Today we continue our exploration of Teach for All. Two weeks ago, we explored Teach for All counter-narratives. Now we look at empirical research evidence across contexts where Teach for All operates. With me are Matthew Thomas, Emilee Rauschenberger and Katy Crawford-Garrett who have recently co-edited Examining Teach For All: International Perspectives on a Growing Global Network. The collection “brings together research focused on Teach for All and its affiliate programmes to explore the organization’s impact on education around the world.”
Matthew A.M. Thomas is a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Education and Sociology of Education at the University of Sydney; Emilee Rauschenberger is Senior Research Fellow at Manchester Metropolitan University; and Katy Crawford-Garrett is an Associate Professor of Teacher Education, Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of New Mexico
Citation: Thomas, Matthew A. M. & Rauschenberger, Emilee & Crawford-Garrett, Katy, interview with Will Brehm,FreshEd, 212, podcast audio, August 31, 2020. https://freshedpodcast.com/teach-for-all/
Will Brehm 3:07
Matthew Thomas, Emilee Rauschenberger, and Katy Crawford-Garrett, welcome to FreshEd.
Matthew Thomas 3:12
Thanks so much. Well, really excited to be here.
Emilee Rauschenberger 3:14
Thanks for having us.
Katy Crawford-Garrett 3:15
Yes, thanks very much.
Will Brehm 3:16
So, Teach for All affiliate organizations are found in something like over 50 countries at this point. What sort of educational problem is Teach for All actually trying to solve?
Matthew Thomas 3:27
Yeah, that’s a really good question. So, Teach for All affiliate organizations are in 54 different countries exactly, which is a remarkable number. And the problem they are trying to solve, essentially, is espoused to be closing the achievement gap, which would be in a more American parlance, or basically ending or reducing educational inequality around the world. And so, one of the ways we often think about this is the “zip code” issue. In other words, the idea that somebody born into a particular zip code or into a particular neighborhood, or region should not have their educational opportunities, or their life outcomes limited by the fact that they are born into that particular circumstance or that particular area or socioeconomic status. And so, that’s kind of the problem that they aim to solve through their constellation of programs around the world.
Will Brehm 4:20
And is it really a global problem, this idea of the achievement gap?
Matthew Thomas 4:23
It is a really good question. Certainly, we see educational inequality manifest in different ways in different places around the world. So, the fact that it is not equal everywhere, of course, I think we would all agree to that. But one of the things that I would argue is that it does manifest differently in different contexts. And so, it is not necessarily a uniform problem, even though there are some shared similarities in the way that that people have educational inequality play out in their different lives.
Will Brehm 4:53
And I would imagine that there has been many different programs and projects and ministries trying to solve said problem. How does Teach for All go about trying to solve this problem of the education gap or educational inequality?
Matthew Thomas 5:08
Yeah. So, essentially, I think it is important to start by drawing a distinction between the Teach for All organization and its various affiliate programs that are associated with the organization. And we might liken this to the hub and spoke analogy that some people have used to describe these types of contexts or scenarios where Teach for All would be the hub that’s the organizing body, if you will, or overall organization that helps to coordinate the efforts of the local affiliate programs. And as I said earlier, there are 54 current affiliate programs. Each of these programs then in different countries around the world, kind of operate under a two-part theory of change, although different scholars, I think, would argue the extent to which one of these parts is taking over from the other, but essentially the idea is that they recruit highly talented high achievers who often are young in their 20s to commit two years to teach in underperforming or underserved schools as full-time teachers usually and the idea that they’re both helping to ameliorate the quantity and quality issue, quote, unquote, of teachers in those respective schools. So, that is the first part of the theory of change is to recruit these really amazing people to go into schools and to teach for two years as part of their commitment to the affiliate organization. The second part then, and this is where I think some people would argue that this is becoming more and more common or a larger component over the years, is creating a leadership pipeline or leadership development stream for these individuals after they complete their two years of service for the affiliate organization to go on and do quote-unquote, bigger and better things. So, in other words to affect change at a higher level, maybe as a policymaker, maybe in a different field but still related to educational equity or inequality in a certain way. But that they’re creating this network of outstanding individuals who now have experience working in schools, and theoretically have gained an understanding of what poverty or systemic structural issues look like, and therefore are better positioned to try to tackle those issues at a grander scale after their fellowship.
Will Brehm 7:28
Hmm, interesting. I would imagine one of the critiques of Teach for All -just as it is in Teach for America, one of the founding programs- is that it sort of promotes this sort of neoliberal pro-privatization agenda within education. So, I mean, do you see it a neoliberal ethos, so to speak in Teach for All’s approach?
