How do we alleviate the shortage of qualified physics teachers?

[marcusesses]

(Apologies if this is long, perhaps you can just cherry-pick the parts that are interesting to you...)

By all accounts, it seems there is a worldwide shortage of qualified physics teachers. It has been claimed that this shortage is due to low wages, poor working conditions, lack of support from administration (and policymakers) and maybe a few other reasons I'm forgetting.

To take an example from above, jobs in industry pay better than a job in education. I know that teacher salaries can get to be quite high in Canada and some regions of the US (~$75,000, with experience), but this may be low compared to jobs in industry. However, I have a hard time believing that salary is a major factor preventing qualified applicant from entering the profession, as starting salaries for assistant professors are not much better than those for new teachers (and you don't need +4 years PhD and +2 years of post-docs to be a teacher). Also, some jobs (such as programmers or engineers) may start at similar salaries as starting teachers (I have a friend who just started work as an engineer who is making the same salary that I would if I started work as a new teacher).

In addition, one of the main reasons schools are having a hard time retaining teachers is due to attrition; teachers who are quitting mid-career to pursue other (more lucrative?) careers.

However, my opinion is that the main reason for the shortage of qualified teachers is the lack of prestige in the position. Teaching may not provide the opportunity for physicists to solve interesting and challenging problems and learn new technical skills (such as programming), whereas a job in industry or academia may provide these opportunities.

This is arguable, but I can see no other reason why so few would pursue a stable, relatively stress-free environment with a good wage, such as teaching, while so many would pursue a stressful, low pay profession with no guarantees that you will have a stable in 5 or 10 years, such as being a graduate student. This may be a sensitive issue, but assuming that the lack of prestige is a major reason for the lack of teachers, I'll leave a few thoughts for discussion...

Are there any changes that can be made to persuade more people to choose physics teaching as a profession? Perhaps allowing for more creativity in experimental design by teachers, as well as more substantial experiments or projects. This idea may coincide nicely with a project-based curriculum, where the students have a large, experiment-based project to complete during the course for credit, although many curriculums compact so much material into a single term it may be hard to work on anything for longer than a few days.

I'm not proposing doing anything outside the capabilities of a high school; however, performing experiments that take 2 or 3 weeks to design, implement and analyze (as opposed to an hour or two) would give teachers the opportunity to guide the implementation of a cool problem, and give the students a better idea as to how science is actually done, instead of mindlessly following a series of steps to obtain the desired result. Perhaps well-done projects could be submitted to an educational journal (e.g The Physics Teacher), or to a science fair (which could count towards course credit).

This obviously doesn't address all of the issues involved, but it would satisfy the curiosity that got many people into physics in the first place.

I'm sorry, I got a bit rambly and disorganized, but I wanted to throw some ideas out for discussion. I am also kind of establishing my own educational philosophy, and I sometimes am very dismayed about what I would be getting myself into if I became a teacher (rote memorization! Undisciplined students!, etc.)

So, to summarize:What would you change to encourage qualified applicants to teach high school physics?

I propose more opportunities for teachers to be involved in solving interesting problems (through student-based experiments).

Maybe this isn't a novel idea at all, maybe everyone's been doing this for 30 years already...my high school physics education was abysmal, so I wouldn't know...if there are any current teachers out there, perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[mgb_phys]

Money isn't necessarily the problem - 'earn much more in industry' isn't always true. For most people working in manufacturing industry (rather than finance) it isn't that well paid or that secure.

From my experience of the teaching profession:

Inflexible teaching qualifications. Have a B-Ed from a community college with a minor in nutrition or sport and you are a specialist science teacher. Have a physics PhD and a lifetimes teaching experience and you aren't qualified to be a classroom assistant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3736942.stm
Or the head of a top uk .private school that wanted to teach in a state school after retirement - but with a maths PhD and 20years experience he wasn't 'qualified'. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article493145.ece
Meanwhile they are recruiting nigthclub bouncers as supply teachers.

Teaching is entirely based around national standardized curriculum and SATS - deviation from the approved lesson plan is almost a crime.
Since the schools (and your) future depends on exam scores and league tables - hard science courses are the first to be cut. If they are run you are under pressure to teach to the test and be careful to only allow a few star students into the exams (can't wreck the curve)

But unionized jobs and seniority mean it doesn't matter how good you are - all you can hope for is to find a school where everyone else is near retirement (or has dangerous hobbies!)

Don't be a male teacher. Men are effectively banned in primary schools. Even in secondary schools you have to constantly be on your guard never to be alone in a class with a student. One accusation and you will be suspended until it is investigated (a year or two) - even when you are cleared the accusation will show up on your CRB check. As will any rumours - "Enhanced Disclosure" allows any suspicions, even unreported to be counted against you.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's not clear, but it sounds like you mean (here in the US) K-12 science teaching, as opposed to college/university.

There's been a few attempts to increase the number of *qualified* science teachers- most recently, there's some noise about increasing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) teaching, but it's not clear what is actually proposed. And a while ago, a few states decided that if you have a PhD and wanted to teach public-school science, you did not need a teacher's certificate prior to entering the classroom. It's not clear how successful that has been.

None of that changes the fact that K-12 teachers are not required to have any real grounding in science knowledge; that is, just as it's possible to matriculate through a Physics program without any grounding (for example) in history, K-12 teachers are trained to *teach*- they don't get trained to be 'science teachers' any more than they get trained to be 'social studies teachers'. And, with the increasing importance of standardized testing, more and more of the school year is spent preparing for the various tests, rather than teaching substantive material.

Furthermore, by High School, it's too late- the changes you are talking about need to occur at the elementary school level (grades K-6, 5-12 year olds) in order to get the students able to undertake 2 or 3 week long science projects by the time they get to High School.

So, what can be done? I advocate that you volunteer to host a 'science day'. Once a year, I spend an hour or so in a couple of classrooms (primary schools), and talk about science. I ran an 'experiment' where I illuminated colored paper with colored light and had the students predict what color the paper would appear: for example, yellow paper illuminated with red light. The teachers *love* it, the students have fun, and maybe a few of them get interested in becoming scientists.

 

[Phyisab****]

Reasons I'm not planning on being a teacher when I get my BS in about 2 months:

1. low wages, low opportunity for advancement, in industry there is a small chance to obtain personal glory for such as contribution to important technologies, obtaining patents etc.
2. becoming part of the prison-like high school environment I hated so much
3. high school physics teacher is like being a nerd minus the nerd I guess this goes under lack of prestige
4. no discipline among students, no desire to learn physics
5. lack of respect for the sciences among faculty and administration

What can be done? Man I really have no idea I'll try to think about that and come back to this thread. Honestly I feel like more experimentally based curriculum would have little effect, when constrained by the stifling high school environment.

