| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I agree that it would be preferable for physics teachers to teach only
phyiscs
(and possibly math) but not chemistry. 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.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:16:32 -0600 Digby Willard
<dwillard@MAIL.CENTRAL.STPAUL.K12.MN.US> writes:
> Michael Edmiston wrote:
> > Also note that in the State of Ohio the new teacher licensure
> procedure
> > combines physics and chemistry. You cannot be licensed to teach
> just
> > chemistry or just physics. You have to become licensed to teach
> both,
> > and
> > it is called a "physical science license." A person earning this
> license
> > could teach the freshman integrated course and also the regular
> chemistry
> > course and the regular physics course. Physical science licensure
> > follows
> > the "dual field model" of teacher preparation as outlined by NSTA.
> The
> > prospective teacher takes about 24 semester hours of chemistry, 24
> hours
> > of
> > physics, and about 12 more hours in biology, and earth/space
> science.
> > Unfortunately this cannot typically be done in four years. At
> Bluffton
> > College the student has to do student teaching in a ninth
> semester.
>
>
> Here in Minnesota we are just starting to move away from the
> "Physical
> Sciences (Physics and Chemistry)" license. It is similar to what is
> described above.
>
> This licensing system has done an excellent job of exacerbating the
> shortage of teachers licensed to teach either subject. When I was
> getting
> my license, I saw at least two other people with degrees in physics
> and,
> often, some teaching experience, who were considering pursuing
> licensure.
> They were usually also considering something else. They went with
> the
> "something else." It's bad enough having to waste time and money
> with
> education courses; having to also pick up a minor in chem is usually
> the
> straw that breaks the camel's back. Most physics majors are not
> that crazy
> about chem, and don't want to teach it; they want to teach physics,
> and
> maybe math. Most chem majors want to teach chem, not physics.
>
> This license is nice for those who go through an undergraduate
> program
> geared toward the licensure. That's a small fraction of the people
> who
> would make good physics teachers or good chem teachers. There are
> many
> more people who major in physics, chemistry, or engineering who
> would like
> to teach, but have an additional barrier in their way.
>
> I contend that a full physics major is better preparation for
> teaching
> physics than half a physics major; same for chem. This licensure
> system
> does an excellent job of driving away people with full majors in the
> subject area they really want to teach.
>
> Contrary to popular legislative belief, the way to relieve teacher
> shortages is NOT to place obstacles in the way of candidates for
> licensure.
>
> Digby Willard
> St. Paul Central High School
> St. Paul, MN