I find Shanker Blog’s Matt Di Carlo to be a reliable and very fair minded source for education research coverage despite coming from a somewhat different part of the ideological spectrum than I do on education reform. He has an assessment of the literature on TFA that I recommend. Although I don’t know this area of research very well, his discussion reflects my general impression. Here is how he summarizes:
One can quibble endlessly over the methodological details (and I’m all for that), and this area is still underdeveloped, but a fair summary of these papers is that TFA teachers are no more or less effective than comparable peers in terms of reading tests, and sometimes but not always more effective in math (the differences, whether positive or negative, tend to be small and/or only surface after 2-3 years). Overall, the evidence thus far suggests that TFA teachers perform comparably, at least in terms of test-based outcomes.
I also Matt is correct to look to the meta lessons about TFA and teachers in general, but I disagree somewhat about the meta lesson. He says:
But, to me, one of the big, underdiscussed lessons of TFA is less about the program itself than what the test-based empirical research on its corps members suggests about the larger issue of teacher recruitment. Namely, it indicates that “talent” as typically gauged in the private sector may not make much of a difference in the classroom, at least not by itself.
In contrast, I would say the lesson from TFA is that “talent” as typically gauged in the private sector makes as much of a difference as an entire four year teaching education does. If talent didn’t matter much, then you could give all teachers five weeks of training instead of four year educations and the outcomes would be comparable to what we are seeing now. Either talent doesn’t matter much or going to college for four years doesn’t matter much, in either case one is about equal to the other on average.
One thing this lesson implies to me about policy is we should think about how we can combine the most important aspects of the four teacher year education and boil it down to something more than five weeks and less than four years in order to make it easier to recruit people with TFA level talent into teaching. We should be experimenting more with alternative credentialing regimes for teachers.
ADDENDUM: In response to BSEconomist’s comment let me clarify. The evidence shows a lot of ability is worth about as much as a full teaching education. Yet we only allow two choices: a lot of ability with very little education (TFA), or a full education. We should allow a wider variety of substitution of ability for training instead of just all or almost none.

17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Danielle
To be clear, very few education programs are actually four years. They are more likely two – after students have finished their general education requirements. I still understand your point, but COEs don’t typically have four years to work with a student.
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
BSEconomist
Granting that I have a tendancy towards reflexive skepticism, but I really, really don’t buy it.
From this data, you can’t conclude that education is unimportant, generally, since all the TFA people are very highly educated. Now, maybe what you meant is that the education major adds nothing, since that is the key difference? But even then, a simple reading is that the TFA people “make up” for their lack of specific training with their superior talent. Or maybe the specific eduction curriculum adds nothing, but there really is no descernable difference on average with the TFA “talent”.
In short, I think you can read this in a number of ways, but your reading, if I understand it correctly seems far from the most obvious.
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
MGRemmele
This seems to be a nice data point for the signaling school, at best its an endorsement of general education requirements from the human capital perspective.
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Matt
“We should allow a wider variety of substitution of ability for training instead of just all or almost none.”
Many states have alternative training programs for teachers. Generally they do require a 4 year degree in anything and then a year of night, weekend, and summer classes while one teaches a regular load with regular pay. Increasingly these types of programs will be available online.
Wednesday ~ March 28th, 2012 at 2:10 am
Joe
Effectively training new teachers is a tough nut to crack. Sadly, I’m almost tempted to believe neither ‘talent’ nor training ends up actually being worth a lot. My experience in the classroom was that on the job mentoring and personal experience really outweighed everything else. Basically, you need some kind of directed process that allows you to use your experience to better yourself as an educator, along with some relevant tips from old pros.
This being said, I’ll bet 90% of the benefit of teacher training programs is in the student teaching. To test this, put two people up against each other who have had equivalent on the job training, and I bet you can barely tell the difference. Or, if this goes too far, i think normalizing by on the job trainging would make for a level playing field on which to evaluate their other differences.
Wednesday ~ March 28th, 2012 at 6:33 am
govt_mule
“The evidence shows a lot of ability is worth about as much as a full teaching education”
The evidence shows that liberal arts students with a history of strong performance at elite colleges, given intensive training followed by a strong on-the-job support system, do about as well as mediocre students trained specifically as teachers at second-tier public colleges. I’m sure we could turn elite liberal arts majors into decent accountants with a summer of intensive training too. This may be a good way to keep Ivy League women’s history majors from working at Starbucks, but it doesn’t make much sense when a) there is no shortage of teachers, and b) the conventional system produces teachers from a much larger pool of candidates at a much lower cost.