 

[JaWiB]

So, to summarize:What would you change to encourage qualified applicants to teach high school physics?

I propose more opportunities for teachers to be involved in solving interesting problems (through student-based experiments).

There was a fairly sizable group of high school (IIRC) teachers at the national lab where I did my internship last summer, and they both participated in research and worked on designing educational modules. From what I remember, they were mostly hands-on activities, but they weren't anywhere at the level of sophistication that it seems you're thinking of. Part of me wonders if even average high school students wouldn't rise to a challenge (it might take an extraordinary teacher to motivate them, though)

As for what to change to get people interested in teaching high school physics, my school has what I think is a great program that was started by the CU Boulder (http://stem.colorado.edu/la-program )

I know of several students who joined the LA program with no intention of teaching and decided they enjoyed it enough to pursue it as a career. The possibility of a scholarship is also helpful ;)

 

[Moonbear]

Quite frankly, being both really good at teaching and knowing your subject well is a rare trait. Someone who knows their subject well and is really a cruddy teacher can still get away with teaching at a university level, because they 1) probably don't teach an entire course but just a few lectures in a team-taught course, 2) can bring in research funds that allow administration to turn a blind eye to their lack of teaching skills and 3) have more mature students who can somehow manage to learn from their books and notes in spite of the professor's lack of teaching skills. You can't get away with being a cruddy teacher in a secondary school; it's easier to get away with less subject content knowledge, because you only teach the students as much as you know how to teach.

I've been sitting through a bunch of faculty candidate seminars recently, and wanting to bang my head against the wall. They might be fine at research, but have no place teaching, and I think our search committee has a serious challenge ahead of them, since I'm really not sure anyone I've seen so far belongs in a faculty appointment yet. I would dread them training students and think they all need to do another post-doc before being employable.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Our local paper just announced that my institution (I didn't know this previously) is one of the first involved with the 'UTeach' program started at UT-Austin: math and science majors can graduate in four years as a fully-accredited teacher. The goal of UTeach is specifically to increase the number of competent math and science public school teachers.

http://www.uteach-institute.org/

 

[Vanadium 50]

And a while ago, a few states decided that if you have a PhD and wanted to teach public-school science, you did not need a teacher's certificate prior to entering the classroom. It's not clear how successful that has been.

Anecdotally, not very.

I had a student who decided to teach high school after his PhD. He got an alternative certification, and started to teach in the Chicago public school system. The environment was unsupportive. He was viewed by much of the rest of the faculty as a threat: those with a B.Ed. and a minor in nutrition like the system just fine as it is, and don't want to see the boat rocked. They were glad to see him go after about two years.

He's since moved on to a suburban school, and has received many prestigious awards for teaching excellence.

 

[marcusesses]

I would dread them training students and think they all need to do another post-doc before being employable.

How would doing another post-doc train them to become better teachers? Unless there was a teaching component to the position (highly unlikely, especially if there is a shortage of funds), then this will only give the candidates a good boost on their research CV, while doing nothing to improve their teaching abilities.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Anecdotally, not very.

I had a student who decided to teach high school after his PhD. He got an alternative certification, and started to teach in the Chicago public school system. The environment was unsupportive. He was viewed by much of the rest of the faculty as a threat: those with a B.Ed. and a minor in nutrition like the system just fine as it is, and don't want to see the boat rocked. They were glad to see him go after about two years.

He's since moved on to a suburban school, and has received many prestigious awards for teaching excellence.

Then I'd argue that he is a success story! I'm not naive enough to think I can reform the school system.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Then I'd argue that he is a success story!

I suppose it depends on your definition of success. A school district with many good science teachers got another one, so that's success at some level. But the school district that needed one most acutely chased theirs away.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I'd agree with that. I think producing qualified science teachers should be considered separate from installing those qualified teachers in underperforming school districts. I only have control over one of those goals.

 

[sronen71]

In the US there is the PhysTech program that aims to increase the recruitment of students to physics teaching programs and also improve the quality of their training. They seem to do some aggressive marketing and get positive results in terms of the size of enrollment. Their website is: http://www.phystec.org/. However I don't think they advocate significant changes in current physics teaching methodologies.

Check out my new blog http://www.physttr.org which discusses aspects of physics teachers training.

 

[sronen71]

I found some news today on this subject about a program in Cornell for continuous training for teachers to tackle the problem:

http://www.weny.com/news-local.asp?ARTICLE3864=9154949"

Shai

 

[twofish-quant]

However, I have a hard time believing that salary is a major factor preventing qualified applicant from entering the profession, as starting salaries for assistant professors are not much better than those for new teachers.

I think you are comparing maximum salaries for teachers with minimum salaries for professors. Also you have to look at salary evolution over time. You are just not going to make $150K teaching high school, whereas senior engineers can make that much money.

However, my opinion is that the main reason for the shortage of qualified teachers is the lack of prestige in the position.

That's tied to salary. If you make large amounts of money, you can buy prestige.

This is arguable, but I can see no other reason why so few would pursue a stable, relatively stress-free environment with a good wage, such as teaching, while so many would pursue a stressful, low pay profession with no guarantees that you will have a stable in 5 or 10 years, such as being a graduate student.

This is non-sense. Teaching is *NOT* stress-free. Teaching is one of the highest stress jobs that you can find, and it's also quite low paying. People become graduate students because you aren't going to be a low paid graduate student for the rest of your life.

Are there any changes that can be made to persuade more people to choose physics teaching as a profession?

Pay teachers more money. People don't like to hear this, but that's what it boils down to.

I'm not proposing doing anything outside the capabilities of a high school;

Yes you are. The problem is that if you want to teach experimental design, you are looking at an extremely high level of teaching skill, and there aren't enough teachers with this level of skill to go around. Also, it's easy to be a teacher if you have good motivated students, but what do you do about the students that *aren't* motivated and don't have high skills.

So, to summarize:What would you change to encourage qualified applicants to teach high school physics?

Pay high school teachers more money. Now the problem then is that you get into issues of taxes and administration, but that's another issue.

I propose more opportunities for teachers to be involved in solving interesting problems (through student-based experiments).

And that's why it's a blast to teach when you can choose your students. But you can't.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'd agree with that. I think producing qualified science teachers should be considered separate from installing those qualified teachers in underperforming school districts. I only have control over one of those goals.

If you create lots of good science teachers, but you can't get them into under-performing school districts, then I'd argued that you've failed, and it may have been a waste since those people that you trained may have done more social good elsewhere.

Educational administration is tough. Teaching is really tough. Teaching and educational administration are tough because you have to deal with other people, and people can be prickly and irrational.

