Talk:Teach For America

Motivations

Should there be a section added about motivations for college students to join TFA, as well as for a school to sign a contract with them? Not sure if this is necessary, just an idea. It's my first time using Wikipedia as an editor, so I'm sorry if I do something wrong. Thanks!

 Mpaap1010 24:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not neutral?

As this article now contains a Criticism section, this discussion on the neutrality of the article has been archived and can be found in Archive 1. If you wish to add further comments/concerns about the neutrality of this article, you may do so below on the main talk page, but please give specific citations from the article and provide sources if necessary. Thank you! //// Btriple7 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

The amount is $3,000 per teacher, considerably less than it would cost to recruit the best students from the best colleges in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.70.188 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (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)

It is clearly a Propaganda piece. None of the studies supposedly showing an advantage of TFA training is based on a peer reviewed publication, and most cannot be reached. That's why I stopped donating to wikipedia. When corporations begun writing it became a sh*thole of false information driven by corrupt writers. I will try to edit this propaganda piece.

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)

This article seems to leave out how uneven all the evaluations of TFA have been. In Memphis, Math scores did go up, but reading scores had gone down. I agree, with the first comment, this looks like a brochure for TFA. - john p newman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpnewman (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism?

Many people are criticizing the effect TFA has on children who see teachers change quickly. Can we get a criticism section?

---

I agree. The program has come under criticism from some high profile people in education, yet the article makes no mention of this. I've just added a criticism section. It is currently based almost exclusively on one article from the USA today, and does not talk about issues such as poor retention rates or the perception that some have that TFA is overstepping its bounds in the political arena. So I think that this new section could probably be expanded and/or cleaned up some. JohnnyGrungetta (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You also need to update this section with more current references. It’s time for Teach For America to fold — former TFAer Feb 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/28/its-time-for-teach-for-america-to-fold-former-tfaer/

Has Teach for America betrayed its mission? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-education-teachforamerica-idUSBRE87F05O20120816 Aug 2012

Teach For America’s ‘dirty little secret’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/15/teach-for-americas-dirty-little-secret/ Aug 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.134.101 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Is Teach for America Good for America? http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/12/is-teach-for-america-good-for-america Nov-Dec 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.134.101 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Retention

So, the "Retention" section no longer gives information on the actual retention rate of the program (i.e. what percentage of volunteers actually complete their two years). It appears that on January 10, 2010, a user edited this section to try to give more "up-to-date" figures on drop out rates. The editor cited the following article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/education/04teach.html) which covers a study that compared 1538 graduates of the TFA program, 324 dropouts and 634 nonmatriculants. From these numbers, the editor concluded that "Approximately 17 percent of each Teach For America corps class leaves before completing their two-year commitment," because 324/(1538+324) equals roughly 17.4%. This statement replaced the older dropout rate information previously included in the article. However, the cited article only states that 324 dropouts and 1538 graduates were surveyed, not that these are the total numbers of dropouts/graduates for a given period of time, so these numbers can't truly be used to calculate the overall dropout rate. As such, on February 14, 2010, a user removed (rather than reverting) the edit. I'm going to add the retention information from before January 10, 2010 back into the article. If anyone has any newer stats that they could cite, though, that would really help this section. JohnnyGrungetta (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Correction - The old retention information (stating a 10-15% dropout rate) was from a source that is no longer available online (Gillers, Gillian: Current Magazine, 2006, "The Inside Scoop on Teach for America", http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12206029/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/). I did a quick search and couldn't find a good source on current dropout rates for the program, so I've put the article back the way it was (without any dropout rates). If anyone can find accurate, well-sourced data to add to this section, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGrungetta (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Budget?

Are there sources for the budget numbers? Given the ongoing controversy I want to make sure they're accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Scabs for America?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/a-closer-look-at-the-joyce-foundation-shows-obamas-ties-to-chicago-school-privatizations/164972/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.138.127 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider as source material?

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/i-quit-teach-for-america/279724/ Jo3sampl (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Article intro

I would like to work on expanding the article intro, as it is currently woefully inadequate. I'm thinking of using the following structure:

1. Organization name and mission
2. History & structure of the organization
3. Brief (emphasis on "brief") overview of criticism of the organization.

Any feedback? Assistance with drafting the language for para. 3 would be much appreciated. Btriple7 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Recipient of philanthropic funds, overall content

The header "Recipient of philanthropic" seems too lengthy for a content header. I would recommend either the header Notable Donors or simply Donors. I would also argue you do not even need this content. The focus of the page should be about TFA and it's missions, not necessarily its donors. Something also worth noting is the way your content is written. It seems as though I am reading a TFA manual or website. I would recommend re-wording your content. It seems like a direct copy of the TFA site Amandapg (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Organizational Growth Observation

What interested me was that in 2003, TFA was managing on $1,900/member; but by 2014 they needed $6,300/member. Although the number of members increased by only 3.3X, the budget for managing them went up 10.7X! Is anyone else wondering where that extra $220M ended up? Setting aside a couple million to account for increased staffing and overhead, Management Bonuses and Perks perhaps? JimScott (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Strike info wrong

Under “criticism” — TFA never threatened to withhold salary, and can’t anyway since corps members are paid by their employer (their placement school) and not TFA.

Striking is an Americorps prohibited activity and corps members, who become members of americorps along with individuals from orgs like food corps and city year, were at risk of losing their americorps funding if they went on strike. Bobmcflower (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)