This year has been a year for new, big ideas – not because we have a lot of mental space, because we don’t, or a lot of extra time on our hands, because we definitely don’t, but rather because teaching has been SO different that we had to break all of our visions of what standard teaching is/should be in order to meet the new challenges.  I think this is something that, as a school, we’ve done creatively and admirably.  

In chemistry, we completely rearranged our curriculum path and started implementing new methods of communicating expectations to students.  We’ve been switching to a mix of projects and tests to work around potential issues of academic integrity and to create student choice and voice, have students start to make connections between our seemingly esoteric topics and real-world phenomena – all of which are great things, and nothing that we ever would have tried in the Beforetimes.  

But here’s where I echo something that Mitch commented on elsewhere – in redesigning our curriculum flow and creating all of these outlets for potential self-learning, what has to get cut?  How do we fit everything in?  And how do we make authentic learning connections in a time when it’s not feasible to do labs, due to the sheer fact that they can’t be within 6 feet of a lab partner?

As someone who lives through sheer curiosity about the world, it saddens me to think that I am potentially losing an entire year of students who might have loved chemistry if they had been able to experience the experimental side of things, which is where the science truly comes to life, transforming opaque, tedious concepts into windows into the magnificence of the construction of creation. Yes, we are doing virtual versions of the labs, we are doing self-guided exploration to engage student interest, but I can’t help but feel that there is something missing.

Here’s where I start wondering- are there enough students who are not necessarily ‘good at’ science, but who are consumed with curiosity about the world to create a club?  One where they can pursue their own scientific explorations (within reason), maybe work on community science to find their passion before it gets stultified by massive college lecture halls and terrifying college exams? I have this beautiful vision of some of my former chemistry students, especially the ones who didn’t think they were any good at science because they struggled with testing, discovering something that *did* excite them and made them realize that they could be a scientist if they wanted to. It also brings up ideas about sidestepping potential systemic issues that lead to minority students dropping out of science early, because this sort of exploration doesn’t have anything to do with testing or assignments, but is instead driven by passion and curiosity.  There are so many amazing possibilities that could come out of this…and yet.

Would we simply find the same issue there – the issue of time? Students are already massively overscheduled, even in this time, and between 3-4 clubs, 7 classes, leadership, Company, etc etc…where is there time to allow exploration and curiosity, even in a potential cohort situation? Just like we are crunched for time in the classroom, and we have to decide between more but shallower content or less but deeper or self-driven content, students must choose the smartest options for their limited free time…and is a freewheeling exploration of science going to make the cut?