The new national science curriculum up to Year 10 has been released for consultation.
It divides teaching into two ‘strands’: Physical Science, which focuses on matter, energy, Earth & space; and Biological Science, which looks at topics like organisms, genetics, and ecosystems. The content also highlights prominent scientists in these areas.
The science curriculum rewrite has been long awaited after being put on hold at the 2023 election and paused again in 2024. This draft is open for six months’ consultation, and is due to be introduced to schools in 2027.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Dr Carrie Swanson, Senior Lecturer in Teacher Education, AUT, comments:
“The whakataukī Mā te whakaaro nui e hanga te whare; mā te mātauranga e whakaū underscores the new science curriculum’s focus on explicit knowledge and the preparation of students for future study and science-based careers, but the broader 2007 curriculum’s goal of developing informed, responsible citizens is less visible. The curriculum has narrowed from five strands to two — physical and biological sciences emphasising prescribed tasks over societal engagement.
“The purpose statement acknowledges the value of incorporating Te ao Māori perspectives to enrich scientific learning, which can be seen in the inclusion of Matariki, kaitiakitanga, ngā tohu, Māori musical instruments (pūtātara, kōauau), and species names in te reo. A stronger emphasis on New Zealand, Māori and Pacific scientists might encourage students to ‘see themselves’ in science and possibly as ‘scientists’.
“The curriculum is highly prescriptive, detailing specific knowledge, practices, and materials for each level, which supports teachers but may limit opportunities for student-driven exploration. There is inconsistency in the number of sub-strands across year levels, such as seven at Year 4 and only four at Year 6. This variability requires careful planning, especially for teachers with multi-year classes.
“Many concepts are only explicitly visited once, e.g., life cycles in Year 3, Matariki in Year 4, friction in Year 7. Some concepts are introduced at different year levels than currently, e.g., cells, cellular respiration and photosynthesis in Year 7 and genetics in Year 8 (currently introduced in Year 9), which will require teacher upskilling. Notably, climate change is addressed only in Year 10, and human impact is covered in Year 7 and Year 10, which is concerning given the urgency of climate action, and the deletion of Education for Sustainability as a senior school subject.
“Support for teachers, particularly with science boxes, is signalled but there is little clarity on how teachers will be effectively upskilled in both content and pedagogical knowledge. Past resources, such as the Connected series, school journals and Science Learning Hub Pokapū Akoranga Pūtaiao, should be leveraged.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts of interest. I provided feedback on the 2023 first draft science curriculum but have not been on any of the curriculum design groups. I work in primary science education in Initial Teacher Education, co-chair the NZARE Science Special Interest group, which has no influence on the curriculum design, and am part of an Australasian group looking into STEM/science policy.”
Science education researchers Prof. Georgina Tuari Stewart (Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, Pare Hauraki), AUT, and Associate Prof. Sally Birdsall, University of Auckland, comment:
“One big change is that ‘nature of science’ has been completely dropped, whereas it was an ‘overarching strand’ in the previous version. But the nature of science was never taught well, given how complex it is, so deleting it is no great loss and enables a clearer curriculum, rich in scientific knowledge. However, losing the nature of science will cause consternation for some in the science education community.
“The new Science curriculum is clear and simple, with content presented in two strands, Physical Science and Biological Science, across four phases covering Year 0 – 10. This replaces the current version with five strands and five levels. Each strand is split into elements e.g. matter, earth and space, body systems, ecosystems.
“It gets more directly to what teachers want to know, namely the teaching and learning content, while still retaining touches like an opening whakataukī (proverb) that mark it out as a uniquely New Zealand curriculum. Each phase section starts with a brief list of typical equipment and materials required: another way this new curriculum seems closer to the needs of teachers. All content is presented in two main sections, Knowledge and Practices, reflecting and guiding how teachers think about planning and teaching Science in the classroom.
“The detail in each section is familiar and tangible, e.g. in Year 4 Materials:
- Matter exists in different states — solid, liquid, and gas.
