I find Robert Lichter's commentary concerning faculty requests for compensation for curricular development worrisome (J. Chem. Educ.1999,76, 1610). Worrisome because I believe it indicates that he is out of touch with the situation of many in the teaching population that he has been hired to assess. Lichter deems requests for salary to redesign a course or integrate an instrument into the curriculum, as opposed to a major curriculum development, crass and out of step with the traditional view of the college teacher who accepts curriculum development as part of the job. That is certainly the view I saw and embraced as an undergraduate and in my early teaching career. While these views continue today, I suspect that they are held more by faculty at more affluent colleges where nine-month salaries for senior faculty approach $100K. For faculty at less affluent two- and four-year institutions where salaries are considerably lower, the choice of how to spend a summer may, by necessity, be more tied to income than to educational innovation. I suspect that if the choice is between teaching summer school and undertaking curricular development on one's own time, the needs that accompany a single family income for many younger faculty may decide the issue.
Perhaps I am the one who is out of touch. I hope so.
Our Secondary School editors work hard to distill all the JCE materials to produce a fraction of particular interest to high school teachers. We call it CLIC.
In recent years we have worked hard to better match our advertisers with our readers. When shopping for chemistry education materials, visit our advertisers' WWW sites first.
Take JCE along on your outreach missions. Copies of the Journal, guest access to JCE Online, our publications catalog, and more are available for your participants.