I think one of the reasons this idea keeps coming up is that so many of
our students today lack the work ethic and maturity needed for science
classes at the 9th grade level. Biology teachers think that a few more
years of age might make better students. What really seems to happen is
what someone else pointed out earlier, that is, only the really
dedicated students take more than 2 years of science. Thus, those of us
that teach physics after biology and chemistry get a more select group.
I am not suggesting that we physics teachers are envied by the biology
or chemistry teachers because of this, just that they see us with better
prepared students. My recent experience at two high schools in different
school districts does not indicate that my students are that much more
mature or prepared than they were as freshman.
The truth is that we could teach physics at the 9th or 10th grade level,
but Dr. Edmiston is correct in his assessment of who would be teaching
it. I for one would probably teach pre-calculus and /or calculus instead
of dealing with 9th graders, even though I have a masters degree in
physics. After 17 years of teaching levels from grades 6 through 12, I
know I am much more comfortable with the older students than the
younger. I know plenty of teachers who feel just the opposite and are
scared to death of 11th or 12th graders.
However, my personal feelings are not really important to the debate.
Why change? Will it really result in a more scientifically literate
society? Why not teach physical science(physics and chemistry) at the
7th or 8th grade level? I am sure there are ways to get physics in the
middle and elementary schools and that seems a better place to start.
Thanks,
Vern Dewees
Creekview High School
Carrollton, Texas