Teaching for America Across Two Hemispheres: Comparing the Ideological Appeal of the Teach for All Teacher Education Model in the United States and Brazil
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2020
Teaching for America Across Two Hemispheres: Comparing the Ideological Appeal of the Teach for All Teacher Education Model in the United States and Brazil
The last several decades have seen significant growth among private options in alternative teacher education and certification. In this article, I draw on two parallel ethnographic studies of the experiences of participants in variants of one particular alternative teacher education model, developed by Teach For America in the United States and spread internationally by Teach For All. Through analysis of interviews with recruits from Teach For America and its Brazilian sister organization Ensina!, I explore the thinking processes that leads young people to join these organizations, as well as how that thinking changes after 2 years of teaching in the classroom. I find that while participants in these studies joined because they admired the Teach For All teacher education model, many left their 2-year commitment questioning the underlying theories of change driving it.
AfonsoA. J. (2009). Avaliação educacional, regulação e emancipação: Para uma sociologia das políticas avaliativas contemporâneas [Educational evaluation, regulation and emancipation: Towards of sociology of contemporary evaluative policies]. São Paulo, Brazil: Cortez.
2.
AndersonA. (2013). Teach For America and the dangers of deficit thinking. Critical Education, 4(11), 28-47.
3.
Anderson-LevittK. M. (2012). Complicating the concept of culture. Comparative Education, 48(4), 441-454.
4.
AppleM. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
6.
BallS. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. London, England: Routledge.
7.
BallS. J. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London, England: Routledge.
8.
BartlettL. (2003). World culture or transnational project? Competing educational projects in Brazil. In Anderson-LevittK. (Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory (pp. 183-200). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BartlettL. (2010). The word and the world: The cultural politics of literacy in Brazil. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
10.
BrewerT. J.deMarraisK. B. (Eds.). (2015). Teach For America counter-narratives: Alumni speak up and speak out. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
BrewerT. J.KretchmarK.SondelB.IshmaelS.ManfraM. M. (2016). Teach For America’s preferential treatment: School district contracts, hiring decisions, and employment practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(15), 1-21.
12.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
Cohen-VogelL.SmithT. M. (2007). Qualifications and assignments of alternatively certified teachers: Testing core assumptions. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 732-753.
EllisonS. (2012). From within the belly of the beast: Rethinking the concept of the “educational marketplace” in the popular discourse of education reform. Educational Studies, 48(2), 119-136.
16.
EvangelistaO.LeherR. (2012). Todos pela Educação e o episódio Costin no MEC: a pedagogia do capital em ação na política educacional brasileira [Todos pela Educação and the Costin incidente at the Federal Ministry of Education: The pedagogy of capital in action in Brazilian educational policy]. Trabalho Necessário, 10(15), 1-29.
17.
FooteD. (2009). Relentless pursuit: A year in the trenches with Teach For America. New York, NY: Vintage.
18.
FranklinR. D. (2011). Avaliação da qualidade da educação através do IDEB: O caso de Trajano de Moraes, RJ [Evaluating educational quality through the IDEB: The case of Trajano de Moraes, RJ] (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
19.
GoldsteinD. (2015). The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession. New York, NY: Anchor.
20.
GottfriedM. A.StraubhaarR. (2015). The perceived role of the Teach For America program on teachers’ long-term career aspirations. Educational Studies, 41(5), 481-498.
21.
HenigJ. R. (1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
JenningsJ.RentnerD. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.
23.
KavanaghK. M.DunnA. H. (2013). Teach For America and the political spectacle of recruiting the “Best and the Brightest.”Critical Education, 4(11), 48-66.
24.
KleinJ. (2011). The failure of American schools. The Atlantic, 307(5), 66-77.
KretchmarK.SondelB.FerrareJ. J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 742-759.
31.
LabareeD. (2010). Teach For America and teacher ed: Heads they win, tails we lose. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 48-55.
32.
LemeE. S. (2011). Inclusão em educação: Das políticas públicas às práticas do cotidiano escolar [Educational inclusion: From public policy to everyday school practices] (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
33.
LipmanP. (2013). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
MacdonaldD. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 835-848.
35.
MaloneyP. (2013). Personal responsibility: The effects of becoming a Teach For America Teacher. Critical Education, 4(12), 54-71.
36.
MartinsA. S. (2009). Educação Básica no século XXI: o projeto do organismo “Todos pela Educação” [Basic education in the 21st century: The Project of “Todos pela Educação”]. Práxis Educativa, 4(1), 21-28.
37.
MatsuiS. (2015). Learning from counternarratives in Teach For America: Moving from idealism towards hope. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
38.
MolloM. D. L. R.Saad-FilhoA. (2006). Neoliberal economic policies in Brazil (1994–2005): Cardoso, Lula and the need for a democratic alternative. New Political Economy, 11(1), 99-123.
39.
MurphyJ.ShiffmanC. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
National Commission on Excellence and Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
ParryT. R. (1997). How will schools respond to the incentives of privatization? Evidence from Chile and implications for the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 27(3), 248-269.
PimentelM. (2012, July23). Presentes viáveis: Maíra Pimentel at TEDxValedosVinhedos [Possible presents: Maíra Pimentel at TEDxValedosVineyards]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNTUBfU2pXo&t=371s
46.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186-195. doi:10.3102/0013189X14536607
47.
RheeM. (2013). Radical: Fighting to put students first. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
RussoA. (2012). Left out of No Child Left Behind: Teach For America’s outsized influence on alternative certification. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
50.
ScottJ. (2008). Managers of choice: Race, gender, and the political ideology of the “new” urban school leadership. In FeinbergW.LubienskiC. (Eds.), School choice policies and outcomes: Empirical and philosophical perspectives (pp. 149-176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBray-PelotE. (2009). The politics of advocacy in education. Educational Policy, 23(1), 3-14.
52.
SondelB. (2015). Raising citizens or raising test scores? Teach For America, “no excuses” charters, and the development of the neoliberal citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(3), 289-313.
53.
StraubhaarR. (2014). The multiple influences on nonformal instructional practices in rural Mozambique: Exploring the limits of world culture theory. Comparative Education Review, 58(2), 215-240.
54.
StraubhaarR. (2015). The methodological benefits of social media: “Studying up” in Brazil in the Facebook age. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(9), 1081-1096.
55.
StraubhaarR.GottfriedM. (2016). Who joins Teach For America and why? Insights into the “typical” recruit in an urban school district. Education and Urban Society, 48(7), 627-649.
56.
StrongM. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summary of the research. The New Educator, 1(3), 181-198.
TrujilloT.ScottJ.RiveraM. (2017). Follow the yellow brick road: Teach For America and the making of educational leaders. American Journal of Education, 123(3), 353-391.
61.
ValliL.BueseD. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
62.
WeinerL. (2011). Neoliberalism’s global reconstruction of schooling, teachers’ work, and teacher education. In TozerS.GallegosB. P.HenryA. M.GreinerM. B.PriceP. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research in the social foundations of education (pp. 308-318). New York, NY: Routledge.
