This AP story misleadingly uses the term “interns” when describing Congress’ action last month to allow states to classify provisionally licensed teachers as highly qualified. Every state has rules for how it determines this, but in general provisionally licensed teachers must have at least a bachelor’s degree and be working to obtain full certification within a pre-determined time frame, usually a year or two. To label such teachers–which includes all Teach for America, teacher residency program, and city-based teaching fellowship program participants–as “interns” is misleading. We don’t call practicing medical students “interns.” We call them “residents.” A more appropriate term here would be “apprentice” or, what they’re actually called, “provisionally licensed.” It’s important to get this stuff right, because language does matter in shaping public perception.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/11/2012 | U.S. News & World Report highlights ideas from "Moving On Up: How Tuition Tax Breaks Increasingly Favor the Upper-Middle Class." 
5/11/2012 | In Diverse, Steve Burd comments on the Obama administration's plans to address student debt. 
5/11/2012 | Kevin Carey talks to Salon about the government's role in rising student debt.
{ 5 comments }
Hmm. I must have used a tag. I meant to respond to your comment that
We don’t call practicing medical students “interns.” We call them “residents.”
Agree with thrust of your point. Small note –
You say
Actually, “intern” is the name for the first year of a medical residency, which vary in length but last 3 years for internal medicine, probably the most common one.
An intern is called “Dr. X” by patients and writes prescriptions and does procedures and stuff.
. The groups opposed to the change used the term “interns” and now the media is using their framing of the issue.
As well as using the court’s framing of the issue.
Exactly, Phillip, thanks for making my point. The groups opposed to the change used the term “interns” and now the media is using their framing of the issue.
From the court decision:
pg 16330:
“Appellants contend that the challenged federal regulation, upon which the 2004 California regulations are based, allows a disproportionate number of interns to teach in minority and low-income schools in California, in violation of NCLB. ”
pg 16335:
“Appellants are California public school students, their par- ents, and two non-profit organizations, Californians for Jus- tice (“CFJ”) and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“California ACORN”). The named students, along with student members of the two orga- nizations, attend California public schools at which significant numbers of intern credential holders serve as teachers. As a result, these students are being taught by interns, have been taught by interns, or are substantially likely to be taught by interns.
Appellants presented evidence in the district court that a disproportionate number of interns teach in California public schools that serve minority and low-income students. For example, forty-one percent of interns in California teach in the twenty-five percent of schools with the highest concentra- tions of minority students. In contrast, two percent of interns in California teach in the ten percent of schools with the low- est concentration of minority students. Interns are similarly concentrated in schools serving low-income communities, with sixty-two percent of interns teaching in the poorest half of California’s schools. This disproportionate distribution of interns, Appellants contend, has resulted in a poorer quality education than Appellants would otherwise have received.”
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/27/08-16661.pdf
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }