Why are TFA and “reformers” perhaps the least interested in reform?
Why are TFA and, more generally, “reformers” perhaps the least interested in reform? Why do they get defensive when faced with critiques based on empiricism (data and research) and efficacy (is their reform working)? See for example Jonathan Alter get defensive when I discuss charter school data and research on the Melissa Harris-Perry show. He went Jerry Springer. Is it because their reform is driven by ideology rather than the best interests of children and society? During the past week, TFA alumni have joined members of the public in the #resistTFA movement and put forth a variety of suggestions for #reformTFA. Some Twitter users responded to the critique and framed it as “hate” and “attacks.”
TFA has gone about their usual approach of engaging the critique with their strategy of “let’s agree” and “we are all on the same side” and “we care about the same things.” so they can move on and go on doing what they have been doing for the past 20 years— sending inexperienced, poorly trained teachers to our toughest classrooms. But, really, we don’t agree— we aren’t on the “same side” and we don’t “care about the same things.” because the implementation of TFA is problematic for children (See Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence (The Sequel)
Juice Fong, TFA’s head of internal communications, said that the calls for reforming TFA “doesn’t keep them up at
