This study is an examination of Teach For China in the context of the global transfer of the Teach For America model through the Teach For All network. Specific attention is paid to the role of Teach For China in addressing educational inequities and expanding public participation in education. Teach For America has played a leading role in neoliberal education and teacher education reform in the United States. Teach For China provides a case for examining how the model may have different implications in a context characterized by strong state control over education. Like Teach For America, Teach For China takes a two-pronged approach toward addressing educational inequity. In the short term, it places elite university graduates as teaching fellows for two years to alleviate the teacher shortage and promote student-centered education. School administrators and education officials reported that the placement of Teach For China fellows did not impact the teacher shortage because fellows replaced local teachers. Although most fellows in the study strived to practice and promote student-centered education, their capacity to do so varied and was limited by inadequate training and support as well as pressures to conform to mainstream educational goals and methods. In the long term, Teach For China aims to cultivate fellows to become leaders who will make transformational impact in education in China. By attracting young people from a wide range of academic backgrounds into the field of education, and by framing nongovernmental work as prestigious, Teach For China has potential to expand public sphere participation in education. Its impact is limited by the lack of inclusivity in the organization at the leadership and fellow levels. In an education system that is tightly controlled by the state, Teach For China brings nongovernmental resources and educators who are more autonomous relative to local teachers. By doing so, Teach For China opened a space that could allow for greater public sphere control over education. I argue that it has expanded public sphere participation to a limited extent but that the lack of deep collaboration with community members has led to missed opportunities for inclusive public sphere participation.