One trait that I've noticed in scientists is that they often define the problem in ways that the human element is removed. OK you have a dysfunctional school system. Let's fire bomb it and start from scratch. Except that you aren't in a position to fire everyone, and if you did you'll be left with students sitting around doing nothing while you are trying to hire new teachers that haven't been trained.

 

[twofish-quant]

Inflexible teaching qualifications. Have a B-Ed from a community college with a minor in nutrition or sport and you are a specialist science teacher. Have a physics PhD and a lifetimes teaching experience and you aren't qualified to be a classroom assistant.

That's because most physics Ph.D.'s with university teaching experience are simply incompetent at teaching elementary and secondary school without extra training. There are some programs by which Ph.D.'s can get educational certificates very quickly (i.e. within a year).

Teaching is entirely based around national standardized curriculum and SATS - deviation from the approved lesson plan is almost a crime.

Yes, and there is a reason for that.

Part of the reason physics Ph.D.'s can make incompetent high school teachers is that a lot of elementary and secondary school involves following very precisely defined rules without questioning them, and that's something that Ph.D.'s are pretty bad at.

Other people have decided what is important to teach and what is not, and it is not your place to question those decisions. If the board of education has decided that it is a bad idea to mention that the universe may be older than 6000 years old, that that's the way it is.

If you get someone with a bachelor in education to read from a book and follow the lesson plan, they'll do that. If you get a Ph.D. to do that, and the lesson plan makes no sense to them, they won't. Also Ph.D.'s tend to get bored much more easily. Elementary and secondary teachers often do exactly the same thing day after day, year after year, and it doesn't bother them to do exactly the same thing. Most Ph.D.'s go insane if you try to get them to do that sort of thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also to question the question. It's not clear to me that we *do* have a shortage of high-school physics teachers.

 

[Astronuc]

Also to question the question. It's not clear to me that we *do* have a shortage of high-school physics teachers.

It depends on the school and school district. And I believe the qualifier is "qualified". But then it is more complicated than just placing a 'qualified' teacher.

The next questions - are the students prepared to study physics?!

In my case, I was. I took calculus as a senior in high school, a second year of chemistry, concurrently with physics. Prior to calculus, I had done the core algebra (two years), trigonometry, and analytical geometry, with some analysis. There were about 20 of us out of more than 700 students that did that track. The rest of the student body took the second year of algebra or trigonometry with some analytical geometry their senior year. The other high school I had attended in 10th grade did not offer calculus.

Interestingly, during my senior year of high school, I substitute taught the first year chemistry class when the teacher was absent for a week. The department head explained that they could not get a substitute, and she thought I could handle it. It was an interesting experience.

Of course, when I taught in university, I encountered students with very weak math abilities, and some freshmen had trouble with seemingly simple word problems in the introductory engineering course. These kids came from all over the state, and there were some brilliant kids and others who I would discourage from pursuing engineering.


I think though a critical problem is how to deal with students who don't want to study, or at least, are not interested in physics. In my experience, the proportion of highly motivated and diligent students is a few percent of the student body. They are the ones who learn for themselves, and who work well, or excell, with a good instructor.


There may be a place for this approach:

If you don't know much math (little or no algebra, and no trigonometry), I suggest getting a textbook that is intended for a "descriptive physics" course, such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321568095/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Many U.S. colleges and universities use this book for courses for students who are not science majors. So do many high schools, for their non-AP courses.

Otherwise, students motivated to go into the hard math and sciences will take calculus and a calculus based physics program.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It depends on the school and school district. And I believe the qualifier is "qualified". But then it is more complicated than just placing a 'qualified' teacher.

The next questions - are the students prepared to study physics?!

[snip]
Of course, when I taught in university, I encountered students with very weak math abilities, and some freshmen had trouble with seemingly simple word problems in the introductory engineering course. These kids came from all over the state, and there were some brilliant kids and others who I would discourage from pursuing engineering.

Not to pick on you, Astronuc, but the sections above happen to illustrate what I think is a large-scale cultural bias of physics *educators* (and many students). I think becoming aware of this bias (which I admit to having) helped improve my instructional practice. Again, I am specifically discussing teaching physics to non-physics majors (and even non-science majors or high school students).

The bias can crudely be written as 'physics = math'. Or, the idea that the more sophisticated the mathematical model, the deeper the physical understanding. This is a *belief*, not a *fact*. For example, it is common to express certain highly sophisticated mathematical results in *subjective* terms- using words like 'more elegant', "beautiful", 'simple', etc.

My claim is that teaching *physical* insight does not require teaching *mathematical* insight. Here's my evidence:

I am going to list 1 homework problem each from 4 different physics texts, and your task is to match the problem to the text. The texts are:

1) Kaku, "Quantum field theory- an introduction"
2) Giancoli, "Physics" (6th ed.)- standard algebra-based intro physics
3) Steele, "Popular Physics". Published in 1878, designed for high school instruction.
4) Pieper and Beauchamp, "Everyday problems in science", published 1925, designed for high school.

And the questions are:

a) With what momentum would a train weighing 100,000 kg, and running at 10 meters/second, strike against an obstacle?
b) Consider the electric field created by an electron. Draw the diagram if the charge were positive instead of negative.
c) Determine your own height in meters, and your mass in kilograms.
d) Can glass be used as an electrode? Why or Why not?

No cheating! I'll put the answers at the end of this post. These problems are posted nearly verbatim- the only changes I made are to standardize the units and language.

Personally, I have a hard time matching them up. Maybe it's obvious to you. What am I trying to demonstrate?

The mathematical content of the three books could not be more different- Kaku is a graduate text in theoretical physics, Giancoli is an algebra-based introductory text, Steele uses, at best, crude geometrical arguments familiar to Newton, and Pieper's book contains no mathematics *at all*- this book is more similar to a 5th-grade general science book than to a physics text.

In addition, the problems display variable levels of physical insight: one problem is simple plug-and-chug Newtonian mechanics, another a simple measurement, another involves the abstract notion of 'electric field', and the last involves electronic properties of condensed matter.

Again, I am trying to address a barrier that prevents or discourages people from setting foot in a physics class because of the (justified) perception that a physics class is 'just a bunch of math'. And more, I am trying to demonstrate that physics teachers have the ability to present high-level physical insight *without* the use of advanced mathematics. This puts the burden of instruction where it belongs- on the instructor.

This is how I become more qualified to teach physics- I work on teaching *physics*, not *mathematics*.

Now, in terms of training *other* physics teachers, we have an opportunity to train better teachers. At CSU, there's a NSF-funded program in place called "UTeach", which is a national program with the explicit goal of producing better qualified seconday-school science teachers;

http://uteachweb.cns.utexas.edu/

In summary, there *are* reasonable solutions, and they don't have to involve increasing the level of mathematical difficulty.Ok, here's the answer key:

1-b, 2-c, 3-a, 4-d

 

[twofish-quant]

One thing that I did was in my intro astronomy class at University of Phoenix was to make the class relevant to my students. All of them were mid-career professionals who were taking business administration classes with the hope of making more money, so I set up the astronomy class so that they could get some quick and easy skills that they could take back to work the next day.

