high-school physics syllabus (was: breadth vs. depth, which was: less is more)

[Daniel Price <dprice@JEFFCO.K12.CO.US>]

> Possibly constructive suggestion:  It might make sense to
> collect some example syllabi, discuss them, and see if any
> consensus emerges as to which ones have too much breadth and
> which ones have too little.

I am happy to provide my syllabus, in the form of a Microsoft Word
document, for high-school courses in physics and honors-level physics,
offered to students in grades 10-12.  [The courses are virtually
identical--the honors course requires more abstract problem-solving
(algebraic rather than arithmetic) and asks students to solve more
multi-step problems.]  Commentary is welcomed.

The number of "weeks" devoted to a topic should not be translated directly
into "class days", as various interruptions (assemblies, inservices, and
statewide testing) are not indicated in the syllabus.  The depth of
instruction and specific assignments/activities are also not shown.

Perhaps worthy of note:  as indicated in the syllabus, problem-solving
tools and techniques are emphasized, often explicitly, throughout the
course.  What is not indicated is that every problem (on practice
assignments and tests) is a word problem, requiring either an explanation
or a detailed solution.  "Potentially useful equations" are available for
every practice assignment or test, with no explanation of when or how they
are to be applied.

How much can be determined about the quality of instruction and the depth
of coverage by examining the syllabus?  I of course believe that I have
provided the necessary balance between breadth and depth, and that students
will garner a thorough, if basic (and sometimes somewhat more than basic)
understanding of each of the topics which are presented.