Should high schools teach physics first?

YES
David Zaleski:
It works at our school

For the past three years, I have been teaching physics to ninth-graders, but the idea to offer "physics first" at our school was not mine. I was simply asked to teach a class because enrollment was growing. At the time I was skeptical, but now I am convinced that "physics first" works. Yes, there are obstacles to offering ninth-grade physics classes, but the advantages of placing physics at the start of the science sequence are significant.

Most important, physics provides an ideal way to get new high school students excited about science. I hope all science teachers are equally enthusiastic about their subjects, but I believe physics has a unique advantage in this regard. Physics can be directly related to just about everything high school kids see or do: sports, cars, music, rainbows, cell phones--you name it. This translates into increased interest, even for students who otherwise might not be "interested in science." I have seen this repeatedly in my classes.

Teaching physics first also prepares students for a richer understanding of other sciences. Consider, for example, the concept of energy, which plays a central role in all of science. Why not learn about the general nature of energy and energy conservation--before studying energy changes in chemical reactions or energy transformations at the cellular level in biology? A solid understanding of the fundamental principles in physics can only enrich understanding in other sciences. But even if it makes sense to teach physics first, is it possible? I believe it is.

My experience suggests that ninth-graders can learn meaningful physics, and this physics can be taught with math. "Physics first" is sometimes equated with "physics without math," but they are not the same. At our school, successful performance in Algebra I is a prerequisite, and basic trigonometric functions are introduced early in the class, so math is an integral part of the course. Not only are the students able to explore physics using the language of math, but they also develop an early appreciation for the usefulness of math.

So, to anyone considering teaching physics first--I say try it. If you are skeptical, try it on a small scale. Start with a single class. That is what we did, but now, just a few years later, we have about 90 students taking physics in their first year at our school. For many of them, but certainly not all, it is their favorite class. I appreciate that "physics first" may not be possible or appropriate for all students at all schools, but I hope I never have to give up my ninth-grade physics classes.

NO
Jim Jarvis:
This idea needs a reality check

Some claim that physics is the least abstract of the high school sciences, and, as such, would teach physics first rather than in the current common biology-chemistry-physics sequence. This claim is false and ignores middle school. Physics first will not accomplish what it sets out to do.

Is physics the least abstract of the traditional sciences? Hardly. Certainly, some concepts in physics are concrete, such as linear motion, levers and pulleys, basic electricity, light reflection/refraction and energy transfer. But isn't a course devoted to those topics supposed to be what middle school is for? Limiting high school studies to these areas simply turns physics into "physics light." Genuine physics coursework is full of abstract ideas, such as frames of reference, motion in two dimensions, and inverse square principles of light, gravity, charge and magnetism.

And the study of change in physics can't really be grasped without the math--and that means more than just trying to teach the essentials of trigonometry in two days and then apply it. High school physics has traditionally been where problem solving and critical thinking all come together. Will learning "physics light" rather than learning physics further that end? No.

Instruction in physics has been marvelously successful so far. Since the Industrial Revolution, the structures and machines of transport, information and communications, health and sanitation, as well as agriculture, have all been built by engineers who had firm backgrounds in mathematically taught physics. Is a new way of teaching physics going to improve on this? Not likely.

Finally, there is the logistical consideration. The nation is desperately short of physics, chemistry and earth science teachers right now. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. Mention this concern to many in the education field and one often gets statements that supply and demand shouldn't apply. That's about as enlightened as saying car crashes at high speeds shouldn't be any worse than ones at parking lot speeds.

Are we to turn the current successful manner of teaching physics on its head in order to move what should be handled in middle school to high school? Are we to teach real physics to a much smaller body of students who elect to take two physics courses in high school? That would diminish, rather than enhance, our goal of increasing science literacy.

So what's to happen? Is this to come down from on high as an edict? Maybe it's time for decision makers to ask the teachers who try to get science concepts across every day. They're pretty good at it.