This message is a response to Digby Willard who says Minnesota is moving
away from joint physics-chemistry teaching licenses.
Digby raises some valid points. There are indeed physicists who might make
good high-school physics teachers, but they don't like or don't want
chemistry; and vice-versa.
However, reality around here is that most high-school physics or chemistry
teachers end up teaching both. I have been teaching at the college level
for 22 years. Since I do most of the science-education leg-work for the
college, I have a large number of high-school contacts. As a wild guess I
would say that I have a pretty good idea who is teaching what at about 50
high schools in my area. I am aware of three teachers who teach physics
only. All the others teach at least both chemistry and physics. Those who
teach physics only are in larger city or suburban schools. Even in Lima,
Ohio (population about 50,000 within the city limits) the high school only
has two sections of physics. They're not going to hire a physics teacher
who only teaches physics. Here in Bluffton High School, with graduating
classes of 100 students, there is only one section of physics and two
sections of chemistry. The teacher is expected to teach at least four
courses a day if not five. If physics is all they can teach, who is going
to hire them? Outside of cities like Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, etc. the
typical school size in Ohio is in the neighborhood of 300-600 students in
grades 9-12. That makes a senior class of 75-150 students. If 20% take
physics that makes 15-30 students taking physics. That makes one or two
sections. Unless we can triple the number of students taking physics, the
physics teacher either has to teach something else, or has to be part time.
Digby is certainly correct that we have too many obstacles to getting good
teachers into the classroom. But I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to
too many existing teachers teaching things they're not really qualified to
teach. We've got some schools where physics isn't taught because there is
no one qualified to teach it (as well as only five or six students asking
for it.) We also have some schools where the biology teacher teaches both
chemistry and physics. I am aware of schools where the person teaching
science only has science as an "add-on" certification to a primary teaching
area of physical education. Interpretation: the primary thing these people
wanted to do is coach, but they picked up minimum requirements for science
certification to help them get their (coaching) job. I think the State
Board of Education looks at this and shudders (so do I). The board's
reaction seems to be, if these people going to end up teaching multiple
science areas anyway, better prepare them, therefore make them pursue a
broader science preparation rather than a narrow preparation. As much as I
want to agree with Digby, this counterargument is compelling.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817