If you reply to this very long (36 kB) post
please don't hit the reply button unless you
prune the copy of this post that may appear in
your reply down to a few relevant lines,
otherwise the entire already archived post may be
needlessly resent to subscribers.
******************************************
ABSTRACT
A long thread "Physics First?" on the Southern
California AAPT (SCAAPT) list was initiated by
Mary Mogge who asked whether or not San Diego is
still teaching Physics First (PF). Mike Horton
responded that although the PF mandate had been
overturned two years ago, some San Diego schools
still employ PF; and that his studies show that
(1) PF schools in California have been horrible
failures, and (2) PF is successful only in "rich
private boarding schools on the east coast."
Point "1" appears problematic because: (a)
Horton's evidence is based on class average
scores on the physics and biology sections of the
California Standards Test (CST), but the validity
of the former has been questioned by physicist
Larry Woolf and others; (b) San Diego school
board trustee Katherine Nakamura noted that
adoption of PF drastically increased the number
of students taking science; and (c) some SCAAPT
posters cited quantitative data (not all from the
dubious CST) indicating the relative success of
PF.
Point "2" appears questionable considering
favorable PF outcomes in classes far removed from
"rich private boarding schools on the east
coast": (a) the previously cited quantitative
evidence from SCAAPT posters; (b) Jane Jackson's
reports of pre-to-post test gains on the Force
Concept Inventory (FCI) comparable to those of
high-school seniors for a Phoenix ninth-grade
integrated physics/math class of disadvantaged
students, and a high school near St. Louis in
which roughly 30% were from the inner city; (c)
quantitative evidence of the success of PF-type
curricula reported by Mualem & Eylon (2007) and
Goodman & Etkina (2008).
In "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)], I
argued that PF might help to overcome a systemic
roadblock to science/math literacy of the general
population - viz., the dearth of effective
pre-college science/math teachers. This in turn
might promote [paraphrasing John White (2008)]
"the presentation of physics early, often,
broadly, and well in the K-12 years," as advised
earlier by e.g., Ken Ford (1989), Lewis Love
(1999), & David Hammer (1999).
******************************************
In my Physhare post "Physics First Revisited"
[Hake (2009)] I wrote [my insert at ". . .
.[insert]. . . .]:
"John Mallinckrodt, web manager of the SCAAPT
(Southern California AAPT) list, in a SCAAPT post
of 15 Jan 2009 wrote 'The recent discussion. . .
.[21 posts as of 15 Jan 2009]. . . that has
broken out on the SCAAPT list of the Physics
First movement . . . . e.g.: Hickman (1990),
Bardeen & Lederman (1998), Lederman (2001a,b;
2007), Lederman & Bardeen (2002), Ewald et al.
(2005), AAPT (2007), Sheppard & Robbins (2009)
and references therein] . . . . is, I think,
interesting and important. Nevertheless, it
raises once again the question of the purpose of
this list especially given the existence of
several other physics email lists that are
devoted specifically to discussions of this kind,
especially including Physhare'. "
I should have pointed out that the SCAAPT thread
"SCAAPT: Physics First?" [27 posts as of 24 Jan
2009, despite Mallinckrodt's suggestion of 15 Jan
2009 to shift the discussion to lists such as
Physhare] was initiated by Mary Mogge, who wrote
on 12 Jan 2009 09:56:4-0800:
"I'm trying to find out whether the San Diego
USD is still teaching Physics First. My efforts
at googling weren't very successful, so if any of
you know the answer, please let me know. I'd be
particularly interested in hearing from HS
teachers in SDUSD."
To which Mike Horton responded on 12 Jan 2009
22:13:38-0800 [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . .";
my CAPS, my inserts at ". . . .[insert]. . . ."):
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Two years ago, they overturned the mandate that
it would be required. Now it is optional. But,
these schools hired and/or retrained so many
teachers that they couldn't just get rid of it.
Some got rid of it immediately. Some waited
until it was time to adopt a new textbook and got
rid of it. Others stuck with it and still do it
today.
