Who Is Paying for Teach for America?
Update: It seems the Seattle Foundation gave TFA $80k in December 2010 to "support general operating expenses of the Seattle program." Their other generous donations cover a wide range of Puget Sound programs (including intervention programs in Renton, Northshore and Highline schools). Interesting that they want to help support a non-local program that doesn't even exist here yet.
As I previously reported, I had this back and forth with Washington STEM over their funding of TFA. At one point, they had brought in the TFA regional director who told me that they are trying to get recruits with science and math backgrounds. Clearly, there is no way for them to guarantee who will come but she said 10 recruits with math/science degrees had indicated Puget Sound as their first choice.
Now I see at the Washington STEM site this information (which appears to be new):
Washington STEM’s investment in Teach For America will fund TFA corps members holding STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) degrees after they have been voluntarily hired by the Puget Sound partner districts to teach math and science secondary level courses or into elementary school positions. Washington STEM funds will be used exclusively for pre-service certification, professional development and other ongoing support for those incoming Teach For America STEM corps members. The $475,000 Washington STEM TFA investment is intended to be distributed over the next three years and makes available up to $125,000 in the first year, $150,000 in the second and $200,000 in the third. and is contingent upon corps members hired specifically to teach science and math secondary level courses or into elementary positions, If none of the TFA STEM corps members are hired specifically to teach math and science secondary level courses or into elementary positions, then Washington STEM funds will not be disbursed to TFA.
TFA wants to bring in about 20 teachers to SPS. They say 10 recruits to the Puget Sound area have a math/science background. Okay say 9 come and SPS gets 7 and Federal Way gets 2. Great.
Okay, I'll bite. If Washington STEM is only funding those TFA recruits with a STEM degree AND who have been hired to teach math/science at secondary schools or into elementary schools, who is paying for the non-STEM TFA recruits?
Very strange. I'll have to query the Board on what is up with this but I get the feeling there is some kind of trying to fly under the radar here.
Also, TFA finally has a dot on their regional map for Seattle and here's what they say:
As a member of a charter corps, you will play an important part in shaping Teach For America’s role and reception in the Seattle & Tacoma area and impact the direction and scope of the local movement for educational excellence.
"Role and reception" - Does that mean be on your fresh-faced best behavior?
"Direction and scope of the local movement for educational excellence" - what and who are they talking about?
Lastly, I have been trying, for months, to meet with Tom Stritikus, dean of the College of Education at UW, to ask him about UW being the sponsoring educational entity. I have been repeatedly put off. I was also told at one point that yes, UW was the sponsoring entity, and then told, no a decision has not been made.
I have a hard time understanding how a college of education supports a group that says they do as well with training teachers in 5 weeks as the college does in a couple of years. It is all very curious.
As I previously reported, I had this back and forth with Washington STEM over their funding of TFA. At one point, they had brought in the TFA regional director who told me that they are trying to get recruits with science and math backgrounds. Clearly, there is no way for them to guarantee who will come but she said 10 recruits with math/science degrees had indicated Puget Sound as their first choice.
Now I see at the Washington STEM site this information (which appears to be new):
Washington STEM’s investment in Teach For America will fund TFA corps members holding STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) degrees after they have been voluntarily hired by the Puget Sound partner districts to teach math and science secondary level courses or into elementary school positions. Washington STEM funds will be used exclusively for pre-service certification, professional development and other ongoing support for those incoming Teach For America STEM corps members. The $475,000 Washington STEM TFA investment is intended to be distributed over the next three years and makes available up to $125,000 in the first year, $150,000 in the second and $200,000 in the third. and is contingent upon corps members hired specifically to teach science and math secondary level courses or into elementary positions, If none of the TFA STEM corps members are hired specifically to teach math and science secondary level courses or into elementary positions, then Washington STEM funds will not be disbursed to TFA.
TFA wants to bring in about 20 teachers to SPS. They say 10 recruits to the Puget Sound area have a math/science background. Okay say 9 come and SPS gets 7 and Federal Way gets 2. Great.