Katy Crawford-Garrett 7:51
Yeah, I will jump in with an answer to that question. So, what I would like to do with answering the question is refer to some of the chapters in our book that do draw on neoliberalism as a framework for looking at particular affiliate programs and what’s happening with those affiliates in particular contexts. So, one example is a chapter written by Jenny Elliott, and she compares the discourse of Teach First UK with Teach South Africa, which is no longer affiliated officially with Teach for All but once was, and she identifies a good deal of business language within the discourse of both institutions, both organizations, a focus on impact accountability, those kinds of things that seem to suggest a neoliberal ethos underpinning both of those entities. There’s also pervasive focus on the individual versus the collective. And another chapter that highlights that tension is Alex Southern’s chapter on Wales, where she examines how students in the regular initial teacher education track and the Teach First track respond to and talk about notions of professionalism. And one of the things that she notices is that with the Teach First teachers, there’s much more of an emphasis on the individual, on again, these notions of impact, targets, accountability, whereas the students in the regular IT program are more focused on the collective, on collaboration, and on some of those processes. And lastly, I will just point to Geo Saura’s chapter, focused on Teach for Spain. I like this a lot about his chapter. He uses the term neoliberalisation so that it emphasizes that it is a process and looks at the policy networks that act on Teach for Spain, which highlight a lot of edu-businesses and philanthro-capitalist entities. So, those are just three examples, and I will let my colleagues jump in if they want to. But those are three examples from the book that kind of highlight the ways that neoliberalism is at play kind of in the broader Teach for All network.
Will Brehm 10:11
So, then the question is, is it part of that hub? Or is it the individual spokes that are, you know, neoliberalized, so to speak?
Matthew Thomas 10:20
Yeah, I think that’s a really good question. And because we are talking about 54 different countries, it’s difficult to over-generalize too much. There are certainly, you know, context-specific issues, but there is a certain set of unifying principles and core values that organizations attached to Teach for All must adhere to, in other words, must sign up to when they initiate their local country, Teach for X country variation. And so, I think there is a lot of power by the Teach for All hub in terms of driving the approach and the extent to which it is neoliberalist. I think they probably have a strong series of mechanisms that they can put in place to push things in that direction. If not mandate, at least they certainly can exert some degree of pressure.
Katy Crawford-Garrett 11:11
Yeah, I just wanted to add too about the neoliberal thing. So, I think it is important to note that when neoliberal principles are applied by some organizations, it is in the interest of fostering equity. Now, a lot of us may argue with whether that actually happens. So, for example, with something like school choice in the US or, you know, opening the market so that consumers of schools have choice, does that lead to greater equity in education? You know, there is clearly a lot of debate about that. But I would say that some of the choices that Teach for All is making that we might call neoliberal, they would likely argue that it’s in the interest of fostering educational equity and closing the achievement gap that Matthew was referring to earlier.
Will Brehm 11:59
Hmm, so, you are sort of saying that there is some sort of social justice framing that Teach for All takes when they’re approaching this problem.
Emilee Rauschenberger 12:07
Yeah. There is definitely a social justice framing. And it features prominently in the discourse of almost all the Teach for All organizations or affiliates in different countries. And it, of course, started with Teach for America, which in my chapter, I kind of discuss how, you know, the global movement started with Teach for America and then the UK version of Teach First, which started quite independently of Teach for America actually. But they use the social justice framing, which brings greater attention to the inequalities in education, which is a great thing as well as attracting recruits to their program that are dedicated to, you know, addressing this issue. With that said, they are careful if you notice about sometimes the language that they use in that framing because social justice as a term is quite loaded and contested and used, really at the core of a lot of traditional, university-based teacher education. So, instead … to kind of differentiate themselves, Teach for All has a tendency to use terminology like equal opportunity in education, or inequities generally, and less the social justice terminology that can refer to structural inequalities as being more predominant in influencing education. So, they do use it, but in their own kind of way.
Will Brehm 13:28
Hmm. Teach for America, when I was in university, was sort of becoming a big thing. And thinking back on it now, I am struck by how much power Teach for America had in terms of, you know, my fellow students who were all thinking about doing Teach for America as sort of a pathway to a successful career. But at the same time, you see Teach for America sort of at so many different levels of policymaking in America within different school districts, but also, you know, I guess globally at places like the Clinton Global Initiative. How does Teach for All operate in terms of sort of its political power? Like, would you say it is a political force? And how so?