. . . .[1]. . . . I have studied San Diego and
other physics first schools in California and
THEY HAVE BEEN A HORRIBLE FAILURE BY ALL
MEASURABLE ACCOUNTS. San Diego spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on materials, trainings,
curriculum coaches, college degrees, and
textbooks and had nothing to show for it in the
end. There were schools that had 0% proficiency
in freshmen physics despite the fact that there
is no school in the state that had 0% proficiency
in junior physics. Students who would have been
proficient in physics in 11th grade were not
proficient in 9th.
. . .[2]. . .I have collected data and written
white papers . . . . .[Horton (2004?]. . . . ON
HOW UNSUCCESSFUL PHYSICS FIRST IS IN ALL EXCEPT
RICH, PRIVATE BOARDING SCHOOLS ON THE EAST COAST.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Considering Horton's claims #1 and #2 above:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. That PF schools in California have been "horrible' failures is questionable:
a. Horton's (2004?) evidence is based on class
average scores on the physics and biology
sections of the California Standards Test (CST),
but the validity of the former has been
questioned by physicist Larry Woolf (2005) and
others on the Phys-L list - see at
<https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2005/01_2005/msg00043.html>
and click on "Thread Next" at the top of the
page to see successive postings on this topic;
b. According to the report by Gao (2006) - see
below- San Diego school board trustee Katherine
Nakamura noted that adoption of PF drastically
increased the number of students taking science.
c. Some SCAAPT posters cited quantitative data
(not all from the dubious CST) indicating the
relative success of PF:
(1) Michael Lew of Loyola High School, SCAAPT
post of 13 Jan 2009 08:16:50-0800: "We instituted
Physics First . . . . last year and based on
standardized test scores (FCI pre and post test,
and CA State Science Tests) we were very
successful."
(2) Patrick Healy of Palm Desert High School,
SCAAPT post of 14 Jan 2009 16:31:12-0800: "I'm in
my fifth year of teaching my CST aligned regular
high school physics course to freshman with good
results. Each year, the freshmen have
consistently out-scored the juniors taking the
same tests. Last year, on the CST, the freshmen
achieved a 91% proficiency rate compared to 75%
for the juniors. To be fair, the freshmen are
all 'honors' while the juniors include both
'honors' and 'cp' . . . . .[college preparatory].
. . students, and we're not scheduling the
entire student body in physics, like I believe
was done in San Diego. But my point is that, for
students who would be taking physics anyway,
switching the order to physics first does them no
harm. The advantage we give these students, from
a scheduling perspective, is that they take
honors chemistry as sophomores, and then A.P.
Biology as juniors -- without requiring the
traditional freshman biology course as a
prerequisite. This leaves an opening in senior
year to take a second science A.P. class
(Physics, Chemistry, or Environmental Science) if
they so choose. This has worked well.
(3) (3) Melissa Woods of the Santa Barbara High
School District, SCAAPT post of 15 Jan 2009
07:15:56 -0800: "We have been doing physics first
for about 15 years. . . . For my ninth grade
students last year (140 out of the 350 physics
students at SBHS), the student population
consists of language learners, students who will
be the first to go to college in their families,
all the way through children of scientists. We
have a 75% proficient or advanced pass rate on
the CST. This is down from last year where a
similar population scored 80% proficient or
advanced. . . . . One of the main reasons we
like physics first at our school is that we feel
it builds a basis for our successful AP Science
program. My students perform excellently on the
chemistry CST's (85% proficient or above) the
next year. The chemistry teacher where most of
my students go says that her students are
extremely well prepared to learn chemistry and is
also in favor of physics first. After chemistry
our students move on to take AP Bio, AP Chem, AP
Physics, and AP Environmental science with a
solid understanding of science under their belts.