Okay, I'll bite. If Washington STEM is only funding those TFA recruits with a STEM degree AND who have been hired to teach math/science at secondary schools or into elementary schools, who is paying for the non-STEM TFA recruits?
Very strange. I'll have to query the Board on what is up with this but I get the feeling there is some kind of trying to fly under the radar here.
Also, TFA finally has a dot on their regional map for Seattle and here's what they say:
As a member of a charter corps, you will play an important part in shaping Teach For America’s role and reception in the Seattle & Tacoma area and impact the direction and scope of the local movement for educational excellence.
"Role and reception" - Does that mean be on your fresh-faced best behavior?
"Direction and scope of the local movement for educational excellence" - what and who are they talking about?
Lastly, I have been trying, for months, to meet with Tom Stritikus, dean of the College of Education at UW, to ask him about UW being the sponsoring educational entity. I have been repeatedly put off. I was also told at one point that yes, UW was the sponsoring entity, and then told, no a decision has not been made.
I have a hard time understanding how a college of education supports a group that says they do as well with training teachers in 5 weeks as the college does in a couple of years. It is all very curious.
Comments
Don't think Tom or the Alliance will ever be calling you back about the UW or Alliance plans around Teach for America. No doubt they just want you to stop asking questions and go away.
-skeptical-
Benefited by having his children in a wonderful inclusive Pre-K at the UW's Experimental Education Unit, staffed by teachers expert in helping children with disabilities, yet wants your kid to be in an overstuffed classroom with no supports and an inexperienced, hot-dog TFA "trainee".
WV: crueling
Hey Dude, who stole the Republic?
Above Board dealings .... are there any above board dealings anymore?
A friend to Seattle
Oh, and TFA's overhead.
Dan suggests the oligarchy has taken over our democracy, as evidenced by the insertion of TFA. Word Verifiers says it is, instead, KINGS.
I don't want TFA in our schools any more than the next person, but lets be clear - SPS is not paying for them.
Here is a link to the Times article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com
/html/localnews/2014413268_
stemgrants06m.html
Peon, you obviously didn't read my post. Gates has NOT committed to paying for TFA; they are part of the Washington STEM grant and they are only paying for certain recruits.
We were told the $4K per year wasn't going to be paid by SPS. Washington STEM is only paying for math and science recruits. I would like to know who is paying for any non-math/science recruits.
It's not going to be SPS.
Transparency ... ah yes what a fine ... yet to be realized goal.
NOTE: The Cleveland STEM project never had the required funding in place to move forward. .... Odd word "Required" ... what does it mean in any context involving the "SPS"?
Off the OSPI site:
The Individual Teacher Plan for Achieving Highly Qualified Teacher Status requires the following information:
1. A statement identifying the teacher’s certification and baccalaureate status.*
2. A statement indicating the teacher is not yet highly qualified.
3. Identification of the option the teacher will use to achieve highly qualified teacher status. Information about ptions to meet HQT requirements are available on the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) website at www.k12.wa.us/TitleIIA/HighlyQualifiedTeachers.aspx.
4. A description and timeline of teacher actions to become highly qualified.
5. A description and timeline of district actions to facilitate accomplishment of the highly qualified teacher requirements. The central office administrator responsible for working with the teacher and the source(s) and amount(s) of fiscal support that will be used for this purpose must be identified.
6. A statement indicating the district’s understanding that OSPI will provide technical assistance for district actions.
7. The date of the agreement and signatures of the school district superintendent or his/her authorized designee and the teacher.
* If the teacher does not hold full state certification and at least a bachelor’s degree, the plan must also include—in addition to 1–7, above—a list, description, and timeline of district and teacher actions that will be implemented to ensure that the teacher meets these qualifications.
