American Chemical Society statement on pre-service teacher education attracts limited support in Florida and elsewhere

When the American Chemical Society adopted its “Statement on Pre-Service Education” in Fall of 2009, it must have seemed like the right thing to say at the right time.  After all, STEM education was a hot topic nationally.  When the ACS asked for endorsements from individual chemistry departments at colleges and universities, they must have expected an avalanche of endorsements.

It hasn’t happened.

To date, chemistry departments at 94 institutions of higher learning have endorsed the statement.  Only one institution in Florida – Florida International University – has signed on.

In contrast, 396 college and university physics departments have signed on to the “Joint Statement on the Education of Future Teachers” composed by the American Institute of Physics and its member societies in 1999.  Five Florida institutions have signed on, including Florida A&M University, Florida Institute of Technology, Florida International University, Florida State University, and the University of Florida.

Something Florida got right in high school science: separate biology, chemistry, Earth/space and physics certifications

Florida has maintained its separate teacher certifications in biology, chemistry, Earth/space and physics while most of the rest of the nation has jettisoned this system in favor of generic science certifications, according to a new report from the National Center on Teacher Quality.  Florida is one of only eleven states that have done so.

From the NCTQ press release:

• By allowing certification in “general science,” rather than a specific subject, most states do not guarantee that secondary biology, chemistry and physics teachers have mastered the content they teach. The resulting loose definitions of “science teacher” render everyone in the profession interchangeable.
• Although high-school-level science is quite specialized, all but 11 states allow secondary science teachers to obtain general-science certifications or combination licenses across multiple disciplines. In most cases, these teachers need only pass a general-knowledge science exam that does not ensure subject-specific knowledge.

The press release is here, and the full report is here.

Thanks to Monica Plisch at APS for sending this along via the PTEC mailing list.

Is the supply of secondary science and math teachers adequate?

Really?  You have to ask?

Well, two researchers from the University of Pennsylvania did, and here is the abstract of what they had to say:

The authors’ analyses of nationally representative data from multiple sources show that math and science are the fields most difficult to staff, but the factors behind these problems are complex. There are multiple sources of new teachers; those with education degrees are a minor source compared to those with degrees in math and science and the reserve pool. Over the past two decades, graduation requirements, student course taking, and teacher retirements have all increased for math and science, yet the new supply has more than kept pace. However, when preretirement teacher attrition is factored in, there is a much tighter balance between supply and demand. Unlike fields such as English, for math and science, there is not a large cushion of new supply relative to losses—resulting in staffing problems in schools with higher turnover.

It’s worth asking whether the supply in certain science fields – like chemistry and physics – is tighter than in, say, biology.  But the authors said the data did not allow them to extract significant results on individual science fields.

But here are some excerpts from Rising Above the Gathering Storm:

In 2000, 93% of students in grades 5-8 were taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences (chemistry, geology, general science, or physics).

In 1999-2000, 67% of high school students taking physics had a teacher who did not have a major or certification in physics.  (Updated info on this will be arriving from AIP soon.)

AP Physics redesign: Will Honors Physics disappear from high schools?

A message from the College Board’s official listserve for Advanced Placement Physics gave a tantalizing hint of big doings in the redesign of the AP Physics program, which is being funded by the National Science Foundation as part of an all-natural sciences overhaul.  The development briefly described by the writer was that the one-year “Physics B” course, which does not use calculus, would be broken up into two courses, one on mechanics and thermodynamics and one on electricity and magnetism (in the same way that college physics courses devote one semester to each of these subjects).  High schools would have the option of teaching each of these new courses as one year courses, so that the algebra-based AP physics sequence could be a two-year sequence.  The mechanics course would be called AP Physics A, and the electricity and magnetism course would be named AP Physics B.

The College Board seems to be enforcing a hush-hush order on those who have been involved in the redesign, so it is impossible to know for sure what is going on.  Of course, the hush-hush order makes it impossible for school districts to plan for these changes.  And with the budget collapses being faced by many states in the next fiscal year, planning is more important than ever.  However, the College Board seems undisturbed by this because it is someone else’s problem.

