We didn't have to wait too long for Teach For America's long time critics to take their shots at the recent Mathematica study finding that TFA teachers did as well, and in some cases better, as the fully certified teachers in their schools on measures related to student learning. Barnett Barry's Southeast Center for Teacher Quality came out swinging this week with a website brief directed at TFA, at Mathematica, and at anyone else that challenges their belief that only formal education programs can produce effective teachers.

The criticisms are predictably specious, with such claims as "other studies show that more extensive teacher education can lead to substantial student achievement gains"-- with the notable absence of any cites that support this assertion. They go on to suggest that because these TFA teachers were not able to conquer their students' life-long deficits in the course of a single school year (student growth remained stubbornly low) that their contribution is for naught. While the Southeast Center concedes that bringing bright and energetic young people into the profession is "a good thing," they also dismiss it as not "really the point" since most TFA teachers "are gone before they can learn to be truly effective," completely discounting the fact that TFA teachers are in a matter of months more effective than the long time veterans in the school and that these schools have a hard time keeping anybody, not just TFA teachers.

So what's their solution? More money all around--for preparation, mentoring from highly accomplished teachers like National Board certified teachers (who are working miles away in the suburban schools), additional pay and incentives to get teachers to stay, smaller classes, reduced teaching loads. And until we come up with the billions of dollars needed to fund such a laundry list? Whatever you do, don't let poor kids have access to a bright, energetic, and committed TFA teachers who are capable of begin quite a bit more effective than the alternative.