Parallel universes: Reactions to the PROMISE data from K-12 teachers and university science professors

The reactions I’ve received to Saturday’s post about the pre- and post-test data from the PROMISE summer content institutes have more or less followed two tracks – one from my science professor colleagues, and another from people involved directly in K-12 education.  Not surprisingly, my science professor colleagues had the same reaction to the data that I did – “What?!  Federal taxpayers spent $22 million on that?” 

Folks from the K-12 universe were more circumspect and positive, pointing out in particular that the nature of science institute (called “Scientific Theory” in the graph) seemed to be quite successful for science novices.  There was some discussion about the meaning of the results for the math institutes.  One commenter suggested that the lack of progress in the algebra institute may have resulted from the fact that the participants were already good at algebra, as reflected in the high pre-test scores.  Another commenter argued that the lack of success of another math institute resulted from the poor basic math skills of middle school math teachers.  In general, K-12 commenters didn’t find the data posted in Saturday’s post either surprising or even particularly discouraging. 

One of my science professor colleagues from another Florida university asked whether a two-week institute (the length of the PROMISE institutes) could ever achieve anything of any significance.  I have the same question.  My favorite model – the University of Washington summer institute in physics and physical science – is six weeks during a summer.  And the instructors suggest that teachers attend for three summers.  The cost for such a program?  A colleague from another state who knows more about this than I do thought that my guesstimate – $25,000 per teacher for a three-year program including stipends for participating teachers – was about right.

The $22 million PROMISE professional development program delivers failure in Florida

A report on Florida’s $22 million PROMISE program – which provided professional development services for math and science teachers in many areas of the state – reveals that most of the program’s signature curriculum modules did little or nothing to improve the content understanding of participating teachers.

The report was delivered by Westat, a research company based in Maryland.  Westat developed assessment instruments that were administered as pre- and post-tests – at the beginning and end of each two-week module.  The results for the exams are summarized in the figure below taken from the Westat report (the full report is available at the bottom of this post).  The horizontal axes in the plots are labeled in units of the “standard score” Z, which is given by the difference between the statistic (in this case the raw score on the exam) and the test’s expectation value, divided by the standard deviation of the test scores.  In this case, Z was calculated using the expectation value and standard deviation on the pre-test for a particular module, so that the pre-test distributions are all shown with the expectation values at zero and their widths equal, even though the shapes of the distributions are not identical.  The post-test distributions are illustrated with the pre-test expectation values and standard deviations being used to calculate Z.

The bottom line is this:  If the understanding of the participating teachers improved for a particular module, the post-test distribution (shown by dashed line) is farther to the right than the pre-test distribution (shown by the solid line).

Several of the modules show significant improvement:  “Scientific Theories” (which is scored separately for participants who were considered “informed” and “naïve”); “Earth/space science”; and, “Matter”.  In two other modules – “Forces and Motion” and “Geometry and Measurement”, there is only a hint of improvement in teachers’ understanding.  Two modules – “Rational Numbers and Proportional Reasoning” and “Algebra” – seemed to deliver no gains at all.  And one, “Numbers and Operations,” seems to have left its participants less knowledgeable than they began.

Inexplicably, the Westat reviewers refer to the figure shown above by saying that a “visual inspection of these plots suggests that there were changes in the distribution of test scores, with an apparent shift upward in the distribution of scores for each institute.”  There is no visual evidence for progress in three of the math institutes.

What is to be learned from this experience other than that a large chunk of the $22 million in federal taxpayers’ dollars spent on PROMISE was wasted?  Florida is a leading contender for an award from the second round of the Race to the Top grant program.  If Florida wins, half of its $700 million award will be used for programs run from the state level – perhaps some based on the PROMISE modules and model.  In fact, the dubiously composed Westat report demonstrates that even an apparently rigorous evaluation can be deceiving.  Certainly policy-makers should think twice before entrusting the institutional partners responsible for the PROMISE program with Race to the Top funds.

promise report

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.

Extensive professional development of practicing science teachers probably best hope for addressing chemistry teacher shortage

After talking with a range of people in the science, science education and K-12 communities (and even some folks in the media) about the looming severe shortage of chemistry teachers in Florida, I’ve concluded that the bulk of the 300-600 additional highly qualified teachers needed will have to come from professional development (or retraining) of science teachers who are already employed by the schools and who are teaching subjects other than chemistry.

