THERE ARE MORE CLIMATE CHANGE IDEAS IN THE STANDARDS THAN YOU MIGHT THINK

When we search for compelling climate change events to integrate into lessons, we have almost limitless choices, ranging from impacts on ecosystems, to atmospheric chemistry, to the physics of renewable energy. But we are also responsible for linking these phenomena to standards, in order to support students’ deep understanding of core science ideas.

[Link to PDF of this Blog post]

[Link to entire list of categorized climate-related standards in NGSS]

The challenge here is that we may not always be sure which standards help illuminate key aspects of climate change or solutions.  Some helpfully include the term “climate,” while others use less explicit language like “human impact” or “when the environment changes.” Other standards relevant to climate change make no mention at all of the climate, global warming, or the environment. Still other standards are engineering oriented (i.e. designing or testing solutions to problems) and very few of these refer to mitigating climate harms or adapting to environmental changes. In fact, the phrasing of nearly all engineering standards in the NGSS is generic about the context—meaning that they do not mention climate change, human impacts, environmental degradation, restoration or resilience. And finally, it is up to all of us to integrate social justice into our climate change teaching, it is not represented in the standards—see the callout below.

The good news is that there are dozens of these climate-implicit standards available to us, across all grade levels and applicable to every science discipline we teach in schools. Because so many of these standards can have very real links to climate change (and social justice), we need strategies for identifying them and integrating them into our curriculum. Before diving in, let’s take a look at the big picture.

---

Table 2.1 Types of climate-related standards in the NGSS

Types of Links to CC in Standards

How Do These Standards Mention Or “Hint At” Relationship To CC?

Sample Performance Expectations

Explicit connections with climate change, human impacts, solutions

1. Direct references to climate or weather	Refers to climate system or weather dynamics.	Obtain & combine information to describe climates in different regions of the world. (3-ESS2-2)
2. Direct references to climate change	Mentions that climates can change over time.	Use a model to describe how variations in the flow of energy into and out of Earth’s systems result in changes in climate. (HS-ESS2-4)
Downstream biological effects of climate change	Describes a scientific principle that could be used to understand or explain biological systems phenomena influenced by climate change.	Not mentioned in any Performance Expectations
4. Direct or indirect (negative) human impacts on climate or environment	Mentions direct human influences on climate or how humans exacerbate existing climate change risks.	Apply scientific principles to design a method for monitoring and minimizing a human impact on the environment. (MS-ESS3-3)
5. How humans will be affected by climate change	Describes present or future climate-related risks for humans or for the more-than-human world.	Analyze geoscience data and the results from global climate models to make an evidence-based forecast of the current rate of global or regional climate change and associated future impacts to Earth’s systems. (HS-ESS3-5).
6. Engineering mitigations or adaptations of climate risks or environmental harm	Engineering standards that directly reference strategies to lower or adapt to specific climate risks or environmental harm.	Make a claim about the merit of a design solution that reduces the impacts of a weather-related hazard. (3-ESS3-1).

Implicit connections with climate change, human impacts, solutions

7. Foundational geophysical knowledge, potentially applicable to climate change	Expresses a fundamental idea from the domains of chemistry, physics, or earth sciences more broadly that students could use to understand or incorporate into an explanation for a variety of climate change phenomena.	Develop and use a model to describe that waves are reflected, absorbed, or transmitted through various materials. (MS-PS4-2)
8. Foundational biological knowledge, potentially applicable to climate change	Expresses a fundamental idea from the domain of biology that students could use to understand or incorporate into an explanation for a variety of climate change phenomena.	Use evidence to support the explanation that traits can be influenced by the environment. (3-LS3-2)
9. Foundational engineering practices, potentially applicable to climate change	Engineering standards that refer to practices which could be used to study, mitigate, or adapt to climate change risks, but do not mention climate change.	Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as possible social, cultural, environmental impacts. (HS-ETS1-3).

