Is Teach for America attempting to 'colonize' minority children?

December 15, 7:31 AMNY Education ExaminerLorri Giovinco-Harte

Previous Next

18 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Education Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Open Education has posted an interview with the author and educator, Ira Socol which discusses Socol's take on educational reform and includes some interesting criticism for the Teach for America Program and KIPP Schools.

Mention Teach for America or KIPP (Knowledge is Power) Schools in most circles and you will receive a mixture of emotions.

Mainstream media outlets seem very impressed with Teach for America, the program which sends untrained teachers into low-income neighborhoods for a period of two years.  They have also been strong advocates for KIPP Schools and allege large successes on the part of students within the program.

Many, on the other hand, question the rationale of sending untrained teachers to work with needy students and wonder if the practice contains an inherent 'elitism' which assumes that low income children are 'lucky to get' college graduates from elite universities to work with them-even if it is for a short period of time.

They also question some of the practices in KIPP Schools which were founded by former Teach for America members.  In particular, they cite attempts by KIPP to bring students who have been traditionally disenfranchised back into the mainstream, through practices described as "KIPPnotizing."

KIPPnotizing seems to include a practice called SLANT-“Sit up straight Listen, Ask and answer questions, Nod your head, and track the speaker."  SLANT is taught to students in KIPP Schools in an attempt to alter behavior.  Paul Tough, of The New York Times, reported on this practice in his article "What it Takes to Make a Student."

Levin’s contention is that Americans of a certain background learn these methods for taking in information early on and employ them instinctively. KIPP students, he says, need to be taught the methods explicitly.

Critics of KIPP question whether this assumption reveals an inherent elitism on the part of the founders.  Are we to assume that low-income, minority children are not taught such behaviors where as children of a "certain background" are?

Critics also question reported disciplinary practices such as forcing children who misbehave to wear signs which label them as "Miscreants":

Those who resisted the rules or were slackers wore a large sign pinned to their clothes labeled “miscreant.” Miscreants sat apart from the others at all times including lunch, were denied recess and participation in all other school projects and events.

Would such practices be allowed in middle class schools, or would there be serious objections?

This alleged elitism is described by Socol in his interview on Open Education.When asked about KIPP and the Teach for America program, Socol had the following to say:

Teach for America is a “colonial project.” It is a “missionary project.” It begins with the basic premise that the solution for the underclass in America is to make them ‘as much like’ rich white folks as possible. When you listen to the TFA leadership, they don’t really talk about “education,” probably because they don’t really believe in education. They talk about “leadership” instead. If they believed in education they would see education as important on the path to effective teaching, an idea they specifically reject, replacing it with the thought that since TFA corps members represent the elites (or, religiously, the “elect”), all they have to do is “lead” the downtrodden out of poverty.

Educators are often afraid to publicly criticize Teach for America because the program is portrayed as having been designed to help low-income and minority students.  Criticizing the program is often seen as refusing help for our neediest of children.

Socol, on the other hand, does not hold back in his criticisms of the program, which he describes as a "cover up":

Rather than enlist our elite universities in the fight to reallocate resources, or improve democracy, or build equality of opportunity, or even simply to improve teacher pay, support, and status, we use them to offer the fig leaf of charity to deflect any actual movement within society.

Read more at Open Education.