School of Education clarifies

The November 28 article, “Teach for America Comes Under Fire,” may leave readers with the impression that Stanford’s School of Education, as an organization, has a position on Teach for America (TFA). This is not the case. The article was based primarily on an interview with one faculty member who expressed her own opinions. We are committed to open debate on all issues related to school reform, and I am glad our faculty are participating. But the School itself does not have an official position on the issue. In fact, many of our students are Teach for America alumni who are deeply committed to improving the quality of our schools and reforming our education system. We are proud to have an opportunity to help them become effective teachers and leaders.

Deborah Stipek

I. James Quillen Dean

Stanford University

School of Education

“Teach for America” Teacher responds

As a first year Teach for America teacher, I can say that my job is extraordinarily difficult. However, I feel this would have been the case if I had six months or even six years of preparation. While there are times when I feel like as though I much to improve on, I have gotten nothing but positive feedback from the administration and fellow teachers at my school, Waipahu High in Hawaii. They have, by and large, been impressed with the quality of my lesson plans and organizational systems. There is really nothing that can prepare you for teaching 160 students except teaching 160 students, especially when you are trying to teach high-school math to students performing at the fourth or fifth grade level. This education gap is why Teach for America is so important. Students living in low-income communities are woefully underserved by their schools, and if they don’t get a Teach For America corps member as their teacher, they often get an uncertified permanent substitute or no teacher at all.

It seems to me this article asks the wrong questions. While it is customary in our society to always want to determine which organization is best, isn’t it possible that both STEP and Teach for America are doing tremendous things for their students? I have no experience with STEP, but Teach for America prepared me well, and I continue to receive tremendous support from veteran teachers associated with the organization. I can only imagine an organization as highly regarded as STEP offers similar experiences. To me, the question this article should have asked is not which is better, but why are there not more organizations such as these? My students come into my classroom years behind their more fortunate peers, and Teach for America is one of the only nationwide organizations I know of attempting to do something about it. I would challenge anyone who says “Teach for America’s poorly prepared teachers have little or no impact on the community they serve” to spend a day with me, to follow me through six different overcrowded classrooms, and see if they still feel the same way.

Teach for America offers young people an opportunity to get involved and make a real difference right away. It also provides a fresh perspective on the educational system. Teach for America teachers do not usually come from education backgrounds and, thus, take on teaching with a different perspective. The educational system in this country has failed most of the students Teach for America teachers are teaching. Putting eager, young minds to the problems faced by our country’s poorest and lowest-achieving students is a mission to be applauded rather than criticized. I encourage all of Stanford’s students to investigate Teach for America, STEP, or education in general as a challenging and tremendously rewarding career.

Eric DiIulio

B.A., International Relations, 2005.