The chemistry teacher shortage can be addressed via three routes:  undergraduate teacher education programs at the state’s universities (both public and private); alternative certification programs that recruit and educate professionals who are presently in fields outside of teaching; and, the professional development of teachers who are already in the public schools.  However, Florida’s undergraduate teacher education programs are probably producing fewer than 20 new chemistry teachers per year (although hard statistics are not available).  There are substantial obstacles to growing this number enough (a factor of five?) to make a real difference, including the lack of a statewide differential pay program and the biology-focused orientation of the state universities’ science teacher education faculty.  There may be opportunities for large scale alternative certification programs to make an impact – as in the case of the layoff of thousands of engineers from the space shuttle program in Brevard County – but the prospects for success of such programs do not seem to be clear enough to attract the attention of universities and funders.  And the prospect of accepting a starting teacher’s salary may be too much for a successful aerospace engineer to bear.

In contrast, the idea of a major professional development push seems to fit the circumstances.  The major effect of SB 4 will be to redirect a large fraction of the effort of the state’s high school science teaching corps to chemistry, a subject which will attract 50,000 additional students per year because of the new “chemistry or physics” graduation requirement (physics enrollments will probably not increase because chemistry is a prerequisite for physics in Florida’s school districts).  It is not necessary to create new science teacher positions because SB 4 does not increase the number of science courses required for graduation.  But some of the science teaching effort that is presently allocated to courses that are not required for graduation under SB 4 will have to be redirected to teach the additional chemistry classes that will be needed.  Therefore, retraining the teachers that are presently in existing science teaching positions makes some sense.

What would it take to retrain 500 non-chemistry science teachers to become highly qualified chemistry teachers?  Being a physicist, I am much more familiar with physics education resources, such as the terrific summer institute at the University of Washington Physics Department.  But that program may give us a hint about what will be required for the large scale professional development program needed in Florida – each teacher attends a summer program for three years, six weeks or so each summer.  And follow-up will be critical.  Depending on who you talk with, the cost per teacher varies from $15,000 to $25,000 (the cost includes a stipend for each teacher of $3,000 or so for each summer).  Let’s take the upper cost number ($25,000 per teacher) and do the math for 500 teachers:  $12.5 million.  There should not be any curriculum development costs for the program because a successful model program demonstrated (and assessed) elsewhere should be adopted.

Is $12.5 million a lot of money to transform chemistry education in the State of Florida?  Hardly.  The Gates Foundation is dumping $100 million into a single Florida school district (Hillsborough) to change the way teachers are evaluated and compensated.  Somebody somewhere should see the value of an investment in Florida’s science education future.

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.

SB 4 a “huge unfunded mandate”?

A consortium of parents’ groups that was formed to advocate for increased education funding in Florida has sent a letter to Governor Crist asking him to veto the conforming bill (spending plan) for the state’s PreK-12 schools.  (Gradebook coverage here)

I have considerable sympathy for their arguments.  But there’s one argument in the letter that I just can’t quite get past.  In a list of items under a heading describing the conforming bill as being “Loaded with extra costs and cuts,” there is this item:  “Cost of implementing SB4 – huge unfunded mandate”

Really?!  Huge?

There is no doubt that there are some costs to districts associated with SB 4.  The Senate staff report on the bill said,

The number of credits required for high school graduation will remain at 24; however, students will be required to take higher-level courses in Math: Algebra II and geometry, and in Science: Biology I, and chemistry or physics. In these courses, student enrollment will increase substantially and additional teachers will be required. The teacher need will have to be met by reassigning appropriately certified teachers within the district or by hiring from outside. Reassignment of appropriately certified teachers may necessitate additional district professional development expenditures. The hiring of new teachers when sufficient teachers are not available within the district, particularly for chemistry or physics, may require payment of higher, market rate salaries. The cost of new hires may be partially offset through attrition.

Initially, there may be some additional cost for credit recovery or non-promotion for some students who are unsuccessful with the higher standards. However, generally, student performance will increase to meet the higher expectations as the program is fully implemented. Moreover, there may be a reduction in future years for remediation costs.

I certainly hope all the math teachers in Florida’s high schools are capable of teaching Algebra 2.  If so, that’s not the problem.

The problem seems to be science.  Enrollments in Biology 1 will not increase very much – the course-taking rate in that subject is already close to 100%.  Physics enrollments will not grow because chemistry is a prerequisite for physics in Florida’s districts.  So the problem is chemistry.  The number of students taking chemistry in Florida every year will increase by more than 40,000.  Yes, that means we’ll need more teachers who are qualified to teach chemistry.  Maybe 400.  That sounds like a lot of money.

