Gary Rubinstein’s TFA Blog

My new book has been released. I’m excited to announce that ‘Beyond Survival — How To Thrive In Middle and High School For Beginning And Improving Teachers’ has finally arrived. Some of my blog entries on this site actually served as rough drafts for this publication.

I’m very excited about this since this book collects all my advice ranging from how to do a teaching job interview to how to create and grade tests. I hope that TFAers and other new teachers get a chance to read it.

Here’s the Amazon link

High Expectations? Not so fast.

I think one of the most dangerously misinterpreted pieces of advice given to new teachers is “You must have high expectations.” The idea is that students will rise to whatever your expectations are, no matter how high they are. This sentiment is promoted by movies like ‘Stand And Deliver’ and ‘Freedom Writers.’

The problem is that this three word maxim ‘Have high expectations’ is too vague. What, exactly, does it mean?

If it means, “Don’t be a racist who thinks that minority students aren’t as capable as the rich white kids on the other side of town,” well, I’d agree with that. But I don’t think that many new teachers, particularly ones that want to be in Teach For America, really have that sort of attitude, anyway.

The reason the advice ‘have high expectations’ is dangerous is that new teachers, in trying to follow this advice, commit one of the worst mistakes a teacher can, teaching over their heads.

The advice should be ‘Have realistically high expectations.’ This would force the new teacher to consider that there is such a thing as too high of expectations, and to try to learn what sorts of things are realistic.

I found this post from a new TFA corps member who obviously did not understand the subtleties of the ‘have high expectations’ advice.

‘Low expectations,’ it’s true, are a self-fulfilling prophecy, but ‘high expectations’ generally are not.

When you make things too complicated, students don’t rise to your ‘high expectations,’ they lose confidence in themselves and, more importantly, they lose confidence in the ability of their teacher. Once they decide that their teacher is not competent enough to make ‘appropriate level’ lessons, they stop listening, start talking, and make it impossible to teach.

Also, you can have high expectations and also understand that it’s good to make things a little easy in the beginning to win your class over, knowing that eventually you will get to the harder stuff. But if you go in there with unrealistically high expectations and confuse your students, you will have a very tough year.

Why managment ’systems’ don’t work in middle or high school.

By management ’system,’ I mean some kind of incremental consequence ladder that you keep track of on a chart or with a clothespin that you, or the students, move to keep track of where each student is.

When you were in middle or high school, do you ever recall any of your teachers having such a system? The fact is that this is an idea which might work in elementary school with all-day self-contained classes, but it breaks down when you move to a set up where you get new students every fifty minutes.

Here’s are some reasons why:
When you use these consequence trackers, generally everyone gets a ‘fresh start’ each day. What this means is that everyone is entitled to get one warning. Whatever your first consequence is, it’s probably something like a warning. So if nearly every one of your 34 kids gets this first consequence, you’ve wasted a lot of time, and nobody has really gotten into any trouble. Getting your clothespin moved to the second level becomes some kind of club that everyone wants to be in since there’s no real consequence there.

Often these complicated systems require posters and string and clothespins. You’d have to make five of these if you have five classes and maybe even be carrying them around the different rooms you teach in.

I’m not telling you this to scare you. I say it since I’m worried that you might think that this consequence system is some kind of safety net that will help you when kids misbehave. It won’t. This doesn’t mean that you’re doomed, however. What it means is that you’ve got to focus on PREVENTING discipline problems. If you fail to prevent most problems, any management system will be stretched beyond it’s capability. And if you prevent problems, you don’t need a complicated system. In other words, the complicated system does nothing except make you feel like you’ve got a safety net, which you don’t. That feeling of having a safety net means that down in your subconscious you feel like it’s OK to make a bunch of typical new-teacher mistakes. It’s not. If you make too many, you will have a very tough year. Your complicated management system will eventually become a joke which you will abandon.

You can read the rest of my old blog entries to see what some of the mistakes you want to avoid are.

Forced ‘investment’ is counterproductive.