This year we have 270 students enrolled in these
4 AP courses. Some of the AP classes earn 90%+
pass rates year after year. To be fair our
overall CST pass rate has not been as good (35%
proficient or advanced out of 350 students). I
attribute this to the fact that we have had 8
teachers in the last 6 years who teach the other
students. Few had any physics backgrounds and
all were new teachers. . . . . I am proposing
that qualified teachers and a well thought out
course have helped the students earn good tests
results and that THE TEACHER MAY BE AS IMPORTANT
IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SCIENCE SEQUENCE."
[My CAPS.]
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. That Physics First is successful *only* in
rich private boarding schools on the East coast
is doubtful.
a. The quantitative evidence provided by the
SCAAPT posters cited indicates that PF is
relatively successful. But as pointed out by Mike
Horton in his SCAAPT posts following those by
Lew, Healy, and Woods, it may be the case that
the PF's apparent success at Loyola, Palm Desert,
and Santa Barbara high schools was due to the
select nature of the schools, students, or
teachers. However, Jane Jackson has reported
successful implementation of a Modeling-version
of PF in non-select environments: (a) an
integrated physics/math class of disadvantaged
students - their FCI posttest scores were
comparable to those for typical honors physics
courses of high school seniors taught with the
Modeling method [Jackson (2003a); and (b) a
regular physics class whose main teacher was a
novice physics teacher with a degree out of field
and in which roughly 30% of the students were
from the inner city - the class average
normalized gain <g> was 0.30 [Jackson (2003b),
comparable to the average <g>'s of 0.43 for four
regular physics classes for high-school seniors
using interactive engagement methods [Table 1a of
Hake (1998b)].
b. Quantitative evidence of the success of
PF-type curricula has recently been reported by
Mualem & Eylon (2007) and Goodman & Etkina
(2008). Neither study taking place in "rich
private boarding schools on the east coast."
Regarding San Diego's attempt to implement
Physics First, Helen Gao (2006) of the San Diego
Union Tribune wrote [bracketed by lines "GGGGG. .
. ."; my CAPS]:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Five years after making a trailblazing decision
to require physics in ninth grade, the San Diego
school board decided yesterday to do away with
that mandate and give students more flexibility
in science course work. The reversal follows
years of controversy dogging the district's
science program and months of intense lobbying
and criticism by some teachers.
Under a proposal approved 3-2 by trustees, high
school students no longer have to follow a
particular sequence of science courses - physics
in ninth grade, then chemistry and biology.
What order students take the courses is up to
them, but they still have to pass three years of
science to graduate. In the past, students needed
a waiver if they wanted to deviate from the
course sequence.
For the physical science requirement, students
now can choose between physics and chemistry.
They must take biology to meet the life science
requirement. The third course would be an
elective, anything from physiology to
environmental science.
Trustee John de Beck, who proposed the changes,
said students - in conjunction with their parents
and counselors - should decide what science
classes to take, based on their math skills and
other factors. . . . . . . . De Beck garnered the
support of colleagues Mitz Lee and Shelia
Jackson. Board president Luis Acle and trustee
Katherine Nakamura dissented.
Nakamura defended the current ninth-grade physics
curriculum as a good course, especially for those
who are intimidated by science. SHE NOTED THAT
SINCE NINTH-GRADE PHYSICS WAS ADOPTED, THE NUMBER
OF STUDENTS TAKING SCIENCE HAS SKYROCKETED.
The San Diego Unified School District boasts the
highest percentage of students enrolled in
science courses of any large urban district in
the state. Even for students who are not pursuing
careers in science, Nakamura said a certain level
of scientific literacy is a must in today's world.
