The Very Spring and Root

An engineer's adventures in education (and other musings).

This content shows Simple View

teaching

Orientation – Day 1

Today was the first day of orientation. I learned many new things already, but at least one prevailing opinion has been reinforced: BTR is legit.

I was so impressed with the diverse array of backgrounds and experiences, as well as the uniformly high caliber and holistic commitment to teaching of the fellow residents in my Cohort. My one other H.S. Physics resident was a doctoral student in optics at Stanford. There’s a resident turning down med schools to teach Chemistry. A trial lawyer changing careers to teach English. The list of collective accomplishments by this group goes on, and to top it off I don’t think I have been in a more diverse array of people since NASA FIRST.

Legit.



Review of “The Courage to Teach”

The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life [With CDROM]The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life [With CDROM] by Parker J. Palmer
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

More a philosophy of inner being than a manual for teaching, this is an absolutely wonderful read for anyone working in a field that involves the intersection of people and ideas (which in theory should be everybody). It does get a little esoteric and, well, new-agey. But despite this the overall message is positive, relevant, and engaging.

View all my reviews



Why Einstein Was Not Qualified To Teach High-School Physics

Link: Why Einstein Was Not Qualified To Teach High-School Physics

… while at the same time we complain that not enough STEM professionals are connecting with the classroom.

On the one hand, I do very much believe that teaching is a profession in and of its own right, and superb content knowledge does not necessarily a good teacher make. However, I’m also very interested to find out how much of the rhetoric that teacher’s unions use is an accurate defense of a noble profession versus how much is self-inflated protective bullshit.

An engineer investigates this and more over the next few years, stay tuned to this blog…



NPR: “Is Teach For America Failing?”

Gary Rubinstein was recently interviewed on NPR’s Tell Me More, ostensibly due to the kerfuffle caused by his highly controversial blog post lambasting the nonprofit service organization Teach For America.

Yeah.

So, I think it’s time to re-post one of the rants I originally posted on Feb 4, 2012 to my previous blog, The Very Spring and Root. Note that there are comments and discussion on the original blog thread that unveil new points and help to clarify the original content a bit.

Here it is:

The most common question I get when I explain what I am going off to Boston to do is: “Oh, so like Teach for America?” I’m never quite sure how to respond to that, but the immediate association between lateral entry into teaching and Teach for America makes me uncomfortable now. The answer is no, I’m not doing something like TFA, and for very good reasons. On the surface, Boston Teacher Residency and Teach for America appear to have much in common, and indeed I applied to, and was accepted to, both programs. They both are lateral-entry teacher training programs with a goal of closing the achievement gap across systemic racial and socio-economic divides. They both claim a highly selective admissions process and a rigorous training period for their recruits, and send high-achieving individuals into struggling schools. They both promise that the experience will be a foundation for long term transformational change in education.

So what’s the difference? As a good applicant should, I was continuously researching both of these organizations throughout the application process, in order to make an informed decision. What I discovered under the surface surprised and disturbed me, even some of what I got straight from TFA staff themselves. Bear in mind, I am a new BTR recruit… I do not in any way speak for the program or anyone else but myself. This is purely based off of my research into the issues and my personal experience with the application processes of these organizations. Let me go point by point.

They both are lateral-entry teacher training programs with a goal of closing the achievement gap across systemic racial and socio-economic divides.

Not much surface-level difference here. But when it comes to strategy, there is a world of difference. BTR is a partnership with the existing system, taking what already works in public education and distilling the best elements thereof to improve itself. It is locally-focused and has a holistic, long-term investment in the communities it serves. This seems far better aligning with the true problem in teacher staffing, which is not recruitment, but retention[pdf] of qualified individuals. By contrast, TFA is a large, national non-profit organization, whose members for the most part leave after their two-year commitment. TFA claims a roughly 60% retention rate of corps members “staying in education” after their 2-year stint, though they include those who have gone on to other positions in education besides the classroom, as well as those who have moved out of their initial high-needs assignment. Counting these factors brings the percentage down to about 44%. By the fifth year, slightly less than 15% remain. As for BTR? Fully 80% of those hired in the program’s ten-year history are still teaching in Boston Public Schools.

They both claim a highly selective admissions process and a rigorous training period for their recruits.

The first part of this statement is unequivocally true. Never in applying to undergraduate programs, graduate schools, or three employers (including NASA) have I experienced such a varied gauntlet as those to which these programs subjected me. Application questions, several essays, content examinations, responses to articles and videos, observation of group interaction and teamwork, multiple interviews, demonstration of the practice… there is no question that both of these programs are highly selective.

But what about the second part of the statement, about rigorous training? BTR offers a 13-month masters in education program, including full licensure in your subject, incorporating a full school year of mentorship in an urban school modeled on a medical residency… and they give it to you at effectively no charge, before you are placed into a classroom as a teacher of record for other people’s children. Following this, they offer ongoing mentoring and support as residents develop and grow as educators.

Many of my fellow candidates at the final Selection Day were career-changers or had post-graduate experience in their field of study or in education. By contrast, TFA compresses your training into a 5-week Institute, in which the most hands-on training you get is small classes of summer students. A masters degree is possible in most assignment regions, but is generally on your own time and dime… in addition to simultaneously teaching full-time, getting credentialed (because you entered the classroom on an emergency or waiver credential), and participating in TFA programming. As far as I could tell, all but two of my fellow candidates at the final interview day were undergraduate fresh-outs.

