Chemical Education Today
Editorial
High School Chemistry This editorial was prompted by several articles in this issue as well as recent news reports describing poorer science mastery in high school as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (1). The articles deal with the high school science curriculum in historical perspective (p 1617), the content of high school courses (p 1649, p 1703), and preparing students for high school chemistry (p 1698). These articles and my correspondence with high school chemistry teachers have led me to think about appropriate goals for high school science in general and high school chemistry in particular. Several goals could be listed for a high school chemistry course: to introduce students to a science and the way scientists study nature; to provide students with background knowledge that will be needed in future (college) courses; to provide part of a college education at the high school level, thereby saving tuition fees; to enable students to perform better on standardized tests and assessments such as the NAEP; to help students develop problem-solving skills that are applicable in chemistry and more widely; to help students develop laboratory skills and learn to meld thinking and doing in a laboratory; to provide students with chemical knowledge that they can apply in whatever field they eventually pursue; to describe aspects of chemistry that are important directly in students’ lives or that support informed decision making about social and political issues; to give an overview of what chemical sciences are and why chemical sciences are important; to develop students’ minds and habits of thought in ways that broaden their perspectives and enhance their lives. You can probably think of other goals that I have not listed here. The point is that there are many goals, not just one. Too often we concentrate on only one or two such goals, which can skew our teaching so that it may not serve the best interests of our students. (This statement applies at all levels, not just high school.) For example, some high school teachers have been told not to waste time doing laboratory work in an Advanced Placement (AP) course because labs are not necessary for students to pass the AP exam. Those who rank teachers based on how many students can pass specific, standardized tests rather than supporting teachers whose students can later demonstrate thorough understanding of a subject have fallen into the trap of believing that something easily measured can tell the whole story. Obviously those who create standardized tests work hard to make the tests as effective as possible, but some things are harder to measure via penciland-paper tests than others. Therefore more than just test results are needed to measure the quality of education. For instance, interviewing students, having them present a chemistry topic to their peers, having them demonstrate care and skill in carrying out laboratory manipulations, or having them work with a group on a task that amounts to research might well reveal different aspects of their chemical knowledge. Everyone, but most of all those of us who are scientists, should place the highest possible value on high school chemis-
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
try (and science) teachers High school chemistry who take the time and make the effort to create teaching is a rewarding, learning environments for their students that enintellectually stimulating, courage many or all of the goals I have listed. highly skilled profession One teacher of my acquaintance has for many years taught a second- that deserves our strongest year course that was expossible support. tremely well rounded in its content (including, for example, some organic chemistry), that required extensive laboratory work, that involved teamwork and helped develop problem-solving skills, and that produced students who came back several years later to share experiences that clearly indicated their mastery of the course’s content. The pressure from parents and administrators was too strong, however, and that teacher is now wrestling with the problems of making the course fit the AP mold while retaining its original and effective approaches. Students will receive AP credit, but will they learn more? Time will tell. Several experts who commented to reporters about the decline in high school students’ science mastery as measured by the NAEP between 2000 and 2005 noted that there is a national shortage of qualified high school teachers and that one-third of new teachers leave the profession within five years. Often this is attributed to low salaries, and that is certainly part of the problem, but I think there is a more important factor. We need to make teachers feel more like the professionals they are and to support in every possible way high school teachers who have the content knowledge and pedagogical background to develop their own courses, based on their own observations of students interacting with subject matter. We should be helping in-service teachers by sharing materials, equipment, pedagogical ideas, and new scientific developments and by providing backup as experts when those teachers need support for their ideas vis-à-vis administrators and others. We should also be developing courses, curricula, and programs that encourage and enable more top-notch undergraduate students to enter the profession. High school chemistry teaching is a rewarding, intellectually stimulating, highly skilled profession that deserves our strongest possible support. Literature Cited 1. Grigg, Wendy S.; Lauko, Mary A.; Brockway, Debra M. The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005; National Center for Educational Statistics: Washington, DC, 2006. Available at http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006466 (accessed Sep 2006).
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1575