"Understanding the way the world works is very
important," she said. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
It should be emphasized that the abandonment of
the PF mandate in San Diego, as described by Gao
(2006), does not necessarily indicate a
deficiency in the PF approach to science
education, other than the fact that it collides
with the monumental inertia of the American K-12
educational system. In a PhysLrnR post "WSJ on
Active Physics" [Hake 2006)], I discussed another
report on San Diego's Physics First program - Rob
Tomosho's Wall Street Journal article "Textbook
Battle: Top High Schools Fight New Science As
Overly Simple: San Diego's Physics Overhaul Makes
Classes Accessible, Spurs Parental Backlash; Test
Scores Barely Budge." The abstract of my post
reads:
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Rob Tomosho of the Wall Street Journal
reports the backlash from parents and teachers
against the San Diego school district
implementation of Leon Lederman's "Physics First"
in the ninth grade through the use of Author
Eisenkraft's "Active Physics." Among
possible reasons for the backlash are:
(a) "parents in affluent schools often resist
changes that affect students who are already
thriving," as indicated by Kati Haycock of the
Education Trust,
(b) unfamiliarity of parents and teachers with
the mountain of evidence for the superiority of
interactive engagement over traditional methods
in enhancing students' understanding of the
concepts and nature of science, and
(c) insufficient preparation of classroom
teachers to *effectively* implement
non-traditional science pedagogy. Better
prepared teachers might be attracted to
classrooms if their salaries and working
conditions were drastically upgraded and they
were treated as the valued professionals they are.
***************************************************
As I indicated in a SCAAPT post of 15 Jan 2009
12:39:00-0800, my arguments for the support of
Physics First are summarized in the abstract of
"Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)]:
"It is argued that Lederman's 'Physics First'
regime, while not an ideal ramp to science/math
literacy for all students . . . . [such as the
"Ken Ford (1989) Ramp" depicted in Fig. 2 of Hake
(2002a)]. . . ., should nevertheless be
vigorously supported as an important opening
battle in the full scale war on science/math
illiteracy as envisaged by the AAAS 'Project
2061.' This is because a widespread first physics
course for *all* ninth graders might:
(a) help to overcome some systemic roadblocks to
science/math literacy of the general population -
MOST IMPORTANTLY THE SEVERE DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE
PRE-COLLEGE SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS;
(b) enhance the numbers of physics major and
graduate students, through programs designed to
provide a large corps of teachers capable of
*effectively* teaching physics to vast numbers of
students in the Physics First schools:
ninth-graders plus those taking high school
honors and AP physics courses."
In response to the above Mike Horton, in a SCAAPT
post of 15 Jan 2009 21:05:23-0800 wrote:
"I never said that 'Physics for All' is a bad
idea, but it appears that just as AAPT. . .
.[AAPT (2007)]. . . . does, Dr. Hake sees the two
as the same thing. Physics for all and physics
first are not the same thing. I am and will
always be a supporter of physics for all. Just
not in the 9th grade. Neither of Dr. Hake's
reasons for PF were actually related to PF. They
were related to Physics for All. I completely
agree with his points about how important Physics
for All is, but again, neither of them had
anything to do with when the physics is taken."
I disagree with that "Physics for All" has
nothing to do with when physics is taken. To
repeat a section of the abstract (above) of
"Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002b)]:
"Lederman's 'Physics First' regime. . . . .
should . . . be vigorously supported as an
important opening battle in the full scale war on
science/math illiteracy . . . [by promoting
"Physics for All"]. . . . . .because a
widespread first physics course for *all* ninth
graders might . . .help to overcome some systemic
roadblocks to science/math literacy of the
general population - most importantly *the severe
dearth of effective pre-college science/math
teachers.*"
In his Physics Teacher article "Physics First
and Physics for All (Well, sort of)" John White
(2008) cogently stated the importance of "physics
for all" as follows (his EMPHASIS):
"What is important for physics education in our
society? We should present physics EARLY, often,
broadly, and well in the K-12 years (required
schooling for essentially everyone) so that ALL
students get a fair opportunity to discover how
physics might enrich their lives. . . . . . This
is the ultimate goal: to educate citizens about
science so that these citizens can provide good
guidance regarding political issues that involve
science. Then we are teaching Science Literacy
(or Science Appreciation or How Science Matters)."
