Traditionally, physics has been considered the most difficult science, which should only be attempted by mature students with a strong mathematical background. There is some truth to this- being comfortable with advanced math can certainly open up some areas of physics and there are topics in a solid, college-preparatory physics class that require some pretty serious number-crunching. However, there is another side to this story and a growing feeling among educators (myself included) that even elementary school students can and should study physics.

One of the strongest arguments for introducing physics at a young age is that it is the most "basic" of the sciences. In other words, it's really not possible to have a good understanding of photosynthesis if you don't know anything about light. Learning about light is, of course, a branch of physics.

There's currently a "physics first" movement that is trying to upend the traditional order of high school science classes so that the sequence becomes physics in freshman year, then chemistry, and finally biology. In this model, physics is taught as a more conceptual and less calculation-based subject because younger students do not have the mathematical knowledge of older ones.

Physics first could be the best thing that ever happened to physics education, if it is done correctly. Beyond the obvious perk for physics-enthusiasts everywhere that physics would studied by far more people than ever before, it could potentially be taught much more effectively. One of the flaws in traditional physics education is that it assumes that students will learn the concepts that the mathematics illustrate by applying the math to problems. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well most of the time. Most people need to approach physics from a conceptual point of view before they can understand the mathematics in a meaningful way. This is true even for smart, mathematically inclined people, and it is at least part of the reason that so many people learn so little in high school physics classes. In essence, the goal of physics first education is to help all students achieve a solid qualitative understanding of the physical world. Interested students can then refine that pre-existing qualitative knowledge into a quantitative understanding in a later, more advanced class.

The philosophy behind physics first doesn't have to be restricted to educating high school freshmen. It can effectively be applied to much younger children as well. For example, I teach science to a group of nine and ten year old homeschoolers, and we have done quite a bit of physics, with very little math beyond basic arithmetic. For example, last year we explored levers and turning effect. This year we will be looking into pulleys and simple circuits. I don't shy away from using age-appropriate math, including simple formulas, but neither do I emphasize formulas over a verbal understanding of events. These kids are hardly advanced physics students, but they have achieved significant understanding while retaining a strong interest in learning more.

Critics of a conceptual approach to physics education worry that it is merely a way to lower standards. I share their desire for the highest standards possible, and I acknowledge that a poorly executed conceptual physics program could lack rigor. As always, details matter. A good conceptual physics program should involve hands-on (and "brain-on") experiments, extensive writing, and some math. It should not be easy. On the other hand, it shouldn't leave conscientious, hard working students feeling like they are studying an impossible subject- and traditional physics education leaves far too many students with that feeling.