to teach the politics, environmentalism, English comprehension, etc. That gets taught as physics now? Surely anyone specialised in the subject will just get fustrated at the dross that is on the current curriculum and leave?

Good physicists can make a mint using their knowledge of arcane applied mathematics to model financial markets, or can achieve fame and fortune by pursuing a tertiary academic career.

Compared to these options, teaching secondary school physics is a distant third place resort, except for those few individuals who really want to teach kids.

That's a serious national embuggerment. But the UK can rest assured that for instance The Netherlands aren't fairing too well either. So why bother doing something about it? Costs a lot of nice money to train good teachers and for what immediate ROI?

University physics departments are closing down due to lack of students because physics is (rightly!) perceived as a difficult and intellectually challenging subject. Students are now paying customers, and the universities respond by offering courses in surfing, golf course management, media studies and quackery, where it's much easier to get that all-important first-class degree.

But don't worry. India and China are training thousands of new maths and physics graduates each year. I for one welcome our Chinese physicist overlords!

But you have to be able to live... I looked into becoming a physics teacher a few years ago as a change of career, and decided that as I was also starting a family, now would not be a good time to take the sort of pay cut required, even with the "Golden Handshake" they were offering - I'd still have had to take a year out for teacher training, etc and then understandably start as a junior teacher, in the appropriate pay bracket.

Mine's the tweed one with the elbow patches.

A few years back when the IT market was very dead I considered that it might be time for a change of career. With a Ph.D in Physics, backed by a B.Sc(Hons) and fifteen years of strong IT experience I thought I might be able to make a contribution in Physica, Maths and/or IT. I contacted four local schools by mail and phone (including follow-ups) to see if I could spend some time in a classroom before taking the plunge (after all I remember what it was like being a kid in a class with a teacher with no authority and doing the teacher training is a serious commitment). I even had a CRB certificate from recent contracting in another (non-local) school.

Did I get any response? Did I b#@@#r!

> New rules from September this year mean pupils who score well enough in key stage three science SATs must be offered the choice to take a standalone physics GCSE.

Just make sure that pupils don't "score well enough in key stage three science SATs " and a physics teacher will be just a waste of money where some teaching assistants can just as easily keep a class quiet while cover supervising a lesson where the residual real teacher is absent due to the stress of teachinmg a bunch of rouges deemed unworthy of a decent physics education.

Mine's the one with the pockets bulging from a well-thmbed copy of "The Feynman lectures"

It doesn't matter how many people apply to be physics teachers, none of them will be able to pass the new CRB check anyway.

On a related note, in my experience the 'real' science teachers are leaving because the national curriculum for science has been so watered down now that it no longer holds any value. Any real scientist worth his salt would be heart broken to see what load of old rubbish is classed as suitable for A-Level and GCSE these days (and yes I did work in a school).

You can make far more cash out of a physics degree than you'll get teaching. If they want the skilled staff they've got to pay the cash...

Although of course the idea of paying one subject teacher more than another would never get passed the unions.. so we're left with a stockpile of sociologists and psychologists who's skills aren't in demand elsewhere.

Reread the report.

A.2 By national we mean England. The countries of the UK run their own school

systems. This has always been the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and with

devolution those in England and Wales are growing further apart. Sometimes the

statistics, particularly older statistics, are for England and Wales combined, but

wherever possible we have separated them

So please don't mistake England for the UK. It's more than a little annoying for those of us who live outside of England but in the UK. In fact, it's downright rude.

This is the fundamental problem of unionised pay deals, everyone must get the same rate.

Logically, physics teachers should be paid more RE teachers could get a cut, it's never a problem finding another god squadder.

We have a genuine shortage of physicists in schools - not just teachers who can teach physics, but people with physics degrees, even doctorates, who will inspire a future generation of scientists, nurture intestest in a difficult and rigorous subject.

So we have a continuing reduction in good quality applications for physics courses at universities, and see departments being closed down despite the ever growing numbers in tertiary education.