- At sea level, freshwater boils at 100°C and freezes at 0°C.
“It’s pleasing to see some inclusion of local and Māori knowledge, e.g. in Year 4 Earth and Space:
- The visibility of Matariki in the morning sky is used as an indicator of seasonal change for many iwi.
“References to scientists, including some New Zealand and Māori names, are included in relevant sections.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Stuart McNaughton, Professor in Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of Auckland, comments:
“The focus on science knowledge and practices developing together from Y1 is appropriate from the viewpoint of development and educational sciences. It is also appropriate to have greater clarity and detail over the areas that can be covered at each Year level, although there are issues to do with the limited presence of Mātauranga Māori and a focus on how knowledge and practices relate to local contexts.
“Additional weaknesses or omissions relate to the content.
“One is the relative absence of Interdisciplinarity, reference to which appears only at Y9 and 10. This is too late to establish the knowledge, understandings and skills for solving complex open problems, such as climate change mitigation. Knowledge that humans can impact the environment appears earlier, but this raises an additional issue. High levels of knowledge of climate change without local action can be problematic, being related to increased student pessimism. But that pessimism is reduced with greater local collaborative environmental action in schools. The lack of interdisciplinarity reflects the statement in the overall curriculum of approximate time allocation for teaching science (2 hours per week at Y0-8) compared with the other learning areas such as English and Maths (15 hours). This reinforces a view of these areas as discrete. Yet in addition to interdisciplinarity, literacy which contributes to science knowledge is essential from Y0. An example is the reference to the role of vocabulary which appears in Y2, but is limited to the ‘language of cause and effect’. The technical and conceptual knowledge needed from Y0 is dependent on literacy and especially effective vocabulary teaching taught in the context of science (but also should be being taught through science based early readers).
“The second omission is the surprising absence of any focus on developing critical thinking in science. There is no reference to practices of being critical at any year level in any of the science areas. The lack of criticality appears general in that ‘critical thinking’ is referenced only once in the overall curriculum statement, as a ‘capability’ providing a ‘strong foundation’, subsumed under the heading of ‘problem solving’. Again, this is part of a larger problem in the overall curriculum statement which refers appropriately to such capabilities emerging ‘authentically’ within activities in the learning areas. The capabilities include ‘relating to others’ (skills such as those for empathy, collaboration) and self-regulation. These are essential in science as much as other learning areas, but there is no guidance in the science curriculum as to how these are to arise authentically.
“Each of these (and the wider content detail) raise questions of teaching capability, in two senses. We know that high level skills and knowledge are needed by teachers to teach science and that we have had limitations in the specialist knowledge and skills needed. In the first instance professional learning and development will be essential, and the components of effective professional learning and development are very costly to do well. Similarly, teacher education which enables high levels of science specialty teaching will be essential. The second capability issue follows from the very strong requirement in the overall curriculum for assessment and monitoring for evaluating progress and guidance. Yet a psychometrically robust and locally relevant tool, based on the new curriculum does not exist in science. These two capability issues are likely to mean the current variability and low levels of achievement in science from Y4-8 will not be solved in the short term.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Michael Edmonds, President of the NZ Institute of Chemistry, comments:
“A good understanding of basic science is not only valuable for those who seek future careers in science, engineering and health sciences, it also helps develop citizens who are less likely to be fooled by charlatans and purveyors of pseudoscience.
“The new science curriculum scaffolds core scientific facts and principles in a way which should support student learning, if it is delivered by teachers who have received sufficient resources and training to support the curriculum with hands on demonstrations and practical examples of how science can and has been used to improve the world around us. I hope that the government’s previous commitment to provide $39.9 million dollars of science kits to all schools with students in Years 0 to 8 is one way this curriculum will be translated into positive practical experiences of scientific enquiry for students, and can only hope that further science kits will be made available to year 9 to 13 students in order to maintain their curiosity and passion for science.”
