THE "CHEMIST'S" PART IN TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS

Are the colleges and universities ready to educate, or even train, the personnel that will supervise class- room activity one, five, or more years from now? In too many cases the answer is "no."

In the last year only a few chemistry and no physics teachers were certified by the State of Michigan and there is no reason to believe that the national picture is much brighter.

Thirty or forty years ago the requirements in formal education courses were fewer or non-existent. Like- wise the number of chemistry courses offered by colleges were fewer in number, more descriptive in nature, and required less collateral mathematics and physics. The graduate professional chemist and the prospective high- school teacher received essentially the same training and were held in the same esteem as far as scholar- ship and professional training were concerned. Now increased requirements in the techniques, psychology, and philosophy of education have to compete with in- creased specialization and the rapidly expanding theo- retical development of physical sciences. There is not room in the four-year or even a five-year curriculum for everything that might be desirable.

Most of us know a number of outstanding science teachers who have started many of their best students on a scientific career. Most of these teachers have, or are about to retire. They have not been replaced in kind nor in numbers sufficient to exert the same in- fluence on the present student generation.

A NEW PROGRAM IS NECESSARY

Before any large number of students can he expected to enroll in a curriculum leading to certification as science teachers, they must be offered one of reasonable dimensions that is challenging and leads to a recogni- tion of attainment comparable to that available by equal effort in other areas. Also, it must he possible to build upon this curriculum in a master's degree program without loss of credit or time when the inservice teacher returns to the campus for the further work re- quired for advancement and permanent certification.

The new teacher must be prepared to teach more than one subject and in many cases to combine what he has learned in a general science course. This require- ment further broadens the base while decreasing depth. The course requirements for professional chemists' training are too numerous and in many cases not particularly appropriate for the prospective high- school teacher.

COOPERATION IS NEEDED

During the last twenty-five years, chemistry de- partments have been greatly concerned with the prob- lem of adequately training research chemists. Un- fortunately, during this period also, there has de- veloped a wide void between the subject-matter specialist and the educationist. Lines of communica- tion must be established between these two groups be- fore a reasonable and worthwhile program can be offered for the training of science teachers. It is just as unreasonable for the science teacher to contend that anyone who knows his subject matter can teach as it is for the educational faddist to contend that anyone who knows how to teach can teach anything. It seems obvious that the college or university science depart- ments, that are truly concerned with the education of present and future generations of young people, should "bury the hatchet reserved for educationists." They should seek out, recognize, and use the educational psychology, philosophy, methods of evaluation, and techniques of teaching, which have merit, and willingly incorporate these things in the curriculum of the rc- spective teacher. At the same time all unnecessary duplication in the courses in professional education should be eliminated.

Our elementary and secondary school systems are under the control of, and operated by, the product of schools and departments of education. Any influence that "subject matter teachers" hope to have on pri- mary and secondary school curricula can only become effective by constructive snggestions and cooperation with those in control of the educational system.

FIFl'H YEAR PROGRAMS

Thousands of high-school teachers return to college and university campuses each summer or attend even- ing and Saturday classes to qualify for advancement and salary increments. Only a minority elect advanced work in science courses. Since there must be a number of classroom teachers for each administrator in any school system, many of these enrollees must be looking forward to a lifetime of classroom service. Why, then, do they not enlarge their store of subject matter? An examination of the prerequisites for admission to

courses granting graduate credit shows one good and sufficient reason. The barriers, in the form of pre- requisites, raised in front of admission to graduate pro- grams in subject-matter areas have been the result of a logical desire to preserve the integrity of professional programs. The M.A., the MS., and the Ph.D de- grees were originally intended to signify a mastery in depth and a contribution of new knowledge as the re- sult of original research to a rather narrow field.

The working teacher in his undergraduate work was unable to find time in his crowded curriculum to take enough work in subject matter areas to qualify for ad- mission to such graduate work. He now finds himself frozen out. He does not have the time, inclination, or money to do an additional year of non-credit work to qualify. Such work would not be recognized either for certification or salary increments. Hence further work in professional education is the only possible path to a required objective. A door to additional work in science must be opened if better qualified teachers are to be obtained and maintained for the high schools.

Perhaps one solution might lie in the creation of courses for graduate credit which would teach under- - graduate subject matter a t a more mature level. This question deserves careful consideration by our college faculties. It should, however, be offered only if it can be accepted as academically respectable.

The high-school teacher requires this different kind of background. He must be reasonably well versed a t an introductory level in -a number of different areas reflected by the requirements for a major, two minors, professional education, and general education. His education encompasses a wider base and less depth a t any given point. He spends just as much time and may develop as much scholarship as his classmate in a subject-matter area curriculum. He wants, and if de- serving should receive, as much recognition. Why not use a different and more appropriate label for the degree thus earned? Such a development should re- move any possible confusion concerning the type of training involved and the opposition from faculties primarily interested in the professional specialist.

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION