OCTOBER, 1953
WHY IS CHEMISTRY NOT TAUGHT IN MORE SCHOOLS?
0
JAMES W. KERCHEVAL Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa
IN A survey of science instruction in the public high schools of Iowa the question in the title, among others, was asked in a questionnaire sent out t o 852 high schools. Replies were received from 390 of t,he senior high schools. Of these 139 offer chemistry every year or in alternate years. The question as asked was: "If chemistry is not taught in your school, to the best of your judgment, what do you consider the three chief reasons for not offering it?" It was followed by a series of prestated answers that the writer felt most applicable to the situation in Iowa schools. The tabulated results from the replies of the 251 schools which do not offer chemistry are shoun in the table. Number of schools selecting this reason
Reason There is no community demand for i t Too expensive to equip and provide laborstory No room avsihble No aualified teacher to teach it Not'of sufficient practical value except as a college prep course Ko time for it.in the curriculum The aourse is too e r ~ e n s i v e (chemicals and suppliesj I t is not required for admission to college Ot,hW8
Per cent of the $61 schools replving
~
126 124 115
50 49 46
The reasons are arranged in the table in the order of the frequency of reply, not in the order as arranged in the questionnaire. However, the fact that the reasons were preformed in the questionnaire may influence the re~liessomewhat. It was felt in suite of this that the v&dity of the results from the above method would be better than that which would be obtained from the interpretation of subjective, written-in replies. When the distribution of the replies was compared with the distribution of schools of different sizes throughout the state, it was apparent that the question-
naire was a truly representative cross section of the public high schools of Iowa. Evidently some of the reasons why Iowa schools are not teaching chemistry are: (1) the parents and the students are not demanding it because they do not see sufficient practical or general educational value in it; (2) the school administration feels that it is too expensive to provide chemicals and equipment to offer such a course; (3) the school administration feels that a special room is needed for teaching chemistry; and (4) the school employs no one qualified to teach it. If these are the true reasons, they are likely to be applicable to more than this one state, and they offer a challenge to those of us who believe that some chemistry is an essential part of every high-school curriculum. The problem is not insurmountable. The biggest job is acquainting the public with the important part chemistry plays in the lives of everyone and the consequent need for chemistry in the schools. That job involves the entire chemical profession. The next two difficulties can be solved if high-school teachers will abandon the idea that high-school chemistry must be taught as was their own college chemistry-the same subject matter, the same equipment. Those of us who are training high-school teachers have a heavy responsibility in this counectiou. It should be possible, in the near future, to overcome the fourth difficulty in offering chemistry, unless an emergency further reduces the enrollment of students preparing t o teach in the secondary schools. As interest in chemistry grows in the high schools, more students wishing to teach chemistry should enter our colleges and become available. At the present time many teachers capable of handling the course are teaching in schools where it is not offered. With a change in the demand they can fill the new immediate needs. The writer wishes to acknowledge the help of Dr. H. M. Silvey of the Bureau of Research a t Iowa State Teachers College in conductine- the survev from which these data wereobtained.
