Teach For America/University “Partnerships”: A Case of Academic Capitalism

• In Event: Roundtable Session 8
  In Roundtable Session: Concentric Circles of Teach For America/Teach For All: A Layered Approach to Neoliberal Reform

Abstract

The expansion of Teach for America (TFA) has generated enthusiasm and criticism for its approach to teacher preparation. Much attention has been paid to its conceptions of teaching and teacher education (Lahann & Reagan, 2011), the turnover rates of its corps members (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011), its impact on student learning (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, Heilig, 2011; Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004; Lackzo-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Xu, Hannaway, & Taylor, 2011; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005), and its ideological and financial connections to venture philanthropist-supported reform movements (Scott, 2009; Swalwell & Apple, 2011). Much less is known, however, about the ways in which these teachers become certified. For example, when TFA is not accredited as a teacher preparation program, it must partner with local universities to serve as coursework providers so that its corps members can become credentialed as “highly qualified teachers.” Many of these programs also offer the option of completing a master’s degree with minimal additional coursework. This can make for strange bedfellows as these universities have their own programs for initial licensure and graduate degrees that compete with TFA for participants, placement sites, resources, and public support. In addition, they often embody visions of teacher preparation that are deeply incongruent with TFA’s philosophy.

Recently, universities have begun to advocate for cooperative rather than antagonistic relationships with TFA (e.g., Heineke, Carter, Desimone, & Cameron, 2010; Koerner, Lynch, & Martin, 2008) and to examine the effectiveness of their programming (e.g., Carter, Amrein-Beardsley, & Hansen, 2011). How do these universities come to partner with TFA and why? What concessions are made in order to maintain this relationship? What tensions exist and how do university faculty and administrators negotiate them? Ultimately, in what ways are these two approaches to teacher education incompatible and/or able to co-exist within the same institution?

This case study draws upon interviews with faculty members and administrators, minutes from meetings, and program documents to trace the tensions and their corresponding negotiations within one university/TFA partnership. For the past four years, the subject university has partnered with TFA to serve its corps members who are placed in several elementary schools in the neighboring metropolitan area. The university also offers a traditional pre-service certification program within a network of professional development schools (PDS). These programs are framed as parallel in that students complete the same “performance-based assessments” and register for the same courses in order to earn a master’s degree and certification, though the program has thus far been unable to ensure equal numbers of clock hours. The paper argues that the university’s bifurcated teacher education program qualifies as a fine example of “academic capitalism” (Baltodano, 2012) and raises questions about an institution’s ability to simultaneously participate in alternative and traditional programs of teacher preparation. Of particular interest are the changes within the university’s PDS programmatic structure that have evolved as a result of this “partnership” and the decision-making process by which those changes continue to unfold in a context of increased accountability pressure from the university’s accrediting body.

Author

• Katy Swalwell, Iowa State University