Counterpoint
Gary Davison ("Guarding the status quo in our schools," June 12) repeats the same tiresome, anti-teacher, anti-union litany as his heroes Michelle Rhee and Steve Perry.
His arguments reveal flawed logic right from the beginning. First, he claims that "university-based teacher certification programs are wretched." But then he tells us two paragraphs later that Teach for America applicants are "brilliant graduates from the finest colleges and universities."
So, a 24-year-old graduate of Harvard's Graduate School of Education is ill-trained, while a 22-year-old with a Harvard degree in, let's say, anthropology, who has completed TFA's five-week summer training, is "brilliant" and ready for your child's classroom.
Please. This is a ridiculous argument, especially considering the actual research. Far less than 50 percent of Teach for America grads remain in education after their two-year stint is finished. Many have written about the challenges they faced teaching with so little preparation and of their guilt when leaving the profession after having been mentored by experienced teachers in their schools (read Valerie Strauss' article in the Washington Post, February 2013).
Research from California State University at Sacramento also reveals that TFA teachers in New York produced far lower test scores in reading compared with new teachers who were traditionally trained.
Some $33 million is annually spent to train TFA teachers, most of whom leave education directly after finishing two rookie years in the classroom. Is this a wise allocation of resources? Is this what you want for your children — the 22-year-old who has had the five-week training course? Or, might you prefer the traditionally trained teacher with 10-plus years of experience?
Davison feels that the future of American education ought to be in the hands of these "brilliant," idealistic and energetic young graduates. Those pesky teacher unions just get in the way of this fabulous idea.