The three mathematical concepts that I tried to reinforce were

1) dealing with large numbers - exponential notation and how to do quick calculations involving large numbers
2) estimation skills - lots of Fermi problems
3) significant figures and error - how accurate is this measurement

I then built the astronomy class around these key mathematical concepts. You can spend about two or three days teaching exponential notation, and then they can go back to the office and look at spreadsheets and budgets in ways that they couldn't before.

There was an ideological point which is that science isn't about memorizing facts from textbooks, any more than trying to figure out what is going with your cash flow is about memorizing facts from textbooks.

Also, I had to make the algebra extremely painless. A rather large fraction of students were quite traumatized by any sort of math, so it turned out that I had to be more of a therapist than a mathematician to get the students to absorb the material.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Excellent approach! What feedback did you get?

 

[mal4mac]

In the UK they should bring back grammar schools and make it clear that only physics graduates can teach physics there, and only quiet, studious, respectful (and bright!) kids can attend. That would increase the physics teachers' prestige and give them some protection from the rabble who make teacher's lives a living hell (bouncers, former military, social worker masochists can apply to teach them...)

The only argument against this is that motivated 'late developers' might miss out - so there should be a way out of hell into the grammar school after each year's exams (and a way down for the 'clever rebel'!)

The gate-keeper exams should be set and run by the physics teacher - then see how much respect he would get from the stalwarts of the community trying to get little Johnny into the grammar!

Save nerds from hell! Create some proper schools...

 

[physics girl phd]

While there are many attempts by universities to encourage undergrads to enter the teaching profession and to simplify the teacher's education programs to add alternative routes, a big problem, in my opinion, is that certification does not initially occur at the national level, so it is difficult to move states.

Much of the following rant is from an earlier post of mine (in a different thread):

Certification/licensure programs are completed at a university, and are mostly accepted for that state (it's a bit of a pain to get other states to look at an out-of-state university's program). You then have to teach in the state for generally 3 about years... at which point other states may accept your out-of-state license and reissue a new in-state license (the time-line varies by state, but not really by "need" in a certain area like Math). There is now a process for national licensure, but to qualify to submit your application for this (which I believe requires references, examples of work, etc. and taking additional tests, which are different from the Praxis) you must be teaching for something like ten years. Add on that the more experience you have, the more pay you get via labor union contracts... and generally the schools want CHEAP new teachers (so that adds onto the "hard to move" aspect).

my personal anecdote: Even with a Ph.D in physics, and an M.Ed. in classroom teaching... and TONS of teaching experience (since I'm now a lecturer at a university, ad even have taught a few students pursing teaching certification), I can't presently teach at a public school, since I let my own certification expire while I pursued my Ph.D. in another state. Actually, at this point in life, I'd probably like going back to teaching HS (due to life changes, including having some kids)... but it would be a pain to get recertification (according to state paperwork, I'd have to get forms filled out by a certification program that I attended and a HS that employed me some 10-15 years ago -- and both in a different state).

 

[Birkeland]

The simple cause of the lack of physics teachers comes from a lack of people studying physics. I graduated with a B.S in Physics Education from Illinois State University, which has a fantastic reputation for Physics Educators, and one of the years I was there the program was named one of the best undergrad physics programs in the country. Despite this, our total population at any given time numbered between 100-150. What separates good teachers from the bad is the ability to both understand the material and to present it in a variety of ways, one without the other doesn't do much good.

For example, one of my calc professors was a brilliant mathematician. However, she couldn't explain anything without looking at its fundamental definition. A phrase like "the time derivative is the rate at which something changes" is a foreign concept for her.

This is not an issue that better pay can solve; it is simply a matter of numbers. There is only a small portion of the human population that has the talent for a subject like physics, this has been true even when STEM education has been at its highest. Of that population, only a small subset will have the ability to explain that material to others that don’t have a physics degree.

Frankly, my concern would be less on the background of the teachers and just get them to use inquiry more and cookbook labs less. But that’s another rant.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

There is only a small portion of the human population that has the talent for a subject like physics, this has been true even when STEM education has been at its highest. Of that population, only a small subset will have the ability to explain that material to others that don’t have a physics degree.

By that logic (which I don't dispute) only a small number of students will be able to understand a physics course even if it is taught by a qualified teacher.

Are we talking about secondary education? The only solution will be to substantially replace human teachers with "automated" types of instruction. I think no convincing attempt has ever been made to do this. For example, if you look at instructional videos on mathematics and physics, most use relatively primitive graphics. Even the ones sold as "The Great Courses" are primarily a recording of the traditional type of class lecture. Teaching with videos and interactive computer programs is still in a primitive state.

 

[Birkeland]

By that logic (which I don't dispute) only a small number of students will be able to understand a physics course even if it is taught by a qualified teacher.

Well, this is from the standpoint of a secondary teacher, it all depends on what the goal of the course is. An AP B for C physics class (Similar to pre-med physics for B and intro physics major for C) can only be sufficiently understood by maybe 25%-50% of the student body. However, a physics concepts class can be easily understood by students of all abilities. My view is that students should learn general concepts that are useful in life (conservation of energy, ect) and learn what science is, its methods and uses. For that, little math is needed.

However, to truly understand the materials and to give students more than a superficial understanding does take a physics teacher. For example I have heard chem and bio teacher give at least 5 different explanations of how an airplane flies, all of them wrong.

edit:

I suppose I should point out, when I say only a small percentage have the talent for physics, I mean to be able to get through a B.S Physics program, I think a much larger percentage can understand the basic conceptual or Algebra based physics. However in terms of getting physics majors to teach physics, it is a challenge. For example, the program I went through, on top of the education classes I had to take, I still have 5 education class within the physics program, PHY 110,111,112 (intro calc based physics), mathematical methods of theoretical physics, diff eq based mechanics, advanced E&M, 3 hours of laboratory design, QM I, and solid state. In the end, I took almost as much physics as the straight physics majors, and graduated with a minor in math as well (much like every other physics major). To get through all that requires a vastly different way of thinking than a large percentage of the population possesses.

 

[zodea]

I realize this thread has been going on forever, but I would like to make a couple of comments.

I teach high school physics. I doubt that I'm really considered qualified. After I have taught physics a few more years I might be getting close.

One of my biggest complaints is lack of student friendly materials. Let's say I want my students to do some additional practice on motion graphs. If I spend some time searching the Internet for potential worksheets/practice problems I might come up with 2-5 things that might possibly work with my students.

