Diane Ravitch, highlighting a recent article in the American Prospect, laments Teach for America’s alleged plot “to groom” future education leaders. She explains:
James Cersonsky, the article's author, foresees "a massive proliferation" of Michelle Rhees, and wonders whether the political arm of TFA might actually be "the Trojan horse of the privatization of public education."
Slate blogger Matt Yglesias counters that the article—in addition to Ravitch’s own post—serves as an important reminder that the reform movement includes teachers, too:
It's not just "reformers" against "teachers" but one set of teachers against another set of teachers. The people doing Teach for America and working in charter schools are educators just as much as the people working in the traditional public schools and going through the traditional certification route. And as Ravitch says, a large share of the people involved at a politics and policy level in reform are people who've experienced teaching in low-income schools and simply come to different policy conclusions from union people about that experience.
Thoughts?