The latest updates on the state of high-quality instructional materials for science confront us with gaps in the landscape, but also opportunities for bridging those gaps with growing resources and support.

First, the gaps. 

EdReports recently released its first reviews of high school science materials, and two of the three programs reviewed do not meet its standards for alignment and usability. A new piece from the organization’s science specialist points out that when it comes to the transition to high-quality curriculum, science is lagging significantly behind math and ELA (something I’ve written about previously). 

NextGenScience’s recent landscape analysis also shares insights from science teachers and state, district, and school leaders on quality materials selection and modification. Some challenges rose to the surface:

• About half of state leaders report that their state does not offer a list of required or recommended instructional materials for districts to choose from. 
• Just 47% of district leaders report that their district leads either the creation or selection of science materials. 
• Even among teachers who receive full curricular programs, only half report using their district’s core instructional materials most often when planning lessons, most commonly due to misalignment with three-dimensional learning, which is incorporated into almost all states’ learning goals for science. 
• Nearly 1 in 10 (8%) of respondents said they don’t know how to make materials more three-dimensional and phenomena-based because they don’t understand the meaning of the terms. 
• School leaders and teachers clearly need support to improve instructional materials, but only 48% report receiving relevant professional learning, and just 27% say they have access to models of what these modifications could look like. 

And now the opportunities. Of the respondents to the landscape’s program developer survey who provide guidance, 100% report that they offer ways to adjust phenomena or problems to be more locally or culturally relevant, 85% cover integrating science with ELA, and 70% provide supports for the needs of individual students, including a foundation of learning for students performing below grade level. While this is promising, work is clearly needed to better connect curriculum providers and educators implementing those programs. 

Last week, the Collaborative for Student Success and the National Science Teaching Association co-hosted a convening to explore how teachers and advocates can help to advance strong policy and practices in K-12 science education. It was a powerful reminder that educators are eager to engage in curriculum and professional development work, but they need tools and support to navigate gaps.

Fortunately, educator-driven organizations are leading this bridge-spanning work. 

Rivet Education partners with state and district leaders to identify high-quality, curriculum-based professional learning opportunities for teachers, using a Professional Learning Partner Guide that helps leaders identify evidence-based programs. 

New tools from Instruction Partners provide guidance for individuals who lead or support instructional improvement in science to drive high-quality teaching and learning. The Solidify workbook helps educators better understand the instructional shifts needed to deliver high-quality science teaching and learning, and educators can use the Science Classroom Observation Tool to assess the state of science instruction in their classroom and areas for improvement. 

EdReports is also getting in on the game by sharing concrete ways that their most recent science materials reviews can equip educators with questions and evidence to push for better curricular tools.

I’m watching these developments so that we can continue surfacing the good news for science teachers and students across the country. And I’m counting on our science educators to keep leading the way.