There are two parts to this discussion which examines why I think Teach for America needs to evolve to a realistic teacher education program, and not continue putting uncertified and according to the research not as effective as certified teachers in America’s classrooms.

Here is Part 1.  You can read Part 2 here.

Snubbing Teaching for America

There was an article in the Atlanta Journal entitled Snubbing Teach for America (TFA) hurts students. It was written by a first year Teach For America recruit who works in the metro-Atlanta area.  Her comments were very typical for TFA recruits—embracing optimism and exuberance as well as a passion for teaching.  This teacher was concerned that snubbing TFA would hurt students.  If she were to read this blog post, she would find that the case is that TFA might actually be hurting public education.

She also wrote that she was concerned why Cobb County won’t hire her or fellow TFA peers.  She had read that Cobb County recently decided not to hire 50 TFA teachers.  Unfortunately the Cobb County Board of Education never really made a decision hire TFA recruits.  The item never got on the Boards agenda because the chair of the Board didn’t think the proposal would pass.

However, Cobb County is one of the few public school systems that has refused to hire TFA recruits.  TFA has made inroads into hundreds of urban and rural districts around the country, and is now expanding its brand around the world.  TFA was founded in 1989 by a Yale University Graduate at a time when there was a shortage of teachers, and at the same time when many alternative routes to teaching were being introduced and explored.

Experiences with (Alternative) Teacher Education

Tagxedo Map of This Post on Teacher Education

TFA recruits students with undergraduate degrees from elite colleges around the country.  The idea was that graduates from these universities would perform a service to America by agreeing to teach for at least two years in largely urban, and poor neighborhoods.

The graduates that apply for TFA are not very different from the students in science education that we worked with for more than 30 years at Georgia State University.  Applicants for secondary science teaching held at least a bachelors degree in science or engineering.  Students that applied for GSU programs came from a wide range of universities including Agnes Scott, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Clark College, Emory University, Duke University, MIT, Spelman, University of North Carolina and many more.  One of the differences between students that applied to GSU compared to those who apply to TFA is that GSU applicants wanted to make a career of teaching, not necessarily view teaching as a temporary a service to society as is the case with TFA.

Two programs were developed at Georgia State University in the late 1980s, the TRIPS program in the Atlanta Public Schools, and the Alternative Certification Program at Georgia State University, which was funded by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission prior to the creation of TFA.  Many states and school districts were experimenting with alternative programs designed to place uncertified teachers into the classroom.  In some cases, recruits only had to pass a teacher entrance examination, while many programs included a “summer institute or program” prior to classes that began in the Fall.  The institutes ranged in length from 3 – 8 weeks, and were crash programs that attempted to get the new recruits ready for the classroom in the fall.

TRIPS (1987 – 1989) The TRIPS program was based on the AFT Educational Research and Dissemination (ER&D) Program under the leadership of AFT’s Lovely Billups.  This alternative program recruited secondary teachers in foreign language, mathematics and science to teach in the Atlanta Public Schools.  TRIPS was a collaborative project among the Atlanta Public Schools, Georgia State University, Clark-Atlanta University and AFT.  TRIPS programs were initiated by the AFT in several urban settings around the country.  TRIPS teachers engaged in summer institute followed by teaching in an Atlanta high school in math, science or foreign language.  TRIPS teachers were assigned a reduced teaching load (4 classes instead of 5) and a mentor teacher, who also had a reduced teaching load. Each TRIPS intern was also supervised by professors from GSU and Clark-Atlanta University.   The reduced teaching load for TRIPS teachers and their mentors facilitated mentoring, and allowed the mentor teachers to engage in conferences, planning sessions, classroom observations, and reflective sessions.

Alternative Certification Program (ACP)  (1988 – 1992) A program funded by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission characterized by an 8-week summer institute followed by teaching in a public school and paired with a mentor teacher.  Mentor teachers were prepared through a summer institute prior to school year.  Although similar to the TRIPS program, this program was larger, and in the long run lead to the TEEMS program which is the secondary teacher education program at GSU.

The ACP began at GSU with a grant to fund thirty teachers (10 in each field) to attend a full-time summer institute in Athens, Georgia.  Mentor teachers were prepared for their role for a one-week institute with the ACP teachers.  School districts from around the state participated in the ACP.  In the last three years of the ACP, three universities in Georgia received funding to prepare 30 foreign language, mathematics and science teachers.  The curriculum of the Summer Institute was based on pedagogical content knowledge in the content areas, special education, and foundations of education.  Since the programs were localized, bi-monthly seminars among the ACP teachers were held on the campus of each university (North Georgia College, Georgia State University, and Georgia Southern).