And we see research budgets under pressure - while they are doubtless growing in cash terms, they are not keeping up with the costs of research.

And these effects feed each other. We have excellent people still, but our scientists are getting older and fewer, and our education system becomes more about targets and social engineering, and less about excellence and the joy and marvel of knowledge and understanding.

This can't be solved by a government initiative.

It can be covered perfectly in RE class. Take a lead from some other countries in the 'western' world.

Surely the money would be better spent on Islamic classes? It is england after all.

I worked as a physics lecturer in further education and as a private tutor in London until recently. In my experience only students in selective secondary schools or in the private sector ever had the opportunity to take a standalone GCSE in physics. Most schools only had combined science on offer (-often taught by non-physicists). The flip side is that a physicist applying for a job in a school would often be expected to teach chemistry and biolgy as well; in my case these are subjects I did not feel competent to deliver, so this militates against the recruitment of physics specialists. -a chicken and egg situation, or am I straying int o biology here!

(Paris Hilton because she reminds me of some of my past students!)

Pay that caps out fairly low, bad working environment, highly restricted range of work, duties completely unrelated to your training and a government oversight that's full of failed business managers, pop-psychologists and chucklefucks who rate things on a scale that has "satisfactory" as a failing grade.

Never mind that the background check would probably be less invasive if I wanted to work for the AWE...

I have a decent enough Physics degree, and do tutor various kids from my church, but there's no way I'll do it for the sort of money that is on offer.

If you want a skilled workforce then you have to compete with the rest of the market - teaching jobs just don't compete.

LOGO: I look good in goggles ;)

Pay 'em more... not that it matters, since we're all gonna get sucked into a black hole in the center of the earth thanks to the latest particle smasher. See, if I had had a physics specialist as my teacher, I'd have known this isn't really gonna happen, thanks to the very monotone and computer-like Hawking radiation... but alas, ignorance is bliss.

Paris because she definitely knows her physics...

for solving such problems. You have to separate physics education into three levels:

-physics scientists: they only teach at universities, but usually do the research work

-physics engineers: they work in the industry (this is the best paying one)

-physics teachers with a university degree: they can teach at a university or in high schools

-physics teachers with a college degree: they can teach in elementary or high schools

-general teachers with a college degree: they can only teach in elementary school

This way, the teachers who chose the easier, shorter and cheaper /maybe free/ college degrees have to teach in schools, because they don't have the qualification to work as scientists or engineers.

Making every teacher take at least 2 (an average of 3) specialisations to get a degree usually results in teachers who can teach maths, physics and chemistry/biology. Any combination is possible, but I've never seen a teacher with physics and literature combined, but it's possible. (the usual other combination in the east european country called Hungary is to learn literature, history and grammar together, with art and foreign language teachers in another group)

I just don't understand what's happening in England, but I fear that the rest of Europe will soon starts to copy it.

1) Cancel the passports of all physicists because of their potential as terrorists. Create a physicist tax starting at 95% of net income that does not apply to teachers.

2) Put Intelligent Design and astrology into the curriculum so any half baked crack-pot can teach physics.

I hear that most of the children are not that bad. The real problem is often the parents.

Science generally thrives and turns either on prestige and ego, or on money; you don't get big awards or big paypackets from teaching.

Utter crap! I'm at Manchester university doing physics at the moment...various schemes requesting students for anything teaching related were *all* oversubscribed! If I were ever to teach physics, I'd want a decent wage but much more importantly to teach physics....my biology education ended at the same time as most people!

From the title of the article:

"Warning sounded over black hole in UK physics teaching"

then:

"Boffin targets to be missed"

Until the media drops the horrible word "boffin" with all the "white coat socially inept scientist" baggage it carries, few children will want to study science seriously. There will consequently also continue to be a shortage of teachers in the sciences. No-one wants to be a "boffin"; the very word conjures up "people not like you whom you wouldn't want to emulate".

