OCTOBER, 1953 0 WHY IS CHEMISTRY NOT TAUGHT IN MORE SCHOOLS? 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 to 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 Per cent schools of the selecting $61 Reason There is no community demand for it this schools reason replving Too expensive to equip and pro- - vide laborstory 126 50 No room avsihble 124 49 No aualified teacher to teach it 115 46 Not'of sufficient practical value except as a college prep course Ko time for it.in the curriculum The aourse is too er~ensive (chemicals and suppliesj It is not required for admission to college Ot,hW8 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~lies somewhat. It was felt in suite of this that the JAMES W. KERCHEVAL Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa 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 difficul- ties 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 responsibil- ity 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 to teach in the secondary schools. As in- terest in chemistry grows in the high schools, more students wishing to teach chemistry should enter our col- leges 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. v&dity of the results from the above method would be better than that which would be obtained from the in- terpretation of subjective, written-in replies. The writer wishes to acknowledge the help of Dr. H. When the distribution of the replies was compared M. Silvey of the Bureau of Research at Iowa State with the distribution of schools of different sizes Teachers College in conductine the survev from which - throughout the state, it was apparent that the question- these data wereobtained.

Why is chemistry not taught in more schools?

Download PDF Report

Upload
james-w
View
214
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Why is chemistry not taught in more schools?

OCTOBER, 1953

0 WHY IS CHEMISTRY NOT TAUGHT IN MORE SCHOOLS?

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 to 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 Per cent schools of the

selecting $61

Reason

There is no community demand for i t

this schools reason replving

Too expensive to equip and pro- - ~

vide laborstory 126 50 No room avsihble 124 49 No aualified teacher to teach it 115 46 Not'of sufficient practical value

except as a college prep course Ko time for it.in the curriculum The aourse is too er~ensive

(chemicals and suppliesj I t is not required for admission

to college Ot,hW8

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~lies somewhat. It was felt in suite of this that the

JAMES W. KERCHEVAL Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa

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 difficul- ties 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 responsibil- ity 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 to teach in the secondary schools. As in- terest in chemistry grows in the high schools, more students wishing to teach chemistry should enter our col- leges 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.

v&dity of the results from the above method would be better than that which would be obtained from the in- terpretation of subjective, written-in replies. The writer wishes to acknowledge the help of Dr. H.

When the distribution of the replies was compared M. Silvey of the Bureau of Research a t Iowa State with the distribution of schools of different sizes Teachers College in conductine the survev from which - throughout the state, it was apparent that the question- these data wereobtained.