Who Wants to Teach Physics?

With the constant prattle and media reports concerning the lack of qualified teachers, time is fitting for a personal and experienced perspective on the reasons behind the shortage, especially in physics. Having happily taught physics for seventeen years in two countries I have recently opted to leave the profession; but the why is a question even I have found difficult to answer. After much personal thought and professional reflection the answer can be synthesised into three simple reasons: there are no incentives to enter the profession; there are no incentives to stay in the profession; and there are no incentives to return to the profession upon leaving.

As a four-year honours (physics) graduate with a second degree specialising in physics education I found demand for physics teachers was high (in Canada) when I began teaching; today the demand for such qualifications in Australia can only be called extreme, with fewer physics teachers filling the gaping hole. In any decently designed system, educational or otherwise, demand is best met through incentives flowing from flexibility and options—not so in education (private or public). A physics graduate with hopes of becoming a teacher has no ability to adjust or amend the collective teacher working conditions that govern education. In the marketplace a person with skills as sought-after as physics teaching would be in a highly favourable position to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. In addition, schools would be marketing themselves as stimulating places to work, thereby attracting qualified physics teachers. Although this lack of negotiating power (or even permission) is perpetuated by union collective agreements, the actual entrenchment is a result of the long-standing educational establishment’s appeal for uniformity—the ensuing hue and cry to rise up against teachers being treated differently based on their academic qualifications would be sourced directly from the grass roots (the unions are simply doing the professions’ bidding). Equal pay for equal work does not necessarily mean equitable, or attractive.

A physics teacher must teach the same workload, following the same timetable and schedule, with the same pay as any other teacher for whom there may be a dime-a-dozen availability. What is the motivation to gaining a full honours degree in physics then learning to teach, when you can simply enter a teacher training program and learn some physics along the way? There is no incentive to being a physicist who teaches over a teacher of physics with minimal qualifications. To make matters worse, Western Australia is toying with the idea of allowing lower than normal TEE scores for acceptance into teacher training programs.

In an open market the possibility to negotiate better working conditions is crucial to encouraging educational advancement; there must be some benefit to being more qualified than those around you for a position they cannot fill. The options could include: teaching fewer classes for the same pay; (greatly) increased pay; targeted budgets and professional development funding; or whatever conditions the local situation needed to be resolved. Nevertheless, it must be unmistakable that these possibilities must be for fully qualified physics teachers only, not for the no-one-else-is-qualified teacher of physics.

What value should we place on an honours degree qualification? Great value. An honours degree is no guarantee that someone will make an excellent physics teacher; however, someone without an honours degree in physics cannot make a great teacher. So if teacher training is as good as we are led to believe, then beginning with a significantly higher academic foundation is better for the teacher, for the system and for our students.

Assuming one decides to give it a go, entering the profession fully qualified with a contract negotiated in good faith, what are the conditions that will affect the physics teacher’s level of work satisfaction? Outside of the same demands placed on all teachers, it will most likely be the physics (and science) curriculum.

Today’s physics curriculum (or syllabus if you prefer) has become entrenched with an emphasis overly based on teaching engineering, or on entertaining students with “hands-on” activities. With a compulsion for making physics practical, hands-on or worse yet fun, the educational establishment has watered down physics to the point that it is of little interest to the physicists who teach it. It is comparable to turning an art program syllabus into one primarily focused on playing with the brushes, pencils and canvas; or turning the heart of music classes into being all about the instruments and how to market your music on YouTube.

An approach based on hands-on activity is important in teaching; but there is a difference between teaching physics using an experimental or investigative line and teaching it to be fun. Similarly, “experimental” does not mean “applicable” or “practicable”, as has become the norm in Australian schools—it is a stiflingly boring physics curriculum. (If forced to choose, I would say this curricular approach would be the most influential factor for my exit from the profession.)

Too many of the topics in a modern syllabus are designed to show how we apply the physics we know (electronics, photonics, flight) but do little to infuse a sense of wonder in discovering how we have learned that physics. That sense of wonder is the true fun of physics; and it is the hallmark of how to instil an interest in physics and physics teaching as a career choice.

We need to be clear and precise in exactly what physics is (scientific enquiry) and what is not (engineering). Although physics can (and should) be applied, it is a fundamental science that must be taught promoting scientific ideals. Building bridges of spaghetti is not enough. There are few academic incentives for physics teachers to stay in the profession, so if we want them to stay, then the courses must be authored and designed by physicists. Once that is done, we can let the open market of student course selection and teacher evaluations dictate if we are right.

I recently left teaching physics after seventeen years and have, on occasion, considered returning to it or at least keeping my options open for the future; however, in order to return, the hoops have become hurdles and the hurdles have become roadblocks.

After teaching for three years in Victoria a move to another state (for family reasons) had been an option for a number of years and therefore I gained my Queensland College of Teachers’ certification; however that (full) registration lapsed by late payment alone only a few months ago. Regardless of the reason for its cancellation, save and except professional misconduct, to regain registration requires the re-submission of all original documentation including, but not limited to, university transcripts, diplomas, other certifications and a passport—all as certified copies—a CV, previous performance appraisals and any other documents the Queensland College of Teachers deems necessary; then be re-assessed, and finally be re-assigned to Provisional Standing.

At the Ontario College of Teachers, my former teacher registration board with whom I have not been registered for three years now, the situation is dramatically different. If I wished to return to teach in Ontario (fully registered) all I would need is to make the standard annual payment, since all of my previous documentation and assessments are stored on file.

One option might be to use the process of reciprocal recognition between state boards utilising my (still valid) Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) registration. Perversely, this process requires all of the same certified documentation previously mentioned along with a certified copy of my current VIT registration. In other words, this process requires more paperwork, not less.

(A colleague of mine, a former school principal from New South Wales with twenty years experience, now living in Queensland, would be required to submit to the same lengthy process by beginning as a provisional teacher until he could have his teaching skills assessed. He too has chosen not to teach.)

To make an application to teach in a Queensland state school the submission would have to include the identical documentation (all certified) that was already submitted to the Queensland College of Teachers; a parallel and burdensome ordeal.

After years of professional development often paid for by the school, losing the maturity, experience and leadership qualities of teachers long before retirement makes no sense. And then there is the devastating loss of the mentoring that skilled senior teachers provide for student teachers.

This system does little to generate any level of enticement to pick up the chalk once it has been put it down, even on a part-time or casual basis. Whether our skills are in demand or not, once out, physics teachers stay out.

Try as it has, the educational bureaucracy has failed and we are not listening. Long-standing calls to teach based on the love of teaching or the inspiring of young minds have not worked. If the calibre of teacher that we need to teach difficult subjects like physics and mathematics is choosing not to teach, then many features of the education system need to change before they choose otherwise.

John Daicopoulos is the Editor of Australian Physics, the journal for the Australian Institute of Physics.