"Essential" Standards in Science

Co-authored by Rochelle Sandrin, Science Curriculum Coordinator, Milwaukee Public Schools

As students head back to school this fall, many teachers and administrators have realized that teaching all of the topics from previous years may not be possible. There is a desire to pare down the standards into what is “essential” or “priority.” In science this process can prompt some useful conversation on a K-12 progression of learning, but it should be approached cautiously. The core phrase of the standards remains the guidepost for designing instruction--that "all students should use disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts to make sense of phenomena and solve problems.”

A definition of “power’ or “essential” standards shows that this prioritization typically happens at the local level, where administrators and teachers decide what is most important for students to learn. These teams need to carefully consider vertical alignment in this process, so that students are properly prepared for the next grade level and further education after high school. Teachers need to know what big ideas of science students are coming from and moving toward to focus their students’ learning within this progression (particularly to be more efficient by avoiding duplication of learning). Because the Wisconsin Standards for Science already represent a narrowed range of content at each grade band, educators might start by determining whether they can trim some of what they teach that is not in the standards. They might also consider bundling standards to address more within each unit. 

Even after cutting excess and bundling, a school system might decide that constrained time in a virtual or part-virtual and part in-person environment means that not all content standards can be addressed. The inquiry-based nature of science and social studies must continue, even if not all the typical content is “covered.” Notably, social studies and science learning is what engages students and makes learning come alive. These subjects should not be diminished to keep teaching literacy and mathematics with “fidelity” to a set of materials--e.g., teaching them in traditional ways with little evidence of success. Both literacy and mathematics are enhanced through deep connections to students’ lives, which is provided through social studies and science contexts. A better understanding of science and social studies does support literacy skills.

Any narrowing of the curriculum cannot mean less rigor and relevance. It cannot mean less opportunity to develop rich relationships with adults and peers. Students must be able to engage in equitable, grade-level work, not only “catch-up” from what has been missed. Further, students should be engaged in making sense of meaningful phenomena and designing solutions to locally relevant problems. This “three-dimensional” engagement is at the core of what is “essential” or “priority” work in science. 

Finally, as we move forward with schooling in the era of COVID-19, the discussion of priorities should consider current events. A unit on media literacy, connecting to grade-level content and the practice of finding and evaluating information, always makes sense, but is even more critical now. Exploring virology and vaccines might not have been a critical phenomenon for teaching a concept five years ago, but now certainly could be. 

In all current, messy deliberations, we must first consider what is best for students, keeping student well-being and equitable learning as the key lens through which we make decisions.