Yes it's true and permanent: AP Physics 1 now covers mechanics only.

The announcement came Friday afternoon, first on the AP Physics 1 homepage and then via email to teachers with an AP course audit:

Colleges agree that Units 8–10 can be removed from AP Physics 1 since they are covered in AP Physics 2; accordingly, Units 8–10 will no longer be tested in AP Physics 1, effective this year.

Is this just for the 2021 pandemic year?  No, this is permanent.

Will AP Physics 2, C-mechanics, or C-E&M be shortened as well?  No.  All other AP courses in all disciplines are remaining as-is even in the 2021 pandemic year.  AP Physics 1 is an exception - it is the only course out of 30+ to be shortened. And this is not a pandemic-related decision (though I'd not be surprised to hear that the pandemic was a catalyst for making this decision sooner rather than later).  

Why are colleges okay with cutting topics in AP Physics 1?  In surveying colleges and universities about their first-year algebra-based physics courses, the College Board found substantial uniformity in the first-semester topic coverage: it's all mechanics all the time.  Yet, in the horse-trading that went into attempting to satisfy everyone when the P1/P2 sequence was established for 2015, waves and circuits were put into P1.  I suspect that this decision was made in large part to meet big-state public high school curriculum standards.  For example, including waves and circuits aligned P1 very nicely with most of the New York Regents curriculum.  

But because waves and circuits are hardly ever part of a college's first-year algebra-based course, the College Board found that universities are happy to give that first semester of credit for just mechanics.  

Well, when I took college physics, things were different.  I'd do things differently.  I don't doubt it. The College Board's job isn't to provide the physics course that you took in college, nor the one you personally want to teach.  

Their mission is a balancing act.  They are trying to increase equity and access to college-level physics.  They are trying to provide a course that meets the needs of a wide variety of university programs and high school programs.  And, because the College Board is the de facto national leader in physics curriculum design, they're trying to lead with a course based on the instructional best practices evidenced over the last several decades of physics education research. 

You might personally have balanced competing ideas and interests differently.  Fair enough.  Just know that the people making these big-picture decisions in physics are people I trust.  I'm aware that teachers are used to assuming incompetence and bad faith in decisions made by educational administrators, likely because so, so many educational administrators across the country have unfortunately earned that assumption.  The College board physics leadership has earned my assumptions of both good faith and competence.  They are experts doing what they think best fulfills their mission.

Isn't this new P1 just Physics C-mechanics without calculus?   In terms of topics, essentially yes.  In terms of style, well, certainly not. The fundamentals of AP Physics 1 haven't changed.  P1 students will be required to explain physics using words, equations, experimental design, diagrams, graphs, etc.  The fundamental "best practice" emphasized in P1 is that students shouldn't just be able to solve mathematical problems, they should be able to explain the concepts underlying each problem, as well as the experimental evidence underlying each concept.  P1-level conceptual understanding is a prerequisite for true success in Physics C-mechanics.  

Physics education research has shown, again and again, that mere breadth of content, mere ability to solve equations and get answers, does not lead to long-term success and understanding.  Research has shown that it's less important which topics are covered than how they are covered.

Will cut scores for P1 be adjusted? I have no idea.  We'll find out somewhere around September!

How are you adjusting your overall program, Greg?  Well, this year, I'm gratefully accepting the gift of time that I've been offered.  In a pandemic year, I'm suddenly in good shape with my course pacing.

In future years, I'm going to be able to expand the pool of students who can do AP Physics 1 in their 9th grade year.  Even my most advanced 9th graders have been sufficiently challenged by P1.  Now, though, some of my students who were getting 3s will likely be able to get 4s, because they'll be able to concentrate on fewer topics.  And, some students who couldn't previously handle the pace of P1 will be able to take the course - I can ease more gently into AP-level work, because I have more time.  I'll similarly be able to expand the number of conceptual physics students who come back to take our P1 course their junior or senior year.  

And, since I can expand the number of 9th graders in P1, I might eventually have enough students to offer P2 as a scheduled full-year course.  Right now I'm offering it to just a few folks haphazardly as a sort-of independent study in the second half of our Science Thesis Seminar.  

Should I teach circuits and waves anyway?  I like teaching those topics.  I mean, I personally would not.  Especially this year, when nothing at all is as efficient as anyone is used to.

Though circuits and waves are fun, students tend not to appreciate discussion of topics that aren't on the exam, except if there's a real excuse for an enrichment-only time.  For example, if you had all your seniors gone for a week and just the juniors left, it would be fun to do circuits with just the juniors.  Or, if your state mandated exam (like the Regents exam) includes circuits and waves, then by all means, you'll have plenty of time next year!  In general, though, you'll gain a lot more political capital by minimizing your topic coverage but increasing your demands for depth of understanding.  

On the reduced P1 exam, what are the new topic percentages?  This isn't clear to me yet.  If I had to bet, I'd pro-rate the unit percentages in the currently published course description based on eliminating units 8-10.  It doesn't matter that much, though - because going forward you'll have plenty of time to help your students understand everything in units 1-7 very well.  

I'll add to this post as I hear more.  Feel free to post questions in the comments, or to me via email.  Know that I will simply delete passive-aggressive comments - I've been seeing too many of these.  If you have a good-faith question, though, I'm happy to help where I can!