Matthew Thomas 14:12
Yeah, it is a really great question. And I think your question is great in that it starts off with the history of Teach for America. And I think Teach for All as an organization, you know, obviously, was co-founded by Wendy Kopp, who initiated the idea of Teach for America in 1989 and 1990. And so, as an organization, I think Teach for All really learned from Teach for America in terms of how to develop, cultivate, and implement, and utilize its political power. And so, you know, as you suggested in the American context, we think about Wendy Kopp in 1990, you know, raising several million dollars, immediately to jumpstart Teach for America, and that’s a really impressive feat, and I think kind of signifies the ability to do that and the growing political power. And then the fast forward to just a couple of years ago were in the state of Massachusetts, all three candidates for the state commissioner of education where Teach for America alumni. And so, as you mentioned, at all levels of the system, we see perhaps arguably growing influence in political spaces in the States. And so, I would argue that Teach for All in its various forms has capitalized on that political power, and also the lessons that they learned of how to develop it in the American context. And so as one example, that is not in our book, but the case of Latvia is a really interesting example -and I know there’s a chapter in Jameson Brewer’s book about the Latvian context as well. But we see big changes in the education policy space coming through directly through the Teach for All affiliate program. To the extent that the kind of motto itself of the one-day mantra that we will see, you know, all children receive a high-quality education has actually been adapted into the Latvian education system from the Teach for All organization. So, there are certainly several other examples of that as well. Katy mentioned Geo Saura’s chapter earlier. And he writes a lot about how the assemblages and the policy networks are able to exert influence largely through their connections. And so, at the national level, we see, you know, large collections of really powerful people from corporations, from foundations, from governments, serving on the board or certainly being strong advocates in different media spaces. At the international level, Teach for All, you know, if you look at the board of directors, obviously it’s a very powerful collection of people. Andreas Schleicher from the OECD has been a board member and has spoken at the annual global conference that Teach for All puts on every year. So, we do see, I think, a growing confluence of powerful players in educational governance at the international level of Teach for All as well as at the affiliate level in the different national organizations.
Will Brehm 17:05
Can we make the jump that then some of the interests between some of these big global organizations are actually aligning? Or is that too much?
Matthew Thomas 17:14
I would say so. But Emilee, this is kind of your space.
Emilee Rauschenberger 17:17
You mean, within the network of Teach for All the sponsors and kind of this whole global network, if their interests as the sponsors have aligned. Is that what you mean?
Will Brehm 17:28
Yeah. You know, so, Andreas Schleicher from OECD sort of speaking at the Teach for All global conference or annual conference and being a board member, you know, does this mean is there certain similarities between the OECD, which puts out the PISA exam, and something like Teach for All?
Emilee Rauschenberger 17:46
Well, yeah. Their interests do align. Not perfectly, I would say, but you know, the OECD is about again measurable change in education toward equity goals and expanding access. And Teach for All, you know, furthers those goals of such development organizations and international organizations. However, at the same time, it’s really interesting because in our book, we have a chapter that examines the leadership discussions between Teach for All head Wendy Kopp, and Andreas Schleicher, of the OECD and other prominent people who support or have similar interests as the organization but there is not necessarily a complete alignment. There is some pushback of some of the interviewees that Wendy talks with about, you know, the Teach for All ideology that they are questioned. And among those was really the evidence base for what Teach for All attempts to do. Because Teach for All at the international level always speaks about we’re building a pipeline of leadership. This will solve the educational problems; we need leaders who can tackle, you know, all these different levels of problems within the education systems. But again, that’s simplifying the issue, and you’ll see a little bit of pushback saying that not she is necessarily wrong in wanting to bring that goal forward of a leadership pipeline but that you know, it is a wider problem than that. But kind of disagreements, though, haven’t really led to any change of the Teach for All discourse widely, or even in the interviews. It is kind of just absorbed. And so, the interest they align in general senses, but I think there are particularities that maybe everybody doesn’t agree on.
Will Brehm 19:32
Yeah. And then I guess the other question would be, how does some of this global discourse that’s circulating at places like the annual conference for Teach for All, which brings together potentially multiple institutions, global institutions coming together to talk about Teach for All. How does that global discourse translate into various local contexts? I mean, your book is one of the few books that has really brought together empirical studies of Teach for All affiliates. So, what do we know about some of the practice in these different contexts? How connected to the global discourse is it?