I don't know if this has changed again but when my older sister was going for a career/lifestyle change and retrained as a teacher she wasn't allowed to train as just a physics teacher - she had to be a "science" teacher. I think she dropped chemistry and biology before GCSE and her A-levels were double maths and physics. There again, she went to Oxford so probably got a BA in natural philosophy or somesuch nonsense ;-) These days she mostly just stays at home looking after the kids... apparently more rewarding.

On a different note, another member of my family made the point to a linguist that if you can offer a combined sciences course then why not combined languages? Apparently "that's different" - so my idea of 'combined arts' might not be a flier either.

Flames because fire was a big part of my science education.

It turns out that, as a country gets more affluent (/decadent?), fewer kids want to be scientists and engineers, and more of them want to do graphic design and media studies. This process was put in motion with the lack of post-war investment in manufacturing, and put into practice by Thatcher deciding that we didn't actually need to be able to manufacture anything. So don't worry, we'll be dependent on China and India for... well, just about everything, but we'll have the best fashions and prettiest advertising.

I guess the govt would like to just slap a sticker that says "physics teacher" on the foreheads of a few thousand willing volunteers, tick the box and move on to the next objective. (With the requisite amount of spin, trumpeting a successful policy, rewards for the guilty, blame for the un-involved and bonuses for the criminally negligent.)

Sadly it doesn't work like that. You can't introduce wild pandas into Epping Forest, without ensuring they have a food source to survive on and the right environment to thrive in. So there's no point introducing people with a physics qualification into schools and expecting them to turn out children with A - or even C-grade physics qualifications. You also need the same children to be taught algebra, some amount of geometry, an idea about the mechanical world, some common sense wouldn't hurt and for A-level work: calculus. Oh yes, the ability to think in the abstract would be nice.

The problem is that most governors, heads, janitors, teachers and pupils in most schools take pride in being wholly ignorant in all of these disciplines. Until you can get teachers (or better, ordinary people) who are ashamed that they can't find the roots of a quadratic equation - and are actively trying to improve themselves, there's no possibility of teaching the subsidiary subjects to a standard that would lay a decent foundation for a science education.

Last of all. Suppose we reached nirvana, and could produce people with a physics qualification that they could be proud of, what then? Science R&D budgets in this country are a tragedy. There's no research jobs for these people to take, nor any prospects for them to aspire to. All you'd end up with is a new generation of highly qualified individuals with no alternatives but to go into teaching.

We don't need no stinking science! If you know science you're a potential terrorist, learn media studies, ain't no media studies terrorists.

Why teach physics? There are very, very few jobs in the non-biological sciences and they pay poorly. (The bio-jobs pay worse, but there are more of them).

Given that our society assigns value by pay-packet, it is very apparent that scientists are of no real value, advertisers and accountants are however invaluable.

A smart kid would be far better doing English / Maths and going for a business career and they know it.

There are two main problems to teaching physics (or for that matter chemistry and biology) in the schools of today.

1 - no discipline in the class room. (how can any precision measurement be taken?)

2 - every thing is forbidden by health & safety. (NO experiments!)

There is also a third problem - very low pay, but the first two will prevent any serious teaching being undertaken in any comprehensive school.

NuLabour and all the education 'experts' need to realise all people are NOT EQUAL and the education system needs to reflect this.

You want good science and technology students - then cream them off and put them together in a school that will help them. This will never happen now in England but it should if we want to keep up with India and China.

ex physics/chemistry teacher.

For as long as I can remember science/engineering in this country (and elsewhere) has been portrayed by the media as hard, boring, full of socially inept misfits, wierd, frightening, not normal etc. etc.

The media types who control the media are just that, media types. In general they were the ones who found science just a little bit hard and so gave up. They have perpetuated a myth that anyone interested in science must be a wierdo to be shunned and laughed at but never to be aspired to.

To the people in charge and on the media it's a badge of honour to not understand maths or science!

