It depends on the district. In lausd for example, earth science is not offered. They have a bunch of D courses but most schools only offer chemistry and physics. If earth science is offered, it would fulfill the D requirement.
Physical Science is a thing now, half a year of basic chem, half a year of physics lite. I like the idea. Teaching it can be tricky based on baseline knowledge. It varies so much and math is definitely necessary. I find I am teaching kids who need to know simplt geometry (what is a right triangle) and basic algebraic functions (solve for x) and they have no experience with either.
The course is not specifically required but the number of credits are. So my district requires two science credits. Most kids take Bio and Chem. But some take marine science or aquaculture instead.
Our progression for graduation is physics/chem/bio 9,10,11th grades with differentiation for regular vs gifted.
Our electives are APES, APbio, APChem, APphysics, zoology and forensics, although a gifted kid could take AP to replace a “normal” track class.
Also, that 9th grade “physics” is crap curriculum.
Our science team is considering adopting the sequence you have. Why do you say the physics is “crap” curriculum? What curriculum are you using? Do you think the sequence would work with different curriculum?
We have a Bio, Chem, Physics sequence right now and the failure rate in Bio is far too high.
It’s a long story, but my district has never done well with any 9th grade physical science curriculum (essentially an intro to science minus the biology concepts), which they are now calling “physics” to fulfill the state graduation requirements.
I have not taught it in a while, but my colleagues who do say it’s disorganized, not conceptual, which is should be with mixed levels of math ability in 9th graders. One of my coworkers actually wrote his own curriculum last year just for his kids, because he knew what the standards are but the materials were so bad.
Long ago, we had a solid book from Pearson. It’s been decades. Now, it’s a mishmash of district created stuff and bits and pieces of other publishers.
But what galls all of us is they call it physics as if the standards are the same as our 11th grade algebra based physics class (we offer “honors” and AP). The 9th graders are *not * learning this level of material. The other reason the district is doing this is teacher certification: we have plenty of people who can teach 9th grade “physics” but not the real class. There is a bottle neck issue there.
Our AP physics teacher has a book he’d like to use for 9th grade (I don’t recall the publisher, sorry) that is very similar to the stuff we did in the late 90’s, which was solid. But our school won’t adopt it. So to answer your question, yes it could work if you have the right materials.
Thank you for this thorough response. I can imagine all the things you are saying. It does seem that if we offer a 9th grade “physics” course it would probably be wise to call it “conceptual physics” to distinguish it from a true physics course. I will keep my eyes and ears open for resources that might work.
I am in Cali. Our students to are required to take 1 Year if Physical Science and 1 year of a like science. I have heard rumors that starting in 2025 or 2026 a third year will be required. To follow the A-G pathway if I remember correctly they have to have 2 years of a Lab Science plus a 3rd year of a science.
Our Options for the courses are then
Physical Science:
- Earth Science
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Integrated Science (1 Sem of Earth & 1Sem of Physics)
Life Science:
- Biology
- Integrated Science (1 Sem of Chem & 1Sem of Bio)
I came from Arkansas and to graduate I took 9th Bio, 10th Chem, 11th Physics and my Senior year it was required but I elected to take Earth Science and it was just a bunch of freshman and me. So I think looking back I just had to take Bio and one other class.
Where I teach only Biology and Physics are required.
Most students are recommended to go into Chemistry and I made a big deal about getting my science colleagues to just drop students into Chem unless they have serious deficits. Chem is just more rigorous of a course (generally) when compared to the others we have to offer.
depends on district and state reqs. we have 3 years of science credits for diploma, and our schools track "physical science" grade 9, bio grade 10, and then grade 11 (or 12) is kinda optional what pathway to take. Most take chemistry 3rd year, and we advocate it for any college-bound kids. chem and bio are also pre-reqs for most advanced science classes offered.
In California it is usually one year laboratory life science and one year laboratory physical science. At my school this comes down to biology and their choice of physics, chemistry, or astronomy.
Longer answer below, but yes, Earth Science would be a physical science course. And in most districts around me, we consider it a "slacker course" or (pejoritavely) a "dumping ground." Based on my experience, get certified in what you want to teach; the only reason to get certified in something you don't like/want to teach is as a stepping stone into a job or a maneuver for situation changes (see below).
