I've known a number of physics teachers who were originally chemists, but,
like Arlyn, wound up teaching physics. Many of them, like Arlyn, are
aggressive about going to workshops and trying new things and become very
good physics teachers. But I've also seen some who have no clue what
they're teaching when they start teaching physics; they got through physics
requirements for the Physical Sciences licensure, but never really got a
handle on the physics. I've seen a few, and I suspect there are lots more
that I never see because they don't do any professional development
activities.
<More below, following quotes from Herb & Michael>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herb Gottlieb wrote:
"However, consider the many smaller
high schools throughout the country where there are not enough students
to warrant the teaching of physics and chemistry every year. It has been
a custom in such schools to alternate the offering of physics one year
and chemistry the next year with the same teacher.. In such cases
it is essential to have the teacher licensed in both chemistry and
physics."
and Michael Edmiston wrote:
"However, reality around here is that most high-school physics or chemistry
teachers end up teaching both. "
It's true that many high schools don't offer a full-time position in just
chemistry and physics. It's also true that in many small-town high
schools, a male candidate for a teaching job has to coach a sport to be
considered for the teaching position. However, no one on this list is
suggesting that requirements for a physics teaching license should include
certification for coaching a sport. We all recognize that it is sensible
for each teacher to add on a coaching licensure to the basic license
rather than trying to make everyone get a license to cover every possible
employment situation.
When I read the want ads in August, I routinely see ads for someone to
teach bio, physics, and chem, or earth science, physics, and chem, or some
other combination or three or four preps. Like Michael, I know teachers in
small towns who teach four or more preps. But I don't see that the
existence of such positions means that everyone who wants to teach physics
has to go and get a dozen credits in every science they might ever have to
teach, possibly at the expense of completing a major in physics. (That's
not Michael's position, but such ideas are not uncommon.)
It is entirely possible to set up license requirements so that teachers can
get a license in physics or chemistry, and then add on licenses in other
subjects. For those holding physics licenses, it's reasonable to make it
easy to add on licenses for chemistry,math, earth science (as opposed to
requiring a full major in the subject). In my case, I would much rather
have added a license to teach math full-time than chemistry full-time.
(Minnesota distinguishes between full-time and half-time licensure...but
that's a different can of worms.)
In this situation, most people getting a license would see that their job
prospects would be affected by what licenses they had, and would act
accordingly. But those who just want to teach physics would not be driven
away by the prospect of having to get a chem minor. Many people want to
teach in large urban areas, or want to teach part time, or want to teach a
combination of math and physics instead of chem and physics. For them, the
chem licensure requirement is just an additional barrier.
Many schools now have the type of 9th grade physics and chemistry class
that has been discussed on this list. From what I have seen of these
courses, an introductory college chemistry course or two is more than
adequate preparation to teach the chemistry contained in them. (Sad, but
usually true. I hope someone will provide a counterexample.) Such a
requirement is not onerous, and most physics majors take that much
chemistry anyway. It should be possible to get a physics or chemistry
license that would cover teaching the other subject in a 9th grade course,
without having to get a minor in the other subject.
Michael Edmiston points out that, for the most part, only large cities have
the size of high school to support a full-time physics-only position. This
is true, but large cities have lots of high schools. I teach in a large
metro area, and know quite a few other physics teachers in the area.
Several of them teach only physics. Several others teach math or 9th-grade
science or astronomy or who knows what else, but no chemistry beyond the
9th-grade stuff. Some of these teachers who don't teach chem are at small
high schools. When I got my license, I was offered at least two jobs in
addition to my current job that would not have involved teaching
chemistry...and I wasn't very aggressive about my job search.
My point is that while many physics teaching jobs require the teacher to
teach a chem course, many others don't. Given that the requirement for a
chem minor is a major deterrent for many who might seek physics licensure,
and particularly for those who seek licensure after getting a physics
degree, the chem licensure should be optional.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years ago, the Minnesota Board of Teaching tried to push through a
5-12 license in Science. The idea was that everyone was going to be
licensed to teach every science. Administrators loved the idea, because
that would make it much easier to hire a science teacher. Lots of teachers
objected, but their objections were not tolerated. Finally a
letter-writing campaign killed it in the 11th hour.
Some of my students were part of that letter-writing campaign. Following
the example of one of our bio teachers, I photocopied selections of the
proposed requirements for licensure and handed them out to my students,
then told them to take a look at the physics and bio requirements. It was
May, so most of them had covered the physics requirements (the requirements
had no depth to them). They had also covered the bio requirements in their
bio classes.
Then I told them that under the proposed system, all of them were now
qualified to teach physics at any level offered in a high school, including
calc-based. However, I was not, because I'd never taken a bio course.
Most of them saw the folly of the mile-wide-inch-deep philosophy of teacher
prep.