Emilee Rauschenberger 20:09
The discourse of Teach for All, as Matthew mentioned earlier, is very much taken up by the affiliate organizations as kind of a condition of being part of Teach for All. With that said, though, there is adaptations in nearly all of the national context out of necessity. There’s different regulations; there’s different educational stakeholders, systems, regulations, and everything. So, the influence of those local programs to the wider Teach for All organization and its discourse, we haven’t seen much evidence of how those individual programs are influencing or changing Teach for All. They might be -like you said, they have an annual Teach for All global conference at which all these affiliates meet, and they probably have wonderful discussions and share learning. However, the impact of that on, again, the wider Teach for All ethos hasn’t seemed to change, particularly with any discoveries at the local level. They have more led to cross-pollination of ideas on new education businesses, or lesson plans, or lower-level innovations that members kind of are inspired by and put together. So, yeah, we do see programs being tweaked at the national level, but overall, they seem to fit the mold Teach for All sets out. And with that said, I want to bring attention though, to Katrine Nesje, her chapter on Teach First Norway, because it’s a really good example of an organization that was very much in line with Teach for All and its approach and its recruitment of top graduates for teaching in low-income schools. But because it was initiated and managed by the government of Oslo along with Equinor, the leading energy company in Norway, it didn’t tick the box of being an independent public-private organization. So, that was not included within the Teach for All network, because they require you to be independent of government and of business and just be again work through public-private partnerships and not just one stakeholder.
Matthew Thomas 22:18
If I may add to that, I think, as Emily said, Katrine’s chapter is really fascinating because, as she said, they’re not officially part of the Teach for All organization, but they still send their recruits to the Summer Institute in the UK that is run and managed by Teach First UK, and so there’s still a really strong synergy, even though it’s not an official affiliate program. But her chapter is fascinating because she basically looks at these different stakeholders that are involved in the program, the local government, the oil company itself, and then the teacher education institution, and why they’re all involved and what their different motivations are. And she basically shows how in a very strong, essentially a welfare state you know in Scandinavia, we see this application of a much more marketized approach to the training and the recruitment of teachers, and Equinor, basically their stake in the game is to try to recruit really highly talented graduates of STEM that they can later hire for their oil company. So, I guess maybe, on one hand, we could applaud Teach for All for not allowing them into the network because they don’t tick all those boxes, as Emilee said, but on the other hand, it’s quite an interesting example of how that discourse and some of those ideas from a global organization have been localized in a context that is so drastically different than let’s say, the United States, where Teach for America has been going gangbusters.
Will Brehm 23:44
It is, so I mean -Matthew just brought up this whole thing about, you know, recruiting very intelligent STEM students to potentially go work for a big gas company. Now, do all affiliates really recruit the best and the brightest? Is that something quite common across all of the affiliate organizations, and do you see any problems with this?
Emilee Rauschenberger 24:03
I would argue that it depends on how you define the best and the brightest, because there will always be, you know, pushback from declaring those in the top universities as your proof of the best and the brightest. But with that said, if that is the definition we are going with, yes, The Teach for All organizations in each country aim to recruit high achieving graduates from the top universities of their countries. However, what is interesting too to note those is that that’s required for them to sell the program as a highly effective organization at recruiting a new talent pool and raising achievement among low-income students. So, without that catch, they are not ticking the boxes of really, things policymakers are most worried about, which is increasing the teacher workforce and the quality of the workforce. But it’s interesting to note at the evolution -I mean, Teach for America and Teach First are our oldest models. Teach First was started in the UK in 2002. The first cohort was in 2003. And in that first cohort, a majority of graduates were from Cambridge and Imperial, and quite a few from Oxford. And so that grabbed headlines and that helped establish the legitimacy and the claims of the program. And same with again Teach for America back in 1990. It was tons of Ivy League graduates. But over time, as the model expands across the nation and goes into more cities and regions and communities, they need to expand that pool. And so, you have seen in Teach for America and Teach First, then growing into more as universities that are not the top Russell Group in the UK or the Ivy League in America. And that is a point of pride as well later on. They point out the diversity of who they are bringing in and more recruits they are first to graduate in their family from college. So, again, I would still classify any of those people probably best and brightest of, you know. But as far as the claim of the best and brightest they started with, it is a different pool a little bit or expanded pool I should say.
Will Brehm 26:08
Yeah, maybe Andreas Schleicher could help out with assessing the best and the brightest of recruits. So, I mean, so Teach for All has been around now for quite some time, and you know, as you said earlier, is involved in 54 countries. What do we know about the wider impact that this organization has had at this point?
