The use of "personality type" testing mentioned in the article is interesting, but also illustrates a potential roadblock to improving the educational system.

At a school where I (briefly) taught, the "model" teachers held up by the principals all seemed to come from a single demographic --- the 55 year old widow whose life consisted of several cats and "her kids." She had no family to speak of, no social (nor any other) life outside of school. She arrived at 6 AM and left after 6 PM. She was a veteran who had learned to get what she could from the bureaucracy, but most importantly she never even tried to "change the system" or challenge authority. In other words, a kind of "saintly" suffering for the good of the children....

The problem is that you can't staff a large organization like this. And even if you could, note that one of the key characteristics is that there is no challenge of authority or questioning of the management (which the vet learned to give up long ago). Instead she blames herself for everything. What management wants is someone who puts in excess hours and 'stays put' and 'shuts up.' Or, translated into modern edu-speak, a "team player."

It is like the sewing company that was advised to hire obese single mothers without cars. These were the kind of people who showed up for work and didn't make so much as a peep. They simply stayed at their jobs (no matter how bad). Management was delighted, and there were plenty of women in that demographic to hire, but it raises very real questions not only about the business but about society at large.

One of the key questions in Education (and in other fields, like Medicine, as well) is "who is driving the ship?" The program that recruited me sent me to a program that emphasized the "entreprenurial spirit" and teachers who created "creative lesson plans" and weren't afraid to change the curriculum to match the students. Then we were sent to schools where the principals, in their quest for high test scores, hired expensive consulting firms to provide carefully scripted "test prep" courses -- and teachers were expected to march lockstep to their orders. They gave you a stack of worksheets to assign (know to the kids as "workshits"), told you on what days you would give them, scripted the precise wording of questions you would ask the class (i.e. "the state test has many questions worded this way...."), etc. etc. And don't even think about questioning the system.

The kinds of people being recruited did not match the kinds of people that the "system" *really* wanted. Why was KIPP started by TFA veterans? Probably because they realized how useless it was to try and change their schools from within. HUH!? They didn't just blame themselves for their kids poor performance and try to make up for every other problem by working 16 hours a day while keeping their mouths shut at staff meetings? No wonder they aren't teaching at a 'troubled' public school....

The school system has not arrived at a suitable division of power between classroom teachers and the mandates of principals advised by consultants. ( Much as doctors are fighting CEOs advised by consultants ). Sadly, the TFA and its kin seem to be on the losing side of this battle. The classroom teacher, much like the Doctor, is no longer the master of his/her domain. Picking/training people based on what TFA thinks a teacher *should* be is problematic when that vision is contrary to what the educational system *wants* in a teacher.

Teachers who create meaningful lessons and authentic assessments, and who vary their instruction based on first-hand knowledge of their students are more effective than those who, willingly or not, simply pass out worksheets and administer one-size-fits all lessons. Anyone will tell you this whether from traditional ed schools or alternative programs like TFA. If the system seems not to "want" this type of teacher, that is because the system is broken.

Alhough my observations are purely anecdotal, I would say with confidence that bad administrators are a bigger problem in my city than bad teachers. Putting aside the numerous horror stories of principals who drink on the job, sexually harass new teachers, and hold drugs for students, we have the types you mention who feel the need to micromanage every aspect of instruction in their schools. Whether this is just poor leadership or a habit born of too many incompetent teachers, it hurts the school. Good teachers are hamstrung and driven to burnout, while bad teachers are able to slide by. When a failing school is shut down or taken over by the state, guess who takes the fall and who always ends up landing on their feet at another school or cushy central-office job? I am glad we have a new reform-minded CEO in our system who is not afraid to stand up to the administrators' union and clean house. A good man or woman in the principal's office will seek out and nurture excellence in the faculty... all the amazing teachers in the world, though, can hardly make up for an awful principal.

TFA alum Michelle Rhee's appointment as superintendent of DC schools is a promising sign that the organization's often-forgotten "secondary impact" may actually drive real systemic change. Lord knows teachers alone are not going to close our country's education gap.

I understand why TFA only ask for a two year commitment. Most young teachers end up quitting within the first five years with the first two being the hardest and everything else is falling off a cliff. By rotating fresh teachers, the students are never witness to the degrade and rot that happens to an idealistic teacher once the light goes out inside.

I finally had to abandon ship after years of frustration of dealing with administrators who did not reward or recognize excellence in teachers or students. Like the students, one can only fight for so long before just giving up to the current.

But even now, years later, I still miss the kids. And I'm guilty for abandoning them to a system that does not acknowledge their future potential other than a percentage of the graduation rate. I only hope that the teacher that came after me could do what I couldn't. Last.