But here’s the catch:  The state already requires three science courses for graduation.  Under SB 4, the state will still require three science courses for graduation.  So we don’t need any additional science teaching positions.  We just need those positions filled with teachers who are qualified to teach the courses we should have been focusing on all along.

So when science teaching positions become vacant we will need to fill those positions with qualified chemistry teachers.  We will need to retrain some teachers to teach chemistry.

How much will this cost?

I’ve been arguing that we need to be prepared to pay starting chemistry teachers $5,000 more per year than teachers in most other fields.  If we hired 400 chemistry teachers with that differential, that would be $2,000,000 per year statewide.  That doesn’t meet my definition of “huge”.

What if we get the 400 new chemistry teachers via a crash professional development program costing $5,000 per teacher per year, and running for three consecutive summers – sort of like the University of Washington program I featured previously.  That would be a one-time expenditure of $6,000,000.  Again, that doesn’t seem “huge” to me.

Somebody please tell me if I’m missing something here.  I’m afraid we’re going to have to file “huge unfunded mandate” in the SB 4 Folklore File right next to “catastrophic decrease in graduation rate.”

I can hardly believe I’m criticizing FundEducationNow.org.  What’s next for my decaying soul?

Teacher professional development in physical science: What the gold standard looks like

The University of Washington Physics Department is the home of the legendary physics education researcher, Lillian McDermott, and the gold standard in professional development for physical science teachers, the “NSF Summer Institute in Physics and Physical Science for Inservice K-12 Teachers.”  This summer, the institute will be held June 28 through July 30.

State governments and the National Science Foundation have spent millions of dollars developing programs to compete with the McDermott program, but it’s never been clear to me why.  I’m aware of one new program – the development of which was supported by NSF and state dollars – which attempted to reinvent the McDermott wheel and ended up with a square instead.  Even the physics was wrong in some cases.  Why do we waste tax dollars on such projects?

Here are some excerpts from the description of the program from its web site.  Read it and then try to answer the question, “Why don’t we just do this in Florida?”:

The Physics Education Group in the Physics Department at the University of Washington offers an intensive five-week summer program in physics and physical science for inservice teachers.  Directed by Dr. Lillian C. McDermott, Professor of Physics, the Summer Institute is supported by the National Science Foundation.  The program is tuition-free and carries ten upper-division credits in physics.  Teachers may participate for up to three years.  Participants receive a stipend.  Funds may be available to help defray lodging costs for out-of-area participants.  Transportation, meals, and other incidentals are the responsibility of the participant.

The curriculum for the course, Physics by Inquiry (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), has been especially developed by the Physics Education Group to be used in classes for precollege teachers.  The curriculum is designed to strengthen subject matter background.  The development of fundamental concepts and reasoning skills is emphasized.  The hands-on, inquiry-oriented method of instruction used in the Institute helps prepare teachers to teach science as a process of inquiry.  The course meets the needs of teachers with varying levels of preparation in science and mathematics.

The Summer Institute is divided into two sections, one for elementary and middle school teachers who have little or no background in physics, and one for middle and high school teachers of physics, physical science, and mathematics.  The subject matter for the Summer Institute is selected from such topics as properties of matter, electric circuits, heat and temperature, light and optics, kinematics and dynamics, and observational astronomy.

The 2010 Summer Institute is scheduled for June 28-July 30.  Classes typically meet from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., Monday-Friday, with the final exam tentatively scheduled for Friday, July 30.  The Summer Institute is a full-time, five-week commitment.

Teachers from the greater Seattle area are expected to participate in a tuition-free Continuation Course that meets Thursday evenings during the academic year.  The after-school class is designed to help teachers apply in their classrooms what they have learned during the summer.

The Summer Institute is tuition-free.  Participants pay for books and supplies.  A stipend of $1,500 is offered upon completion of the Summer Institute.

Funding may be available to help defray the cost of lodging for out-of-state participants, usually in a dormitory on campus.  Transportation and meals are the responsibility of the participant.

The institute is open to full-time practicing teachers, grades K-12.  Although a physics background is not necessary for the elementary-middle school section of the Summer Institute, strong arithmetic skills are required.

The institute is a full-time, five-week commitment.  Classes typically meet from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., Monday-Friday.  Attendance is required during class hours.  Homework and papers are assigned, and two exams are given.  These components of the course provide an opportunity for you to synthesize and articulate your understanding of the concepts developed during the Institute.  Papers will be based on your work in class and should not require outside research.  During exams you will be able to refer to Physics by Inquiry and your notebook.

