) Perhaps he should be mentioned under "notable Teach For America alumni," in the same way that if a TFA alum went on to become a serial killer, or a member of Congress, we would note that. But I fail to see why this one crazy story should be included in a section about Teach For America's retention. Obietom (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

I removed the sentence "The study's statistical models used a large number of variables (17) and produced moderate R-Squared statistics (0.43 to 0.68)" in the section about the Stanford study. I have no idea what that sentence means. The fact that I'd have to do some research to figure it out indicates that it probably doesn't belong here.Flyte35 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent logic! Could you please clean up the Fourier transform article? We need a non-mathematician to remove some stuff there too. Afterall, WP:NOT supports your excellent editorial work 65.41.148.101 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that when you add more variables, you automatically generate an inflated R-squared. To counter this, statisticians use an adjusted R-squared. But you can clean that article up next too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.148.101 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

$5,000 charge for placing a teacher in an impoverished district

It should be noted that TFA charges districts a fee for placing teachers because TFA assumes the expense of screening candidates. Districts that hire TFA teachers must pay the fee (I don't know if $5,000 is accurate, but it seems like it could be) but, in turn, the districts don't have to pay for advertising an opening or interviewing applicants.

I just think that should be added to the article. As it stands now, a reader might get the impression that TFA charges the fee without a reasonable justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.148.73 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

equal opportunity vs social equality?

In our country that aspires so admirably to be a place of equal opportunity, so where you're born does so very much to determine your educational prospects and in turn your life prospects, we cancel this problem. --founder<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAm9TuTm5hU>

By this logic, if I become a dentist and get married, wait 5 years and have a family and start setting aside $1500/year for my kids college fund, and I drive a private jet, that my child should have no better educational prospects than a single mother having her 5th child (and of course what if she doesn't take prenatal vitamins or doesn't avoid drugs/alcohol; and if my baby's mama does everything perfect)?

1. People do not decide to be born
2. People do not decide where to be born
3. People may or may not decide whether their mother consumes alcohol during the pregnancy, its not entirely clear.

It is usually the parents choice. If the parents make good family planning decisions, then the children will benefit. If the expectant mother drinks alcohol and lives in poverty, how can one argue that the child should have equal educational prospects if that child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Why shouldn't those babies who fall under category 3 be given the same opportunity as the child who decides to have a father that drives a private jet?

I think teach for america is great, and considered it myself because my friend joined and told me how great it was going to be. He said it was overall a good experience, but that his kids weren't motivated and he didn't know how to motivate them well. He said he would still do it again because he couldn't think of those kids having zero chance at all, at least he was able to give some of them hope. One of his students got some kind of fancy governor's award and he said that was a very proud moment.

I think some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, those who dump them off to society to take care of and have their hand out. But if you punish these innocent kids, you also punish those who may have lost a father in the war and a $10,000 life insurance policy isn't enough to keep the mom from being in poverty.

Good program, but the overall logic of it is a bit too much hard-selling. The article is not neutral. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The youtube videos don't let you say anything bad about them

is it fair use to grab the videos and re-up them? All i want to do is enable the comments section because the youtube videos are highly POV and also this article is identical to the youtube videos in content. 15% of people quit after one year. That means 15,000 alumni is 85% of some other number. That some other number is the number who started. 3,000 people have quit. That means for every 5 people who finish it, 1 person quits. (most people would multiply 15% by 15,000 to derive how many people quit, but you actually have to multiply 15,000 by the inverse of .85, and then subtract 15,000)

This play on numbers is the same way a 12.5 ounce bottle of shampoo can get away with saying 25% more than our old 10 ounce bottle. Or sunny delight sports drink going from 4% real juice to 5% real juice and saying "now 25% more serving of fruits in every glass".

TFA came to our career fair, and I kinda feel bad that I almost joined and didn't know all this stuff ahead of time. If I was told that 15% of people quit after one year, I definitely would have known it wasn't for me.

That 15% number isn't the number of people who wanted to quit, but was the number who literally had to break their obligation and walk away. My friend was one of those who wanted to quit, but stuck around since he already invested 50% of the commitment. It would be my guess that 30% of people wanted to quit after the first year, but half felt guilty about it and stuck around since its wrong to help out a charity and then ditch them when they are counting on you. Plus those helpless kids are counting on you, so those people who quit are the 15% who not only ditched TFA, but also ditched the same kids which they originally wanted to help. Also, in 2004 there was a $6,000 per year bonus for joining. Anyone else offered that too? 65.41.148.101 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Piece?

Does anyone else reading this entry feel like they're reading the TFA website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.27.71 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey.... if you have some negative info to post (with references) to balance the article out, please do so. 70.91.99.186 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a propaganda piece. That is why they removed the $5000 fee info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.130.123 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the fee referenced? Find a source for the fee and put it back in. 24.136.23.152 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TFAOnline

I'm concerned that User:TFAOnline is someone involved in the staff of Teach for America, and is editing the article. All edits by this user should be checked for accuracy and neutrality. Anthony Hit me up... 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

>> The edits from TFAOnline appear to be innocuous and fact-based, which is within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. What should be changed to eliminate your perception of COI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.48.187 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The displayed COI tag reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject" (my italics). It seems quite a stretch to regard TFAOnline's contribuions to this article as major. Does FutureNJGov have a personal axe to grind here? MikkiPedia (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have no personal axe, and to assume off the bat that I would reeks of defensive posturing. I was merely commenting that I wanted to make sure that the article wasn't a puff piece being pushed by the organization's staff. Neutrality is the lynchpin of this site, and if there was an article on me, I wouldn't touch it for fear of dealing with COI issues. I perused the article and its history, and saw a potential issue. I alerted other users to this issue. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through every single edit by every user to find a conflict; I merely point out obvious concerns and leave the system to its own devices. Do with it what you will. Anthony Hit me up... 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over TFAOnline's edits, they don't seem biased, removing tag. 24.148.2.152 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In all the circumstances, a wise decision. MikkiPedia (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009

• I guess Wikipedia does attract loose cannons! Good that there are some common-sense folks around, too. 32.158.137.174 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)