Katy Crawford-Garrett 26:28
Well, I think Teach for All had a large impact on how we think about teaching and learning, and also teacher education. So, there is a paradox out there that teachers are both the problem and the solution to educational inequality. And I feel like that narrative is very much alive in the Teach for All discourse. There is definitely tension with veteran teachers when Teach for All recruits come into the schools and sometimes perceiving that veteran teachers are the problem with why students in a community are not achieving at equal levels. And at the same time, those same recruits are perceived as a potential solution to that underachievement, which is something we have already talked about. That they will come in and, using their elite education, or their youthful energy, be able to rectify problems that have existed for decades, if not longer. There is also -I wanted to point out something else in the discourse- in many places, the recruits are not referred to as teachers. They are called associates, ambassadors, fellows, participants. There is a whole host of terms, but teacher is almost never used. Well, my sense is that in many of these contexts, like the US, teaching is a low-status profession, and in recruiting people to go into this program, perhaps it’s more alluring to say you’ll be an associate for two years, then you’ll segue into a leadership position later on. Rather than you are going to become a teacher, which feels maybe like it is taking on a more permanent role that is not desirable. My own research outside of the US has been in New Zealand, and countless of my interviewees said to me that their families highly discouraged them from pursuing teaching, but did not discourage them from pursuing Teach First New Zealand because it seemed like a higher status choice post-university. So, I think there is something to be said for that.
Will Brehm 28:39
Well, it is quite interesting because it’s not about reducing the achievement gap as we started with. It is more about the individual receiving some sort of benefit for his or her career by being an affiliate, or an associate, to Teach for All program.
Katy Crawford-Garrett 28:56
Exactly. It is a form of, you know, what I’ve written about called a neoliberal subjectivity too of, you know, I’m doing this to advance my own individual well-being, my own career options, and the equity piece sort of gets lost within that resume building sort of discourse that Teach for All is known for.
Matthew Thomas 29:17
And just to add to that, briefly, one of the chapters in our book looks at Teach for Lebanon, which is a really fascinating context where there has -first of all, there’s not been a lot of research, but the authors essentially highlight how in that particular context, these fellows from the Teach for Lebanon program were actually paid higher than the teachers in the schools where they were teaching. And they were called volunteers, because it was part of that volunteerism that Katy was talking about, where they were, quote-unquote, donating two years of their life to address educational change and inequality, while they were putting off their future career in banking or, you know, some other law or something like that, that would be a much higher paying salary. And so, the idea from the CEO, apparently, according to this chapter, is that they needed to pay them at a bank salary, rather than a teacher salary to try to encourage people to join the program. So, there are all these issues and tensions that are just really fascinating when we think about how fellows or associates or corps members are framed and what they experienced in their two years in the program.
Will Brehm 30:26
There’s so many interesting insights like this in your book that come out across the chapters. And it just makes me wonder since you know it is an empirical book that you have really done very interesting research or different authors have done really interesting research in these different contexts. But it makes me wonder what sort of access were the authors able to get or unable to get? You know, when I did the interview with Jameson Brewer and his co-authors a couple weeks ago, they basically talk all about how Teach for America for his first book was very, very upset with these narratives that they published. I can’t imagine that Teach for All opens its doors in all these different contexts to let researchers come in. I mean, so what sort of resistance did you experience? Or did authors that contributed to your book experience?
Katy Crawford-Garrett 31:22
Well, one thing that we noted was the authors, many times, were very creative in how they gather data. So, for example, Rolf Straubhaar’s chapter, which we already mentioned, he analyzes the Teach for All talk series. So, he is taking publicly available information and using it to analyze some of the broader discourse of the organization. Other authors have gained entry through the universities because now that many affiliate programs need to partner with universities for their teachers to get certified, that becomes a natural entry point for researchers who might be affiliated with those universities and actually working with the Teach for All recruits, they’re able to maybe gather some data that way. But we definitely agree that in order to answer some of the unanswered questions about the organization, more different kinds of research needs to be done in which Teach for All really allows access to the organization. I started my research in New Zealand through entry through the university; as I mentioned, many people have, but through building a relationship with the staff of Teach First New Zealand, I was able to go back this past year and observe the Summer Institute -the preparation period. But I know that kind of access is very rare. And another thing we discussed is that Teach for All frames itself as a learning organization and that we believe in that case, they should be more open to outside researchers coming in and observing all parts of the program, not just the parts that they want to show us. So, I will let my colleagues jump in if there’s if there’s other comments on that.