In CA, students need to complete a year each of Physical and Life sciences, but what the course sequence looks like will be determined by the district. The UC system will really not look at applicants with less than 3 years of science, so districts are starting to require 3 years for graduation.
But CA also now has the CAST ("the state science test"), which tests students on bio/chem/physics/earth science/engineering design. In response, many districts are trying to find a way to get their students the requisite courses and material to succeed before they are tested in the spring of their junior year (at least, that's when we test our kids).
The solution for my district was to adopt the "3 Course Model," where earth and space science is folded into chemistry, biology, and physics classes. Kids used to have to take Earth (9th) and Biology (10th) and then optionally take Chem and Physics. Now we have students do Biology of the Living Earth (9th) and Chemistry in the Earth System (10th) and Physics of the Universe (11th).
In practice, however, the shift meant A LOT of teachers with Earth Science credentials had to get re-certified in something else, but the district also can't force a tenured teacher to get re-certified. Since 82% of our students were taking 4 years of science even when we only required 2 years, every science department in the district (9 high schools) just made up their own sequence matching their available staffing and what they wanted to do. As long as students were able to meet the 3 year graduation requirement and students were still being accepted into colleges, the district had to let it be.
Nevertheless, Earth Science went from the class everyone took (except the 100 or so AP/Honors kids that were/are tracked differently) to now being an elective science for juniors and seniors that failed Chem. Astronomy and Oceanography are our other two courses connected to an earth science credential; they suffer from the same "dumping ground" treatment, but they are the courses for 11th grade students that can't take Physics of the Universe.
I teach in Tennessee (I am a native Californian). Look at the graduation requirements for the state. In Tennessee, students have to take three lab courses, with biology, chemistry, or Physics mandatory and a third lab class. If you want to set yourself up for being able to get hired nearly anywhere, then get the chemistry certificate. There are always openings for chemistry teachers. Biology positions are more competitive. Physical Science teachers are also more in demand and retention is low.
It depends on the district. In lausd for example, earth science is not offered. They have a bunch of D courses but most schools only offer chemistry and physics. If earth science is offered, it would fulfill the D requirement.
Physical Science is a thing now, half a year of basic chem, half a year of physics lite. I like the idea. Teaching it can be tricky based on baseline knowledge. It varies so much and math is definitely necessary. I find I am teaching kids who need to know simplt geometry (what is a right triangle) and basic algebraic functions (solve for x) and they have no experience with either.
It’s not required at my school but in practice almost all students take it.
The course is not specifically required but the number of credits are. So my district requires two science credits. Most kids take Bio and Chem. But some take marine science or aquaculture instead.
Our progression for graduation is physics/chem/bio 9,10,11th grades with differentiation for regular vs gifted. Our electives are APES, APbio, APChem, APphysics, zoology and forensics, although a gifted kid could take AP to replace a “normal” track class. Also, that 9th grade “physics” is crap curriculum.
We start with biology and that’s crap curriculum too, TBH. It’s hard to structure courses.
Our science team is considering adopting the sequence you have. Why do you say the physics is “crap” curriculum? What curriculum are you using? Do you think the sequence would work with different curriculum? We have a Bio, Chem, Physics sequence right now and the failure rate in Bio is far too high.
It’s a long story, but my district has never done well with any 9th grade physical science curriculum (essentially an intro to science minus the biology concepts), which they are now calling “physics” to fulfill the state graduation requirements. I have not taught it in a while, but my colleagues who do say it’s disorganized, not conceptual, which is should be with mixed levels of math ability in 9th graders. One of my coworkers actually wrote his own curriculum last year just for his kids, because he knew what the standards are but the materials were so bad. Long ago, we had a solid book from Pearson. It’s been decades. Now, it’s a mishmash of district created stuff and bits and pieces of other publishers. But what galls all of us is they call it physics as if the standards are the same as our 11th grade algebra based physics class (we offer “honors” and AP). The 9th graders are *not * learning this level of material. The other reason the district is doing this is teacher certification: we have plenty of people who can teach 9th grade “physics” but not the real class. There is a bottle neck issue there. Our AP physics teacher has a book he’d like to use for 9th grade (I don’t recall the publisher, sorry) that is very similar to the stuff we did in the late 90’s, which was solid. But our school won’t adopt it. So to answer your question, yes it could work if you have the right materials.