---

We’ll come back to the differences between the first six and the last three rows of standards in a moment. For now, let’s find out where, in the K-12 curriculum, we ask students to address standards that explicitly reference climate change phenomena. For this analysis, I include performance expectations (PEs) which are statements of what we expect students to know and be able to do; they combine core disciplinary ideas with a scientific practice (e.g. explanation, data analysis) and a cross-cutting concept (e.g. cause and effect, stability and change). The reason for focusing on these, is that many districts and science departments use PEs to build curriculum around, and to assess student progress.

Figure 2.1 (below) shows how often each kind of standard from categories 1 through 6 shows up in the PEs of each grade level or grade band. The number of color-coded boxes indicates how many performance expectations there are in each category. In the Kindergarten standards, for example, there are two PEs in the first category of standards describing  “Direct references to climate or weather” and two PEs for “Engineering mitigations or adaptations of climate risks or environmental harm.” In addition to these engineering PEs, there are also two related disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) in the Kindergarten standards that students can use to accomplish the performance expectations. DCIs are important concepts in each of four domains: physical sciences, life sciences, Earth and space sciences, and engineering. This breakdown of what students could possibly learn about climate change—from the explicitly-phrased standards—reveals both opportunities and expansive gaps where important concepts are left unaddressed for years at a time.

Figure 2.1 Locations of NGSS standards, across grade levels, that are explicitly phrased as related to climate change, human impacts, or solutions

The first trend is that there are very few standards, of any kind, that mention climate change, human impacts, or solutions. This creates several periods, years long, where these crucial ideas are barely touched upon. For example, the category of “Downstream biological effects of climate change” does not show up as a PE anywhere in the K-12 trajectory. In other words, there is no PE that represents the stresses that living systems are undergoing, including collapsing ecosystems or widespread extinctions throughout the world. There are, however, five disciplinary core ideas reflecting this idea at different grade levels, but PEs are generally what districts use to guide curriculum planning. The conspicuous absence of these may make some biology teachers feel that climate change does not have a place in their curriculum—but we know that this could not be farther from the truth.

Similarly, there are only two PEs that ask students to understand how humans will be impacted by climate change. Both of these are at the HS level. Also largely absent until middle school and high school are standards referencing direct or indirect (negative) impacts by humans on the climate or on the environment, which obscures who is accountable for the various crises we are in and the different ways humans have endangered Earth’s systems. The bigger picture here is that, as students move from Kindergarten through 5^th grade, they will encounter virtually no mention of a changing climate, how humans impact the Earth and are impacted by environmental loss (categories 2-6 in Table 2.1).

Engineering standards that refer to mitigation or adaptation to climate risks are also few and far between. They appear nearly exclusively in the secondary grades; in 1^st through 5^th grades there is only one such PE. Many elementary age children, especially Black, Brown and Indigenous students from poverty-impacted communities, are well aware of their families’ vulnerabilities to flooding, drought, air pollution, or degraded ecosystems. Yet according to the engineering standards as written, there are no opportunities for them to explore the rich array of eco-restorative measures currently being implemented around the world. Such standards are critical for deeper student understandings of regeneration and resilience strategies. Not only this, but they present opportunities to teach about collective action in the world, which in turn cultivates a sense of agency and supports students’ sense of hope.

The underlying assumptions build into the standards seem to be that climate change, human impacts, and solutions are topics appropriate only for older students, which we know is both developmentally inaccurate and an equity concern. It can also hinder a cumulative and coherent trajectory of learning, beginning in the early elementary grades.

Cause for optimism: There are many more climate-relevant standards at every grade level

As problematic as the situation above sounds, there are ways educators can address climate change, human impacts, and solutions through a different subset of standards. I refer to categories 7-9 in Table 2.1. These foundational knowledge standards are plentiful across grade levels. The catch is that none are phrased in ways that directly signal to educators that they could be used to explore the causes or consequences of environmental damage or solutions. One would have to recognize that such foundational knowledge could indeed be taught in these contexts.