Look at the teen programmes that come from the US, constantly they use words like nerd and boffin, and use the "nerds" and "boffins" and the butt of various jokes.

No wonder kids don't want anything to do with science. God forbid! It's slightly hard, and you don't want to be seen as a nerd!

Bill coz he's the nerd who showed the media types the finger.

Strangely enough I've being thinking of making the move to teaching recently in order to escape the City and so on.

I can see that you'd have to teach some combined science, but I won't take the plunge if it looks like that's all I'd get.

>>We don't need no stinking science! If you know science you're a >potential terrorist, learn media studies, ain't no media studies terrorists.

Plus if you know science you might understand some of the pseudo-science the government spews out about terrorist threats/counter measures for what it is!

the problem is that our kids are just not dumb enough. So we've shut the coffin lid on Physics, great, lets nail the lid shut and get it off the ciriculum completely. Then we can focus on getting rid of Chemestry and Biology. Once the Sciences are gone we will be able to remove History and geography relatively quickly. Only then can we start on the main stage of dumbing down the nation - I'd also strongly recomend halving teachers wages until all competent teachers quit, and then only employing people who can't speak english to teach Maths and English. Finally lets make schools non-compulsary or at least only 2-3 days a week, and eliminate exams completely. As a nation we need more traffic wardens and debt-collectors. What we don't need is people smart enough to understand whats going on politicly or question the government and authorities. We could close at least half the countries schools reinvesting their funds into reputable teaching establishments, like Eton, Cambridge, Oxford, etc, where the fine children of normal families can get a proper education and become politicians and business tycoons.

We could also use the poor and homeless as fossil fuels thus negating the need for nulcear sources - this should please the greens and the hippies - oo, we could use them as fossil fuels as well, or for making lube for when we bend over for our american overlords

sneh !!

Sod physics teaching.....

..... where can I sign up to become a boffin - that has been my lifelong dream... (and this is actually true - I look damn good in a white coat, spewing out inventions and stuff)

[mine's the white one with a sonic screwdriver in the pocket]

"white coat socially inept scientist" - this is the target market, no normal kid is going to spend the time necessary to gain an in depth understanding of some fairly abstract and in some cases completely arcane ideas (quantum mechanics, anyone?); they're going to go out and play football or ride their bike (ok, ok, I'm showing my age here).

However, the govt has decided that because 50% of schools are below average, they have to micromanage them so as to get all their pupils to achieve 5 A-C's at GCSE, thereby to "raising standards". So we get grade inflation and inane teaching to the test.

I went to a parents evening (I don't usually bother, the guy that said schools have lots of managers but no management and lots of leaders but no leadership was bang on) at my kids school and the teacher got my daughters name wrong; I didn't say anything because all that was happening was that she was running her finger along a row of figures that wouldn't tell me anything about my kids aptitude, understanding or interest in a subject.

I had a far better education (albeit at a grammar school) 35 years ago; in particular, the maths syllabus has gone backwards.

Come the revolution...

*And male*.

Which is NOT a good career move for men, moving into teaching. After all, only men are paedophiles.

(NOTE: I've always figured teacher was NOT the way to go if you like little kids in that way. Lots of being watched, lots of danger. Better would be to become the janitor. After all, the showers need cleaning, and who cares who the janitor is?)

Where little is known or learnt. Hooray for outsourcing. @nickj Kids *know for a fact* that they can make serious wonga if they become professional sportsmen (maybe not cricketers, though), whereas a "Big bang theory cracked" headline would be at the bottom of the budgie cage the following day. You wouldn't think modern computing was pioneered in such a pitiful little country. Still, the awful truth is, we've had our day and this is as good as it gets now politicos have control over technology and education. I'm told that most stuff is done via powerpointless.

Dad: "What did you learn today son?"

Son: "Nothing, the supply teacher trashed the computer."

Oh, wait a minute, maybe it is!

