Building bridges of spaghetti is not enough

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 17 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 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 (private or public) education. 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 market place a person with such in-demand skills (especially ones as sought after in teaching as physics) would be in a highly favourable position to negotiate over the terms and conditions of employment. In addition, schools would already 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 (negotiated in good-faith by all stake-holders) the actual entrenchment is a result of the longstanding 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 learning some physics along the way? There is no incentive to being a physicist who teaches over a teacher of physics with minimal qualifications - add in the news that Western Australia is toying with the idea of allowing lower than normal TEE scores for acceptance into teacher training programs and the dilution of academic skills and qualifications continues.

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 are numerous, they 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 a full honours degree qualification? Great value. Many will argue that an honours degree is no guarantee that someone will now make an excellent physics-teacher, and that much is true; however, the opposite is patently false, namely that someone with 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, the system and ultimately 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 so-called hands-on activities. With an incessant 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. Important as these are to a well-rounded approach to learning art and music they are not the essence of art or music, likewise in physics.

A hands-on activity based approach is important in teaching; but it is not physics, it is a (crucial) part of physics. There is a difference between teaching physics using an experimental or investigative line over 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. (Indeed if forced to choose, this specific 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 instill an interest in physics and physics teaching as a career choice.

We need to be clear and precise in exactly what physics is (scientific inquiry) 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 for physics-teachers. 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 17 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.

Having taught 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.

Fair enough for either a new graduate or anyone else new to Queensland education, but the QCT will have already processed this documentation and assessment criteria. The costs involved in re-registration, though small, are part of the overall hassle and undue bureaucratic hoop jumping necessary to consider returning to teaching.

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 that is needed is to make the necessary annual payment required of all registrants since all of my previous documentation and assessments are stored on file. No other documentation would be required.

One option might be to use the process of reciprocal recognition between state boards utilising my (still valid) Victorian Institute of Teacher (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 Principal from New South Wales with 20 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.)

Taking matters go from bad to worse, 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 of experience and leadership qualities of teachers long before retirement makes no sense. Not to mention the devastating loss of mentoring that skilled senior teachers provide for our student teachers and the crumbing foundation behind our university teacher training programs, particularly in physics.

Although teacher renewal is important, there is little incentive for experienced teachers to return (or stay) when the demands inherent in the system require it. This outdated 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. Longstanding calls to teach based on the love of teaching or the inspiring of young minds has proven patently unsuccessful - it is not compelling enough.

If the very calibre of teacher we desire to teach difficult and technical subjects like physics and mathematics is choosing not to teach, then many features of education need to change before they choose otherwise. The compulsion to change ought to rest within the system.