However poorly the College Board is handling its project, the development of an autonomous one-year advanced placement course on mechanics and thermodynamics raises the possibility that the standard college-prep Honors Physics course will soon be obsolete and disappear from high schools.  The syllabus of the rumored Physics A course would be close to that of Florida’s Honors Physics 1 course.  However, it would have three major advantages over Florida’s present Honors Physics offering.  First, it would have the quality control resulting from an end-of-course exam.  A Physics 1 end-of-course exam is presently living in the purgatory of the “when budget conditions allow” section of Florida’s new high school graduation law, but the state’s educational policy leaders seem to lack the nerve to impose such a test on high schools – even if they were not staring down the barrel of the worst budget year in memory.  Second, the College Board does some monitoring of teacher quality in its AP courses.  Teacher quality is a particular issue in physics classrooms nationally:  Only one-third of those teaching high school physics have a degree in physics or physics education (many – or most – school districts believe that a bachelor’s degree in biology provides an ample background in physics).  Third, an AP Physics A course might be more attractive to students than an Honors Physics course.  Many high schools provide students taking AP courses a boost in the calculation of class rank, and strong colleges look on AP courses favorably in the admissions process.  Therefore, some students who would not take Honors Physics might take AP Physics A to boost their standing.

The trends revealed by the recent AIP high school physics survey demonstrated that the College Board had already begun its takeover of the industry of quantitative high school physics courses.  Sixty percent of students taking AP Physics B are taking it as a first high school physics course – that is, they haven’t taken a standard high school physics course prior to Physics B.  So taking AP Physics as a first course is common.  Nineteen percent of students enrolled in quantitative high school physics courses during the 2008-2009 academic year were taking an AP physics course – up from 16% in 2004-2005.

Some high schools already encourage incoming freshmen to take AP Biology instead of the standard first-year biology course, so perhaps we are not far from a time in which all college-prep science courses carry the College Board’s AP brand and standard honors science courses have disappeared from the scene.  One can only imagine that the College Board’s empire builders thought of this some time ago and are gleeful at the progress they are making toward such a world.

Alex Sink’s plans on STEM education – she (or her staff) have some of their facts wrong or missing

You’ll have to take my word on this:  I want Alex Sink to be a really strong candidate for Governor.

But the portion of her education plan regarding STEM education (argh – she wants to call it STEAM education!) has some factual errors and some missing information.

So, for the section of her plan titled “Building a 21^st Century Curriculum,” here are my concerns (aside from this STEAM thing – “Science, Technology, Engineering Arts, and Mathematics”):

From the Sink plan:

Strengthening Florida’s college preparatory curriculum for high school students to ensure a strong STEAM component. Arkansas requires all of its students to complete a rigorous, college preparatory curriculum called Smart Core. This curriculum includes four years of math and three years of science. Conversely, in 2006 Florida was one of only two states where the percentage of high school students taking upper-level science courses has actually declined in the past 12 years. Florida’s Legislature took an important step in the right direction this spring by raising the graduation requirements in math and science to include geometry and algebra 2, biology, chemistry, and physics – requirements that will be phased in at the start of the 2014-2015 school year. But we can do even more to raise the bar for math and science achievement.  As Governor, Alex will work with schools to ensure a strong STEAM curriculum that will help students meet competitive collegiate standards.

No, the new graduation law does not require physics.  It’s “chemistry OR physics” (emphasis mine, of course).  We need to make sure that university-bound high school grads take biology, chemistry AND physics.

By the way, here are the Arkansas Smart Core high school graduation requirements in math and science:

Mathematics–3 units (1 unit of algebra or its equivalent* and 1 unit of geometry or its equivalent.* All math units must build on the base of algebra and geometry knowledge and skills.)

Science–3 units (at least 1 unit of biology or its equivalent and 1 unit of a physical science)

*A two-year algebra equivalent or a two-year geometry equivalent may be counted as two units of the three-unit requirement.