However, if I want to find something to help my biology students practice identifying parts of a cell and their functions (or any other biology topic) I will easily finds 100's of things that could be useful and it will take me much less time.

So if you want to make physics teachers "better" supply them with the necessary materials. I would seriously like to see some honest to goodness drill and practice sheets for physics. The materials that come with the textbooks are not what I need. They often only have one or two of each type of problem and if students need extra reinforcement it's not there.

Even if you have a "qualified" physics teacher, they probably get fed up with creating all their own materials and leave for something else. I'm to the point I'd rather teach any other subject than physics because there is so much more support for the other subjects. But I'm basically stuck teaching physics because I am the only teacher in my school who has the certification.

Zodea

 

[jhae2.718]

Perhaps there ought to be a free online physics problem source...

I'm sure the people at PF could come up with some good problems.

Since it's high school, I assume algebra-based physics?

 

[Stephen Tashi]

zodea,

I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the available materials for secondary school physics labs.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So if you want to make physics teachers "better" supply them with the necessary materials. I would seriously like to see some honest to goodness drill and practice sheets for physics. The materials that come with the textbooks are not what I need. They often only have one or two of each type of problem and if students need extra reinforcement it's not there.

Even if you have a "qualified" physics teacher, they probably get fed up with creating all their own materials and leave for something else. I'm to the point I'd rather teach any other subject than physics because there is so much more support for the other subjects. But I'm basically stuck teaching physics because I am the only teacher in my school who has the certification.

Zodea

Excellent comment- this problem has been recognized by some organizations (AAPT, NSF), and there have been some attempts to generate this material, but you are correct that biology and chemistry are way ahead of the curve on this.

 

[Birkeland]

Excellent comment- this problem has been recognized by some organizations (AAPT, NSF), and there have been some attempts to generate this material, but you are correct that biology and chemistry are way ahead of the curve on this.

I am currently in my third year of teaching, and I keep finding new places to find materials, but in the end you just usually end up making them. My issue now is that my school is now pushing us to teach college readiness standards. For those that don't know what they are, they are the standards the ACT is based on. (but we are not teaching to the test, that's important to understand. /sarcasm)

When looking for ACT style materials there is tons on Bio, Earth Science, Chemistry, ect. But almost no one has any for Physics. Instead, unlike every other class, where chem and bio was handed a binder full of everything they needed, I am told to go make it.

This is my way of saying that the problem is twofold. There is a lack of traditional materials and that physics is consistently behind the curve on adapting to new standards. That being said, there are two places in particular I go for materials.

http://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com/ (join the secure site for the real good stuff)

http://modeling.asu.edu/Curriculum.html (great modeling resources. If you are a non-modeler than just modify them.)

Hope that helps zodea

 

[physics girl phd]

Ok, here's the answer key:1-b, 2-c, 3-a, 4-d

Huzzah! I score a 100! (thinking CAREFULLY of course, but using the reasoning about mathematical emphasis of old high-school texts, having used Giancolli for a term when subbing in for a colleague and seeing that type of estimation question in the text, etc.)

We got a UTeach grant at UT (Tennessee) too... but I'm sad to say I'm not seeing much effect . Our university still uses a fifth-year only approach to certifying high school teachers (where students start their Education Master's after they complete their BS -- either in a direct fifth year or after some time has lapsed)... so I think the department, although a few faculty seem involved in a minor role, is still largely hands-off. Although I got my M.Ed. in education through a fifth-year approach, I still think it's wrong to have this be the ONLY path to certification. I'd like to see some undergrads that are interested in teaching getting some exposure through outreach to the schools, and classes that included observations and student teaching (and at present moment coursework that has some of this included is limited enrollment to graduate students in the education program, which is through another College, not A&S).

Where our university does go right is by having a program where special education teachers (another high-need area) can get undergrad degrees in special ed. There is even a GREAT course offered through the Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies (in the same College as the Teacher Education programs) where students organize and then conduct a week-long camp for students with multiple physical disabilities (with roughly 150 disabled students from around the state and ~200 university students in roles ranging from individual counselors -- each disabled student has his/her own aide -- to activity coordinators, photojournalists etc. -- university students are individual counselors their first year, but can repeat the course and take a higher role in subsequent years). Before camp they have some exposure to the local classrooms... but camp is trial by fire, but organized enough that the fire ignites interest. Our oldest son P, with multiple disabilities, is a participant.

Show me a university with an organized course like that for some science camp (supported by physics, chem, bio, etc. departments along with teacher ed), and I'd show you a program that could recruit and train excited, qualified teachers that can teach at a K-12 level.

 

[Andy Resnick]

We got a UTeach grant at UT (Tennessee) too... but I'm sad to say I'm not seeing much effect .

It's funny you bring this up now- this past week our UTeach program *finally* started to get proactive- both about getting students (the program is run through the education department) as well as more active participation from us (physics). I want to get more involved, but there seems to be some inertia regarding 'turf'. Supposedly in the fall we will have some sort of organized activity... Stay tuned...

 

[Birkeland]

Show me a university with an organized course like that for some science camp (supported by physics, chem, bio, etc. departments along with teacher ed), and I'd show you a program that could recruit and train excited, qualified teachers that can teach at a K-12 level.

While not exactly that, I can't say enough about the Physics Education program at Illinois State. ISU is known as mostly an education school, and as far as the special ed and primary ed programs I'm sure that's true, but from the little I saw the secondary ed program I hated it. However, most of the secondary ed training takes place inside the content area itself. Even though my degree was Physics Education the whole way through, I took a bunch of ed classes and still was only 1 semester away from a full physics degree, so content knowledge was no problem.

As far as teaching experiences, we were only required 80 hours of observation by law, but our program required 140, a large portion of which was hands on experience in the classroom. We also took part in several teaching activities at local science museums, and went to teach a couple lessons at the Juvenile Detention center in town. While not a part of the program itself, the department runs something called "Physics on the Road" where we take physics equipment and demos around to schools that either lack the money for equipment, or the student numbers for physics courses and teach concepts and lessons. We also took part in a "Physics Night" each month at the children's discovery museum.

Even though nothing can really make you 100% ready for teaching until you get through your first year, this program really gave us as much experience as possible, with as much content knowledge as possible.

 

[physics girl phd]

While not exactly that, I can't say enough about the Physics Education program at Illinois State.

Thank you! I knew there were some out there -- your alma mater's well-established "physics on the road" and "physics night" programs sound like great ways to get participants in the field. As Andy points out, the "inertia" of some institutions can be hard to overcome. People think $$$ is hard to come by, and then get possessive about their stuff / turf and are afraid to let undergrads have at it (especially if this undergrad doesn't compare favorably to that one ten years ago).

