Join the conversation

Ripley's expertise is in the psychology of surviving a plane crash. She is not writing about education. She's writing about meta-education. She's not providing solutions. She's describing how some people think about solutions. She's not writing about educationa reform. She's writing about the morality play of how some people with outsized personalities feel about education reform.

Think of how narrow her evidence base is. The only outside study she cited focused on 17 schools from grades 1 to 5. Yes, math test test scores were higher IN COMPARISAON TO THOSE SCHOOLS' other math teachers scores. No improvements were seen in reading or other indicators.

So that raises questions about her other evidence delievered from TFA. Is there any evidence of sustained increases? Isn't math in early years the subject that is most likely to produce higher results using their approach? Is there any evidence that those state test score increased produced learning that could be generalized to NAEP orother indicators? How many math elementary teachers in those poor districts had anything like 70 hours of professional development in math instruction? If the other teachers had five weeks of other types of professional development would they have produced lesser or greater gains?

I'm predisposed to believe that stick-to-itness is the key with poor kids, but I suspect the causal factor may be different. Hard work is a way of saying "I love you" to kids, and that's what gets the results.

Thanks, John. The stick-to-itness is very compelling. Perseverance is, I would think a critical skill for any teacher. So there are elements of the TFA work that really intrigue me. And the professional development approach may provide lessons for other schools as well. So there were aspects of the article that I read with real interest.

I guess I'd just like to see less breathless enthusiasm and a bit more analysis in this influential articles. That will help us all get our noses to the same grindstone. The morality play becomes a distraction, and people cast as the villains will celebrate the fall of those who cast themselves as the virtues. 

Without realizing it, Ms. Ripley offers us the number one reason why education is not what it should be in our country. At the end of her article, she tells us that Mr. Taylor, the superior teacher that she describes, is going to leave the classroom to become a principal. She quotes him as saying that, after three years, he has already "run up against the limits of his classroom" and "wants to bring what he has learned to scale." That way, he continues "it won't just stay inside me, bundled in Room 204."

There it is, the American belief that if a person is very talented he does not want to "waste" those talents in the classroom. The author doesn't even question the possibility that Mr. Taylor might have much more impact as a teacher than a principal. This widespread belief has chased many gifted people from the classroom and discouraged many others from even considering it, unless it is at the college level. After just a cursory glance at schools in Germany, Finland and Singapore, one quickly learns that this attitude towards teaching is NOT the norm in countries with enviable systems of education.

The United States will get great teachers when its citizens demand great teachers and values their presence in the classroom.

Reading a similiar thread over at Core Knowledge, I followed the link to a teacher in Teacher Magazine that wrote:

"Remember the old chestnut: Put two teachers together, and all they do is talk shop? And why is that? Because we are never permitted time to do it on the job."

But also, when we get that collaborative time we get even worse about talking shop? Why? We love teaching.

I'm curious how many teachers focuses on the ending that Linda cited, and had the same mixed feelings. Americans are known for our onward and upward drive, even at the cost of smelling the flowers.

If Taylor feels that he's got something extra bottled up and he needs to go, that's fine. But I hope he'll listen to veteran teachers outside of room 204, and not prejudge us all. I especially hope he'll listen to those who chose to stay and not prejudge us.

Hi, Linda and John--

I'll agree to mixed feelings about the end of the article, which struck me as well. But I do think excellent teachers can become excellent leaders who can promote and support other teachers in their work. So Mr. Taylor's desire does seem to make sense. I wonder also if the desire of teachers to go into administration to share the wealth might be a byproduct of insufficient teacher leadership opportunities outside of administration. I can't begin to make this presumption in Mr. Taylor's case, because I don't know the facts.

But I wonder if more excellent teachers could be compelled to stay in the classroom if teacher leadership and productive collaboration focused on shared goals were embedded in more schools. Mr. Taylor and other excellent teachers who move into administration can do a world of good if they can establish focused and collaborative cultures in their schools.

By the way, I have to give Amanda Ripley credit for running some interesting TFA videos on her blog. (I can't seem to find the URL again.) In the videos I watched, the teachers were very impressive, and their students seemed rapt. Yes, these clips can seem theatrical at times, and they don't always show as much as I would like to see of the real classroom nitty-gritty, but more people should be recording and distributing examples of exemplary practice.