Stop knocking the EEU. It is an all-city draw preschool, head start and K for disabled kids and typlical peers and it provides necessary services for children at a critical developmental period, as well as trains new spec ed teachers. My child goes there and I am not rich or famous. The only thing special about me is that I have a "special" child.
POed
"TFA requires a monetary fee for each TFA corps
member who is hired by the district; should SPS
hire any TFA corps members, the district will seek
private funding for any district-required fee."
http://www.seattleschools.org
/area/board/10-11agendas/110310agenda/tfare
port.pdf
First of all, as has been stated here, the contract reads that SPS will seek private funding to pay for any district required fees.
Second of all, SPS is not required to hire ANY TFA recruits at all. If SPS hires any of their recruits, it would be voluntarily.
Sure, as Melissa says, TFA would "like" to bring in 20 recruits. But so what? Who cares what they would "like"? We don't have to hire one of them if we don't want to.
Gates/STEM Grant have agreed to pay for the fees of recruits with math/science degrees.
Without any new donors, TFA recruits without a math/science degree won't be eligible to be hired in SPS as their fees would not be covered.
Whether or not we hire TFA recruits is certainly an issue worth discussing, but who is paying for their fees is not (at least as long as SPS isn't paying for it)
I'm not knocking the EEU! I'm knocking Tom Stritikus.
I also have a special child who went to the EEU, that is why I am POed about the former head of the Haring Center, Tom Stritikus, selling us down the river. His support of TFA costs us: Fed $$ (did you know congress gave TFA $50 million last year?); State $$ (paying for experienced teachers to teach TFA trainees instead of our kids); and grant monies (that could go towards effective interventions, wraparound support, all manner of helpful things.)
No need to be POed at me. Direct your anger at those who want to swap your fully certificated teacher with a Teach For Awhile.
It is worth asking who's paying because I would lay odds that if WA STEM isn't paying for non-math/science recruits, the district will.
They signed it because staff thinks TFA will be good for SPS. So do several of the board directors. They have said so publicly.
However the contract that was signed stipulates that SPS will seek donors for all district required fees. And it does not obligate SPS to hire even one TFA recruit. So no matter how enamored they are with the idea of TFA, if there is no donor to cover the fees they can't hire their recruits.
I don't understand why we need TFA to provide other teachers (like Humanities, History, English, etc.) since they are really a dime a dozen in the teaching ranks.
I think SPS should go for only science/math and bag the rest.
Without some assurance that the fee will be covered, I don't think the TfA candidates should even be allowed to apply. It would be awkward for the District to offer them a job and then have to rescind the offer.
Right now there is only funding from Washington STEM and only for candidates with math and science degrees.
I sure hope our Chief Talent Officer is pre-screening the applicants to keep non-qualified people out of the candidate pool.
He notes, "I realize that you may have concerns about how the presence of TFA corps members in the region will impact your our own job prospects." [duh!] and tells his MIT students that TFA will be "the reality of next year’s hiring season." Finally, he exhorts the teacher candidates (fully-qualified graduate students who are paying many thousands of dollars for their experience in a stellar program): "Given this reality, I believe it is in our collective interest that these candidates be understood as a part of, rather than in competition with, the reputation for excellence that you, and earlier cohorts of UW graduates, have established for our College."
At least one teacher candidate expressed outrage about the hypocrisy of a program that has advocated the critical nature of in-depth teacher preparation with extensive and coordinated coursework and field experiences, has engaged students in debates about TFA (and the lack of that depth of preparation) -- and now turns around and provides free teacher preparation to TFA participants.
Concerned Teacher Educator
"All fee payments called for in this Agreement are contingent upon Seattle Public Schools receiving private donations to make such payments. Seattle Public Schools shall have no obligation to make any payments to Teach for America for fees except to the extent of private funds received specifically for such purpose"
Like I said, the $4K is chump change. The cost is in:
"Seattle Public Schools shall provide all the assurances required by the state to enable the issuance of conditional certificates, including the signature from school board or educational service district board, the assurance that the individual will serve as the teacher of record and will have assistance from the district, the assurance that the district will provide orientation and support specific to the assignment..."
