This document discusses refining the articulation of Teach For America's ultimate aims and outcomes. It notes that while clarity and actionability are important, outcomes also need to respect diverse perspectives. The document summarizes initial conversations which suggest college readiness is important but not the only goal. It outlines pros and cons of defining outcomes more concretely in terms of college readiness. Next steps proposed are developing a video and paper to spark further discussions, then summarizing trends and recommendations.

1. College Readiness/Concretized
Outcomes
in TAL 2.0
January 9th, 2012

2. Big Picture: How Our This Inquiry Relates to
Other “Ultimate Aims” Workstreams
What are we ultimately aiming for with our students?
[i.e., what should it say at the top of the TAL Impact model?]
What degree of
What breadth/array clarity/actionability
of outcomes is truly of outcomes
aligned with our maximizes our
ultimate aims? progress toward our
(Jenee) ultimate aims?
(Ned)

3. The Central Question
In terms of articulating our ultimate aims (the
“top” of the TAL Impact Model), what degree of
clarity and actionability do we need and
want, and is some form of “college readiness”
the right direction?

4. Sub-Questions
• How do our most transformational teachers
define the transformational impact (with what
level of specificity and in what relation to college
readiness) they envision for their kids?
• What are benefits and risks associated with the
level of specificity/generality in how we currently
define transformational impact?
• What are benefits and risks of defining
transformational impact in terms of “college
readiness”?

5. Ultimate Objective
We seek to arrive at a new articulation of the ultimate
aims that:
– respects the diversity of perspectives on the Central and Sub
questions
– but is increasingly actionable and useable by corps members
– assists in solving, with the rest of TAL 2.0, the reasons for
TAL’s elusiveness.
•*Note – these objectives differ slightly from our original conception of having a shared,
organizational perspective on the topic of college readiness, given A) college readiness is a
sub-question under the broader question of how we best concretize our outcomes, and B)
the high level of emotion/passion and wide range of divergent views on the question of
college readiness that we have encountered thus far.

6. What We’ve Done Thus Far
1. Hosted a series of initial conversations with:
– Sue Lehmann award recipients
– Gathered opinions in a couple of regional staffs, as
part of Mike’s regional road show
– A handful of other primary voices inside the
organization (e.g. Aimee, Ryan Mick, etc.)
2. Put together an appendix of major
research, studies, and news articles that make the
statistical case for college readiness, along with
several major dissenting national voices who
disagree with a focus on college readiness.

7. What We’re Hearing/Have Learned
1. A general recognition that we should be re-considering what we have at the
top of the TAL Impact Model and some concerns that it is more vague and
general than it needs to be to maximize CM impact. *
2. There is a recognition of both the tangible pros and cons that would come
with concretizing our outcomes. (See next slide.)
3. A strong trend among our most transformational teachers: in all cases
college readiness was a primary component of that concretization.
Importantly, however, they were all able to articulate specifically the ways in
which college readiness was a proxy for other aspirations for their kids
(happiness, contributions to their community, etc.
4. There are highly divergent views on the extent to which we should embrace
college readiness given perceived risks and benefits of that approach, and…
5. These views – on both sides of the question - are deeply
personal, passionately articulated, and evoke often intense emotions. (And
the depth and prevalence of the personal and passionate here seems to be
as important as the actual logic of the arguments.)
*Important to note here that there are some who argue this clarity should not
come from the framework itself, but from the resources/training derived
from TAL.

8. Common Pros and Cons
Pros of Outcome Concretization/College Readiness Cons of Outcome Concretization/College Readiness
• Greater clarity around “college readiness” would bring • Concern that emphasis on “college readiness” is
actionable definition to “rigor” at each grade level implicitly disrespectful of those who have not and do
• Belief that a more concrete outcome would allow us to not go to college
provide sharper, more tailored resources. • May not be realistic for all students to achieve in all
• Alignment with national education reform priorities, contexts (e.g. SPED subsets, high school seniors
particularly the Common Core. reading well below grade level) – and associated fears
• More concrete outcome statement will prevent pulls of broken promises to kids.
away from a TAL paradigm orientation that could be • Potential for misunderstandings as it is filtered to corps
caused by lack of clarity. members (e.g. CMs perceiving that all of their kids
• Track record of success - concrete/focused outcomes MUST go to college, rather than be “ready.”)
have worked well for our most successful partners, in • Potential to pull CMs away from a complete
particular high performing charter schools. understanding of path-change and focus narrowly on
• Vast, strong data-based evidence indicating college academics.
completion as significant key to broadening • A sense that deriving a personalized and concretized
opportunities in life (e.g., career options and stability, vision from a less concrete statement is a formative
increased demand in future work force, quality of life experience for our most transformational teachers that
indicators, impact on poverty, insurance against we should replicate rather than circumvent. (e.g., “each
unemployment,) teacher has to go through this inquiry process”)
• Feelings that ignoring naming college readiness is not • Potential to be poorly received by the schools,
sufficiently anti-racist, comes from a place of privilege, communities, and national thought-leaders as being
and ignores our positioning as a social justice insulting or dismissive of the experiences of others
organization. (and/or contribute to the idea of TFA as “missionary
• Potential to kickstart a push for college acceptance and work”.)
graduation rates as a more accurate reflection of
organizational efficacy over the long-term than SAMS.

9. Where We Go From Here: Overview of
the Process
• The creation and roll-out of a “fodder package”
consisting primarily of a video package and an
accompanying paper of additional research.
• A series of hosted, opt-in conversations (similar
to the elusiveness conversations, but smaller in
scale and more rapidly executed)
• A brief, capstone summary paper with a final
proposal (or final options) for the leadership
team based on those conversations.

10. Where We’re Going: 1. Fodder
• A 10-20 minute video package that puts together
a variety of diverse and provocative perspectives
(including transformational teachers, some staff
members who have concerns over outcome-
concretization and college readiness in
particular, student and parent
voices, etc.), coupled with reflection questions
• A supporting paper that provides additional
research and articles that are high in relevance
but cannot be communicated well in video-form.

11. Where We’re Going: 2. Hosted
Conversations
A series of opt-in conversations to collect perspectives
after participants have experienced the fodder
package, potentially including:
– A Chat With Matt (and/or Blank Show) panel discussion
with relevant voices (Jay, Aimee, etc.)
– A conference or ROVP-cluster based conversation with EDs.
– Webinar/input conversations with TPSD Design teams.
– Webinar/input conversations with smaller groups of
M(D)TLDs/regions.

12. Where We’re Going: 3. Culminating
Summary
The final summary will be a succinct
document, similar to the final elusiveness
results, that will present trends in
conversations, the potential options for new
language and the likely implications of that
language, and a recommendation.
[Our intention is that this summary paper will sit alongside and
be gradually folded into Jay’s work on the breadth and definition
of indicators of success.]