Mary Ollie: It’s not lawmakers’ place to tell Idaho teachers what to teach

“Be careful what you wish for,” could be the theme of Idaho’s science standards debate.

I say this as one who has taught every science discipline from grades 6 through 12 and been a science curriculum coordinator. I’ve worked with standards writing and I’ve “unwrapped” the standards in order to design curriculum units from a “know and do” standard.

Before getting into a discussion of what should be in or out of standards it’s important to do two things. One is to have a clear understanding of terminology and the other is to know the roles of the different entities involved in education.

Idaho code defines standards as what students should know and be able to do. It also states that students meet locally established standards with state standards as a minimum. Curriculum is approved by the local board of trustees.

The proposed Idaho science standards contain a set of performance expectations but include something else. And that is where the problem is centered. What is included is “supporting content” – sets of declarative statements. The term “content” does not have the same meaning as the word “standard.” Idaho code does not define supporting content and none of Idaho’s other academic standards include supporting content.

A review of minutes from 2016 through the present shows that the terms “standards” and “supporting content” are not distinguished. This, despite questions from our legislators over statements that seem to be leading students to a conclusion or concerns that the statements are not promoting inquiry.

Well ladies and gents! Give our legislator high fives for trying to exercise their duties and responsibilities!

Things are getting uncomfortable because the role of the legislature is to adopt or reject performance standards. It is not to legislate content. It is the role of the State Department of Education, curriculum designers, local school districts and teachers to deal with content.

I’ve heard arguments voiced by teachers who were on the science committee. I’ve been on these committees myself and you get so wrapped up in what you do that it sometimes becomes very difficult to pull back and look objectively at what you’ve created. In fact I remember taking personal offense to what was a very good, insightful question.

To those teachers who put in the hours of work: It is appreciated and I do respect you. However, content does not belong in a legislated document. It belongs in your capable hands.

The content is out there in books and in the instruction guides that come with science kits. It’s online and easily accessible. It’s present in many of our Idaho classrooms today.

Where it does not belong is in Idaho Administrative Code. It’s the slippery slope to telling teachers what to teach. It fosters poor teaching practices by making it OK for a teacher to post this for the students before doing real science.

Mary Ollie began working with Idaho science standards in the 1990s. She has taught AP chemistry and physics at the high school level and chemistry at a local community college.