These requirements are less demanding than the new Florida graduation requirements.

Also from the Sink plan:

Encouraging new approaches to teacher preparation for math and science teachers. For example, UTeach is a cooperative partnership involving the Natural Sciences and Education departments within the University of Texas at Austin and the Austin Independent School District. It allows aspiring teachers to earn their math or science degree simultaneously with their teaching certificate. The result: the number of math and science teachers being certified has increased by 500 percent. The program has been recognized as one of the top innovations in government by Harvard University’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Florida can begin to address its shortage in qualified math and science teachers by promoting similar innovative partnerships and teaching certification programs.

So Sink’s staff has discovered UTeach.  By the way, UTeach has had severe problems recruiting pre-service chemistry and physics teachers, but chief UTeach provocateur and UT-Austin Physics Professor Michael Marder says they are making progress in this, and he is coming to the FSU Physics Department to give a talk on these new strategies in late October.

But Sink’s staff was unable to discover FSU-Teach, the NMSI/Helios-funded UTeach clone at FSU, and UFTeach, the same at UF.  FSU-Teach is considered to be the leader among the NMSI funded UTeach clones around the nation.

Sink’s staff was also unable to uncover the PhysTEC program at Florida International University, which is one of the nation’s leaders in educating physics teachers.

Hillsborough looking out of state for math and science teachers

Fox 13 News in Tampa is reporting that the Hillsborough County school district is sending recruiters out of state – way out of state – to recruit teachers in critical needs fields, including math and science.  Fox 13 reporter Doug Smith related conversations he had with James Goode, chief teacher recruiter for Hillsborough County, and Mark West, Principal at Bloomingdale High School:

“We are looking for the best and the brightest, and in those critical shortage areas, sometimes it’s difficult to find,” offered Mark West, the principal at Bloomingdale High School and a recruiter for Hillsborough County. He defined critical shortage areas as math, science, and reading.

“Do we really need to go out of state to recruit these people and potentially take away jobs?” Doug Smith asked him.

“I think, in some areas, the answer is yes,” he replied.

West was one of five recruiters to travel to Purdue University for a teacher recruiting trip back in May at a total cost of $3,497. He characterized the trip as successful.

“We don’t technically hire up there and say, ‘Come down and you have a job.’ We go up and basically advocate for Hillsborough County.”

West was looking for a physics teacher but didn’t find one, and doesn’t know if any prospective teachers he met at Purdue were hired by Hillsborough County.

Is this really necessary?

“I think it is,” Goode insisted. “You’re going to cut yourself off from a valuable supply of teachers that have double majors. Colleges of education in Florida don’t normally put out that kind of a product.”

Dr. Goode says the district spent just half of the money budgeted for out-of-state recruiting and the trips produced positive results. He says the district has hired 620 new teachers so far this year and 121 are from outside Florida and came from areas and colleges where Hillsborough County recruiters had visited.

When will the State of Florida decide to concentrate scarce teacher education resources in the emergency needs fields of chemistry and physics?  Or will we continue to fly to Purdue University (and elsewhere) to recruit these teachers?

Why do some people think the new high school graduation requirements are a “huge unfunded mandate”?

I think I get it now.  I understand the argument that leads some folks to believe that the new high school graduation requirements are a “huge unfunded mandate”.  It’s just that the argument is wrong.

School Zone posted a link to my op-ed on the chemistry teacher shortage that the Orlando Sentinel published yesterday.  An Orlando-area chemistry and physics teacher named Steve argued that the “chemistry or physics” requirement (really just a chemistry requirement) will cost the state $50 million per year in salaries for new science teaching positions – he said 900 of them.

Here is why Steve’s argument is wrong:  The new grad requirements do not increase the number of science courses each student will take – it is three now, and it will continue to be three.  The total number of science courses being offered in Florida high schools will not increase, and we will not have to increase the number of science teachers we have now.

What will change is how those science courses are distributed among different subjects.  Students who have been taking low-octane science courses to meet the present graduation requirements will have to replace one of those low-octane courses with chemistry.  So we will need fewer teachers to teach low-octane courses, and we will need more teachers highly qualified to teach chemistry.

