Her source aside, there seems to be a struggle between two theories of teacher training I want to explore here. From Prof. Hammond's information I have gleamed a new outlook on local vs national pedagogy. Is one better than the other? Can they be used in concert together? Who makes the best teachers?
On a the matter of national pedagogy I believe that the Best and Brightest from top universities like the ones selected for TFA are ahead of their more experienced seasoned teachers. The Best and Brightest are highly intelligent and because of their mastery of tertiary education they possess eclectic knowledge needed in order to understand cultural nuances: mirco and macro economics, philosophy, law, deeply specified sciences & math as well as their performance excellence in k-12 curriculum. Each of these curricular elements contribute to the general goal or aim of our education system. Put simply, you need to be smart in order to know where this country is going, you need to know where your country is going in order to educate its future blue and white collar works and leaders.
I am also reminded of a banner that was hung in a I taught at in Boston. The student art of astronauts, doctors, social workers, religious leaders, construction managers, police officers and all manner of profession led out of a rainbow which started at the phrase, "A teacher makes all of the other professions possible." It impressed upon me the idea that as a teacher I needed to be sensitive to all the possible professions my students may have. I needed to be able to speak to the future doctor's meticulous attention to detail and take time to reflect on the preachers considerations of the subjects morality. This is a insight all teachers would do well to adopt it.
Where these TFA kids get tripped up is in the local employment of these ideas. Public school kids don't have any idea what a degree from Harvard or Stanford means, nor do they care. How would a TFA prodigy from UCLA know anything about school culture in a post Katrina New Orleans district and why would anyone want the outsider from Hollywood taking the place of a local community leader? In many ways, TFA is more of a glory trip for Best and the Brightest, a "life experience," a mere stepping stone for yet another advanced degree. Fuck stepping stones, we need people ready to make teaching and community improvement locally, from the bottom up.
Credentialing is a local level, dare I say community backed method of learning. Blanket pedagogy at the national level drilled into a notebook for four to five weeks do little to help individual schools, districts, cities and states.
It needs to be up to the state to decide the best way to teach their students. They can do better than a young upstart from TFA by implementing their own training programs. A state wide "common core" needs to be used at the district level. This comes down the a issue of money and it's no secret we don't spend enough on education so I'm not even going to go there and just assume you agree. This is where the classroom lessons standardization make an impact.
Take for example the TFA teacher who steps into the classroom for the first time. All the best theory, lofty American dream Ideologies, 1 day crash course on classroom management strategies and good intentions are TRAMPLED upon by young learners. A teacher is not a pedagog. A teacher is an actor, coach, and manipulator of minds. My favorite "wins" in the classroom are when I trick students into passionate learning they would not normally like. A teacher is a member of the community ready to brave the darkest project housing to get to parents who have had their telephone service cut off. THAT is the ART of teaching, leading minds from point A to point B, where A is tabla rasa and B is citizenship. If it were as easy as ladling the soup of knowledge into empty student vessels then we are talking about downloading knowledge like The Matrix, and though we are close, we aren't there yet.