The main point (to me) of DiCarlo’s post is that if the “best and brightest” don’t do significantly better than the average teacher, maybe the problem lies with the students, parents, administrators, standards, etc., not the teachers.
Wednesday ~ March 28th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Adam Ozimek
A literal shortage is hardly the only reason to want to expand the labor pool
Wednesday ~ March 28th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
dumdedumdum
as opposed to a littoral shortage being a reason to expand a pool
Friday ~ April 6th, 2012 at 12:30 am
Ryan P
The littoral ones are why you want to shrink the pool
Sunday ~ April 1st, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Jeff
Your third paragraph gets it. The quality of the teacher (however you want to measure that) contributes some, but in all truth–in the big scheme of things, fairly little to the quality of educational outcomes. Most of the variability is related to factors outside of the school building.
Thursday ~ March 29th, 2012 at 10:20 am
engineer27 (@engineer27)
Perhaps the result says more about the value of the measurement metric (testing) than about the inputs (TFA vs education degree) or the outputs (actual education delivered).
Maybe that falls under the rubric of “methodological details”.
Saturday ~ March 31st, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Rebecca
Keep in mind that all TFA teachers have had a 4-year education – you have to have a college degree to join TFA. This is not 4 years preparing to teach, it is often a liberal arts education, but most teachers masters programs are 1-2 years in addition to the 4 years of college.
Monday ~ April 2nd, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Worth Reading « Blog of Rivals
[...] Adam Ozimek at Modeled Behavior writes about research on Teach for America: One thing this lesson implies to me about policy is we should think about how we can combine the most important aspects of the four teacher year education and boil it down to something more than five weeks and less than four years in order to make it easier to recruit people with TFA level talent into teaching. We should be experimenting more with alternative credentialing regimes for teachers. Share this:EmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. ▶ No Responses /* 0) { jQuery('#comments').show('', change_location()); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'none'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'inline'); return true; } else { jQuery('#comments').hide(''); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'inline'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'none'); return false; } } jQuery('#showcomments a').click(function(){ if(jQuery('#comments').css('display') == 'none') { self.location.href = '#comments'; check_location(); } else { check_location('hide'); } }); function change_location() { self.location.href = '#comments'; } }); /* ]]> */ [...]
Monday ~ April 2nd, 2012 at 4:44 pm
More on Education and TFA | Irrational Tonics
[...] Matt diCarlo and a linked post at Modeled Behavior suggest that “talent” at least as measured by the private sector, isn’t a good [...]
Sunday ~ April 8th, 2012 at 1:31 am
Adam Acosta
I’m probably a little too late to this post for you to even notice, but just to harp on the point that not all teachers receive four years of education in education, I became a math teacher in California after taking zero math classes in college as well as zero education classes (I double-majored in biology and philosophy). You can test for the credential, too.
Thursday ~ June 21st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Jake
I just came upon Matt’s blog and now yours and have enjoyed the thoughtful and unbiased analysis of the program. As a Teach For America alum, my experience in the corps had its share of ups and downs, and I definitely saw corps members who both outperformed their peers and underperformed their peers. Unfortunately, my teacher career was cut short my massive layoffs and budget cuts in my district.
My biggest critique of Teach For America is the way selection is done in the program. While the “best and the brightest,” in the traditional sense, do apply and are accepted, I think it would be a stronger teaching corps if incoming TFAers had real experiences with kids before they enter the program to lessen the learning curve. It is crucial that we get the most talented people into the profession, but not if they are there for the wrong reasons. I am ok with teachers leaving after two years because the vast majority of them will continue to positively impact education for the rest of their lives in whatever field they choose.
I am writing a book on building the skills necessary to be a great Teach For America corps member and get accepted into the program. I cover everything from ways to get involved with students and develop leadership skills before applying to ways applicants can think about the experiences they have had. I push for interested applicants to develop the skills in college to become great teachers and leaders so that there is not as much of a learning curve when they enter the corps and can become effective teachers more quickly. If TFA can keep recruiting the best talent, but have those teachers come in with relevant experiences, TFA can continue to lead the path toward educational equity in our nation.
Visit my website at http://www.becomingtfa.com to read my blog and pre-register your copy of the book (No obligation to purchase and $5 off when it is published if you pre-register)
Tuesday ~ March 12th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
What I’m Reading | Kylie Recommended
[...] – CollegeDegrees.comThe Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs – Harvard Business ReviewWhat the Research on TFA Tells Us – Modeled [...]