Review of "Newton in the Big Apple" by A. Kelly and K. Sheppard

Kelly, A. and Sheppard, K., (2008) Newton in the Big Apple: Access to High School Physics in New York City. The Physics Teacher, 46(5), 280-283.

Review

The article details the state of affairs in the access to Physics as a course in high schools across New York City. It begins with a brief overview of the populations, ethnicity and types of courses offered in the high schools of New York City as well as with a discussion of the types of schools there, particularly noting their size, ranking schools as large, mid-sized and small (typically restructured) schools with populations of more than 1200, 600-1200 and less than 600 each. The authors then go on to detail, in both words and with graphs and tables the sample size, numbers of schools, percentage of schools and types of classes offered. Classes could be AP (Advanced Placement), Regents (a rigorous college prep class with a standardizing culminating examination) and Non-Regents (a more conceptually oriented class). They then discuss where and what types of Physics courses are available at what types of schools and notable ethnic and socio-economic differences discovered as part of their research. The results are stark and disturbing. Physics tends to be offered predominately at higher income schools with substantial Caucasian and Asian populations while smaller schools, generally considered desirable offer less Physics and usually Non-Regents courses. Interestingly, the smaller schools that did offer Physics courses, typically Non-Regents, graduated substantially more students who had taken Physics course 61% compared to the city average of 21%. In summary the authors list three conclusions of their study. First, large disparities exist in the opportunity to take physics in New York City. Second that larger schools typically offer it far more commonly than small schools-95% to 26% respectively, although the smaller schools have percentage-wise more students taking the course if offered-21% to 61% again respectively. Finally, third, that AP and Regents classes are typically offered at schools with a larger percentage of Caucasian and Asian students and also in larger schools situated in more economically privileged areas. In finale they summarize that if the goal of Science Education is to “science for all” then clearly the system needs work. They suggest a comprehensive review of the system in order to effect improvements system wide.
Overall I found the article to be well written and quite illuminating. The authors present their datum clearly and with precision. The definitions used are easy to understand, their logic and variable well presented and conclusions startling in their simplicity. Differences in the types of schools are clearly discussed and the fact that the general trend to make smaller schools out of larger ones, generally considered a desirable trend to increase student involvement, motivation and community has had the unintended side effect of limiting access to AP and Regents style courses. In addition the article effectively points out differences in community resources and ethnic constitutions. While I feel some additional research to identify why this situation has developed and what could be done about it, as clearly the goal of “science for all” has not been reached by the recent changes and restructuring, in fact, it appears these reforms may have actually helped to create a situation in which science education is even more rarified and stratified than before. The authors do not offer solutions for the problem they have discovered, but that is not their intent. The article is more of a “smoking gun” piece than outline of reform, but as such it is very successful at pointing out what has happened and how even well intended reforms may have unintended side effects. Overall, I found the article to be quite enlightening and well written and it has spurred me to search for similar such datum regarding my own city and teaching environment.