Emilee Rauschenberger 33:11
Well, I can say from my experience in starting research on Teach First, I was initially going to not only explorer kind of how Teach First started, but also look at Enseña Chile and Teach South Africa. And at that point, the head of Enseña Chile declined any participation or discussion on the topic, but Teach South Africa was much more welcoming and supportive. I did not eventually pursue that avenue of research because I kind of had to scale down my study. PhD students are often over-ambitious at their beginning. So, yeah, but actually, Teach First at the time -you know, I am an alumni of Teach for America. I joined the organization 2004 as a corps member, and after teaching a third year, I had a friend in the corps that had gone over to Teach First to actually be a participant. That’s, I think, the only person I knew of that had done Teach for America with me in my region and then went over to do this whole program in the UK and so I went to the UK to work. I was interested in living abroad but found such big differences to me in the way Teach First and Teach for America seemed to run. So, as a staff member also of Teach First, I can say that they were a little bit more open with me in regards to access since they had hired me previously, and I had a good relationship with them. But that said, I mostly interviewed people who had founded the organization and not current staff members for my research into the founding of it. But they were open. Not as guarded as others. So, I think it does vary by national context a bit but Teach for All as an organization though, seems to follow more of the guarded model in the US.
Will Brehm 34:55
So, what does this mean? This limitations in terms of access to research? What does it mean for sort of the future of research on Teach for All as an organization?
Matthew Thomas 35:05
Yeah, that is a really good question. I think we very much see this book as a starting point, as a launchpad. And so, in 2015, there was a special issue in the Educational Policy Analysis archives that Rolf Straubhaar and Daniel Friedrich came out with and that really, I think, was cutting edge at the time, in terms of coalescing a group of people who were researching different aspects of the Teach for All phenomenon, if you will. And not much had been done since that point. So, we felt like five years was a good time to kind of bring together some other researchers, and particularly as more and more affiliate programs were being launched around the world as the network was growing, that there was a gap in the knowledge base. So, I think we see our volume as contributing to that and just maybe scratching the surface of the number of issues that need to be addressed. And so, we would really love for other people to continue this area of investigation. And whether that’s doctoral students who are working on their PhDs, whether that’s teacher educators who are working at the universities that are partnered with Teach for All affiliate programs. As Katy mentioned, we haven’t seen a lot of close research relationships between independent researchers that are maybe not necessarily contracted by Teach for All affiliate programs. And so, I think more of those kind of collaborative research projects would be really amazing. And particularly in the newest Teach for All affiliate programs. So, in the last two to three years, there has been the launch of many organizations in Africa, and they’re launching more every year. It would be really lovely to see a robust body of research on these programs and what impacts they’re having, as you asked earlier, how they’re interacting between the global and the local and what does that look like in different contexts, how American, quote-unquote, are these programs in their implementation, and a whole other range of issues. So, I think for any listeners out there, we would definitely encourage you to consider this as a research topic or reach out to one of us, or one of the other researchers who’s been engaged in this process for a number of years. And think creatively about how it could be done.
Will Brehm 37:20
Hmm. Matthew Thomas, Emilee Rauschenberger, and Katy Crawford-Garrett, thank you so much for joining FreshEd and congratulations again on your new edited collection.
Matthew Thomas 37:29
Thanks so much, Will.
Emilee Rauschenberger 37:30
Katy Crawford-Garrett 37:30
Want to help translate this show? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Related Author Projects
Examining Teach for All: International perspectives on a growing global network
Grappling with educational inequity in TeachFirst New Zealand
Teacher education and the global impact of Teach for All
Reconstructing the emergence of Teach First: Examining the role of policy entrepreneurs and networks in the process of policy transfer
“A problem they don’t even know exists”: Inequality, poverty and invisible discourses in Teach First New Zealand
Teach the nation – South Africa
Teach for All counter- Narratives: International perspectives on a global reform movement
Teach for America and Teach for All: Creating an intermediary organization network for global education reform
Making all children count: Teach for All and the universalizing appeal of data
Theorizing and documenting the spread of TFA and its impact on global education reform
Portrait of a TFA teacher: Media narratives of the universal tfa teacher in 12 countries
Teach for All, public-private partnerships, and the erosion of the public in education
Philanthropic neoliberalization and new forms of educational privatization: The global TFA network in Spain
Media representations and participant experience for Teach First: A case study of Wales
Teach First Norway-Who joins and what are their initial motivations for teaching?
Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to email@example.com