Letter on threat of core curriculum to physics

There was a period of a few years in New York State when english and math exams were graduation requirements for high school, but not science (or art or language or technology or civics etc.). I and my department colleagues felt a bit threatened, somewhat sidelined, as the focus of the the whole faculty seemed to be on ensuring passing scores on english and math exams. Within a few years, the science requirement was enacted, and then the issue, at least in schools like mine where students aren't expected to pass more than a year of science, became "which of the four science tests will be passed by the largest portion of our students?" We started with Earth Science, and moved quickly to Living Environment. Throughout my entire tenure at one school in NYC, in such an environment, I had to fight, sometimes successfully, to increase enrollment in physics.

College professors may have some sense of what we high school physics teachers have felt, when they think about all the students who elect not to take physics, and about those who do take it on a whim and leave when the "distribution credit" is out of the way.

Well, I'm writing today because the same thing that happened in NY state, and most other states, is now probably happening on the national level. From what I can tell, Race to the Top and other federal legislation and educational initiatives are supporting a common "core curriculum," which will be centered on proficiency on english and mathematics. Federal agencies will support "STEM," but will always put requirements for english and math before STEM. For a snapshot of what is happening nationwide, see:

http://www.CoreStandards.org/Standards/index.htm

Some people think that back-to-basics literacy and a "core curriculum" are a prerequisite to all the interesting topics in education. At its worst, some people think that a knowledge of english and math is a prerequisite to all other learning. This is a horrible mistake. I know many people reading this won't agree with me. But I can say with certainty that unifying the curriculum inside a tight circle is the opposite of maintaining and growing the diversity of the curriculum that makes our society diverse and rich. Physics will sometimes be considered inside the core, and the comfort that goes along with that will distract us from fighting for that diversity. But, physics will sometimes be outside the core, and then we will collectively wake up to this problem.

The same struggle is happening within physics curriculum. There is a core curriculum, what you might call the introductory physics canon. Usually it excludes a diverse array of interesting subjects in physical science, held off-limits to high schoolers and undergrads until they've passed through the gauntlet. Solid state, particle, nuclear, environmental, most astronomy, and cosmology are some of these off-limits topics. As with the general curriculum, physics curriculum is saying "these are the few things you need to know," the implication being that everything else is optional. I am seriously worried about what a lack of diversity is doing and will do to the populace.

Specifically about physics, I know even more people will disagree with me. In fact, I would like to know if there's anybody out there worried about this. I also welcome any comments that might prove my worries unfounded.

I especially welcome arguments against my belief that physics majors and engineering majors should learn sometimes the same things that we only seem to be giving our physics-for-poets students, although I know I'm going to be really stubborn about it.

Written by Shawn to Physics and Society e-mail list 2010-01-16.