Science teachers, curriculum staff and board debate direct instruction vs. inquiry as UBDs are finalized
Loading...
Summary
District curriculum staff presented biology and physics unit plans aligned to 2019 science standards and said they will not adopt new textbooks this year; board members pressed for clearer expectations that direct instruction be central to classroom practice to raise student outcomes.
Anoka‑Hennepin district curriculum leaders told the school board on Aug. 11 they completed UBDs for secondary biology and physics aligned to the 2019 Minnesota science standards and recommended continuing with current instructional materials for 2025–26 while refining instructional methodology and teacher supports.
The presentation said the board had directed staff in April not to purchase new materials for biology and physics but to align course documents to the 2019 standards and the existing texts. Sarah Hunter, executive director for learning and achievement, said those UBDs are ready for board review and possible approval so teachers can begin the year with materials in place.
Board members focused questions on instructional methodology, asking how the UBDs incorporate the three dimensions of the standards: disciplinary core ideas (content), science and engineering practices (doing) and cross‑cutting concepts (ways of thinking). Director Hochman asked how inquiry‑based learning and direct instruction are balanced in the unit plans.
Curriculum staff said the new standards are three‑dimensional and that UBDs aim to have students explain phenomena and demonstrate skills; they also said direct instruction is used at multiple points to provide foundational knowledge. "You can't apply that knowledge if you don't have that knowledge," a staff member said, adding that the units include explicit assessment tasks that require both content knowledge and application.
Several board members argued for more explicit district expectations that direct instruction be central. Director Odette said she had asked previously and received an example in which a teacher reported an average of about 10 minutes per class period of direct instruction in current biology lessons — a figure she and other board members said seemed low and could be one factor in low student performance on state science assessments. (District speakers noted high school biology MCA pass rates in recent years were around 44 percent.)
Superintendent Mike McIntyre and curriculum leaders said they will pursue several follow‑up steps: clarify and strengthen direct‑instruction expectations, explicitly incorporate them into teacher coaching and evaluation, and provide professional development. McIntyre described a plan to make clear expectations "observable" and part of the teacher support and evaluation system so the instructional approach is consistent across classrooms.
Curriculum staff also said the new science assessments emphasize higher‑order cognitive demands and that units are designed to move students from initial explanations and curiosity about a phenomenon toward deeper explanations as they acquire knowledge. Staff emphasized UBDs are iterative: teachers present phenomena, gather evidence, receive targeted instruction and rework explanations as students build understanding.
No curriculum adoptions or policy votes were taken during the discussion. Staff asked the board to consider the aligned UBDs for final approval at an upcoming meeting and to support a stronger policy or operational guidance on instructional expectations in science courses.