I'm glad to see from your profile you're still an active teacher / success story (and I agree about that first year about being the true test point -- but our training programs certainly need to provide as much good prep for that first year as possible!).

 

[Birkeland]

People think $$$ is hard to come by, and then get possessive about their stuff / turf and are afraid to let undergrads have at it (especially if this undergrad doesn't compare favorably to that one ten years ago).

You know, I never really thought about it, but I think part of the reason the program might have been as successful as it is might be because the school does not have a grad program. As I understand it, the university has tried to encourage the development of a grad program, but the department has fought it, preferring to focus on undergrad. Personally I loved it, because it meant that the undergrads did research with the professors, and I got to publish a couple of papers, and I got to TA lab sections of gen ed classes, all of which gave me experiences I might not have otherwise had.

Then again, I could be completely wrong and it could be very common for a large portion of undergrads to do research.

 

[zodea]

Thanks for the comments everyone. Yes I am teaching algebra based physics. Some years we get into a little bit of trig but I don't remember enough calculus to introduce that to my classes plus only about half of my students take calculus at the same time they are taking physics.

We only teach one year of physics at my school. We have an honors physics class and a general physics class offered which students have the opportunity to take their senior year.

For physics labs I have access to the modeling curriculum but it's very sequential and I find it hard to pull out things here and there... it seems like an all or nothing sort of program. The worksheets are very oriented to their activities and I do not have time to follow it completely so I do not use very many of their materials. It sounds like there are new materials available but if I understand correctly they are only given out to workshops participants.

I also have a copy of PRISMS which is a nice physics lab set that follows the learning cycle nicely. However I find my students can handle a few of the learning cycles and then get tired of doing it over and over again. I have the same problems with modeling. Students get really tired of doing worksheet after worksheet (even though they are very hands on labs).

Some of the problem is our school's culture. I swear our students really do prefer a lecture style class with concrete problems and definite right or wrong answers. They get very upset if they get anything counted wrong with their lab grades saying that "those were the results we got!" even though if they actually did the lab diligently and followed directions they couldn't have gotten those results.

Oh well... my biggest gripe is not actually about labs available but the other support materials. Just the other day I had to create a (rather pathetic) worksheet so students could practice drawing circuits using schematic diagrams. The worksheets I found were more about calculations than just practice drawing. I find it helpful to have students do the drawings before they begin the calculations.

I had hoped to use problems and resources from our book more extensively this year (Holt Physics) but it's just not working out. I'm sure I'll get better as I grow in my physics knowledge but I know I'll be spending a lot of my summer trying to get my physics classes organized for next year. I will have three honors physics classes and one general physics classes along with two very low level freshman physical science classes. My problem is I can't always tell which areas the students need extra practice in until after I give them a worksheet or lab that is over their heads. Then I need to figure out an in between step to get them ready for the main event. It is when I go looking for that in between worksheet or practice problems that I am floundering. They don't seem to exist.

Zodea

 

[jamesnb]

Salaries are an issue but the teacher still needs to have the desire to teach. I'm teaching because that's what I want to do even though I could make (and have made) a lot more doing other things. There's no performance bonus anything like that.
The days are long, at least the hours I put in.
A lot of the kids are brats and think they deserve an A for walking in the door and the parents are worse. The students expect to have a "review sheet" that has the exact problems (they are ok if the values are a little different) that will be on the test. The students throw a fit if you put any problem on a test where they have to use previous knowledge and common sense to solve instead of just memorizing the answers.
The students are severely lacking in math skills, even rearranging a simple algebraic formula.
The elementary and middle school teachers have a poor grasp of science. I heard a 3rd grade teacher telling the kids an open circuit let's the electricity flow just like you open a faucet to let the water flow. They split social studies time with science time and if the administration doesn't rob that time for an assembly or such, the elementary teach spends more time on social studies because that's where the teacher is more comfortable.
Finally, The State of Texas is in the process of dumbing down physics to what was once called physical science. The intentions were good -- every student needs four years of science and four years of math to graduate but all this does is force kids who aren't ready to show up at my door. then I have to spend a month on significant figures and algebra review so they don't get a 40 on their first report card. Blah.
Ok, I finished. But in spite of all of that, my administration is great and I do enjoy what I'm doing.

 

[jhae2.718]

The students are severely lacking in math skills, even rearranging a simple algebraic formula.
The elementary and middle school teachers have a poor grasp of science.

The high school (in Texas also) I went to ended up replacing almost the entire math department after the first year it opened. I think most of them couldn't take the utter lack of basic math skills; I think there was a major breakdown in math education at the middle school level.

I heard a 3rd grade teacher telling the kids an open circuit let's the electricity flow just like you open a faucet to let the water flow.

What?? That's almost as bad as https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3240015&postcount=8041" .

Finally, The State of Texas is in the process of dumbing down physics to what was once called physical science. The intentions were good -- every student needs four years of science and four years of math to graduate but all this does is force kids who aren't ready to show up at my door.

I looked over the new end of course exam topics for physics and was horrified.

 

[Birkeland]

Finally, The State of Texas is in the process of dumbing down physics to what was once called physical science. The intentions were good -- every student needs four years of science and four years of math to graduate but all this does is force kids who aren't ready to show up at my door. Then I have to spend a month on significant figures and algebra review so they don't get a 40 on their first report card.

Yeah, as bad as that is I might be able to top it. My school is now requiring that all 11th students must take physics. This is a low income community where 45% of the school has free lunch. Some kids come in at a 3rd grade reading level. As a result of all this, I was put in charge of the committee to write the new curriculum. I also happen to be the only teacher with any real physics training. Despite this we will have 3 teachers teaching physics who have never taken a physics class in their life. On top of this, I wanted to make the lowest level course (where the kids who have never passed a math class are) a conceptual course. I was told that it had to be algebra and trig based (even though some kids can't add) because "that's the model we are following".

But that’s ok, what follows is a paraphrased conversation the year we were told this was happening.

ADMIN: We will require all juniors to take physics. If you look at your data I gave you, you’ll see that students who have taken physics score higher on the ACT. As a result, we have decided to drop Earth Science for Physics so that they will score better.

ME: But, physics is currently optional.

ADMIN: So?

ME: So the students taking it are more likely self motivated, are planning on college, or have parents involved in their life pushing them to take the course. That’s the three groups of students predisposed to do well on the ACT!

ADMIN: But the numbers say physics good!

ME: You’ve never taken a stats class have you?

Oh well, job security I guess.

