EDITORIALLY S P E A K I N G
Recommendation for the Preparation of High School Teachers of Science and M a t h e m a t i c s 1959" is the title of an important report recently issued by the Cooperative Committee of the AAAS. (See School Science and Mathematics, LIX, 218, 1969 (April). The document deserves careful study by all who are concerned with the establishment of certification r e quirements for teachers in the schools of the nation. It is a carefully prepared report and proposes a workable program. We see it as one of the most realistic statements that an organization speaking for professional scientists has devised. It will be a weapon in the hands of those who are fighting the battle of assuring subjectmatter competence in the training of science teachers. Adequate training of a science teacher must reflect the followingfactors (we quote) : Soiences have advanced in the last ten years. Word of new advances spreads by newspapers, magazines, snd television. This stimulates questions by the curious students. Teachers must be prepared to stimulate further the interest in such questions, to provide sound answers for them, and t o direct effective reading a t the level of the student's background. The course work taken by the teachers should prepare them t o keep up to date. A concerted move was made (beginning in 1954) by a number of colleges and imiversitier, of this country t o work with secondary schools in developing college-level courses for their most able students. In chemistr.~,the time-equivalent of a t least three semesters permits instruction a t the college level, using college texts. Thus students qualify for sophomore courses on college entrance thereby reducing duplication. More and more of the colleges and universities are emphasizing demonstrated proficiency in subject-matter areas rather than simply permitting entranoe to the college with "nixteen" high school credits. Some kind of entrance examination as part of the method of selecting students is being adopted. The increased complexity of the fields of science emphasizes the importance of content material to make i t po~sihlefor the teacher to answer the "why" type of question rather than to just teach bhe material empirically.
The report continues by acknowledging realistically other pertinent considerations. These are the several conflicting circumstances often overlooked by the "hatchet wielders" among the critics of present regulations. The carefully worded statement is: \ION srienvc wavht~rsnrr rrquircrl to tmch iewml wirnecs includiug, perl.opi, n wurse i r l general scirwcr, rr1hr.r tl.un ju\t m e ecicure. Thie rnrans tlnr n tcnclocr rrlusr h:lw d~p111of pny,wrtion in a variety of areas. Because of the impact of science on other areas, the science teacher should have preparation in the social sciences and humanities to help give him the kind of perspective that the t o p r a t e scholar and citizen needs.
There are certain elements in professional education which should be helpful in giving the best performance in the clnssroom. These elements may be provided by courses in such areas as the psychology, philosophy, and methodology of education and cspeeidly by experience in student teaching.
The real meat of the document is contained in the specific recommendations for distribution of credit in the prospective teacher's academic training. These spell out a re-affirmation of the preliminary 1946 version of the committee's stand: One half of the four year program should be devoted to science courses. This would leave a t least 60 semester hours for courses in the humanities, social sciences, and professional education. Colleges and certification authorities should work toward a five-year program which would allow the teacher further to build subiect-matter competence. This implies that all courses in the undergraduate major and supporting sciences be the basic courses including laboratory work and not "suruey" courses. The suggested preparation for teachers whose speciality will be chemistry is as follows: 28 credits in chemistry, including physical chemistry. 12 in mathematics, 8 each in physics and biology, and 3 in earth science. To this total of 59 could be added the 30 of a fifth year: 18 in chemistry, to be chosen from such advanced work as systematic inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, and radiochemistry, and 6 each in mathematics and physics. Other typical programs are suggested which will provide sensible compromise concentrations for those who anticipate teaching more than one subject. For example a physics-chemistry comhination would be: physics 18, chemistry 18, mathematics 13, biology 6, and earth science 5. The report does not suggest the creation of a "general science" major but does outline a possible program to train that much-needed future teacher of junior high school science. Adequacy should be attained by a program containing 10 biology, 8 chemistry, 12 physics, 6 earth science, 6 mathematics, and 18 credits of upper division work in two areas. No reader of this page can be unconcerned about the problem to which the work of this committee has beer, addressed. All should become informed on their local situation and lend their support to efforts for improvement. The report here quoted, offered in a spirit of genuine cooperation without desk-pounding in favor of a special interest, should help us go far toward the goal of all citizens: better education for the youth of the nation. Volume 36, Number 5, May 1959
/
207