That will be a workplan with OSPI to assist this "trainee" with achieving full certification.
private funding for any district-required fee."...
Without any new donors, TFA recruits without a math/science degree won't be eligible to be hired in SPS as their fees would not be covered.
Wrong. "Will seek" is not the same as "will receive". I suspect the "seeking" has already been done, and the "receiving" may never come.
From my past experience with SPS, I think it's highly likely that they'll hire TfA recruits whether they have the money or not.
Sure, the contract doesn't require them to, to which, I can only say, "Good, then don't."
That seems pretty clear to me.
I agree with you. SPS misapplies grant monies and capital funds all the time. Their accountants and grant managers need PD!
Trust but verify.
To assume anything other than what is in this contract is going to happen is pure speculation and guesswork.
Alliance for Education
2010: 5k, 150k, 3k, 6k, 110k
2009: 100k, 5k, 200k, 10k
2008: 7M, 310k, 10k, 16k
2007: 10k
2005: 125k 2005
2002: 200k, 74k, 35k
2001: 45k, 186k, 150k
2000: 63k, 50k, 191k, 2M, 25M
1999 100k, 100k
1998 100k, 50k, 100k
1997 100k
League of Education Voters
2010 105k, 40k
2009: 1.5M
2007: 835k
2006: 150k
2003: 500k
2002: 100k
Partnership for Learning
2009 1.5M, 650k
2005 1.3M
2004: 50k, 285k
2002: 150k
2000 150k, 200k
1999 100k
Other “Our Schools Coalition” members who received Gates Grants: these were connected to Pottergate:
Urban League
2010: 7.5k
2008: 10k
2007: 5k, 115k
2006: 5k
2005: 50k
2003: 120k
2002: 750k
2001: 5k
Tabor 100
2009: 5k
2008: 5k
Horn of Africa
2005: 80k
Rainier Scholars
2003: 575k
CAMP
2003: 180k
Other influence-buying:
TFA
2010: 2.5M
Crosscut
2010: 400k
The contingency language is also, like all contingencies, waivable by the entity whom it benefits. Clearly, they don't HAVE to hire TFA if no private funds are available, but they can sure do so if they want to.
Thanks, though, for finding and citing the language. I had misremembered it as being stronger -- as precluding the District from hiring TFA if the private funds for the placement fee didn't come through.
Logic would certainly suggest that they should not hire TFA teachers unless that fee is covered -- but logic has not always prevailed in the past.
And StopTFA, I agree that there are LOTS of costs that the District will bear in any case -- but the Board blew past those last year. If Dr. Enfield cares about them, she can build them into the hiring process, and/or she can carefully track them this year and then make a recommendation to the Board about the future, based on what she finds.
I guess we will all see!
LEV: About 3.5 million;
Partnership for Learning: about 4.5 million;
Urban League, abut a million;
Teach For America, 2.5 million
Crosscut: almost half a million
But I don't agree that all money has to come in "no strings attached." All schools, colleges, museums, cities, etc. get donations, or offers to donate, from time to time -- and they may come with strings.
If I am a museum, and a donor wants to donate a priceless native american art/artifacts collection -- with the stipulation that it be kept intact and displayed -- in fact, they want a wing built to display it -- then the Museum has to sit down with their long term strategic plan, their budget, etc., etc., and figure out whether to say yes or no. If this is what they always dreamed of, and they can afford to build and endow the wing, they say yes. If they really want to be a European art collection, with a focus on 20th century multimedia -- they say no.
The district needs to do the same. The problem here is bad management by the Board and the staff, in saying yes to bad proposals, or saying yes to good proposals that the SSD can't afford to support.
I'm not very clear on this, I know, but "accountability" lies with the board, not with Gates or the Alliance. ALL money spent on behalf of SPS is SPS money: They have control. One hopes. But it appears that they don't, if outside agencies are paying for district policies.
