FAQ

What is different in the 2019 Academic Standards in Science?

The 2019 Academic Standards in Science are based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education. This 2012 report from the National Research Council summarized research in science education. It emphasized several themes, which are embedded in Minnesota's new standards as well:

1. Students learn science best when they are investigating and seeking to explain phenomena in their world.

• Scientists engage in their work in the context of something they are trying to figure out, pursuing their own questions wherever they lead. Students should be supported in similar experiences appropriate to their grade level.

2. Science is, and science learning should be, three-dimensional. These dimensions are:

• Science and engineering practices (P). Just as scientists ask questions, develop models that they test through investigations, analyze data, and revise their conceptual models, students should also be engaging directly in practices that help them make sense of phenomena or solve real-world design problems.

• Crosscutting concepts (CC). Across disciplines, scientists make sense of the world using a common set of lenses. They define the system of consideration, identify patterns, and trace flows of energy and matter. "Successful" science students also do these things, so we should make them explicit to all students.

• Disciplinary core ideas (CI). These are the science content ideas we traditionally associate with standards. A biologist, chemist, physicist, geologist, astronomer, or other disciplinary expert uses these ideas to help explain a wide variety of phenomena in their field. Students should build these ideas over time by engaging in practices, to understand phenomena, using crosscutting concepts as lenses to support their sensemaking.

3. Students' lived experiences are assets in learning.

• Students have experienced varied phenomena in their daily lives and have partial conceptions that they can use to begin making sense of a phenomenon, at least to the point of generating productive questions for future investigation. These experiences include formal and informal science learning, time spent in nature, work in and out of the home, cultural knowledge, and linguistic assets.

What do the Next Generation Science Standards have to do with any of this?

The Next Generation Science Standards, which have been directly adopted by many states, are also based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education. They are similar, but not identical, to Minnesota's 2019 standards.

How do the 2019 Minnesota Academic Standards in Science compare to the NGSS?

Similarities: Both sets of standards are three-dimensional and intend for students to build off of their own resources to explain phenomena and develop solutions to problems.
Differences: The Minnesota standards map to benchmarks, which are often similar to the performance expectations listed in the NGSS. The Minnesota benchmarks are sometimes broken differently across grades than in the NGSS (for example, middle school benchmarks are divided between grades based on discipline in Minnesota, while no grades are specified in the NGSS). In high school, Minnesota articulates separate Physics and Chemistry benchmarks, instead of grouping into physical sciences as in the NGSS.

Are NGSS-aligned materials able to be used in Minnesota?

The short answer is: maybe! All curricula may need some resequencing to match how Minnesota mapped benchmarks to particular grades. However, high-quality curricula, that meet the spirit of the NGSS, likely were built on a process of unpacking the three dimensions of the NGSS that led designers to build in important ideas that are happen to be present in the Minnesota benchmarks, even if they are absent from the NGSS. In general, it will be easier to teach with fidelity to the Minnesota standards if the curriculum is centered around students figuring out phenomena or solving problems.