This article argues that what is most at risk in schooling during a global pandemic, or other similar broad challenges to normal functioning, are those elements that might be considered the less traditional and so the most progressive. After setting out some general background common to the challenge faced by schools and school teachers, this argument is exemplified through the case of school science education. Two particular aspects are considered: one related to pedagogy (responding to learners' alternative conceptions or 'misconceptions') and one related to curriculum (teaching about the nature of science). These are considered 'progressive' features in the sense that they have widely been championed as ways of improving and reforming science education across a wide range of national contexts but can be understood to have faced resistance both in the sense of being opposed by 'reactionary' stakeholders and in terms of the level of support for teacher adoption. It is argued that at a time when the education system is placed under extreme stress, such progressive elements are at particular risk as teachers and administrators may view them as 'extras' rather than 'core' features of practice and/or as reflecting more 'difficult' educational objectives that may need to be de-prioritised (and so neglected) for the time being. In that sense, they are fragile aspects of practice that lack the resilience of more established, and thus robust, features. It is concluded that where progressive elements are especially valued, they need to become sufficiently embedded in custom and practice to no longer be viewed as luxuries but rather to be recognised as core elements of good teaching to be protected and maintained during a period of emergency.Alternate abstract:V clanku trdimo, da so v solstvu med globalno pandemijo ali drugimi podobnimi obsežnimi izzivi za normalno delovanje najbolj ogroženi tisti elementi, ki bi lahko veljali za manj tradicionalne in zato najnaprednejse. Po predstavljenih splosnih znacilnostih, ki so skupne izzivom, s katerimi se spoprijemajo sole in ucitelji, je ta trditev ponazorjena s primerom solskega naravoslovnega izobraževanja. Obravnavana sta dva posebna vidika: prvi je povezan s pedagogiko (odzivanje na alternativne predstave ucencev ali njihove »napacne predstave«), drugi pa z ucnim nacrtom (poucevanje lastnosti naravoslovja). Ti vidiki veljajo za »napredne « v smislu, da so jih v stevilnih nacionalnih okoljih na splosno zagovarjali kot nacin za izboljsanje in reformiranje naravoslovnega izobraževanja, vendar je mogoce razumeti, da so naleteli na odpor v smislu nasprotovanja »reakcionarnih« deležnikov in v smislu ravni podpore, ki bi jo sprejeli ucitelji. Trdimo, da so v casu, ko je izobraževalni sistem pod skrajnim pritiskom, taksni napredni elementi se posebej ogroženi, saj jih lahko ucitelji in administratorji obravnavajo kot »dodatke« in ne kot »temeljne« znacilnosti prakse in/ali kot odraz »zahtevnejsih« izobraževalnih ciljev, ki jih je mogoce treba za zdaj umakniti s prednostnega seznama (in tako zanemariti). V tem smislu gre za krhke vidike prakse, ki niso tako odporne kot bolj uveljavljene in s tem trdnejse znacilnosti. Sklenemo lahko, da se morajo progresivni elementi, kadar so se posebej cenjeni, dovolj vgraditi v obicaje in prakso, da jih ne bi vec obravnavali kot razkosne, ampak bi jih priznali kot temeljne elemente dobrega poucevanja, ki jih je treba zascititi in ohraniti v obdobju izrednih razmer.