For the past (almost 20) years, I’ve observed the changes in the TFA teacher training philosophy. When I started in 1991, they were all about ‘portfolios,’ which were popular in the early 90s, but you don’t hear a lot about them anymore since they were not very practical.

After my 4th year of teaching in 1995, I started presenting a workshop about what I though were the most practical and realistic things for new teachers to know. Year by year, I’ve seen TFA come closer to what I’d like new teachers to hear. They’ve actually incorporated most of the ideas I like, but they’re not done yet.

There are a few things I still very much disagree with and, based on how I’ve seen things slowly evolve, I think that these will be dropped in the future, but it will be too late for the CMs who have been through this improved, but still imperfect model.

The thing that I’ve noticed a lot in people’s blogs is the idea that you need to get your students ‘invested’ before you can teach them.

I worry because this advice, if taken too literally, can ruin your class dynamic before you even get to teach.

Here’s the problem: If by ‘investment,’ you mean that you’ve got to make a big inspirational speech and to get the kids to think and to write about getting inspired, that will probably backfire. You see, actions speak louder than words in teaching. The kids will get ‘invested’ if they feel that you are capable of teaching. The way you prove that is not by talking about it, but by actually doing it.

Kids have heard long speeches before, only to be let down by a teacher who couldn’t deliver the goods. Better to keep things simple and teach some ‘easy’ skills and allow the students to experience some success.

If you want to make a 2 minute speech, I guess that’s OK, but anything more than that is just boring, wastes time, and makes the kids think that you’re a teacher who talks too much about nothing.

From 1995 to 2003, I presented a workshop at the TFA institutes about classroom management and the realities of the first year of teaching. The ideas were considered useful enough to be published as a book in 1999 (It’s called ‘Reluctant Disciplinarian’). That book was adopted by the New York City Teaching Fellows as required reading.

Here’s a link to a video of the workshop I presented at the 2003 New York institute. It’s an hour. If you’re in a rush, just watch parts 3, 4, and 5 for the main points.

Why two years?

A lot has changed about TFA since it began in 1990. Of all the changes, the biggest one is TFA’s ‘mission.’ The original mission was not “One day all children in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.” Instead there was a much more modest mission to fill teacher shortages with bright short-term teachers.

On page 109 of Wendy’s 1989 Princeton thesis “An Argument and Plan for the Creation of the Teacher Corps”, she outlines the original goals of the organization, all of which, incredibly, have been met.

Goals:
A. To help solve teacher shortages.
B. To focus positive attention on the education system and on the profession of teaching.
C. To attract the ‘best and the brightest’ to teach.
D. To provide the opportunity for a group of individuals who would not otherwise teach to do so.

Before I get too far into this, I want to let everyone know that I really admire Wendy Kopp. She is incredibly smart and talented. By creating TFA she has altered the course of my life. She’s also been very nice to me the dozen or so times throughout the past 17 years where we’ve talked or wrote to one-another. My intention here is to argue that TFA has grown beyond what she ever expected, and how one of the initial premises, that a two-year commitment is optimum, is no longer valid.

TFA is based, in part, on president Kennedy’s 1961 Peace Corps and president Johnson’s 1965 National Teacher Corps. These programs were both two-year commitments. Two years seems like a very appropriate length of time for the Peace Corps. More than two years could discourage people from volunteering, especially to recent college graduates. One year would be too short. It would be inefficient to spend all the resources training the volunteers for only a one-year stint. The National Teacher Corps was two years also. We don’t know how they decided that this was also an appropriate number of years for teaching, but since it was based on the Peace Corps, they probably figured that this was a good number. It seems to be not too short to make an impact nor too long to discourage participation. Of course there’s a big difference between teaching and volunteering for the Peace Corps. For example, it probably doesn’t take six months to get good at whatever you are required to do in the Peace Corps. Also, if you mess up your first month of the Peace Corps, you won’t have to wait until the beginning of your second year to get a fresh start at being very effective.