Now, I have done some challenging things in my life, but I do not in any way feel prepared to teach, let alone teach in a failing urban school, just based on my content knowledge, experience, and idealism. Maybe I’m misjudging the scale of the challenge, but right now I seriously can’t believe that someone would choose to send in such inexperienced young people (intelligent and high-achieving though they may be) into our most challenging schools. Especially when there is an option for more rigorous preparation that doesn’t cost you as much and allows you to focus on learning to teach before you actually enter the field! Unless… unless the goal isn’t to recruit, retain, and grow long-term educators…

They both send high-achieving individuals into struggling schools.

Again, on the surface-level, absolutely true. But considering what I have gone over already, particularly about preparation, what am I to conclude about the nature of the program and the intentions of its applicants? What does each program incentivize? I think it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that TFA appears to incentivize the entry of those in a hurry or those in it to check off a box. The core problem in our public schools is retaining high-quality teachers in high-needs areas. If you are in this for the short term, you are probably going to do more harm than good for your students by becoming a teacher. By all means, get involved through volunteering, advocacy, fundraising, or mentoring… but don’t use the futures of your students as collateral for your own idealistic goals. If you are not in this for the short-term (but still don’t want to go through the traditional schools of education), why go with a program like TFA when so many residency programs with more rigor and preparation exist? I found myself asking the question, whose interests are best served by the approach of each of these programs, the students or the recruits?

The nation absolutely needs every talented, intelligent, passionate, and creative person it can muster to the cause of improving our education system. But if an additional year of preparation and a long-term view of that on which you are about to embark deter you, then I would suggest that you are getting into teaching for the wrong reasons.

They both promise that the experience will be a foundation for long term transformational change in education.

In light of the previous discussion, there isn’t much left to add here. I’ll just leave you with a link to a great article in Rethinking Schools, Looking Past the Spin: Teach for America. In the end, it really wasn’t much of a question… the reasoning, given what I have discovered and more importantly what I value, pointed to one clear choice, and I took it. Boston, here I come.

Addendum 1: If your goal is not actually to become an educator for longer than a brief stint (or you are not at least entering the profession with the intent to make a good faith effort to try to stay), then the above reasoning will not apply as well. In that case, I would urge you to consider very carefully how and whom you are actually helping.

Addendum 2: I make no pretense of knowing what teaching is like. I have yet to teach a single hour in a single classroom. So, I am well aware that my opinions on this and other educational issues may change and grow with my experience. That’s called life. In the meanwhile, I’ll perform the best analysis I can with the information I have.



BTR Announces Host Schools

BTR has posted the schools with which Cohort X will be working this next year. Looks like since I’m on a high school physics track, I will be at either Burke High School in Dorchester (where I had my final interviews on Selection Day) or Boston Community Leadership Academy in Hyde Park (now in Brighton, but moving).

Some quick stats from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Burke High School (public high school):

  • Minority: 92.6%
  • First language not English: 38.7%
  • Limited English proficiency: 25.1%
  • Low-Income: 75.9%
  • Special Education: 20.4%

Boston Community Leadership Academy (pilot high school):

  • Minority: 98.9%
  • First language not English: 53.7%
  • Limited English proficiency: 26.8%
  • Low-Income: 84.8%
  • Special Education: 14.6%

Nervous of the challenge but excited to face it. Burke for example: 0% pass rate for the just 10 students who attempted the AP Physics (Mechanics) exam. Overall only 7% are testing at “proficient” or higher in science by Grade 10. Looks like there’s work to do… saddle up.



Letter of Intent, Draft 3

Here is another take on my previously posted draft letter of intent. Thanks to Vihangi, Amy, Aleks, and Julia for the proofreads and feedback.

I seek to join Teach for America in order to directly address our nation’s most dire of inequities: the disparity in the quality of accessible education across social demographics. I know that through Teach For America, I cannot directly ease poverty or fix broken families. I can, however, enable these students to break out of the prison of social class, to which they have been relegated by fate and forgotten by their nation. In a world of systemic racial and socio-economic divides, quality education is the only equalizer – the only pathway that can empower individuals of any background to reach their potentials.

As the successful child of immigrants to this country, I have truly lived the American Dream. Yet, I know that I was fortunate to have been born under two very serendipitous circumstances. My parents were educated and were likely headed for successful careers before coming here; and while my family has never been what I would term wealthy, neither have I ever been in need of the foundations on which individual merit can actually build success. Many students across our nation lack even these basic elements – such as stable families, freedom from hunger and violence, and a supportive community. As my awareness of these injustices has grown, my individual success has taken on new context: I realize that it is time for me to pay it forward, in return for all that this country has enabled me to achieve.

As a NASA research engineer, I have been honored to work with some of the world’s most creative, passionate, and intelligent people on the cutting-edge engineering challenges of today: energy, environment, transportation, and exploration. Addressing these challenges requires viewing science as something much grander and more beautiful than a dry sequence of memorized facts. Science is applied curiosity – powered by wonder, and expressed through the language of mathematics. I intend to instill this perspective by setting a personal example of hardworking grit and a curious mind. I would also make full use of my experience to bring an array of practical applications to the forefront of my pedagogy.

As an engineer, I know that any credible metric of success must be rooted in quantifiable results. However, in addition to increasing performance on standardized exams, there are qualities which are far more critical to our nation’s scientific competitiveness. The true test of the scientist is to apply creative innovation to solving challenging, integrated problems. Evidence of these qualities in my students would be my personal metric of success. I would strive daily to cultivate them in my students by incorporating critical thinking, oral and written communication, and creative design in my lessons and grading metrics to the greatest degree possible. I know that an integrated, creative, and applied approach to science and mathematics will inspire the individual success of my students and provide them with opportunities to meet the local, national, and global technical challenges of tomorrow.



A Better Counter-Counter Perspective…

…is knowing you can survive the first year. From the TeachForUs blog “The Sky is Yours”: A Change Has Come.

(Principles) >> (Practicality).

‘Nuff said.




top