White's article reinforces points made by Ken
Ford (1989) in "Guest Comment: Is physics
difficult" Ford wrote [see Hake (2002a) for
references other than Hammer (1999) and Love
(2001)]:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
. . . . Physics is difficult in the same way that
all serious intellectual effort is difficult.
Solid understanding of English literature, or
economics, or history, or music, or biology - or
physics - does not come without hard work. But we
typically act on the assumption (and argue to our
principals and deans) that ours is a discipline
that only a few are capable of comprehending. The
priesthood syndrome that flows from this
assumption is, regrettably, seductive . . . If
physics is not more difficult than other
disciplines, why does everyone think that it is?
To answer indirectly, let me turn again to
English. Six-year-olds write English and (to pick
a skilled physicist writer) Jeremy Bernstein
writes English. What separates them? A long,
gradual incline of increased ability,
understanding, and practice. Some few people,
illiterates, do not start up the hill. Most
people climb some distance. A few climb as far as
Bernstein. FOR PHYSICS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE
HAVE FASHIONED A CLIFF. THERE IS NO GRADUAL RAMP,
ONLY A NEAR-VERTICAL ASCENT TO ITS HIGH PLATEAU.
When the cliff is encountered for the first time
by. . . (14- or) . . . 16- or 17-year olds, it is
small wonder that only a few have courage (and
the skill) to climb it. There is no good reason
for this difference of intellectual topography.
First-graders could be taught some physics . . .
(Hammer 1999, Snyder 2001). . . , second-graders
a little more, and third-graders still more. . .
. (Love 2001) . . . [and Middle School'ers still
more. . . (Hubisz 2001 a,b)]. . . Then for the.
. .(ninth-). . . , eleventh- or twelfth grader, a
physics course would be a manageable step. Some
might choose to take it, some not, but few would
be barred by lack of 'talent' or background. (My
CAPS.)
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
"The three-year sequence must include a lot of
process in addition to content. How does science
work? How did we discover some of these things?
Why is science such a universal culture? How do
the traits of skepticism, curiosity, openness to
new ideas, and the joy of discovering the beauty
of nature affect the process of science? Long
after all the formulas, Latin words, and theories
are forgotten, the process will be remembered.
The goal of teachers using the new curriculum
would be to produce high-school graduates who
will be comfortable with a scientific way of
thinking."
Leon Lederman (2001a)
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
AAPT. 2007. "AAPT Statement on Physics First,"
online at
<http://www.aapt.org/Policy/physicsfirst.cfm>:
"The Executive Board of the American Association
of Physics Teachers (AAPT) recognizes that
teaching physics to students early in their high
school education is an important and useful way
to bring physics to a significantly larger number
of students than has been customary. This
approach-which we call 'Physics First'-has the
potential to advance more substantially the
AAPT's goal of Physics for All, as well as to lay
the foundation for more advanced high school
courses in chemistry, biology or physics."
Gao, H. 2006. "High school students given leeway
in science," San Diego Union Tribune, 24 May;
online at <http://tinyurl.com/7f82mz>.
Goodman, R. & E. Etkina. 2008. "Squaring the
Circle: A Mathematically Rigorous Physics First,"
Phys. Teach. 46(4): 222-227; online to
subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=46&Issue=4>.
The authors write: "Many advocates of 'Physics
First' support a more conceptual ninth-grade
physics course followed by chemistry and then
biology while supporters of mathematically
rigorous physics favor a sequence of
biology-chemistry-physics. This paper describes a
new approach that incorporates some of the best
arguments from both sides. The main idea is to
teach a mathematically rigorous ninth-grade
physics course based on algebra alone, avoiding
trigonometry. By selecting topics from the AP
Physics B curriculum that form a foundation for
both chemistry and biology, one can establish an
efficient science sequence. The goal of this
paper is to describe this new approach to Physics
First and present data supporting its
effectiveness."
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs
traditional methods: A six thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1): 64-74;
online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf>
(84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods
in introductory mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf>
(108 kB) - a crucial companion paper to Hake
(1998a).
