Talk:The New Teacher Project

Untitled

The name of the organization is now TNTP. It is no longer called The New Teacher Project (see website). How can we change the title of this page to reflect that name change? Krismastree81 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

TNTP has been funding a number of studies and projects that seek to change how teachers are hired, evaluated and fired in the United States. This organization has some serious political pull, which is but one reason why this page should not be deleted. Jhurlburt (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think you need to establish notability (organizations).--Lhakthong (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Google....

Rhee Tackles Classroom Challenge http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862444,00.html

Our view on education: When every teacher is rated 'great,' students suffer http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-09-09-editorial09_ST_N.htm

The Wall Street Journal: Editorial: No (Tenured) Teacher Left Behind http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069502242529826.html

Dangling Money, Obama Pushes an Education Shift http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/education/17educ.html

The Career Change That Changes You http://www.oprah.com/money/The-New-Teacher-Project

I think the NY Times, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Oprah all count as "reliable, independent secondary sources". Jhurlburt (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Passing mention in newspaper articles does not in itself constitute notability, nor do these resources provide enough information to go beyond the creation of a stub. Notability requires depth of coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." You can ask for a Third person's opinion, though. I also offer a gentle recommendation to editors to stay away from peacock and weasel words and phrases, e.g. "garnered much attention nationwide". Although such a claim might be true, is it not verifiable without doing original research, and even then, what is "much"? This article's sources are also all still primary sources (Teach for America (which has direct ties to Rhee), The New Teacher Project itself, and the President of The New Teacher Project). So, I am putting the tag back up. Please do not remove it until references meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliable sources have been met (see links in the tag).--Lhakthong (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up: a similar article on the The New Teacher Project was marked for speedy deletion by one editor and subsequently deleted by another editor because it was considered "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". So far, this article does not look much different. I think some work still needs to be done so that this does not read like an advertising brochure. Certainly, there is a lot of criticism about TNTP (and Michele Rhee), and such material would need to be added to provide a balanced article. Otherwise, it's hard to argue this article not just promotional material.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe reference 6 in this section is an incorrect reading of the source material as criticism of TNTP. The full context is:

Who better to step in and fill that void than teachers unions? Likewise, school district human resource departments are notoriously problem-ridden. The New Teacher Project has shown how they contribute to staffing problems in urban schools. Teachers unions could establish job banks and serve as placement agencies, and thereby improve the quality of teacher recruits and build brand loyalty for the unions in the process.

As you can see, this reference cannot be used to justify the statement:

The project has also been criticized for contributing to staffing problems in schools. Coursian (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Clean up tags

I've just tagged this article as needing clean up and attention from Wikiproject Education. It's written in a highly promotional manner, and stuff I'm finding on the web (no WP:RS, but blog entries) is quite critical of this organization. Moreover at least one of the citations (talking about how teachers trained by this program in Louisiana outperform other teachers) is a dead link, so we can't verify if that's actually what the source says. I'm trying to find more information on this group and their teacher training, as my husband has been considering getting a teaching certificate and just came wandering in with an ad they posted on a job board looking for people who want to be teachers. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could use a rewrite?

While this article isn't of high priority, it's popped up on my recommended copyedits list and I've been doing some skin reading of what's been written. The article is written in a heavily promotional manner and is probably due for a rewrite, or a major clean-up at the very least. I'll start by editing the article's language to make a neutral tone instead of the exultant one it has right now and going through the citations to get archive links where needed, but help would be appreciated. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Where is there a writing that goes against neutrality? Ftftlsand (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)