When Wendy proposed Teach For America (known then as “The Teacher Corps”), she also made it a two-year commitment. I think that given the goals of the proposal, this was the appropriate amount of time. Three years would have scared away many of the people who were planning to give back to society while still pursuing their own professional goals.

On page 45 of her thesis, Wendy writes,

it requests that individuals take a break from their fast-paced lives to serve the nation.

Three years is, understandably, more than just ‘a break.’ Three years is too long.

On page 114 of Wendy’s thesis she explains the rationale for the two-years:

Corps members will agree to serve two full years. The two-year term would give Teacher Corps members a chance to become more effective in the classroom and would also provide a general incentive for schools to devote time during the first year for adequate support and supervision.

In other words, she’s explaining why a one-year commitment would be too short.

Thus we’ve got the two-years. Not too short. Not too long.

I think that this was very valid in 1990. But once TFA began to take off, Wendy got a much bigger vision. She had already done something that was seemingly impossible. Now she was going to do more. I can’t remember what year I started hearing the new mission “One day all students in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.” Now, that’s an amazing ambitious goal. And as TFA worked to meet this new mission, a lot of things changed to accommodate this new vision. They began investing in better recruitment, more staff members, more sites, more institutes. They have also spent a lot of time and energy improving the training to meet the enhanced goal.

But one thing has not changed. It’s still a two-year commitment.

I think that this should be bumped up to three years.

I say this because I know that after two years of teaching, most CMs have become really excellent teachers. (I’m in my 11th year now, and I don’t think I’m that much better than I was in my third year. I taught for 4 years total in Houston.) Right now there are approximately 3,000 CMs in their first year, 3,000 CMs in their second year in their placement sites. According to TFA 25% of CMs stay for a third year in their original site. (Another 10% continue teaching somewhere else). So that means that there are about 750 third year CMs in their original placement sites, for a total of 6,750. 3,000 them are new, so they’re not as effective as the other 3,750. Let’s say that the new ones are ‘pretty effective’ while the second and third years are ‘very effective.’ So about 55% of 6,750 are ‘very effective.’ If TFA made the commitment three years, you’d have 3,000 first years, 3,000 second years, and 3,000 third years. This would be 9,000 teachers with 67% of them being ‘very effective.’ (I’m not even counting the possible fourth year CMs here). To me, that’s making a good step toward ‘One day all children will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.’ With 2,250 more third year CMs in the classroom, at an average of 50 students a CM (secondary teachers have 170 students), that’s over 100,000 children getting that opportunity to attain an excellent education. That’s 100,000 closer to ‘all children.’

And, best of all, TFA would have to invest very little to make this policy change. (Those third years don’t really need to tax the support staff anymore.)

I know the main risk in this change: There is a chance that this longer commitment will scare away some perspective teachers. But TFA is such a popular thing to do right now, I believe that they will still get plenty of quality applicants. Maybe a few years ago they wouldn’t, but now they’ve amassed so much power that they can use this power to increase their effectiveness. It’s a risk worth taking, and it’s a gamble that TFA can make because it is such a desirable program right now. It would also silence some of the TFA critics since three years does sound a lot longer than two.

Another idea I have is to give people the option of applying to TFA for either a two-year or a three-year commitment. The people who commit to three years could have a better chance of getting in, kind of like colleges do with early admission.

Anyway, that’s what I think would be the quickest and easiest way for TFA to work toward its ambitious mission statement. Maybe I’ve convinced some people that even three years aren’t enough. If you think it should be even more than that, write your own blog about it. I’d be happy with three.

Does TFA value teachers?

I know it’s a strange question. Of course they must. That’s why the program is called TEACH for America.

But I’ve noticed some things throughout the years that make me wonder.

I’m one of those TFA teachers who taught beyond the two years (I taught for 4 in Houston. Then I took some years to become a computer programmer, and now I’m back teaching and just started my 10th year of teaching). Most of my friends in TFA just did the two years, which I think is fine. It is a two year program, and finishing it takes a lot of courage and determination.

TFA would not be the powerful organization it is if it weren’t for the people who stayed beyond two years. These are the people who really have made an impact by becoming principals or started their own schools. About one third of TFA teachers continue to a third year. They do this, however, with no encouragement from TFA at all.