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Physics First: Opening Battle
in the War on Science/Math Illiteracy?" Submitted
to the American Journal of Physics on 27 June
2002; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/PhysFirst-AJP-6.pdf> (220 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Precursor to
Science/Math Literacy for All?" APS Forum on
Education Newsletter, Summer, 2002; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2002/index.html>.
A severely truncated version of Hake (2002a).
Hake, R.R. 2006. "WSJ on Active Physics,"
PhysLrnR post of 15 Apr 2006 14:49:58-0700 online
at <http://tinyurl.com/89ptxy>. To access the
archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe, but
that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>
and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or
change settings)." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may
access the archives and/or post messages at any
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Hake, R.R. 2009. "Physics First Revisited,"
Physhare post of 16 Jan 2009 15:59:32-0800;
online at <http://tinyurl.com/96usjc>. To access
the archives of Physhare one needs to subscribe,
but that takes only a few minutes by few minutes
by clicking on
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=PHYSHARE> and
then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or
change settings)." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may
access the archives and/or post messages at any
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Horton, M. 2004?. "Physics First is Bad for
Science"; online at
<http://scienceinquirer.wikispaces.com/csta>,
scroll down to "White Papers." Horton's analysis
is based on results of the Biology and Physics
portions of California's CST Physics test.
Jackson, J. 2003a. "Closing Gap by Integrating
9th Grade Algebra and Physics Using Modeling
Instruction," online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/listserv/gr9MathPhysics-disadv03.pdf>
(12 kB). See also Jackson (2003b) for FCI data at
Clayton High School
Lederman, L. & M.G. Bardeen. 2002.
"Implementation Resource Book Suggestions from
the Field"; 0.42 MB pdf at Project Arise
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/>/ "Three Year High
School Science Core Curriculum Implementation
Issues (Bardeen, 2002)", where "/" means "click
on." See especially the sections "Assessment and
Student Achievement"; "Professional Development";
and Teachers' Fears/Resistance".
Love, L.E. 2001. "Physics in the Elementary School," APS Forum on Education
Newsletter, Spring; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/upload/spring01.pdf>
(3.2MB), scroll to page 19. Love wrote: "Physics
is the basic science that is fundamental to all
the other branches of science. Physics can be
used very effectively to help students learn to
think, read, write, use mathematics as a thought
tool, and provide insight into our cultural
heritage and social environment. But physics is
an area of study, which brings intellectual fear
into the hearts of those people who have not been
introduced to its simplicity, beauty, logic, and
its ability to help us understand the world
around us. I propose that many important concepts
in physics can be effectively taught to 4th and
5th graders. I also propose that you can train
the teachers of these students to effectively do
this through an in-service program developed by
any high school or university physics teacher,
incorporating a hands-on curriculum that I have
developed."
Mualem, R. & B. Eylon. 2007. " 'Physics with a
Smile' - Explaining Phenomena with a
Qualitative Problem-Solving Strategy," Phys.
Teach. 45(3): 158-163; online free to all at
<http://tinyurl.com/c4uueu>. The authors state:
"This approach is already being adopted in many
ninth-grade classrooms in Israel. Modest
beginnings show that teaching with this method in
the ninth grade increases the number of students
who choose physics in senior high school and
improves their stan¬dard problem-solving skills.
Introducing the qualitative approach in the ninth
grade can function as a foundation and basis for
the quantitative treatment in later years. The
approach can also be integrated into the teaching
of physics in senior high school before
introducing quantitative problem solving."
Tomsho, R. 2006a. "Textbook Battle: Top High
Schools Fight New Science As Overly Simple; San
Diego's Physics Overhaul Makes Classes
Accessible, Spurs Parental Backlash; Test Scores
Barely Budge," Wall Street Journal, 13 April;
freely online for awhile at
<http://tinyurl.com/rn7cn> and more permanently
at Mahajan (2006). I thank Keith Tipton, manager
of Physhare, for bringing Tomsho's report to my
attention.