You bet this article sounds like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic lemma. The problem, not only with the lemma but with the movement 'Teach First', is that the goals are ill-defined. When is 'Teach First' a success? When is it a failure? It is easy to throw public money around, and start well-intended projects. It is harder to set clear goals and reach them. 

 :In my country, The Netherlands, the ministry of Education is 'inspired' by Teach First and Teach for America, and spends an awful lot of public money to educate... 19 high-potential graduates this year. Easily triple the sum of money spent on raising ordinary teachers. The promise: 'Teach first for two years, 10 hours a week, then we'll promise you a job outside education'. The quite unhidden message is: 'Don't take education seriously as a career opportunity. Don't become a teacher'. And 19 graduates? The Netherlands has a lack of 5.000 academic graduates entering education. No graduate in their right mind wants to enter an underpaid, underappreciated and overworkloaded job - unless the economic crisis forces them to, or unless it is their road to a guaranteed McKinsey job. 

 :But this is an encyclopedic lemma, not an opinion. If you want to add facts, add the number of graduates still working in education two years after completion of the 'Teach First' project. I think those numbers are in themselves both factual and critical enough.