SPS gets to decide, yes, we'll take your money, we want TFA recruits with science and math degrees here in SPS, or they can say no thank you, move on, we don't want it.
In this case, Gates isn't dictating educational policy in any way. SPS is in full control.
You are going to get hypertension if you allow donors, donating to public institutions (with strings attached), to bothers you. It is as common place as MConalds. Has been for a long time.
But remember that the district always has the right to turn down the donation if they don't like the strings attached. I'd aim your frustration at SPS not Gates. It is SPS who decides what "strings" are acceptable and what strings aren't. It's like getting mad at the mistress instead of the husband that cheated.
I would be charmed right now if Gates came along and said they wanted to fund Singapore math at 5 elementary schools, and 2 K-8s, and then do an analysis of math scores for the next 10 years. But, I think that the District would have to analyze whether that fit with the District's goals, whether it would consume additional time/money resources and if so, where they would find the money, whether they had sufficient buy in from 5 elementaries and 2 K-8s to do it, etc.
If the answer is -- the District hates Singapore, or the District will not consider it because aligned/standardization trumps all, then the conversation ends. If the deal is money, then the answer is no unless the grantor comes up with additional money to defray costs.
This district's problem is that they LIKED what Gates was peddling, so they were happy to bleed other programs to pay the extra costs. That and the fact that I don't get the impression we have the level of competence to effectively analyze grants this way.
Unfortunately,
What does LEV do with a million dollars? What does the Alliance do with 30 million?
I don't trust the Gates Foundation (or Broad..."free" residents to "help" admin!) as far as I can throw them: they're reformers to the nth degree, they are part of back-room deals, and I wouldn't take money from them for nuthin'. But that's just me.
Right. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you...
:)
Exactly what Charlie has been saying. Getting money is no good if you have to match it AND the overhead is a lot.
Who's in charge?
That's like saying I don't trust the mistress as far as I can throw her. Well, yeah, duh. Of course you don't trust the mistress.
But the blame here lies with SPS, not Gates. SPS is in charge. They have complete control. They should be making decisions that are in the best interest of the district, the teachers, and our children. They should be able to say "no thanks" to Gates when they don't like the strings.
This is no more Gates fault than it is the mistresses fault when the husband cheats.
There will always be mistresses ready to lure, it is up to SPS to ward them off.
Your blame is misplaced. The blame, if any, should be with SPS.
Is that unreasonable?
So what would that policy look like?
I don't have much vision in this area, so help me out here.
Could policy be to have a grant vetting committee made up of staff, board, and community members?
Would it be to provide adequate public engagement informing families of the grant and disclosing any strings attached?
Would it be more specific to power and influence the grantee would have over their donations?
Hmmmm.....
Hahaha!! I almost choked and had to stifle my laughter for fear of waking the kids at this hour! Great one.
I mean, we hired a Broad superintendent. How complicit is THAT? It could be argued that the board is responsible for this, and they are, but what's to be done about it?
Maybe the Math Science end of this ... finally was a data based decision. LESS TIME with UW in MATH ED produces better results ... clearly over the last few years more time ==> poorer results.
It seems from examination of the data at RBHS (over the last two+ years) and Cleveland (over the last six+ years) ..... Clearly more involvement by UW and more help from UW radically lowers OSPI math test scores....for Black students ( and others).
So instead of a long four or five year program of preparation from UW CoE .... 5 weeks is better with occasional help in process during the two years.
But would not any help at all from UW CoE (for math) be the Best?
The Idea that teachers in math need professional development from either UW CoE or Dr. King's program (which spent $200,000 NSF funds per year for 5 years) is contradicted by the lower results that came from both UW CoE Math Education Project and Dr. King's program on OSPI annual math testing of grade 10 students.
CHECK the Data HERE.
I think the Teacher Quality issue that brought TFA is ridiculous.
Let us look at
UW CoE quality(?) (guidance)
School Director Quality
Superintendent Quality
SPS Math Program Director Quality
Superintendent of Public Instruction Quality
SPI Math Director Quality
......
