My Thoughts on the Science Standards

When I began preparing science curriculum, it was for a public Charlotte Mason style charter school that was expected to satisfy each of its state’s learning requirements. It was a rather interesting exercise to immerse myself in that state’s standards and then later to compare those to the NGSS standards. From the start, I had a negative attitude towards “requirements” of any kind, mostly because I don’t like being pushed around by anyone. I especially have a problem with the government having any say in my children’s education, and I take extra measures to ensure that they are never subjected to standardized tests. It’s one of the primary reasons we homeschool — to remove the government from my children’s education. But the charter school I was working for didn’t have that liberty, and it turns out, not all homeschooling families in the U.S. have that liberty either.

At first, I thought that the charter school might need to heavily supplement the living book based curriculum because I didn’t know how they could ever cover each of the state standards while reading a single book on a subject. I was quite wrong. It is simply amazing how much is covered by a living book, and because each detail is clothed in living ideas, you don’t need a whole page of facts to get the point across. In reality, the textbook may need to be longer than the living book when covering the same amount of material. To learn more about this idea, read my article Science Writing Can’t Survive on Charm Alone.

I also learned that the standards for science aren’t all that big of a deal. (Note that I am only talking about science here.) For example, high school chemistry only includes eleven standards and physics comprises 27 standards. Here are some examples:

• “Each atom has a charged substructure consisting of a nucleus, which is made of protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons.”
• “The periodic table orders elements horizontally by the number of protons in the atom’s nucleus and places those with similar chemical properties in columns. The repeating patterns of this table reflect patterns of outer electron states.”

Frankly, if your student read the book I suggest for middle school chemistry, they knew all this stuff before they ever got to high school. There are a few items that are more complicated, but as I said, the living book covers them well, while wrapping them in living ideas.

Sometimes, the standards come with limits called Assessment Boundaries. For instance, students in middle school are supposed to learn about the Coriolis Effect. The living book I suggest covers this topic quite well, but there is an assessment boundary that states, “Assessment does not include the dynamics of the Coriolis effect.” However, I do hope as homeschooling families, we never let the standards hold our children back. Our students should learn all they can from the living book they are reading — be it more or less.

Finally, we come to the heart of my article. There are people who won’t use my guides (or even talk about them publicly,) because I report that they cover the standard requirements. To them, I want to say, my study guides follow Charlotte Mason’s lead for lesson planning, which means that each lesson is based solely on the reading and nothing else. My guides are always, and entirely, driven by the book, not the standards.

But there are also people out there who wonder if this very different way of educating our children (What? No textbooks for science?!) will really provide their student what they need for life, for graduation, and for college prep, and there are people who must prove they are covering the national standards. To them, I want to say, that when I have completed a study guide, I always pull out my list of NGSS standards, read them through, and check off everything that was covered naturally, and I can assure you that the standards are more than being met. You do not have to fear a choice between your student loving science and learning science. With Charlotte Mason’s method of teaching science, they can have both.

While I have you here, talking about this volatile subject, I would like to address one more thing that I think people from both groups can be guilty of. I think there is a tendency to lower our standards to what the world would have our children accomplish before graduation, rather than aspiring to what Miss. Mason said was best for them. That is, to provide them with the full feast throughout their education, rather than only providing what the graduation or college entrance requirements suggest. (After all, how is that different from teaching to the test?) Charlotte Mason proposed a program of study that included equal amounts of science from Form 4 (grade 9) through Form 6 (grade 12.) But often I hear that people include two years of science in their high school program, and then they stop. Some people even add one more year, but not all four.

If this is your plan, I implore you to reconsider. Science is not a subject that can be completed. Raising students who are scientifically literate means they can discuss the news of the day, can make important decisions as they vote, and it can help them make important health decisions for themselves and their children if needed. But all of this does not come by completing two or three years of high school science and then quitting. Being scientifically literate requires continual learning in this area. Don’t we say that we want our children to be lifelong learners? Do we only mean that for particular subject areas? Charlotte Mason is repeatedly quoted as saying “knowledge is a state, not a store.” How can your student be in a state of knowledge that allows them to be scientifically literate if they do not continue learning in this area?

I will get down from my soapbox now, and leave you with a quote from H. E. Wix:

May I repeat that definition? It makes so clear how in Miss Mason’s philosophy character cannot exist without knowledge. ‘ Knowledge is a state out of which people may pass and into which they may return, but never a store upon which they may draw ‘. . . . That is, real knowledge cannot be used as a servant, a crutch, a vaulting stick, to be thrown aside when we have passed that final examination and have ‘ arrived ‘. When so treated knowledge becomes mere information about some particular subject or subjects—and oh ! how dull is a ‘ well- informed ‘ person and how untrustworthy are his opinions on people and on life! It is an obvious result, not because he is a specialist, not because he has passed examinations, but because of his attitude towards knowledge—something acquired solely to be made use of. (Wix , p. 179)

and one from Essex Cholmondeley:

These two principles, that children are persons and that knowledge is a state rather than a possession, deeply affect the work of teaching. (Cholmondeley, p. 124)

References:
Wix, H. E. “Miss. Mason’s Ideal: Its Breadth and Balance.” Parents’ Review, vol. 66, 1955, p. 179.
Cholmondeley, Essex. “The House of Education Under Miss. E. A. Parish.” Parents’ Review, vol. 63, 1952, p. 124.