Edina board reviews recommended K–12 social studies resources amid state standard uncertainty
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Teaching and learning staff recommended updated K–12 social studies materials after a multi‑year design process; staff said recommended resources remain aligned even if state standards change. The board discussed rollout, pilot timing, and budget implications.
Edina Public Schools administrators presented a recommendation to update K–12 social studies instructional resources and outlined a multi‑year review and design process.
Bethany Van Ostel, assistant director of teaching and learning, told the board the district began the curriculum design in 2022 and that teams of teachers and leaders reviewed possible resources, considered alignment with both the 2012 and 2021 standards, and prioritized vertical and horizontal alignment across grades. “We feel very strongly about this recommendation going forward because our teachers haven’t had updates in a long time,” Van Ostel said.
Jamie Hawkinson, who led the K–5 design team, described K–5 priorities including explicit connections to literacy, accommodations for varied learning needs, and print materials for younger grades alongside online components with language overlays for Spanish and French. “This is a beautiful complement to Benchmark Advance,” Hawkinson said of the recommended elementary resource (Studies Weekly), emphasizing teacher resources, scope and sequence, and transfer to ELA strategies.
Board members asked whether the district would pilot materials at the secondary level and how rollout timing and costs would be phased. Van Ostel explained the district follows an implementation science approach: secondary content specialists typically implement together; elementary rollout usually begins with a small early‑implementer cohort to work out technology and resource issues before full adoption. She said the board packet shows color‑coded rollout years and that some grades may not require changes.
Board members also asked about alignment if the legislature changes state standards. Van Ostel said the district consulted vendors and believes recommended materials would remain aligned whether standards reverted to older versions or updated. She repeated that advocacy and questions about state standards are matters for the legislature and Minnesota Department of Education rather than district curriculum interpretation.
Board members requested clearer dollar estimates for early implementation costs; Van Ostel agreed to include estimated year‑by‑year expense lines in the next report. The administration said the full K–12 recommendation will be presented for board action at a future meeting (anticipated next month for some items) after further review and final budgeting.