 

[Andy Resnick]

A lot of the kids are brats and think they deserve an A for walking in the door and the parents are worse. The students expect to have a "review sheet" that has the exact problems (they are ok if the values are a little different) that will be on the test. The students throw a fit if you put any problem on a test where they have to use previous knowledge and common sense to solve instead of just memorizing the answers.
The students are severely lacking in math skills, even rearranging a simple algebraic formula.
The elementary and middle school teachers have a poor grasp of science. I heard a 3rd grade teacher telling the kids an open circuit let's the electricity flow just like you open a faucet to let the water flow. They split social studies time with science time and if the administration doesn't rob that time for an assembly or such, the elementary teach spends more time on social studies because that's where the teacher is more comfortable.
Finally, The State of Texas is in the process of dumbing down physics to what was once called physical science. The intentions were good -- every student needs four years of science and four years of math to graduate but all this does is force kids who aren't ready to show up at my door. then I have to spend a month on significant figures and algebra review so they don't get a 40 on their first report card. Blah.
Ok, I finished. But in spite of all of that, my administration is great and I do enjoy what I'm doing.

The high school (in Texas also) I went to ended up replacing almost the entire math department after the first year it opened. I think most of them couldn't take the utter lack of basic math skills; I think there was a major breakdown in math education at the middle school level.

Yeah, as bad as that is I might be able to top it.

Ugh. I empathize with you all. The way standardized tests have impacted the US school system is horrifying and even worse, there is still a push to *increase* the role standardized tests have on the educational system, by tying student test scores to teacher salaries and promotions.

 

[jhae2.718]

Ugh. I empathize with you all. The way standardized tests have impacted the US school system is horrifying and even worse, there is still a push to *increase* the role standardized tests have on the educational system, by tying student test scores to teacher salaries and promotions.

With the caveat that I am not an educator, but merely a survivor of the horrors of the system, I must say I agree with you. Also, I apologize in advance for the following rant...

<rant>
The amount of ridiculous and, quite frankly, idiotic things we were forced to do to "prepare" for standardized tests was horrifying. The brainwave of the science curriculum administrators at the district I went to for preparing for standardized exams (in Texas, the infamous TAKS test) were "foldables". These were different papers that the students would put together and would fill in notes dictated by the teacher. In other words, it was essentially a kindergarten level activity applied to high schoolers, leading to no benefit at all.

When I took the algebra-based physics course my high school offered (prior to taking a proper AP Physics course; this course was labeled 'Pre-AP'), I was shocked and horrified at just how bad the course was. Some of the general crimes against mathematics and physics committed were:

• Claims that the kinematic equation d = 1/2at²+vt* could not be solved because the "t was in two places, and one was squared", lest we have the horror of having to explain how to select the correct solution to a problem.
• The density of water being described as 1 kg/m³, because apparently the teacher or whomever developed the curriculum could not do the simple conversion of units.
• Problems were entirely formulaic and were either "one-step" or "two-step". These required no critical thinking at all, reducing the exercises of the class to simply "plug and chug".
• Free-body diagrams were only glanced over, and the entirety of exercises consisted of drawing an FBD for a block. The use of FBDs as a problem solving tool was not covered. How does one do physics without an understanding of how to draw a free-body diagram?
• Vectors were barely covered, and in a way that had no usefulness. (I realize a high school physics class should not necessarily be at a college level, but surely they don't need to be dumbed down this much?)
• One of the worst was the claim that work could only be done horizontally, in the "x" direction. I don't know how they got this idea, as it makes no since at all.

We never got to electromagnetism, but I don't even want to think of the horror inflicted there. It scares me to think of the people coming out of that class with such misconceptions of physics. Even worse, however, was the total lack of problem solving skills or critical thinking. This has to be one of the worse aspects of the current education system, that students are no longer made to think critically.

I think the science education in the K12 system is pretty awful; I think a lot of teachers aren't qualified to teach hard sciences. At the very least, to teach a science one should possesses a degree in that science. Of course, that's easy to say, but it brings us to the macroscopic subject of the thread, namely the lack of qualified physics (and I think science in general) teachers.

And on this, I'm not sure how we can resolve the issue. I only know that it is imperative that we do.

(On another note, one of the best classes I took in high school was a Pre-AP Biology class. The teacher was extremely knowledgeable on the subject (shockingly she actually had a master's degree in biology, and not something like a masters in education; she also was a part time lecturer at a nearby university) and was demanding of the students. But of more interest from a pedagogical side was a program she helped start whereby local high school teachers would do research in their subject in labs at that particular university over the summer. I think that it is a great idea, and should be more widespread. I'm not sure if the program survived; she ended up retiring after the school administration kept complaining that she made students work too hard and wanted her to tone down the course.)

*We couldn't have the horror of writing it as a function of time, could we?
</rant>

 

[jamesnb]

I'm lucky in that I have pretty good students and most of the parents care and like I said before, the administration is supportive. I really hate this idea the students have that the homework problems should be the same test questions. They start whining and literally crying on test day because they've "never seen this stuff before". They also think they are entitled to a review sheet with the exact problems that will be on the test.
I try to structure the assessments so if they do the homework and try, they can make a C. If they can apply some of what they learn they can make a B and to get an A+, they need to be able to do some higher level thinking and apply previous knowledge.
Sorry but I had to vent because it was another round of test whining. Plus, it's mid-April and some of them are acting like they've never heard of vectors or the relationship between velocity and acceleration.
Thanks for the gravity magnet, jhae; that was funny.

 

[Macie22]

In second grade, my son was being taught the states of matter; solid, liquid, gas. One day at a bookstore, he happened upon an Encyclopedia of Science. Paging through, he stopped and ran to me across the store exclaiming that there was a FOURTH state of matter - Plasma! It was, in his mind, the best state because it occurs so rarely and the conditions have to be just right. We were both thrilled at his "new" discovery.

I had him write down some details of his discovery to show his teacher. He is dyslexic, and although this was just emerging, his dysgraphia made his effort difficult. Still, I encouraged him, and he took his paper bouncing on his feet to school in anticipation of sharing this great news.

The teacher's response? "We won't be studying that here, you'll learn about it in a few years."

That was the first time this teacher crushed his enthusiasm for science and exploration. The second time, the class was told to make Mother's Day cards. He drew himself and I on the moon happily waving (I was in the pink space suit). His teacher took the card, told him is wasn't acceptable, had him throw it away and try again. To my everlasting joy, he retrieved the card and gave it to me anyway because, "I knew you'd understand mom, and like it."

Just two examples. Kids can learn so much more than they are offered. We chose to home school. We found pattern cut-outs of T4 Bacteriophages online from a Colorado University for a science class. We printed and constructed the project and he learned all about DNA, proteins, cells cycles...age 8. His IQ was tested at only about 128 so he wasn't necessarily "gifted", but innately curious. He also needed psycho-therapy due to the cruelty of teachers who not only did not catch signs of a learning disorder, but punished him because he could read as fast as others, complete assignments as quickly, or write in cursive.

