You know it’s a biology lab if it’s green or moving. You know it’s a chemistry lab if it smells or is bubbling. You know it’s a physics lab if it doesn’t really work.
And you know the lab won’t work when students are struggling to grasp the basic concepts of physics. Assistant Principal (AP) Chemistry and Physics Scott Thomas’s new leadership, however, gives us the opportunity to reflect on how the physics department can improve under his watch. The position had been vacant since 2006, when former AP Chemistry and Physics Dr. Olga Livanis left Stuyvesant.
Given that Principal Stanley Teitel was formerly a physics teacher, the physics department should be in safe hands. Soon after being named principal in 1999, Teitel set an 85/85 goal which aimed to have 85 percent of students score 85 or above on their Regents. He has since modified this to a 90/90 policy, which physics students have yet to meet. In June 2007, while 91.1 percent of students passed, only 47.3 percent scored at least a 90 on the Regents physics exam. On the first diagnostic test this year, the average grade was 78.
Students have been performing poorly in physics as far back as 2003. That year, only 53 percent of students who took the physics Regents scored 85 or above. Livanis, during a Parents’ Association meeting in February 2004, said teaching biology, chemistry and physics simultaneously is more effective than the current “layer-cake” method most American schools currently follow.
This “spiral method” would be even more effective if, rather than combining the three sciences, math and physics were taught together. Physics is inherently math-based, and depends on familiarity with trigonometry. If physics were taken in conjunction with Calculus, which was originally created to solve physics problems, students’ understanding would also increase manifold. This collaboration would be modeled after Stuyvesant’s successful merger of humanities subjects.
The chemistry and physics department should also consider phasing out the freshman physics program. Most freshmen have a limited math background, which means the school must teach physics at a lower level. Students could lose out on a greater understanding of the subject. Those who take the class junior year are better equipped and more familiar with the mathematical tools they need. At the very least, Thomas should consult freshmen math placement exams to determine if students are eligible to take physics freshman year.
We must also consider that physics is a conceptual science, one that students cannot learn by simply reading the textbook. Increasing physics labs, in addition to the double periods that Teitel implemented this year, would efficiently teach students to apply what they learn in class. Teachers would also have an opportunity to give students more individualized attention during lab time.
While striving for “the goal of providing our students access to the very best science education possible,” Thomas and Teitel must be willing to try innovative solutions—and stop tweaking a failed physics experiment. Both men have the experience necessary to support their goals with an effective, redesigned curriculum. It is up to them to ensure our physics program does not lose its momentum.