In both Forces for Good and No More Heroes, the authors use Teach for America as an example organization to support their theses, albeit in dramatically different ways. While Crutchfield and Grant (2012) describe practices that make Teach for America what they define as a “high-impact nonprofit,” Flaherty (2016) is critical of the organization, characterizing some of its teachers as problematic saviors. Where do you fall within this debate? Is Teach for America overwhelmingly a force for good or is it an organization filled with teachers who exhibit various forms of the savior complex? Explain your view.
Assess the merits of both Crutchfield and Grant’s and Flaherty’s theses. What evidence do you find convincing? In what ways are their arguments lacking?
What can Crutchfield and Grant and Flaherty learn from each other’s work and add to their own work to make it stronger? Here you might consider aspects of Teach for America’s organizational structure, culture, or practices that could be changed to make the organization more aware of and responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. In Flaherty’s work you might consider places other than New Orleans where Teach for America has balanced their success with cultural awareness and sensitivity.
FormattingThree to four double-spaced pages in a 12-point font with 1-inch margins.Grading RubricTo receive full credit (200 points), your paper must:Be 3-4 pages in length (10 points)
Fully address the writing prompt (15 points)
Be free of typographical or grammatical errors that impede meaning (25 points)
Cite the sources you use, both in-text and reference page, using APA citation style (25 points)
Explain Crutchfield and Grant’s and Flaherty’s arguments with reasonable fidelity using your own words (50 points)
Support your original arguments using course learning (75 points)
