Does Teach for America Build Civic Engagement?
No, according to a new study by Doug McAdam and Cynthia Brandt. This New York Times piece has the details:
In areas like voting, charitable giving and civic engagement, graduates of the program lag behind those who were accepted but declined and those who dropped out before completing their two years…
The comparison of graduates to those who declined or dropped out is an interesting way to mitigate the obvious concern: people who join Teach for America are more engaged in their communities than those who do not.
McAdam compares these findings to his previous research on participants in Freedom Summer:
Professor McAdam’s findings that nearly all of Freedom Summer’s participants were still engaged in progressive activism when he tracked them down 20 years later have contributed to the widely held notion that civic advocacy and service among the young make for better citizens….Professor McAdam, 57, said Freedom Summer was the exception, not the rule. “Freedom Summer is the odd civic experience, and hardly representative of what happens when young people do service,” he said. “A lot of the impact of any experience is where it’s historically situated.”
The founder of Teach for America, Wendy Kopp, suggested the study but seems to object to its findings:
It’s hard to see the incredible outpouring of interest among this generation and think of it as a lack of civic engagement. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem as if this study looked at Teach for America’s core mission, by evaluating whether we are producing more leaders who believe educational inequity is a solvable problem, who have a deep understanding of the causes and solutions, and who are taking steps to address it in fundamental and lasting ways.
Interestingly, McAdam suggests that the part of the problem is that some graduates come to doubt Teach for America’s approach to educational inequity:
The reasons for the lower rates of civic involvement, Professor McAdam said, include not only exhaustion and burnout, but also disillusionment with Teach for America’s approach to the issue of educational inequity, among other factors.
The study is forthcoming in Social Forces.
[Hat tip to Doug Hess.]
Comments
It’s “McAdam” not “McAdams”.
Posted by: Get It Right | January 4, 2010 10:01 PM
Fixed! Blame the baby’s 3 am feeding.
Posted by: John Sides | January 4, 2010 10:14 PM
This is really interesting. Though, I wonder whether the comparison of graduates to non-matriculants and those who dropped out simply substitutes one selection effect for another. Perhaps the authors address this is the actual paper, but it would be nice to know if there are systematic reasons why individuals dropped out or chose not to matriculate. Since entrance into Teach for America is competitive, perhaps one could use the selection criteria to run an RD type design.
Posted by: James | January 5, 2010 01:52 PM
Interesting, but I am not surprised. A good friend of mine lasted one year. We talked weekly during this time, and his experience was enormously frustrating. He left because he was convinced he was doing little good and was afraid of being burnt out at the end. He ended up going on to work for the FBI.
Posted by: Jason Rittenberg | January 5, 2010 08:14 PM
Apples and oranges, really. How can we really compare what was going on in 1964 with becoming a teacher in 2009? Teach for America is an entree into a professional career in teaching. Maybe those that stay with it aren’t all that idealistic. Based on the increase in applicants cited in the article, and the current unemployment rates, well, I am more inclined to believe that having a job and even one as a teacher is more about reality than idealism.
Freedom Summer was all about social activism and fighting for social justice. There were jobs for anyone who graduated from college after the summer’s activism. So, that was not a pressing issue. Besides that, Northern whites who traveled to Mississippi were probably still under their parent’s financial umbrella. Being a college student in the early 60s always meant that the parents were well off.
Teaching in lower income schools looks like an extremely idealistic adventure at first glance. But being a social radical in the 60s was far more romantic and exciting. Preparing students for tests everyday can hardly compare to that…especially if the potential teacher came from a lower socioeconomic background themselves.
Posted by: Susie | January 5, 2010 11:46 PM
Hi nice content there. keep it going.I frankly love to browse your blog.Last of all have good night
Posted by: Clubeltan | January 9, 2010 08:05 AM
My main concern is about the measures: voting and donating. I think once could argue that as people become more politically sophisticated and engaged in advocacy work that they see better than others when these acts (both very thin on the engagement stick in my opinion) matter and how much they matter to other actions. It’s possible that people that are engaged in social change work (like teaching) view cutting a check as a very small action whereas those that work for greater pay or who are not as politically engaged or aware feel that cutting a check is effective or all they can do.
Posted by: Doug Hess | January 9, 2010 09:32 AM