I am agree with you, but not exactly beacause the pedagogical reasons, but the real description of the elements, the natural arrengement of the elements describes the correlation between particular properties of each one, making clear differences between metals and non-metals, but the link, the transition in the behaviour and properties is exactly what defines the metalloids and stablishes a different subgroup.

Thanks Jorge for presentation your point of view.

I would like to emphasize again that I generally support the idea of ​​organizing the base of chemistry, in particular the major auxiliary tool in the teaching of chemistry, which is the periodic table of chemical elements. However, I have serious concerns that the attempt to remove metalloids from periodic table of chemical elements, can give negative effects to teaching chemistry. Beginners may perceived it as suggesting the existence of sharp boundary between metals and non-metals, as well as suggesting the occurrence always very simple relationships between the structure of the chemical element and its properties, when in fact these relationships can be complex.

I look forward to more opinions.

Does this mean pronouncement mean, the semiconductor industry is no longer an important domain for chemists? Are the bio-related and inorganic chemists taking over? Please say this is not really so!

In the meantime, can you provide a reference to the IUPAC recommendation where we might read more?

Jeffrey

Of course, I will post the appropriate link and maybe even the full text of the report of IUPAC. Sorry, do not have that now at hand.

It does not surprise me, that on the base of this information you immediately ask very fundamental questions about the future of these important areas of technique and technology, the base of which is strongly anchored in chemistry of metalloids ("border elements").

Personally, I think - and such an attitude I present on my lecture courses with students - that this idea is really ill and I can not see the clearly future for him.

It remains, however, the thought of it - and as a lecturer I does not feel so good with its - that I'm doing something in the teaching process, which is not consistent with the guidelines. However, I have belief in myself that I'm doing this in good faith with a view to education the chemists of properly wide horizons.

@A Szymanski: I seriously doubt that any IUPAC member will be visiting your classroom or interviewing your chemistry students about what you did or did not teach them any time in your life time. I also seriously doubt that chemistry textbooks will change in any foreseeable time to rigidly follow the new recommendations. In any case, by the time that might even happen, I imagine we clever materials' chemists will find interesting ways to bring back what is taken away by the royal pronouncements that favor the bio-and inorganic chemists.

@ Ronald,

Thank you for your opinion.

Is your opinion is the opinion of a specialist on a daily basis working in the field of chemical elements, or take into account any pedagogical or teaching aspects?

Of course, I realize that in controversial situations, there will always be supporters of opposing options, and I have respect for opposing views. However, as a chemistry teacher for many years, I am confirmed in the belief that the proper familiarize students of the subject of chemistry "border elements" (metalloid), is the key to proper formation of future specialists in the field of inorganic chemistry.

Jeffrey,

Of course, you're right. None from IUPAC will not check whether these recommendations are respected, and implemented in the programm of the chemistry course.

But the problem is that not all educators have the freedom to conduct copyright course of chemistry, according to your own program.

I can do it, because I leading academic course. However, young people at lower levels of education (primary and secondary) will be, unfortunately, suffering, because there will have courses implemented (at least as it is in Poland) in accordance with the ministerial guidelines, but - unfortunately - Ministry realized strictly official guidance, including the IUPAC.

The situation is unfortunate in one sense for what we may stand to no longer be allowed to teach students about a distinct class of elements, the metalloids.

One way to compensate is to bring back the missing chemistry through tangential examples. Talk about organic chemistry and then ask, what would happen if we changed carbon for silicon in life forms. I remember for example a Star Trek episode with a creature whose chemistry was based entirely on this premise. Or talk about tin as a metal and then ask why we have two types, white and gray tin. Use that as a spring board to cover the transition from diamond (insulator) to tin (metal) through semiconductors (metalloids).

As a personal note, I would also suggest not to worry about this mandated change any more in daily or yearly teaching plans. Clearly, the battle to have a Goliath ministry re-evaluate metalloids is absolutely not worth any of your time or effort. You might consider to be happy that you have one less topic to teach and re-adjust your lessons accordingly. The students in primary and secondary schools will have no idea what they are missing until they get to industry, if then. At that point, it will be someone else's problem to teach them what they missed, and you cannot be blamed for not teaching them because the ministry set the standards that you were required to follow. What a nice way out of this when it could otherwise be an entire mess for you.

Besides, in a larger scheme, who is to say that IUPAC is not right to remove metalloids and we are all mostly wrong in our push to keep them (because we are too close to our own love of germanium chemistry for example)?

Cynical as some of the above may sound, sometimes we chemistry teachers just have to make ourselves happy to have any chance to teach about chemistry. The less I worry about what an administrators decides that I have to teach and the more I have fun teaching what they require me to teach (and doing so in the best way I can), the happier everyone, including my students, will be in the end.

I dont take the suggestion seriously. The period table makes sense as it is, and the same is valid for the gradual change from metals to metalloids to non-metals.

Regards, Stan

Stan,

Thank you for your feedback.

I personally have been witness to the various proposals IUPC which ultimately became widespread, and also those that have not adopted. I am convinced that the correct process of teaching in chemistry must include a clear show of diversity characteristics, but nevertheless also a logic of their monotonic variation in terms of the border chemical elements, that means metalloids.