Making All Children Count: Teach For All and the Universalizing Appeal of Data

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that in order to bind Teach For All’s universal/izing statement of problems and solutions to the specificities and the special conditions of member programs’ local contexts, what is needed is a shared set of discursive practices, a way of bringing together the commonalities found in each country while separating the noise of particular politics and histories. That common set of discursive practices is shaped around the notion of data. This paper is structured as follows: First, we contextualize Teach for All by (briefly) juxtaposing the universal and specific elements of the network, including the organization’s mission, target population, its recruits (and recruiting tactics), vision, and its production of a particular kind of teacher. Then, we present the two competing, yet complementary, logics of data that are at play in Teach for All – the use of data itself and the notion of data speak – along with their underlying assumptions. We conclude by questioning the logics of this set of discursive practices, and outline our skepticism regarding how data is mobilized to produce particular subjectivities and objects.

A critical examination ofTeach for Bangladesh’sFacebook page: ‘Social-mediatisation’ of global education reforms in the ‘post-truth’ era

“…TfAll is funded by 59 giant global corporations, family foundations and corporate philanthropists of which some prominent names are Carnegie Corporation of New York, Deutsche Post DHL Group, Walton Family Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ExxonMobil, The George Lucas Family Foundation, IKEA foundation, and Western Union (TfAll, Supporters 2017). Led and funded by global market actors and interests, TfAll is considered a neoliberal initiative (Au and Ferrare 2015;Friedrich 2014;Friedrich, Walter, and Colmenares 2015;Labaree 2010;Smart et al 2009;Straubhaar and Friedrich 2015).…”

Teach First organisational discourse: What are Teach First teachers really being trained for?

“…They note that Teach for All arose in an era that was increasingly dominated by political and social ideologies promoting individualism, social entrepreneurialism and a marketised economy, ‘on the heels of nearly a decade of Reaganomics and Thatcherism’ (99). Other commentators have also reflected on the neo-liberal ideological foundations of the model (Ahmann, 2015; Barnes et al., 2016; Blumenreich and Gupta, 2015; Friedrich et al., 2015; La Londe et al., 2015; McConney et al., 2012; Rice et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2016; Straubhaar and Friedrich, 2015). Its focus on the individual, choice, deregulation, competition, corporate-style leadership, business and market forces has been noted repeatedly (Ahmann, 2015; Friedrich et al., 2015; Rice et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2016).…”

“…Other commentators have also reflected on the neo-liberal ideological foundations of the model (Ahmann, 2015;Barnes et al, 2016;Blumenreich and Gupta, 2015;Friedrich et al, 2015;La Londe et al, 2015;McConney et al, 2012;Rice et al, 2015;Scott et al, 2016;Straubhaar and Friedrich, 2015). Its focus on the individual, choice, deregulation, competition, corporate-style leadership, business and market forces has been noted repeatedly (Ahmann, 2015;Friedrich et al, 2015;Rice et al, 2015;Scott et al, 2016). La Londe et al (2015) suggest that Teach for All teachers act as embodiments of neo-liberal ideology, with assumptions about 'meritocracy and credentialism as means and method of individualistic economic competition'.…”

“…In England, Teach First has positioned itself strategically within the landscape of initial teacher education as a cost-effective route into teaching which meets a number of the recruitment needs highlighted in the House of Commons (2017) and Nuffield Foundation (Allen, Belfield, Greaves, Sharp and Walker, 2014) reports: it increases the pool of beginner teachers by attracting high-calibre graduates who may otherwise not have considered teaching (Blumenreich and Rogers, 2016; Friedrich et al., 2015; Kopp, 2011; Price and McConney, 2013); it recruits participants for the shortage subjects of English, Science, Mathematics and Modern Languages; it places its participants in schools in geographical locations that otherwise struggle to recruit teachers; and it fast-tracks its participants into leadership, which helps meet the higher demand for leaders in multi-academy trusts. Yet, compared to teachers trained on the Postgraduate Certificate in Education route into teaching, 31% fewer Teach First teachers remain in the profession after four years (Hitchcock et al., 2017: 65), and Sam Friedman, Teach First’s Director of Research, Evaluation and Impact, acknowledged that ‘one of the most common criticisms of Teach First is that many participants see it as a stepping stone to something better’ (Teach First, 2017).…”

Global–local imbrications in education policy: Methodological reflections on researching the sociology of Teach for Bangladesh

“…What would that knowledge add up to in terms of methodology, theory and practice in relation to Bangladesh, but also to globalization? These questions gained traction particularly because similar studies with a specific focus on philanthrocapitalism and education policy have been conducted mostly in the developed world contexts (see Au and Ferrare, 2015;Elliott, 2018;Friedrich, 2014;Friedrich et al, 2015;Labaree, 2010;Lefebvre and Thomas, 2017;Smart et al, 2009;Straubhaar and Friedrich, 2015;Yin et al, 2019;Thomas, 2018bThomas, , 2018a. This body of literature, however, provided practical insights into how TFAll has materialized, particularly in its host countries, with prototypical idiosyncrasies.…”