When you finish your second year, you’d expect TFA to bring you in and lay some kind of speech on you where they say you should really consider staying. That you’re now a experienced teacher and it would be a shame if you didn’t do just one more year with all the talent you have and the skills you developed. They don’t, though. It would cost them nothing to do so, but they don’t because it’s just not part of the model. It seems like they would rather you spend your energy getting elected to public office so you can one day be secretary of education and then you can really have some impact.

When you do choose to stay for a third year, there’s not even any kind of acknowledgment. Why not have a ‘third year’ banquet honoring those who choose to continue?

To make matters worse, TFA even actively DISCOURAGES people from staying for a third year in two ways that I know of:

1) There are about 20 companies that offer jobs to TFA CMs which they can defer for two years. What if those people are doing really well in the classroom and want to defer for a third or a fourth year? Are they allowed to? I don’t know for sure what the answer to that is, but I suspect they can’t.

2) TFA sometimes recruits good teachers to leave their schools and work for TFA instead. This is the ultimate irony, but it does happen. A good friend of mine who is a principal almost lost one of his best TFA teachers that way.

Just recently, I’ve noticed TFA coming around on these issues. The latest issue of the alumni magazine profiled alum who have stayed in the classroom. This was the first time, I felt that TFA was recognizing how important this is (I wasn’t in the article, but it still made me feel appreciated.) They even created a position where someone is in charge of supporting alum who have stayed in teaching. Just the other day I was invited to speak on a panel discussion at the NY alumni meeting about alums who remained in teaching. I’m really proud to have been asked.

TFA alum continuing on in the classroom is a side effect that even Wendy Kopp didn’t mention as a possibility in her Princeton thesis. Finally TFA is beginning to take notice of the value of people staying beyond the two years. TFA is finally making some very positive changes. I’ll be interested in seeing how they follow through on them.

Common teacher mistake #6 — Telling a misbehaving student that you are calling home.

Calling parents is a great thing to do. Even for students whose parents don’t have a lot of control them, a parent call is still pretty annoying. In the beginning of the year, once I identify some distruptive students, I am very quick to make a parent call. I’ve found that a great majority of the parents are supportive, and I almost always see improvement in student behavior and behavior of the rest of the class (once that student gives me some free advertising with “He called my mother!”).

But parental calls are most effective if they are done without warning. I know how it feels to be in a class where a kid is being distruptive. You try to get him to cooperate, but then in your mind you decide you’re calling home that night. Here’s where new teachers make a big mistake. They figure if they are calling home anyway, they might as well get the kid to behave for the rest of the period by letting him know you’re calling home. Then, anything else he does that day will be ‘on the record.’

But there are problems with telling him. First of all, you might not be able to reach the parent that night, for various reasons, and then you look foolish for threating something and not following up on it.

Second, the kid is not going to get quiet once you say it. He is going to act worse because he wants you (or you and the whole class if you said it publicly) to think that he doesn’t care if you call his parent, even though he does.

Third, the kid, knowing that you are calling home now has a chance to either intercept the call and say they’re not home, or to prepare the parent for the call by giving ‘his side of the story.’

It takes a lot of patience to hold in the news that you’re calling home, but it’s well worth it. I taught middle and high school so the kid was going to be gone in about 30 minutes, but even that was hard. In elementary, it’s even harder.

But, by keeping it to yourself you get the full benefit of the parental call.

Is it better to succed at trying to be good or fail at trying to be great?

This is a fundamental question that’s at the heart at my differences with TFA with regard to the training of the CMs.

Looking over the curriculum and talking with CMs, I realize that TFA is holding up models of ‘great’ teachers for the CMs to emulate. Great teachers get students ‘invested’ as a way to motivate them. Great teachers accomplish a year and a half of material in one year (That’s twice as much as the three fourths of a year of material that their other teachers did.) Great teachers have creative innovative instruction all the time.

