I’m gathered in the AG Core with a group of friends, our table crowded with bright handouts, periodic tables, and homework packets. After a few minutes of silent work, my friend taps me on the shoulder, requesting a second pair of eyes to review her chemistry project. I lean over, expecting to see particle models of sodium bicarbonate and acetic acid from last year’s Rates of Reaction project. Instead, I see two sheets of paper filled with highlights and annotated intermolecular forces underneath a bolded title: Chromatography Project. I recognize nothing on the page.
Many students have noticed the number of science curriculum changes this year, such as the additional emphasis on Lewis structures and intermolecular forces in Honors Chemistry, the rearranged order of units in Honors Physics, and the revival of Organic Chemistry. Personally, I’ve felt confused towards the seemingly drastic changes in the Honors Chemistry curriculum, and it’s frustrating being unable to help my friends in Honors Chemistry who are being taught concepts I never encountered last year. Hannah M. ’27 adds that “[teachers] split the advanced physics elective into too many sections [and] also just got rid of the second part of kinetics,” and Brandon H. ’27 notes that “our circuits [unit] lasted like, two weeks” while the current Honors Physics class “has been doing it for three months.”
In response to these comments, Tatler conducted interviews with Lakeside science teachers regarding how and why curriculum changes happen.
The Beginnings of a Curriculum Change
Although school may be the last thing on students’ minds during their vacations, summer break is when curriculum changes formally begin for the science department. “The team of teachers that teach [a] particular science subject get together. There’s … individual interest in changing specific aspects of a unit that already exists or an addition of a new unit,” says biology and chemistry teacher Eshwar Ramanan, who prefers to be called Eshwar. Each teacher’s objectives for curriculum changes, says Eshwar, stem from “what their expertise is, [and] as the world changes around us, some topics may feel more relevant than others.”
Some examples of these relevant topics are Lewis structures and intermolecular forces, which were covered extremely briefly in last year’s Honors Chemistry classes. This year, Dr. Russell notes that Honors Chemistry teachers have introduced new course material — including the Chromatography Project — that cover these two topics in more detail. Similarly, physics teacher Dr. Dounas-Frazer mentions the science department’s intention to embrace “some plans for more engineering education” by piloting a new engineering and design unit in Honors Physics, which has led to the rearranged units.
These proposed changes are also dependent on experiences from previous years. According to chemistry teacher Jon Russell, who prefers to be called Jon, teachers combine observations from in-class activities, verbal comments from students, and feedback from student surveys to determine which aspects of the previous curriculum were effective and what other areas could be changed. Eshwar mentions that teachers will jot down notes on areas of improvement during class time, such as if “there were not enough setups, this particular material was missing, or this part of the deliverable didn’t work” to create an improved version of the activity or unit the next year.
Additionally, Jon notes the science department’s intention of folding in new perspectives into Lakeside courses, such as how topics are “taught in different schools in a different context.” More specifically, Dr. Dounas-Frazer cites a recent department trip to Menlo School in California “that has a really thriving engineering design curriculum. We tried to take what lessons we could from them, thinking both about … future coursework, but also … changes we could make now to help set the stage for some more engineering design in our science classes.” The trip’s influence on Lakeside is evidenced by the new design unit in Honors Physics, which challenges students to understand the science behind renewable energy and engineer an efficient wind turbine, as Dr. Dounas-Frazer describes.
Evaluating and Implementing Curriculum Changes
Proposed curriculum changes are discussed as a group, allowing teachers to negotiate which changes to implement. Eshwar describes this process as “really fun! It’s actually one of the more gratifying aspects of being a teacher at Lakeside [and] also teaching in a team.” With so many different minds put together, the constant discussion and negotiation “makes for a really healthy approach,” he says. As Jon continues, “embracing change is a really healthy signal in a school. [If] it’s not changing, it’s a much more troubling signal for sure, so I would invite students to appreciate that if it’s changing every year.”
As to how proposals are actually evaluated, Russell explains that teachers look for changes that will equip students with the skills to navigate their future studies, regardless of their major. For example, Dr. Dounas-Frazer says that the Honors Physics curriculum has “shifted more from an … inquiry-based approach to a more model-based approach,” which focuses on hard skills that can be applied to non-scientific research and problem solving: “collecting data and making graphs, interpreting the graph to find quantitative relationships between variables, and doing some quantitative problem-solving.”
On the other hand, the Honors Physics curriculum’s new wind turbine design project reflects teachers’ efforts to encourage creativity and curiosity — essential soft skills — by connecting course material to real-world situations, notes Dr. Dounas-Frazer. As Jon summarizes, “I think every teacher would agree they want students to leave this school willing to explore their identity as a scientist in their everyday life, no matter what they go into study. I think that bringing a kind of citizen science aspect to the modern world is really important to all of us.”
Despite the individual proposals that drive curriculum development, Eshwar explains that teachers usually work together to organize learning materials and prepare lab supplies for their new curriculum. Eshwar notes that “at the end of the day, we are a team and we will all teach those topics. We will find a way to divide up that labor between the team members so everybody has an idea of what that unit’s going to look like and also [has] ownership over the agreed-upon topics.”
Creating a Science Elective
Restructured projects and units in core classes aren’t the only changes from the science department. New electives are offered some years, giving students the opportunity to explore topics in more depth. Eshwar explains that “most electives are born out of individual teachers’ expertise, either from a past teacher that laid the groundwork for it and then a new teacher is taking on that work, or an elective that has been created from scratch by that particular teacher.” As a result, Jon says, electives are usually taught by a single teacher who has more autonomy over the structure and content of their own curriculum.
For instance, Organic Chemistry was the long-time elective of Mr. de Grys, widely known as Lakeside’s Academic Dean and the source of many humorous course signup emails. Organic Chemistry has made a reappearance this year due to Mr. de Grys’s revived interest in teaching alongside promising student interest, as Russell explains. With both Mr. de Grys and Jon teaching the course, there are now two sections of Organic Chemistry students (myself included!) that explore concepts such as molecular geometry, functional groups, organic reactions, and polymers.
While an elective teacher has control over what and how they teach, there’s still a collaborative aspect to the process of developing a science elective, says Eshwar. Teachers must create a pitch for their new elective, which is then reviewed by Devin Parry, the science department head. According to Eshwar, the proposal is then sent to the curriculum committee, which gauges potential student interest in the course. As Jon comments, “those [core] courses are meant to serve the electives so that no student is left out feeling like science isn’t for them. We never want to leave a student feeling that science isn’t for them, especially as they leave the school, so the electives are meant to catch all student interests and electives should be available to all students.”
Ultimately, no curriculum will perfectly suit every student, and with course signups soon, many students may be experiencing anxiety regarding which electives or course level will be the right fit for them in terms of rigor and subject matter. However, students can take more comfort in knowing they can request course changes in the summer. Jon encourages students to “appreciate that nothing is limited by choosing a realistic set of things to accomplish in their high school career. You can always go on to do more and different things later. Nothing is the end of the road just because you made a decision now.”
Additionally, no curriculum will perfectly suit every teacher — activities might not go as planned, their personal favorite topics might be sacrificed in favor of another, or unexpected current events might derail the pacing of the course. As Dr. Dounas-Frazer states, “we’re in this time where there’s a little bit of turbulence and all the parts might not fit together perfectly this year.” However, by combining student participation and feedback, collaboration within the science department, inspiration from other schools, and a mindset of preparing students for their future, Dr. Dounas-Frazer expresses his hope to create curriculums that “fit together better next year — and even better the year after that.”