But the gentle reader might ask, “How are we going to replace teachers who are not qualified to teach chemistry with teachers who are?”

First of all, there is a certain amount of normal attrition.  Every year, some science teachers leave the teaching corps.  Every one of them should be replaced with a new teacher highly qualified to teach chemistry.  (If the colleges of education and alternative certification programs can produce them, that is.  And as I pointed out in the op-ed and elsewhere, Georgia-style differential pay would help.)

Second, the state should come up with the funds – from Race to the Top, or the National Science Foundation, or somewhere else – to provide opportunities for science teachers who want to do so to retrain to become highly qualified in chemistry.  Based on my limited knowledge of the gold standard in professional development in physics – the University of Washington program – I’d say that such a program would require 6-8 eight weeks per summer for three summers, and would cost a total of $25,000 per teacher (including a stipend for the teacher).

Third, the state should aggressively expand its alternative certification effort and recruit practicing science and engineering professionals into the teaching force.

In summary, the science teacher salary pool might increase by a few million dollars per year if a large number of Florida’s districts implement differential pay for starting chemistry teachers.  And the state might spend as much as $10 million or even $15 million one time to retrain in-service science teachers to become highly qualified in chemistry.  But that’s it.  The $50 million-per-year cost of creating 900 new science teaching positions in the state is just a fiction.  Sorry, Steve.

Steve also mentioned that he anticipates an enormous drop in the graduation rate due to the chemistry-or-physics requirement.  But the experiences of Brevard and Duval counties – where SB 4-style graduation requirements have been in place for years – do not support Steve’s assertion.  Neither does the experience that the Chicago Public Schools had following their 1997 implementation of tougher graduation requirements in science.  And very soon now, we will see how Michigan does with graduation requirements that are identical to ours and that were enacted in 2006.

Update (2:45 pm): Steve asked what science courses I would cancel to compensate for the additional sections of chemistry that will be necessary, if the science teaching corps is to remain at a constant size.  A summary of the answer I posted is given by the Gang of 90 white paper – any science course that is not on the Gang’s “approved” list should not be taught.

Orlando Sentinel op-ed on demand for chemistry teachers

My op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel on the huge demand for chemistry teachers Florida is facing is here.

Meet Professor Marshmallow, elementary school science resource teacher

Take a look at this story from the St. Pete Times, if only for the picture.

Elementary science resource teachers like Professor Marshmallow (aka Ruth Markham) provide a way around the problem that it is impractical to retrain every elementary school teacher to be a highly qualified science teacher (My son had a teacher in elementary school who has a bachelor’s degree in physics, but that doesn’t happen very often).  Instead, the idea is that science is handled like art or music – with a specialized resource teacher – so that every student in the school has at least some access to a highly qualified instructor.

How does a student get into the business of being an elementary science resource teacher?  One way is to enter an academic program like the one offered at North Carolina State University.  The NCSU elementary education major includes a “distinctive math and science component”:

Students majoring in elementary education will select a concentration of math, statistics, and logic (.doc) or science (.doc). In addition to selecting a concentration area, the student will complete required methods courses in all subject areas with six credit hours in mathematics methods and six credit hours in science methods.   A strong emphasis on technology and innovative instructional tools is incorporated into the program.

SB 4 Folklore File: What NOT to be concerned about

There are three major concerns about SB 4 that are expressed by the K-12 community and others – that SB 4 is a “huge unfunded mandate”, that the new graduation requirements in science in SB 4 will cause a catastrophic drop in the graduation rate, and that the highly qualified chemistry and physics teachers needed will not be available.  Two of these – the “huge unfunded mandate” concern and the graduation rate concern – have no basis in fact and belong in the SB 4 Folklore File.  The third concern is valid and must be addressed – if necessary by means of top-down edicts – quickly.

