[Phys-l] Texts for HS physics?

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

> BC,
> I'm keen to know which textbooks, suitable for use in the high school curriculum, have met with enthusiastic approval from Denker/Clement/Cleyet? The one that is as incisive and clearly written as it is flawless in its presentation of physics.
>
> If Hewitt is disastrously flawed, is the Holt (Serway) book to be preferred? McGraw Hill (Zitsewitz?) Active Physics (Eisencraft)? Or is it, as I suspect, that they are all fatally flawed and should be distrusted by virtue of having an ISBN?

Another response to my post(s):



> > Perhaps you have had to say this for the N’th time because high school physics teachers are rightly ignoring you. There is nothing wrong with teaching Special Relativity using time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase at the high school level. My unit on Special Relativity is based upon Conceptual Physics and Lew Epstein’s “Relativity Visualized” and his “Thinking Physics” books.
>
> PBATA doesn't convince me, and have you read J. Denker's review of P. Hewitt's text?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Review of Hewitt, _Conceptual Physics_



I suggested possibly PSSC and Chabay:



I think most approve of the Chabay-Sherwood book, and that illustrates the problem, tho I think some (back East) use it for AP. Almost from the beginning of my being a member of phys-l, I have read complaints about "elementary" texts,and the further back in grade, the worse they become, yet none have written one, IIRC.  (Emphasis added.)  And  

Oh, there been some praise for the PSSC one. I especially like its labs. -- I think some UCB profs musta been on the committee, as the Berkeley Physics Lab. included some of them.

So, any comments and suggestions for the NorCal people.**




** the vast majority are HS teachers, at least the administrators; this contrasts sharply w/ SoCal whose meetings I've recently attended for the first time.  


bc encountering flak.