The problem with trying to be great is that it is risky. If the risk pays off, that’s great. But if it doesn’t, you might be in serious trouble.

It’s like if you were learning to juggle for a big performance. Either you can go in with a plan to be ‘good’ juggling three bowling pins and you can focus on that for five weeks and get reasonably good at it. Or, knowing that it’s much better to juggle five flaming torches, you can spend a lot of your energy focusing on that. When it’s time for the big performance, you decide to go with the torches because they are ‘better.’ But they’re also more risky.

Risk analysis says you have to consider three things: 1) What will you gain if you succeed? 2) What will you lose if you fail? 3) What is the likelihood of success?

With the torches, you will get a standing ovation if you succeed and you will burn down the room if you fail. Whether to take the risk or not depends on the third thing. If you’re experienced, the likelihood of success is great. If you’re a beginner, unfortunately, your likelihiood of success is low. So the beginner shouldn’t take this risk. There’s too much to lose. The new juggler would have been better off doing a risk-free three bowling pin performance.

As applied to teaching, I think that TFA sends CMs in with a plan to be great. The CMs don’t realize that if they fail to ‘invest’ and if they confuse their kids by going too fast while trying to teach double the amount of an ‘average’ teacher or by trying to make too many complicated activities, that they can ‘burn the room down.’ They would have been better off playing it ’safe.’

I think if, as a new teacher, you go in with a plan to take few risks and be a solid ‘good’ teacher, you will do a great service to your kids. If you try to do more that you’re capable of, there’s a chance you’ll be great (and then you can be on TFA institute staff next year), but there’s also a chance that you’ll fall on your face. (Your class runs all over you. See my 9 minute workshop video #4 to see what that’s like)

Some of the suggestions you’re getting this summer should be stored away in your mind for your ‘great’ second year.

Now, if you’re a first year CM, you might be thinking, “I don’t like what you’re saying. I didn’t defer law school for two years to be just a ‘good’ teacher. I’m going to take the risk and I’ll either be ‘great’ or die trying.”

I’m OK with that. Because at least now you know that it’s a risk you’re taking. The way TFA presents it, you would think that it would be risky to NOT do it that way.

Common teacher mistake #5 — Making the first test too difficult.

It’s important that all your students succeed on the first formal assessment. Even if you’ve conducted enough ‘informal’ assessments that they’ve convinced you that they’ve learned, the students need to convince themselves that they’ve learned, and for them that means success on a test.

When your student do well on your first test, you get branded as ‘good’ and then the students are more likely to be cooperative.

Here are some things to do and not to do to ensure a good performance on your first test:
1) DO collect classwork and homework and check it carefully so that you KNOW the students have mastered the skills needed for the test.
2) DON’T make the test too long. It’s OK if they finish early. I’d rather risk the whole class finishing early and having ten minutes to look over their papers rather than risk having a bunch of students run out of time. A good rule of thumb is that you should be able to do in about ten minutes what your class should take forty minutes to do. If you’re worried that your test is too long, cut 1/3 of the questions. It’s OK if some topics get left off the test. If you have a statistically random sampling of the topics you taught, the grade will still be accurate.
3) DO proofread really carefully. Nothing is more distracting during a test than a teacher interrupting to say. “Hey everyone. There are two question 12s. Just call the first one 12a and the second one 12b. And on question 7, change choice B from ‘Benjamin Franklin’ to ‘Thomas Jefferson.’
4) DO make the test on the ‘easy’ side. I know I’m going to get accused of having low expectations here, but when a kid who has generally failed his tests gets a 90, he’s going to be happy. He’s not going to think, “Oh, it doesn’t count. That test was too easy.”
5) DON’T collect the test early from students who have finished. Have them continue checking their work or put their heads down. That way the tests will be in alphabetical order when you check them and they’ll be easier to record and easier to turn back.
6) DON’T put a ‘bonus challenge question’ on the test. It’s better for the student to get more points by re-checking the test than to spend a lot of time on a difficult bonus question worth 2 points. Since I stopped doing the bonus question, my students have been getting better scores.