Feb 28 2014

TFA answers my FOIA-like request

Though education ‘reformers’ always speak of the need for transparency, Teach For America is one of the least transparent organizations out there.  Though they get a lot of public money, I don’t think that there is a way to FOIA their internal records so we are often left with their interpretations of the data with no way to verify it or put it into some kind of context.

About four years ago, way before I starting ‘resisting’ TFA, I had a lengthy conversation with Hearther Harding, who was a VP of research, I think.  I had asked her about the alumni survey, the attrition rate, and also about the principal survey.  At the time I was not considered an ‘enemy’ of TFA so she did not have her guard up and she told me a lot of interesting information, some of which she now denies telling me.  For example, about the principal survey where something like 90% of principals say that they are happy with their TFA teachers, she admitted to me that the results could be affected by principals who are happy with their second year TFAers but not with their first, and with the fact that it was a four level satisfaction survey, where the second two levels counted as ‘satisfied.’  She also said something to me along the lines of how the intended audience of the principal satisfaction survey is potential funders.

When I asked her about the attrition rate, she told me that 92% of TFAers complete the first year, and 89% complete the second year, and that 60% of TFAers stay for a third year.  I can’t remember exactly what she said about staying for a fourth year — I believe it was something like 25%, but for beyond the fourth year, she said something like “it really drops off after year four,” which agrees with the numbers that have popped up in various papers over the years where fewer than 20% teach for a fifth year.

Two statistics that TFA just loves to quote are that “two thirds of alumni are currently ‘in education’” and that “one third of alumni are still teaching.”  These numbers supposedly are calculated from the annual alumni survey.  One thing to note is that since over 10% of corps members quit before they can even be counted as alumni, the numbers are already somewhat skewed.  Another thing that distorts the numbers is the fact that the recent corps are so much larger, about 6,000 while the older corps are around 1,000 so even the third year teachers comprise a lot of the alumni still teaching and ‘in education.’

The reason I get frustrated when I hear about the 2/3 of alumni are ‘in education’ with 1/3 still in the classroom is that I know that these are, at a minimum, very misleading, and more likely, complete lies.  I know this because I was a corps member and I’m not saying I was the most popular person in my Houston 1991 corps, but I know enough people to know that very few are still teachers.  When TFA quotes that 1/3 statistic in the news, it is meant, I think, to mislead the public into believing that one out of three TFAers become career teachers.

What is easy to forget sometimes is that TFA alumni aren’t these abstractions.  They are 30,000 actual people who are, the vast majority of them, alive and well, and fairly easy to track down.  So after seeing these numbers tweeted again a few months ago, I asked one of the staffers I’ve communicated with from time to time (please TFA, don’t fire this person or reprimand him/her), to find for me the numbers for my own Houston 1991 corps.  If these numbers were to completely disagree with what I know and have seen with my own eyes, I would have considered tracking down the members of my cohort and verifying the results.

Now of course someone from TFA could argue that Houston 1991 was not a typical corps year.  That with their ‘improved’ training and support, people are more likely to stay teaching or ‘in education.’  But I don’t think that the corps members have changed very much over the years.  I use the quit rate, which has been a steady 10% as a way of gauging this.

Well I got the results of the data, and perhaps this is the last time I ever get any data from TFA so I hope this is newsworthy, and I’ll report them here.

The first anomaly in the data is that TFA reported that the size of the Houston 1991 corps was 146 members.  This is false.  That year, there were well over 200 corps members, something I know because we talked about it back then all the time.  I actually have a list of 210 people, most of the names still familiar to me.  So when I saw that the statistics were going to be out of 146, I knew that the stats would be already flawed.

They said that 62 people responded to the survey, which they called 42%, but which is really more like 30% considering that they had the wrong number of corps members.  The number of people still in the classroom was not anywhere near one third, but actually just 6 teachers, which if you include me (I boycotted the survey) is up to 7 teachers.  This is 3%.  Another 12 people were working in schools as principals or assistant principals.  So the number of career teachers from TFA, I think we can safely assume, is quite low — something that everyone already knows.

Now, TFA can protest that they never said that one third of all TFAers become career teachers.  They just said that a third of the alumni who filled out the survey were still teachers.  But the point is that they are ‘suggesting’ that TFAers remain in the classroom, which they generally don’t.  The truth is that probably between 10% and 15% of TFA alumni do become career teachers.  This might even be an impressive amount.  I’m not sure what would be considered an expected amount.  But to suggest, as they always do, that one third of all alumni are still in the classroom is one of their worst misleading statements that they continue to make any chance they get.

I do appreciate that they were willing to give me the data I asked for.  Maybe this is part of their strategy to be a little less arrogant and condescending as they try to re-build their image after the battering that they’ve taken the past year.  I also hope that they continue to be more transparent.  If they really want to be ‘for the kids,’ it does not really serve the kids to offer misleading data which might mislead philanthropists to invest in TFA rather than another organization that is more honest about its data.  TFA also uses its data/PR to win millions of dollars in government grants.  This is just unethical.  Figuring out what works in education is hard enough without powerful organizations deliberately skewing the data.

6 Responses

  1. NOLATeach

    What % of people in any profession stay in the exact same role-level for 20 years or stay in the same job?

  2. skepticnotcynic

    In response to NOLATeach -Most doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, airline pilots. engineers, etc.

    Why should teaching be any different? Being part of a profession is a lifelong commitment and cognitively demanding and requires that many situations be experienced and processed.

    • Meg

      It shouldn’t be, but I wonder if it is. Are there available statistics that show what percentage of teachers remain in the profession after 20 years? I think it would make for an interesting comparison.

  3. Early alum

    Gary,
    Thank you for this valuable post.

    As a early 90′s alum and career teacher, I’ve always felt left out by TFA. Clearly through their featured panelists at 20th summit, comments from staff, and their write ups, they much prefer alum who have become reformers, work at TFA or started charter schools.
    It seems Ok with them if you are in high level admin at a school or have perhaps won a teacher of the year award, but other than that- ignored.

    It took them 20 years before they started an excellence in teaching award.

    They’ve given little recognition to alum who have become nationally board certified.
    They’ve mentioned some alum have high leadership roles in unions, but I’ve never seen those individuals potential contributions to “One Day” written up or recognized.
    I’ve also seen much more press to alum in leadership roles in charters than in traditional public schools.
    So, we’ve been ignored. Yet, they need us. They need teachers who stay to build their stats on longevity. As potentially inaccurate as those stats my be.
    Perhaps they need to break those stats down into
    Percent working in non profits
    Percent in admin
    Percent in teaching
    I’d also love to see the charter/public breakdown

    I also don’t understand the need to continue to “sell” TFA. I did in the early days when no one had heard of TFA. By now TFA is well known and established??

    • Educator

      There’s a need to “sell” TFA because TFA, like any organization, has a self interest to continue. I mean, if you worked for TFA, wouldn’t you want to continue to “sell” it? TFA isn’t only guilty of this – basically any organization/company (in education, think of unions, traditional schools, charters, vouchers, for-profit schools, online schools, etc…) is guilty of this, and it isn’t necessarily bad. Usually, organizations want to grow, not maintain or die out.

      The problem that Gary writes about is if an organization such as TFA is actually doing more harm than good. This is what people are starting to question. Hence, the need to sell even more.

Post a comment

About this Blog

By a somewhat frustrated 1991 alum

Region
Houston
Grade
High School
Subject
Math

Subscribe to this blog (feed)


Subscribe via RSS

”subscribe

Reluctant Disciplinarian on Amazon

Beyond Survival On Amazon

RSS Feed

Subscribe