The idea that we have a Teacher Quality problem, while neglecting to look at the quality of the leadership sector is typical of exactly how leaders (who remain largely unaccountable for much) want this game played.
It seems Sundquist thinks more experimentation in math is in order .... now that all the money has been blown on defective instructional materials and practices.
"They signed it because staff thinks TFA will be good for SPS. So do several of the board directors. They have said so publicly."
YUP .. no argument there ..... what these people think is rarely ever based on relevant data.
The Staff and the Board are frequently wrong in their thinking. {They buy crap and open and close schools rather whimsically.}
Why the Staff and Directors think so many things that are contradicted when the intelligent application of relevant data is used.... is a puzzlement.
Here's a link to the Procurement Policy, G45.00
Here is a link to the Purchasing Department. I don't see anything there about a policy or procedures that speak to grants.
MAP is funded by a grant (I believe it is a part of the Performance Management initiative, which is funded by Gates at seven million, Broad at one million, Walton, Boeing, et al.) MAP was funded to assess students; it is now being used to assess teachers. Does the assessment of teachers by MAP meet the terms and conditions below? When the district “requested funding” for MAP, was the district goal of teacher evaluation included in the “specific purposes” of the request? In other words, the district had to ask someone to fund MAP; did it know, initially, that it would evaluate teachers with it? If not, then what did the Board approve in the initial request for outside funding for MAP?
It’s interesting to think about MAP and its two distinct purposes when considering the grant requirements below. Is MAP consistent with district values and board policy? Does it cost district too much in unfunded mandates? Does it create inequity in meeting student needs? Does it divert District from mission? What happens when a teacher sues based on faulty MAP data in their evaluation? Can the district sustain it without a grant?
From the policy:
“….The Seattle School District welcomes grants that assist the District in meeting students’ academic needs and the District’s goals.
The term “grant” refers to an award of funding to a department, a school, or an individual within the District Based upon a request for funding…[omitted - list of “not a grants”, including revenue generating, gifts, and donations: separate policy considerations for them].
Grant awards are designated for specific purposes and are usually accompanied by a statement of terms and conditions that guide the District or school on the use of these funds. The award document usually includes a written description of the approved program, a statement of the specific terms of conditions of the award, and information about how funding for the award can be accessed by the District. In accepting the award, the District accepts and honors the obligation to expend the grant funds in accordance of the terms of the award.
…..
1) It must be consistent with the District’s mission, core values, beliefs and goals;
2) It must have a value or benefit that is great than the obligation under the grant award;
3) It must be consistent with Board policies and administrative procedures;
4) It cannot create or increase inequities in funding;
5) It cannot violate bargaining unit agreements;
6) It cannot usurp management rights;
7) It cannot carry any conditions that would divert school or district effort away from the District’s primary mission;
8) It cannot expose the District to insurance losses or risks;
9) It cannot commit the District to unbudgeted or unplanned expenditures
I thought MAP was part of PF (it would make sense, no?)
Maybe it's just sunday and I'm not fully in gear!
What caught my eye intitially was what seemed to be a good set of parameters for the grant procedure, and I wondered if all the various requisites were met. If they were, then that would be a good system, where there us specific use and targets, benchmarks, goals, measurement of the effect of the grant....
It always takes two to tango, and while SPS indeed makes repeated bad decisions, I see nothing wrong with calling out Gates and TFA for abusing their privilege and taking advantage of SPS's faults - at our expense.
Buying influence is typically called "corruption" in the public sphere. Have we forgotten that?
wseadawg
A little venting here and there is ok, but we have elections coming up, and board meetings to attend, etc. etc. Foundations will be foundations; unions will be unions; bureaucracies will be bureaucracies. In each instance, we need to figure out what change WE can effect, and how we can make it happen. Excessive time spent railing at all the other bad actors (and I am guilty of this) gets us nowhere.