Physics, mathematics, reasoning, learning to learn conceptually or differently begins in elementary school and often before.

You cannot alleviate the shortage of "qualified" physics teachers without thinking back to how they 'germinate' and then construct a system that nurtures curiosity.

 

[EMFsmith]

Get the government to pay for my house/petrol/food/bills/uni fees, then you have 1 more high school physics teacher in the making!

Sorry must have fell asleep for a second there :)

 

[Macie22]

Sorry, a bit of a rant as well coming from the student/parent perspective. So many caveats to teaching and learning. Still I believe children can be fascinated by seemingly complex ideas at very young ages - and that is where we must start.

 

[jamesnb]

Regarding the Mother's Day card -- unless the teacher gave specific instructions that he didn't follow, what the teacher did was awful. Even if he didn't follow the teacher's instructions, a teacher should never crumple up a students work and throw it in the trash. That whole incident sounds bizarre.
Regarding the 4th state of matter -- I usually have an in depth discussion about plasma, ionizing gasses and electron configuration with the high school physics students. They ask why they haven't been taught this before; all the other teachers say is just plasma is the 4th state of matter. My standard answer is most teachers generally don't understand what a plasma is. I know students don't have the best memory but I really believe it's just mentioned and not explained.
Having said all that, it is difficult to cover what the state mandates to cover and prepare the students for the standardized tests and wedge additional material in. It's hard to fight the urge to go to the depth you think they really need and cover additional topics that you know the students should know and will need to know if they plan to study science in college. This is made even more difficult by the number of instructional days lost to merely administer in the standardized tests. We lost 18 instructional days due to testing this year and next year will be the same. We had an in-service a couple of months ago and it included some motivational type speaker that actually said "what's wrong with teaching to the test?" "Get rid of all the extra stuff you think the kids need to know and just teach them what they need to know for the test." After I made sure he wasn't being sarcastic, I asked what about higher level thinking, problem solving and teaching the students to be independent thinkers. He ducked the question and I realized what ever we paid him, we were being robbed. I pretty much tuned him out after that and started thinking about some labs i could do on electricity.
@EMFSmith-- more money would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Phido]

When I taught High school, even in year 7 I would teach that there are 3 main states of matter, but there are more. Gifted classes I would get them to do research projects on Plasma and B-E condensates. Kids loved it, sure a lot of regurgitation, but they got the basics out, found uses of plasma etc. Plasma is the *MOST* common form of matter (I look up at the flurolights and the sun/stars in the distance). I talk about super liquids etc and explain that science is still trying to work stuff out and depending on your definition there could be lot more states (eg colloids, corn flower and water prac and much fun). Low(est) ability classes got the 3 states and “theres some other stuff too” and were happy with that. Those interested in science took it as an opportunity to research something interesting (in both the highest and the lowest ability).
But gee didn’t my kids do poorly when asked in a test how many states of matter are there. I should have just taught three. Punish my students and their interest in knowledge.
* Physics is harder to teach than most other subjects concepts of science, maths of an advanced maths course, pracs and ordering like a cooking/chem/metalwork, often fabrication of equipment (no equipment because why buy physics stuff when we have 3 bio classes), most physics course also include a history or writing component (at least in Australia), essay writing, prac marking etc.
* There’s also generally no one to learn how to teach off as most of the experience Physics teachers have left and most schools were lucky to get one. Make all your own lessons, worksheets, solutions, pracs, websites, computer tutorials etc etc etc. Most other subjects two or more teachers teach, so they can share the workload of writing assessments or what not.
* Also as the Physics teacher your generally the go to person. Because of your maths, the physical education teachers pretending to teach maths come to you, the science teachers come to you to understand physics in the junior course, you understand about computers so you should look after that too. A woodwork teacher is teaching “engineering” so you can help him with that. Why don’t you run the gifted student committee, the it group, etc etc. Newton help you if you actually let on your good at teaching, by the end I was a student year advisor, GAT, student leadership coordinator, basketball coach etc. Hey and because you have just started teaching you get the lowest rate of pay!
* Promotions are limited because you teach physics. I wasn’t accredited to teach maths (ha!), and there was a maths coordinator position, but I can’t be retrained to teach maths (or coordinate maths!), who would teach the physics (most senior positions come with reduced teaching load). So instead the sewing teacher gets retrained, fails the course and there's still no one to run it, so they get someone less able. Your locked in for life, you were born and will die a physics teacher, never able to teach anything else (come on, just a little chem now and then to keep my hand in the game? Maybe some maths so I can see how that course relates to physics).
* You end up fighting everything on your own. I wanted to have an astronomy night, it was a luna eclipse, perfect early in the evening. Do you think I could get any to support me?? HA! I basically said I will open the school will bolt cutters and have it anyway at which point the head of science came on board. People genuinely though it wasn’t going to happen (apparently lots of teachers get burnt with that “Mars bigger than the moon” email). The school executive is in the dark ages. I was youngish so what would I know. Great night, about 500 members of the public, my own telescopes, clear night, Jupiter and Saturn were up as well with Mars a bit later. Total eclipse lasting minutes bathing everything in red light, epic experience for some of the youngings. School runs an article on it (after the event), but invented a fictional teacher so I couldn’t claim credit for it (blocking me using as a reference). Meanwhile a sports teacher wants to have an ultimate frizzbie comp, here have hours to organise it, time off to run it and the full support of the school. They also get support from other schools and the dam frizzbee manufacturer. Photos in the local paper (pushed by the school)...
Overworked, underpaid, no promotion prospects, no equipment, an outcast all alone surrounded by poorly retrained staff(in the region). Did the only thing, walked into a university and got double the money, 1/3 of the teaching hours, no lunch supervision duties and a budget bigger than my schools (I don’t even have a Phd), I even get a ½ day once a week.
University had the same thing, they struggled to find anyone *ANYONE* who was capable of teaching the 1st/2nd year harder physics and engineering subjects. Despite the money and the sweet offers. (Largest city in Australia 5 million people top 3 nicest cities in the world).
So it’s not just about money, there are just not enough Physics wizards left in the kingdom. There are no wizards to inspire/train other wizards. Those masquerading as wizards are poisoning it for everyone.
Read Issac Asimovs “The feeling of Power” (short story). It is getting very close to that level with physics (lets be honest, maths isn’t too far behind). Sure those on Terminus are surrounded by Physicists and such, but its all dying, it will just take longer to reach the core..

 

[magpie5]

Hi all, another problem is that if you apply as a high school physics teacher, you may only teach physics as a small percentage of the total teaching load.
The other 90% of your load (say) could be teaching some area your not familiar with such as biology etc.
Thats what can happen in Australia for example