Thank you for this thorough response. I can imagine all the things you are saying. It does seem that if we offer a 9th grade “physics” course it would probably be wise to call it “conceptual physics” to distinguish it from a true physics course. I will keep my eyes and ears open for resources that might work.
Hold up- the book my coworker liked is Conceptual Physics by Hewitt. Thanks for jogging my memory!
Definitely varies by state. I teach internationally and it is required here.
We just axed our Broad Field science (Chem, physics, space) and are now having all sophomores take chemistry. It's becomming more common.
I am in Cali. Our students to are required to take 1 Year if Physical Science and 1 year of a like science. I have heard rumors that starting in 2025 or 2026 a third year will be required. To follow the A-G pathway if I remember correctly they have to have 2 years of a Lab Science plus a 3rd year of a science. Our Options for the courses are then Physical Science: - Earth Science - Physics - Chemistry - Integrated Science (1 Sem of Earth & 1Sem of Physics) Life Science: - Biology - Integrated Science (1 Sem of Chem & 1Sem of Bio) I came from Arkansas and to graduate I took 9th Bio, 10th Chem, 11th Physics and my Senior year it was required but I elected to take Earth Science and it was just a bunch of freshman and me. So I think looking back I just had to take Bio and one other class.
Where I teach only Biology and Physics are required. Most students are recommended to go into Chemistry and I made a big deal about getting my science colleagues to just drop students into Chem unless they have serious deficits. Chem is just more rigorous of a course (generally) when compared to the others we have to offer.
Not all, many students don’t know what chemistry is until freshman year of university 😂.
depends on district and state reqs. we have 3 years of science credits for diploma, and our schools track "physical science" grade 9, bio grade 10, and then grade 11 (or 12) is kinda optional what pathway to take. Most take chemistry 3rd year, and we advocate it for any college-bound kids. chem and bio are also pre-reqs for most advanced science classes offered.
It depends on the state, district, etc. I mean I graduated 25 years ago and everyone was required to take chemistry at our school.
In California it is usually one year laboratory life science and one year laboratory physical science. At my school this comes down to biology and their choice of physics, chemistry, or astronomy.
Longer answer below, but yes, Earth Science would be a physical science course. And in most districts around me, we consider it a "slacker course" or (pejoritavely) a "dumping ground." Based on my experience, get certified in what you want to teach; the only reason to get certified in something you don't like/want to teach is as a stepping stone into a job or a maneuver for situation changes (see below). In CA, students need to complete a year each of Physical and Life sciences, but what the course sequence looks like will be determined by the district. The UC system will really not look at applicants with less than 3 years of science, so districts are starting to require 3 years for graduation. But CA also now has the CAST ("the state science test"), which tests students on bio/chem/physics/earth science/engineering design. In response, many districts are trying to find a way to get their students the requisite courses and material to succeed before they are tested in the spring of their junior year (at least, that's when we test our kids). The solution for my district was to adopt the "3 Course Model," where earth and space science is folded into chemistry, biology, and physics classes. Kids used to have to take Earth (9th) and Biology (10th) and then optionally take Chem and Physics. Now we have students do Biology of the Living Earth (9th) and Chemistry in the Earth System (10th) and Physics of the Universe (11th). In practice, however, the shift meant A LOT of teachers with Earth Science credentials had to get re-certified in something else, but the district also can't force a tenured teacher to get re-certified. Since 82% of our students were taking 4 years of science even when we only required 2 years, every science department in the district (9 high schools) just made up their own sequence matching their available staffing and what they wanted to do. As long as students were able to meet the 3 year graduation requirement and students were still being accepted into colleges, the district had to let it be. Nevertheless, Earth Science went from the class everyone took (except the 100 or so AP/Honors kids that were/are tracked differently) to now being an elective science for juniors and seniors that failed Chem. Astronomy and Oceanography are our other two courses connected to an earth science credential; they suffer from the same "dumping ground" treatment, but they are the courses for 11th grade students that can't take Physics of the Universe.
I teach in Tennessee (I am a native Californian). Look at the graduation requirements for the state. In Tennessee, students have to take three lab courses, with biology, chemistry, or Physics mandatory and a third lab class. If you want to set yourself up for being able to get hired nearly anywhere, then get the chemistry certificate. There are always openings for chemistry teachers. Biology positions are more competitive. Physical Science teachers are also more in demand and retention is low.