Today's Columbus Dispatch features an anti-Teach For America op-ed by an OSU ed professor (Thomas Stephens). He says nothing surprising to any of us who've heard ed schools' views of alternative teacher preparation before. And given that TFA-enabling legislation has already passed, his disparaging of the program is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. But his line of reasoning is one that drives me so far up the wall that I just can't help myself. Bear with me for a moment, and then I'll shut up about Teach For America and go back to my work.
Stephens begins his piece by making a ludicrous but quite common analogy between teaching and medicine:
Imagine that Gov. John Kasich and Ohio legislators take on a real problem: the difficulty Medicare patients have in finding physicians who will treat them. To fix it, they pass and Kasich signs the Ohio Medicare Fair Practice Act? This new law allows college graduates to obtain a special license to practice medicine following completion of a five-week course. These bright young people, full of energy and idealism, will practice only a few years before migrating to less-onerous and more-lucrative careers.
Think this is far-fetched? Well, the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate, with the help of 10 Democrats, passed a bill requiring the Ohio Department of Education to issue a resident-educator license based solely on a bachelor's degree and five weeks of training.
Alright Tom, aside from the fact that teaching a fifth grader fractions is not quite the same as giving a colonoscopy or diagnosing diabetes, and that the differences between the medical and teaching profession are manifold (starting with the basic reality that doctors have stringent entry requirements and come from the top tier of talent, and teachers, unfortunately, do not) let's roll with this comparison.
Imagine that in Ohio (and nationwide), hospitals located in low-income areas overwhelmingly have abysmal outcomes for patients. We're talking huge mortality rates, 1 in 2 infants dying during birth, children dying from basic preventable illnesses, that sort of thing. Let's also assume that hospitals across the state have big gaps in service when it comes to how they serve wealthier, mostly white patients and low-income, mostly minority patients. To some extent this is probably actually true? but let's assume that it's far graver. Let's say that one in ten patients living in a low-income community will end up living a long, healthful life and that the other nine in ten, because of poor medical treatment (and not natural causes) will not. And it's been this way for decades.
(That's exactly what's happening in education, where only one in ten poor children will graduate from college.) Let's also assume that in these low-quality hospitals it's nearly impossible to fire doctors or sue them for malpractice. It's also hard to attract the very best doctors to these areas. And low-income citizens are fed up with receiving substandard treatment, as they should be.
Now, say an alternative medical preparation program trained doctors to come into the hardest hit hospitals (and let's also assume that existing medical programs do not, on average, draw from the top tiers of talent, while the alternative medical program does). And contrary to Stephens' assertion, assume that two-thirds of doctors practicing through this program continue to work in the field of health and remain committed to improving health outcomes for the poorest citizens either through research, advocacy, or starting their own hospitals in poor areas. And, while the overall research is mixed on this alternative medical program,? the most rigorous studies show that these doctors produce equal or better outcomes for their patients.
This is really a more accurate comparison of what TFA is to schools. If such an abysmal state of affairs existed in medicine ? as it does in public education for poor kids ? would we really be in uproar about finding alternatives?
- Jamie Davies O'Leary