Here’s a look at the two concerns that belong in the Folklore File:

“Huge unfunded mandate”:  The only cost imposed on the school districts by SB 4 is the cost of finding enough new chemistry teachers to teach chemistry to the 40,000 additional Florida high school students who will be taking chemistry every year.  Every high school math teacher in Florida is already qualified to teach Algebra 2 (one of the new graduation requirements imposed by SB 4).  The course-taking rate for Biology 1 (another new graduation requirement) in Florida is already 95%.  And the course-taking rate for physics will not go up at all because chemistry is a prerequisite for physics.  So chemistry is it, and teaching the additional 40,000 students per year will probably require in the neighborhood of 400 new chemistry teachers statewide.

The districts do not need new science teaching positions to meet the chemistry demand since the number of courses required for graduation is already three – equal to the SB 4 number.  So the big shift will be to replace science teachers who are unqualified to teach chemistry with teachers who are.  Alternatively, science teachers who are not qualified to teach chemistry could be retrained to become qualified to teach chemistry.

As discussed in a previous post, the only possible additional cost of hiring new chemistry teachers into existing science teaching positions is the $5,000 per year salary differential that market salaries indicate for chemistry teachers (but which has not yet been collectively bargained in any of Florida’s 67 school districts, to my knowledge).  If each of 400 new chemistry teachers receives the $5,000 salary differential, that amounts to $2 million per year statewide.  The cost of retraining science teachers to become qualified in chemistry might be as high as $15,000 per teacher.  That would amount to a one-time cost (for 400 teachers) of $6 million.

Are these costs an unfunded mandate?  Yes.  Are they huge?  Hardly.  I’d settle for the descriptor “modest.”

Catastrophic drop in graduation rate:  There is no evidence that the new graduation requirements in science will cause a catastrophic drop in Florida’s graduation rate.  In fact, there is substantial credible evidence that any drop will be small and temporary.  As I have done previously (here and here) I will cite three sources of evidence.  The first is a study recently released by the University of Chicago that examined the impact on the graduation rate in the Chicago Public Schools of an increase in the science graduation requirements implemented in 1997.  The graduation rate dropped 4% in the first year of implementation and then an additional 1% the next year.  But by the fifth year after implementation, the graduation rate had recovered to the pre-implementation level.  The second source of evidence is the graduation rates in four Florida districts – the Super Science Counties – that have had more stringent graduation requirements in science for years.  Their 2008-2009 NGA graduation rates (Brevard 95%, Duval 64%, Monroe 81%, and Polk 72%, compared to the statewide rate of 76%) don’t support the argument that higher graduation requirements significantly depress graduation rates.  The third source is yesterday’s Boston Globe article on the implementation of the science end-of-course exam requirements on Massachusetts high school students.  The new requirement caused a drop in this year’s graduation rate of less than 2%.

Yes, there will be a modest, temporary drop in the graduation rate due to the science requirement in SB 4.  But in the 21^st century, science is a central subject along with math and language arts.  As the Chicago study stated, it took the new 1997 graduation requirements to get school personnel to accept that.

And the one issue we really should be worried about?  It’s the supply of qualified chemistry teachers.  If you’re really worried about that (as you should be), this is what you should do.  First, walk over to the science teacher education unit at your friendly neighborhood college or university and ask how many experienced chemistry teacher educators they have on staff.  I don’t mean biology teacher educators who took some chemistry as undergraduates and maybe covered a chemistry class or two during their years in a public high school – I mean people who have made a career out of preparing chemistry teachers and (even better) who have published research on the issues specific to chemistry classrooms.  If your local science teacher education unit doesn’t have any such people on staff, suggest that they hire some.  If that doesn’t work, talk to (or write to) their Dean.  If that doesn’t work, either, write to the President of the college or university.  If that fails, write to the Commissioner of Education.  If none of that works and you’re absolutely desperate, write an op-ed.  Or find out who your legislators actually listen to and talk with them.

FSU researcher Carolyn Herrington expressed her concern to the Miami Herald some weeks ago that there would be an attempt to roll back the new graduation requirements in SB 4.  And preventing that – and keeping the science education momentum pointing forward – is what I’m trying to do.