High school teachers will be enrolled in Physics 407 (5 credits), Physics 427 (3 credits), and Physics 401 (2 credits).  All may be used in partial fulfillment of requirements for endorsement to teach high school physics.

Elementary and middle school teachers will be enrolled in Physics 405 (5 credits), Physics 427 (3 credits), and Physics 401 (2 credits).

These courses are upper-division courses.  If the participant is enrolled in a graduate program at the University of Washington, the credits may be applied to graduate study.

Teachers from the greater Seattle area are expected, when possible, to participate in a Continuation Course that meets 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Thursdays during the academic year.  The Continuation Course is designed to help teachers apply in their classrooms what they have learned during the summer.

The Continuation Course carries two upper-division physics credits each quarter, is tuition-free, and is accompanied by a stipend of $125/quarter.

Now that SB 4 is on the books, here is the next step

SB 4 was a good first step toward raising the science literacy of all of Florida’s high school students and establishing science as a central subject in the state.  But there is a great deal more to be done if we are to take seriously the report Closing the Talent Gap and its call for an increase in the recruiting and education of STEM professionals.  SB 4 was only a baby step toward this latter goal.

Here is a program of policy initiatives that would meaningfully address the need to educate more scientists, engineers and health professionals:

1)       To make sure that university-bound students do not make decisions in high school that would block them from pursuing rigorous undergraduate programs in science and engineering, make sure they are provided with a comprehensive education in science at the high school level by choosing one of these three policy options:  require biology, chemistry, physics and Earth/space science for Bright Futures eligibility; require chemistry, physics and Earth/space science for admission to SUS institutions; or implement a differential diploma program that requires biology, chemistry, physics and Earth/space science for the highest level diploma.

2)      Implement end-of-course exams in chemistry, physics and Earth/space science by mid-decade.

3)      Develop a highly qualified chemistry and physics teaching force by:  focusing the SUS undergraduate teacher education units on these subjects;  providing market-driven differential pay (about $5,000 for starting chemistry teachers, and $10,000 for starting math and physics teachers); taking advantage of alternative certification opportunities such as the termination of the shuttle program in Brevard County; and implementing aggressive content-focused professional development programs for the present science teaching force.

I’ll be addressing each of these – fleshing out the details and providing some justification – in coming posts.

Education Week emphasizes Physics Teacher Ed Task Force conclusion of incoherence in teacher ed programs

When I read the review of the Curriculum Matters blog from Education Week on the National Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP) synopsis released at the national APS-AAPT meeting, I realized that in my post on the topic Monday I had succumbed to the temptation for somebody involved in the system to root around in the weeds.

I’m writing this post to redeem myself.

Here’s how Curriculum Matters started its review:

A national task force today unveiled a strongly worded report about what it sees as the sorry state (in general) of teacher education in physics and how to improve the situation.

“Except for a handful of isolated pockets of excellence, the national system of preparing physics teachers is largely inefficient, mostly incoherent, and massively unprepared to deal with the current and future needs of the nation’s students,” the National Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics says in a report synopsis.

The task force notes that of the 23,000 teachers of high school physics in the United States, only about one-third have a major in physics or physics education.

“In many states, weak standards for certification or endorsement to teach physics hide the fact that many teachers of physics lack the content knowledge and focused pedagogical preparation necessary to provide an excellent physics education for all students,” the task force says.

That’s the big picture.

What do we do about it?

If we want excellence in physics teaching in our high schools (and at other levels) we have to make recruiting and training physics teachers a priority.  Making “STEM teaching” or “science teaching” a priority isn’t good enough – we must make physics teaching a priority.  It’s too easy to train lots of biology teachers (for whom there is no salary disincentive to teaching) and say in a self-satisfied way that we are addressing the STEM issue.  We must invest in physics education faculty and physics mentor teachers.  We must focus on professional development in physics for in-service teachers.  We must focus differential pay on those STEM disciplines where there is a salary disincentive to teach, of which physics is on the top of the list.  A few months ago, I implored the students in my calculus-based physics class (most of whom are destined for engineering careers) to consider physics teaching.  I also admitted to them that for someone with engineering-level talent choosing teaching would be the equivalent of joining the Peace Corps.

I’d also argue that we need to make math teaching, chemistry teaching and Earth/space science teaching priorities.  But the bottom line is this:  If you want great physics teaching, you have to invest specifically in that.