To do this, educators would need familiarity with basic climate change phenomena, their impacts on various Earth systems and on human communities, and the idea of solutions that help us mitigate or adapt to a changing environment. This drawing together of basic science principles with the planetary puzzle of climate change takes creativity and teamwork. In Figure 2.2 we see examples in each of the three “implicit standard” categories. The standards are on the left; on the right is how they might be taught in the context of climate change, human impact, solutions—and notice that social justice implications are included.

Figure 2.2 How foundational but generic principles of disciplinary knowledge can be applied to climate change, human impacts, solutions, and social justice.

This purposeful linking of foundational ideas at the core of a science discipline with possible applications to climate change is very much worth the effort. There are 75 PEs in these implicit (foundational) categories compared with 28 in the first six rows that explicitly mention climate change events. There are 74 climate-relevant DCIs in the implicit categories compared to 31 DCIs in the more explicit categories.

In Figure 2.3 the circles show how many foundational ideas, in the form of PEs, populate the full K-12 spectrum. Nearly all the clusters of PEs in a grade level or band have supporting DCIs that students can engage with. These standards have the potential to fill curricular gaps and ensure that student learning about the past, present, and future of our Earth’s systems is a sustained and cumulative endeavor.

Figure 2.3 Where PEs and DCIs that represent foundational knowledge, potentially applicable to climate, climate change, or solutions, appear in the NGSS across grades.

What are the take-aways for using these standards?

Here are some suggestions for moving forward with initial planning:

• In grade-level or disciplinary teams you can brainstorm all possible climate change phenomena, challenges and solutions that may apply to the science you teach. Don’t self-censor, put everything down. Use your collective knowledge of climate change, but also look to the categories in Table 2.1 to help you with this. Do some background reading together, if needed.
• Consider what climate change ideas students have already investigated previously. You may be able to build on their prior knowledge or experiences.
• On one part of a whiteboard list possible scenarios (climate change, human impacts, solutions) in which several of your brainstormed ideas could be taught. Consider local contexts if possible and events that students would find meaningful.
• Then turn to the standards. Use another part of the whiteboard to list the possible PEs relevant to the course you are planning for, perhaps organizing them in clusters that coalesce around some core principles.
• Look closely at the many PEs and DCIs representing foundational knowledge, that may not directly mention climate, environmental harms, human impacts, solutions or justice, but that could be addressed in the context of a climate change phenomenon or engineering challenges relevant to the science you teach. Biology teachers, for example, could consider the stresses that climate change places on individual organisms and responses such as genetically adapting, changing their geographic range, changing the timing of their life cycles (laying eggs, migrating, plants and pollinators maturing in synchrony), or simply going extinct. What about the effects of climate change on biodiversity through the mechanisms of drought, wildfires or invasive species? What about habitat restoration? This part of the planning is especially important if there are no standards explicitly linking these to climate change.
• Keep in mind that multiple PEs could be taught together in the context of climate shifts, environmental disruptions, or regenerative strategies.
• At this point you can search for an existing unit that already addresses some ideas you feel are important, and make plans to modify it for your teaching context. Or you can adapt a unit you already teach.

This initial planning phase is not linear; it is messy with a lot of back-and-forth between steps. Acknowledge that and get comfortable with ambiguity. You can also let some design decisions just sit without acting on them for a while. Occasionally solutions will come to a member of your team when they least expect it.

These are just the starting steps to working more productively with the standards, but conversations with your peers will give you momentum to make further progress. As always, give yourself time and don’t try for perfection. If this is your first attempt, then you could simply aim for the introduction of climate conversations with your students where none existed before. They’ll appreciate that you are taking these steps with them and that you care about their futures. Don’t underestimate the good this can do.

Dr. Mark Windschitl is a professor of science teaching and learning at the University of Washington. He is lead author of Ambitious Science Teaching (2018) and more recently author of Teaching Climate Change: Fostering Understanding, Resilience and Commitments to Justice (2023, Harvard Ed Press).