For the summer institute, the program designed for the science majors was a reconnaissance of field of science teaching organized as a constructivist community of practice.  We took an inquiry-oriented approach which fostered a constructivist environment in which prospective teachers used inquiry strategies to learn pedagogical skills, explored the nature of student learning in the context of schools, and reflected on their own learning.  The institute was experiential in nature, and involved these future teachers, each of whom held a degree in science or engineering, in reflective discussions, hands-on, minds-on activities, creative lesson design, cooperative learning, and micro-teaching.

In the end, we used our experience to design and implement an “alternative” teacher education program that recruited students in mathematics, science and engineering, but the program was 15 months long, included three clinical teaching experiences in a middle and high schools in the Atlanta.  This full time graduate program led to certification and a masters degree in mathematics or science education.  It was started in 1993, and is the only program at GSU used to prepare secondary teachers. The program was named TEEMS.

Attributes of the TEEMS Teacher Education Program, GSU

The TEEMS Program (1993 – present) TEEMS (Teacher Education Environments in Mathematics and Science) is a Master’s level program for science and mathematics majors with field based internships in middle and high schools based on a humanistic/constructivist model.  Aspiring teachers applying to the TEEMS program came from science, mathematics, and engineering departments throughout the Southeast, and brought with them high levels of content knowledge, strong interpersonal skills, enthusiasm, and a commitment to becoming a career teacher.  Each TEEMS recruit was interviewed by a team of professors from mathematics and science education faculty, and professors from science and mathematics departments.

The TEEMS program was based on the theory of “realistic teacher education” (Korthagen and Kessells) , an approach that goes from practice to theory.  As much as possible, theory and practice were merged with the intention of diminishing the gap between practice and theory.  This was accomplished by engaging students in real problems encountered by teachers in clinical experiences, both on campus and in classrooms.

The TEEMS program was based on these characteristics:

• reflective and constructivist models of learning
• holistically organized pedagogical curriculum experiences
• learner-centered instruction in which students engage in a series of experiential and field-based experiences to learn about mathematics and science teaching
• a partnership with the public and independent schools of Georgia by centering much of the instruction in middle schools and high schools

TEEMS, beginning as an alternative teacher education program, was morphed into a “traditional” teacher education program that promoted progressive, student centered teaching methods.  In his research  TEEMS, Dr. Michael Dias, professor of biology and science education at Kennesaw State University, wanted to know if this experiential program could narrow the gap between theories of science teaching and the practice of science teaching.  Dr. Dias followed four TEEMS’ graduates throughout their first year of teaching.  Using qualitative methods (interviews, observations, teacher journals and artifacts), Dr. Dias found that there was some congruence represented in their work that showed a narrowing of the the theory-practice gap.  Although the teachers found it difficult to implement a full repertoire of inquiry teaching methods, they were able to act on the social/experiential design of the TEEMS program.

TEEMS teacher preparation at GSU now includes English, ESOL, Mathematics, Middle Level Education, Social Studies, and Science

Teacher Education Matters.

In a Journal of Teacher Education article entitled How Teacher Education Matters, Linda Darling-Hammond reviews the literature on teacher education programs and has this to say:

Despite longstanding criticisms of teacher education, the weight ofsubstantial evidence indicates that teachers who have had more preparation for teaching are more confident and successful with students than those who have had little or none. Recent evidence also indicates that reforms of teacher education creating more tightly integrated programs with extended clinical preparationinterwoven with coursework on learning and teaching produce teachers who are both more effective and more likely to enter and stay in teaching. An important contribution of teacher education is its development of teachers’abilities to examine teaching from the perspective of learners who bring diverse experiences and frames of reference to the classroom.

Our experiences at GSU, which continue today, show that teacher education is a major factor in helping aspiring teachers become successful and effective with students.  We were never in the business of preparing teachers that would be primarily used to boost student test scores, but to work with individuals within the context of a cadre of learners in public schools that were close to the campus of Georgia State University.

In teacher preparation,  as I have shown here in the case of Georgia State University, there are various pathways to becoming a teacher, including teacher education programs, alternative programs, or no program.  Based on a large study of 3000 beginning teachers in New York City regarding their views on their preparation for teaching, their beliefs and practice, and their plans to remain in teaching (Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow), the researchers found that:

• teachers who were prepared in teacher education programs felt significantly better prepared across most dimensions of teaching than those who entered teaching through alternative programs or without preparation.
• the extent to which teachers felt well prepared when they entered teaching was significantly correlated with their sense of teaching efficacy, their sense of responsibility for student learning, and their plans to remain in teaching.
• These are significant finding in the context of the drive to place non-certified and non-prepared teachers into classrooms that typically are more demanding and require more knowledge about learning and student development than these individuals can deliver.  The knowledge base on teaching is enormous, and to think that we can prepare teachers in 5 – 8 week institutes not only devalues what we know about preparing teachers for practice.

In Part 2 of this discussion, we take a closer look at Teach For America, and suggest some ways that Teach for America could become a realistic teacher education program.

Do you think teacher education matters?  If you are a teacher, how effective was your teacher education program?