Or rather a few of the more enlightened states in the US. Stop teaching science altogether and replace it with religion.

Now while the US prefers Christianity, I say that's a bit too complicated for today's kids, and we should try for something a bit easier. Sun God and Moon God sound good.

"Good morning Children, my name is High Priestess Smith. Today's Lesson will be Sun God make world warm. If we have time we'll do some practical work, perhaps Sacrifice Spotty Kid to Moon God? Remember there's no failure here, just deferred success, so don't worry if you can't rip out and eat his heart on the first go."

Are there thousands of job adverts for physicists? No. So obviously we don't need more graduates. It really annoys me all this government twaddle about getting more scientists and engineers.

Wellington Grey (physics teacher) has written an excellent open letter to the powers that be about this very subject. He reckons the GCSE syllabus is divided into the vague, the stupid, the political and the non-scientific. Well worth a read.

Paris, because she fulfills three out of the four above criteria.

The wife's a Physics teacher, always has been -- got a master's degree, teaching credentials and so on. She's gradually inching up to about half my typical wages.

Given the wages and conditions, the attitude of parents and kids and the eternal problem (if you are a man) of being an assumed paedophile you'd have to be completely crazy to teach -- unless you've really got no other option. The IT guy in her school seems to have the idea -- English degree (typically useless), some kind of minor "I know how to install Windows" tech qualification and he's earning significantly more than the teachers (and doesn't have to worry about the kids).

I'm afraid my answer to the modern paranoid parent is "If you want your f*******g offspring educated, do it yourself!".

Not an avid reader of the sits vac section of New Scientist, are you? But then since science is not important anyway, you wouldn't be.

You're right, no-one gets rich from science, kicking footballs around and singing songs are clearly the core requirements of our society.

I hear that 'running quickly' is on the up as well.

"Are there thousands of job adverts for physicists? No."

Try reading the back half of New Scientist. Oddly you won't find physics jobs in the "Moving House" section of the Observer.

I will put my god against yours any day, lets see pure faith defend you from concentrated microwaves.

There are very few specalist science in education because they can get far more money elsewhere. The answer is simple if you want more science teachers pay them more money. It cost more time, money and ability to become a scientist that most other subjects so why should they have to take the same money as an media studies or business studies teacher. I could watch TV and make money straight from school without having to get a degree in either subject but to become even a bottom end scientist requires a minimum of 3 years of intense study.

Back to the start again, because if you want to pay science teachers more you have to pay all the teachers more, because otherwise the unions go bonkers.

The competition commission should look at unions, they're broadly commercial and in some businesses exert a total monopoly on labour.

I started a PGCE course after graduating with a physics degree with my head full of noble notions of inspiring a generation of future scientists and engaging young minds.

However i quit the course due to an increasing number of things that were beginning to annoy me:

1) Kids don't care at all, the education system has created a generation who need to be spoonfed answers, rather than developing the skills required to work out/research the answers.

2)The course required writing masters level essays (which i had never done in my degree.) on educational psychology(such as the work by Piaget and Vygotsky) which is wooly and unscientific and goes against everything that the scientific method teaches. It is basically one step above sociology.

3)The curriculum.

So much of this made me angry. One of the text books (Collins GCSE ascience for the Edexcel 360 course.) was so desperate to appeal to the kids it had Jay and silent Bob in it (i wish i was kidding http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/big_fat_stu/lastscan.jpg). And so much of it seemed to be "SCIENCE!!!, RADICAL!!! DUDE!!!" when it was completely worthless.

Unfortunately the whole education system needs to be changed with all the testing done away with.

An excellent quote that sums this up is "You don't fatten a pig by constantly weighing it"

However it needs to start from primary entry rather than just changing GCSE and A-level, but no governement will ever do this because they won't see proper results (ie GCSE/A-levels) for at least 11 years when they probably won't even be in power and the next government will take the credit.

Those who can put up with the bullshit and stress teach