Many current approaches to the design of curriculum and instruction are emphasizing the use of “big ideas” (aka essential questions, overarching themes) as an organizing framework for courses or units. I’ve done several presentations on this topic, and some teachers find it challenging to identify the big ideas in their content areas.
But if you’re an earth science teacher, check out a recent NSF press release that describes a new publication– Earth Science Literacy Principles, which lists big ideas and supporting concepts which can be used for a variety of purposes: education, legislation, scientific endeavors. You can download the document, but here is the list of earth science “literacy principles” from the publication:
Earth scientists use repeatable observations and testable ideas to understand and explain our planet.
Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Earth is a complex system of interacting rock, water, air, and life.
Earth is continuously changing.
Earth is the water planet.
Life evolves on a dynamic Earth and continuously modifies Earth.
Humans depend on Earth for resources.
Natural hazards pose risks to humans.
Humans significantly alter the Earth.
But wait – it gets even better. On the Earth Science Literacy Initiative website, use the link to “Complementary Projects” for similar documents in Ocean Literacy, Atmospheric Literacy, and Climate Literacy. Whether you teach an entire course or just a few topics, these are worth a look.

I’m concerned about the decrease in scheduled time for science instruction, especially in the primary grades. The teachers say that it’s all because of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and its emphasis on reading and mathematics. Is this the case everywhere?
— Greg, Westminster, Colorado
The phrase “No Child Left Behind” implies we’re going somewhere. As science teachers, we need to make sure where we’re going with the students is a worthwhile place and the journey is an interesting one.
“We aren’t allowed to teach science until after the state tests in April.” I couldn’t believe it when I heard this at an elementary school I visited recently. I knew many schools were focusing on reading and mathematics (the two subjects whose test scores are used to calculate a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP), but this sounded like an extreme case.
According to the 2008 study “Initial Impacts of No Child Left Behind on Elementary Science Education,” published in the Journal of Elementary Science Education, 60% of the teachers surveyed said they cut back on time for science instruction as a result of NCLB. So your school and the one I visited are not isolated cases.
Even before NCLB, science was often shortchanged in terms of scheduled time. (Although we’re discussing science here, I’m equally concerned that social studies, the arts, and physical education are also on the back burner in some schools.) I know some teachers who were strong in science before NCLB are still making time for science and their students are doing well on the reading and math tests. But I suspect some teachers have not protested too much about the de-emphasis of science.
If teachers decide to pursue this issue in their own schools, the real cause for the decrease in time for science should be determined. I’m not sure NCLB is the sole factor in every school where science time has been cut back. The study does mention other factors: few resources, lack of administrative support, outdated materials, and inadequate professional development. In addition, I know some schools use the time scheduled for science or social studies as “pull out” time for students who need remedial work in reading and math.
I’d also be concerned about the quality of science instruction during the time currently scheduled for science. If a science class consisted of worksheets, lectures, and busywork, then perhaps making the class shorter was not necessarily a bad thing. Another complication is that now states administer science tests based on their science standards as a part of NCLB. One eighth-grade teacher mentioned she felt she had to cut back on lab investigations to try to “cover” everything for the test, which included the standards for grades 6, 7, and 8.
There are those who suggest science content could be integrated with reading instruction. There certainly are many interesting nonfiction books students could use in reading class. But I think we’re shortchanging students when we substitute assignments in reading class for planned and purposeful science instruction including both science content and processes such as hands-on investigations, vocabulary development, observations, writing, measuring, and questioning. In a well-planned science class, students apply their skills in reading and math to authentic situations.
The study mentioned earlier describes research conducted by Michael Klentschy, which showed inquiry science led to increased student performance in math, reading, and writing, even in schools with large number of at-risk students. So if test scores are an issue, I wonder if schools should increase time for inquiry science, rather than decreasing it! Perhaps if we give students more opportunities to apply their reading and math skills in other content areas, they will begin to see how their subject areas are connected.

Although I credit my early childhood exposure to orchard, field, woods, and creek as the foundation for my understanding of the natural world, I would despair if I thought that same understanding is lost to children who grow up in urban, constructed places, or mostly indoors. My father told of swimming in Wissahickon Creek, a Schuylkill River tributary, and digging garnets out of the Wissahickon schist in Fairmount Park in his childhood in the city of Philadelphia in the 1920’s. The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education is where he might go today to learn about ecosystems in Philadelphia.  My mother’s childhood was filled with box turtle sightings and catching gudgeon on the Patapsco River, on land that is now part of Patapsco Valley State Park in Maryland. I wish such experiences for all children.
Many of my students spend limited time in natural areas but their sense of wonder is not diminished when they encounter living organisms in human-constructed environments (indoors)—it just needs to be encouraged as the spider episode in class yesterday demonstrates:
As the children were gathered around listening to a teacher read aloud, one child drew their attention to a tiny spider slowly dropping on its thread in the center of the group. The teacher directed the children to move a bit and kept on reading. The discoverer came to tell me and get a small viewing container. This is what she told another teacher 15 minutes later, “I caught it from a web spinning from the ceiling. It looks like a bee because it has a ring of fur around its neck.” As they were lining up to leave the room I noticed she was empty-handed and I asked what happened to the spider. “I let it go back to its home.” She understood that the room was the spider’s habitat, an interior one.
Click on the word “Comments” below to share how your class experiences nature.
Peggy