Is ‘Teach for All’ knocking on your door?

• Authors: Anne Price , Andrew McConney
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Over the past few decades there has been a rapid expansion in alternative ‘fast track’ routes for teacher preparation. Among the most aggressive of these are Teach for All (TFA) schemes characterized not only by their ultra fast entry to teaching (6 - 7 week course) but also by their underlying philosophy that the so called ‘crisis’ in poor rural and urban schools can be solved by attracting the ‘best and brightest’ university graduates for a two year appointment in ‘difficult to staff’ schools. With its missionary zeal TFA is heralded by some as one way to solve socio- -educational problems that governments cannot. Others condemn such schemes as not only patronizing, but also as part of an ideologically driven and deliberate neoliberal attack on public education, teachers, teacher professionalism and working class or ‘other’ communities. Recently Teach for All came knocking on New Zealand’s door. Concerned about the possible implications of this for the teaching profession and education more generally, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) Te Wehengarua commissioned a review of the international literature on TFA schemes. This paper synthesizes some of the key findings of this review with particular focus on TFA’s marketing strategies and the connections TFA schemes have with so called social entrepreneurs or venture philanthropists, many of whom are actively and aggressively engaged in shaping educational reforms in line with neoliberal agendas.

Keywords

EN

teacher preparation; neoliberalism; philanthropists; human capital; teach for all

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Pedagogy
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 98-110

Dates

published

2013-06-01

online

2013-04-03

Contributors

author

Anne Price

• Murdoch University, School of Education, South Street, Murdoch 6150, Western Australia

author

Andrew McConney

• Murdoch University, School of Education, South Street, Murdoch 6150, Western Australia

References

• Apple, M.W. (2006). Educating the ‘right’ way. Markets, standards, God, and Inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.[WoS]
• Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, Commodification and Commitment: An I-Spy Guide to the Neoliberal University. British Journal of Educational Studies, 6 (1) 17-28.[WoS][Crossref]
• Brewer, J. (2012). Hyper-accountability, Burnout and Blame: A TFA Corps Member Speaks Out. Living in Dialogue. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/02/hyper-accountability_burnout_a.html
• Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How teach for America hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, September 1994, 21-34.
• Foote, D. (2008). Relentless Pursuit. A year in the trenches with teach for America. Vintage Books, USA.[WoS]
• Gee, J.P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies - Ideologies in Discourses. London: Falmer Press.
• Gee, J. P. Hull. G., &Lankshear, C. (1996). The New Work Order. Behind the Languageof New Capitalism. NSW: Allen and Unwin.
• Gillies, D. (2011). State Education as High-Yield Investment: Human Capital Theory in European Policy Discourse. Journal of Pedagogy, 2 (2), 224-245.
• Inglis, F. (2011). Economical with the Actualite. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417654
• Ka Tat Tsang, A. (2001). Representation of Ethnic Identity in North American Social Work Literature: A Dossier of the Chinese People. In Social Work, 46 (3), 229-244. Retrieved February 5, 2005 from www.questia.com Kascak, O., & Pupala, B. (2011). Governmentality - Neoliberalism - Education: the Risk Perspective. Journal of Pedagogy, 2 (2), 145-160.
• Kopp, W. (2011). A chance to make history. What works and what doesn’t in providingan excellent education for all. Public Affairs.
• Labaree, D. (2010). Teach for America and Teacher Ed: Heads they win, tails we lose. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 48-55.[WoS][Crossref]
• Lahann, R., Reagan, E. M. (2011). Teach for America and the Politics of Progressive Neoliberalism. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38 (1), 7-27.
• McConney, A., Price, A., & Woods-McConney, A. (2012). Fast track teacher education:A review of the research literature on Teach For All schemes. Perth: Murdoch University, Centre for Learning, Change and Development.
• Mudge, S.L. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6 (4), 703-731.
• Popkewitz, T.S. (1998). Struggling for the Soul. The Politics of Schooling and the Constructionof the Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Price, A. (2005). Chelas, Ansars and Acolytes: Becoming a Teacher in and for a remoteand culturally diverse community. Murdoch University.
• Price, A., Mansfield, C.F., & McConney, A. (2012). Considering ‘teacher resilience’ from critical discourse and labour process theory perspectives, British Journal ofSociology of Education, 33 (1), 81-95.[WoS]
• Read, J. (2009). A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Foucault Studies, 6, 25-36.
• Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2007). Teachers in the middle. Reclaiming the wastelandof the adolescent years of schooling. PeterLang, New York.
• Tellez, K. (2011). A case study of a career in education that began with “Teach for America”. Teaching Education, 22 (1), 15-38.
• Veltri, B. 2010. Learning on other people’s kids: Becoming a Teach for America Teacher. Charlotte North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
• Webber, J.R.(2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Labour, 59, 308-310.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/jped-2013-0006