TFA in Washington State: No Surprise to Us

Via Mirmac 1, there is this public disclosure e-mail that is quite telling but of no surprise to anyone who reads this blog.  We asked these questions from the start.  From the e-mail (italics Dr. Ginsberg's, bold mine):

1) Whose interests are we serving and, related to this questions, how are we serving the interests of our most historically under-served K-12 students?
2) How are we serving the interests of TFA teachers? of our students and graduates who are working as instructors in the program?
3) How are we serving the effectiveness and morale of state-funded and fee-based funded full time CoE faculty when TFA instructors teach a class with as few as 2 students, while other CoE faculty are currently teaching unprecedented numbers of students.  (Some of our EDLPS colleagues are teaching 60 students in very complex disciplines.)
4) How are we serving the interests of the CoE when faculty have not had a chance to actively and collectively probe the implications and consequences of decisions that are being made? 
5) Assuming that corporate donors who are interested in funding important programs such as the proposed urban residency program are behind TFA and are more like to look favorably upon the College if we provide support for TFA...as Washington's top educators, what is our responsibility to try, as a faculty, to engage in conversations with corporate funders?  Where are the opportunities for faculty to sit at a table to respectfully deliberate, teach, and learn with potential funders? 

Although some might suggest that this is a naive proposition, I see this as fundamental, symbolically and constructively, to democracy. 

End of e-mail portion.

It is hard to know what to say to what is clearly frustration, maybe some despair and some anger here.


We as a state can afford to have classes for two students who are not Special Ed students at our biggest and most active university?

We are allowing business interests to move our faculty members and their programs and teaching loads around like chess pieces on a board?  

We are finding out that the experts - the faculty - are NOT being consulted or asked for input by these corporate interests who, from my years of watching, think they know it all about public education by reading a white paper.

How can it be naive for faculty at a major university to want to have input on programs and teaching methods in their own department?

I'm not allowed to swear but I'll say this in exasperation - Jesus H. Christ.  Who the hell do these corporate and philanthropic people all think they are?

Where is this TFA success?  Not in our districts in and around Seattle.  There are maybe 17 TFA (give or take as some have left early).  You may recall this interchange between Tom Stritikus, the dean of the UW College of Education and Vice-Provost, Dave Szatmary early on:

Szatmary: What assurances does UW have that the enrollments in TFA will increase to 50 in year 2?  How long would we be willing to run the program at a loss if the increased enrollments do not occur?

Stritikus: This is TFA's growth plan,  They have hit their growth plans in virtually every district nationally.  If I were a betting man (which I am), I'd say they'll hit it." 

If only Szatmary had taken that bet.

So we have this program at UW, only for people vetted thru TFA (and no others need apply to get in), and it's run in the red for every single year of its existence.  UW - with all its budget cuts and tuition increases and crying need for more in-state students being able to attend - has the money for a pet project for a dean.

Our district and our university have time for this nonsense? 

Very sad.