100% gap on 7 heat/temperature passages — the sun's warmth is never connected to photons or molecular motion. The 15 weather passages are clean and observational. 78.6% practices with genuine engineering design. The weather teaching is accurate; the heat teaching has no mechanism.
| Program | Sprocket Learning |
| Lesson Title | Grade K: Weather and Energy |
| Publisher | Sprocket Learning |
| Author | Sprocket Learning Team |
| Grade Band | Kindergarten (K-2 calibration) |
| NGSS Alignment | K-PS3-1, K-PS3-2, K-ESS2-1, K-ESS3-2 |
Verdict: Avoid
Foundation: 0.0%
This Kindergarten unit has two domains: weather patterns (15 passages, all observational and clean) and heat/temperature (7 passages, all mechanism-level). The heat/temperature passages describe a correlation between sunlight and warmth but never explain what sunlight is or why it causes warming. All 7 mechanism passages lack atomic-molecular grounding, and 3 contain map errors where heat or energy is treated as a substance. The weather component is accurate; the heat component has no mechanism.
Students observe and describe weather patterns, predict how weather affects objects, use weather forecasts, and design structures to protect snacks from weather. In the sun/heat portion, students investigate how sunlight affects temperature in different locations and build shade structures.
The unit covers K-PS3-1, K-PS3-2, K-ESS2-1, and K-ESS3-2 across 12 lessons in 4 learning sets.
Seven mechanism passages (heat/temperature) all lack atomic grounding. Three contain map errors. Fifteen observational passages (weather) are clean.
“The sun gives off heat, and blocking the sunlight to create shade may make a space feel cooler.”
REI-substance: heat treated as a thing the sun “gives off.” At the atomic-molecular level, the sun emits photons; when absorbed by surface atoms, they increase molecular kinetic energy.
“A device can reduce the warming effect of sunlight on an area.”
REI-agent: sunlight given causal agency over warming, rather than describing photon absorption by surface atoms.
“A structure can prevent the effects of the sun’s energy from damaging their snacks.”
REI-substance: “sun’s energy” treated as a substance with “effects.”
“Weather changes over time and we can predict effects based on observed patterns.”
Clean observational framing — representative of the 15 weather passages that require no mechanism at K–2.
Practices: 78.6% (11/14 points) — Deep
4 PRESENT: Asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, developing and using models, constructing explanations and designing solutions.
3 PARTIAL: Planning investigations (teacher-directed procedures), argument from evidence (K-level discourse, no structured critique), using mathematics (thermometer use is teacher-held; every recording sheet in the unit is qualitative).
Students generate and revisit questions using a Driving Question Board. They collect data with phenology wheels, Venn diagrams, and T-charts. They build physical models with heat lamps and cut-and-paste icon models. In LS4, they complete a full engineering design cycle: use a weather forecast to define the problem, design a structure, build it, test it outdoors for one hour, receive peer feedback, and revise.
The curriculum would need to connect sunlight and warmth to their atomic-molecular source. At Kindergarten, this means naming photons or “tiny bits of light energy” as what the sun sends out, and explaining that warming happens when these tiny bits make the atoms in surfaces wiggle faster. The existing weather observations and engineering design can stay exactly as they are. The fix is narrow: 7 heat/temperature passages need atomic grounding. The 15 weather passages need no changes.
| Total Passages Scored | 22 |
| Raw Gap Error | 100.0% (7 of 7 mechanism passages FALSE) FALSE = atoms/molecules not present before students are asked to explain. The student is navigating without a starting point. |
| Adjusted Gap Error | 100.0% (all 7 UNSCAFFOLDED, no scaffolding present) UNSCAFFOLDED = no atomic grounding at all. LESSON_ATOMS = atoms mentioned elsewhere in lesson but not connected to this concept. |
| Substance-Model Errors (REI) | 3 Curriculum treats a process or outcome as a substance - "heat flows," "energy is stored," "electricity flows like water." Student builds a substance ontology. |
| Label-as-Explanation (LAE) | 0 Curriculum provides a name and treats it as an explanation - "this happens because of gravity." Student believes knowing the name IS understanding the concept. |
| Vague-Entity Errors (AEC) | 0 Curriculum uses vague entities ("tiny particles," "building blocks") without specifying atoms or molecules. Student invents their own model with macroscopic properties. |
| Factual Science Errors (FSE) | 0 Statements that are scientifically incorrect - not imprecise framing, but wrong. Any confirmed FSE = Not Recommended. |
| Practices | 78.6% - Deep Seven practices scored PRESENT, PARTIAL, or ABSENT and averaged: asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics, constructing explanations and designing solutions, and argument from evidence. Higher is better, the opposite direction from gap and map errors. Reported but not part of the Foundation Score or the verdict. |
This unit has two domains: weather (clean, observational, well-taught) and heat/temperature (100% gap, 3 map errors, no atomic grounding). The weather teaching is accurate. The heat teaching treats warmth as a substance the sun gives off, never connecting it to photons or molecular motion.
Full engineering design cycle in LS4 with forecast-driven problem definition, outdoor testing, and peer feedback. Phenology wheels, Venn diagrams, and T-charts provide genuine K-level data collection. 15 weather passages are clean observational science. DQB sustained across all 4 learning sets.
Pairs with the Pushes and Pulls unit (approved, boundary concept, 100% foundation) in the same grade. The two units together show that Sprocket can teach clean observational science; the gap appears only when the content requires mechanism.
shallow by default - No design notes defend the omission of atomic-molecular content. The curriculum follows the conventional NGSS approach without arguing for delayed mechanism.
Evidence for every entry is published at three levels. Each level states what it contains and what it leaves out.
Scores, verdict, and the full pattern count for this unit are above: adjusted gap, REI / LAE / AEC counts, FSE status, and the seven-practice score. The analysis quotes 4 passages verbatim from the curriculum.
This file covers the unit scored on this page.
The complete classified evidence table for this unit, every extracted passage with its classification, is available to researchers, journalists, and to the publisher of the program being scored. This is a standing offer with no conditions attached and no agreement to sign.
If you think a score is wrong, say so. Challenges and our responses to them are published on the evidence and challenges page, including the ones we lose.
Have a curriculum, kit, or program you'd like us to review? Drop us a note, tell us what you want to see, we'll test it and post the results.