No conflicts of interest.
Associate Professor Maurice M. W. Cheng, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Auckland, comments:
“The draft science curriculum (Years 1-10) delivers what the government has promised about giving detailed content that schools at different year levels are to teach. The content-rich ‘Knowledge’ column on the left goes along with the ‘Practices’ column on the right, which provides information on the “skills, strategies and applications to teach”.
“Some people have said the current curriculum (2007) does not provide sufficient detail. The draft curriculum addresses this by providing specific content expectations. This could provide a degree of unity, continuity and progression of focus within schools across the different levels, and may address continuity issues when students change schools. The provision of detail is likely to be welcomed by new teachers and teachers from abroad (we have a lot in secondary school science) who find the current curricular content difficult to navigate. It is also likely to help parents understand what science content their children should be learning in school.
“A school science curriculum for all students needs to acknowledge that while some students will become scientists or work in a science-related field, the vast majority of students will not. This raises the question of whether a curriculum should enrich students’ lives, help them cope, and contribute to a world where science-related issues are an integral part of their everyday lives.
“We know that acquiring content knowledge does not directly translate into the capability to use it to make sense of physical/biological phenomena and to make informed decisions in daily lives. The list of content could be a starting point, but I do not see how the curriculum envisages this content will be brought to life and made meaningful to the diverse students to be found in each and every class. For example, Year 3 will cover “Plants produce their own nutrition and form the beginning of a food chain, followed by herbivores, omnivores and carnivores”, and Year 5 will cover “Food webs”. Depending on the context for teaching and learning, even if there is no question of cognitive overload, these concepts could either be meaningful or meaningless to learners. As it stands, the draft lacks an informed vision of how the content to be taught is relevant to students’ daily life and decision-making, nor to how students’ learning science will allow them to live more productive and fruitful lives.
“Action verbs are important when stating curricular expectations. For example, knowing the definition of a science concept is different from applying it or reasoning with it. Reading the “Knowledge” columns, I am left to wonder what the document expects from teachers and from students. The risk is that some students could be asked to focus on low-order learning as opposed to reasoning with science as a benchmark for success. The example of “Plants produce their own nutrition and form the beginning of a food chain, followed by herbivores, omnivores and carnivores” illustrates that while there are detailed content, the draft still needs more clarity about the values and the expectations of the contents, and how they go with scientific practices.
“Research into how students learn science clearly supports that ‘scientific practice’ should go hand in hand with knowledge construction. However, how this curriculum envisages scientific practice and how this is to be developed through different levels with different scientific concepts is currently unclear. This is important so students will see science not just as facts or concepts, but also as particular and powerful ways of advancing an understanding of the world.
“In this connection, the nature of the bullet point information under the “Practices” column requires more clarity. It states these are “The skills, strategies, and applications to teach”. At times, it is not clear if they are activities that teachers could/must use, or if they are performance expectations for students. The Practices bullet point under food chain is “Identifying simple nutritional relationships between animals and plants using basic food chains”. I do not see how this is a scientific practice. More importantly, we need to see a curriculum that suggests a progression for scientific practice development through different year levels.
“Science is done by human beings. It is one thing to name scientists and know who do/did what. It is another thing to develop an understanding of why scientists introduce new ideas and how they establish the new ideas. While I could see there are scientists and their ideas under the Knowledge column, I wonder how these pieces of information would support students’ or even teachers’ understanding about science, and how it is currently practised by scientists themselves. For Year 3, the curriculum mentions “Charles Elton (1900-1991) who introduced the concepts of food chains and ecological pyramids”. I could imagine teachers are left to muse about how and why to teach this, including “ecological pyramids”, to Year 3 in a way that is motivating and meaningful to learners.
“In short, while I could see the draft attempts to address some issues, it creates quite a few questions about what makes a science curriculum that supports students’ deep understanding and engagement in school science and beyond.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I was a part of the Science Curriculum writing group in October to December 2024.”