Afterschool Special | Consultation guide for the Science Draft Curriculum
- Mar 18
- 3 min read
Updated: Mar 22
On Thursday 19 March 2026, Aotearoa Educators Collective hosted a special Afterschool Special webinar with Claire Coleman and Dr. Cathy Buntting supported those engaging with the science curriculum consultation process.
The 30-minute session walked through key issues in the draft science curriculum, along with resources, links, and prompts to help participants get started with their feedback.
A science consultation portal has been created which summarises and breaks down some of the key issues identified in the draft science learning area. Tip: Click through to the video, where a transcript is also available. A summary is also provided below. |
Summary
The purpose of science education is too narrowly framed
The draft focuses heavily on helping students understand the world as individuals, but gives far less attention to participation, decision-making, and contributing to society.
"The 2023 Te Mātaiaho had four P's for all learning - it was personal learning, participatory learning, pathways learning and planetary learning. I think here we're seeing the personal and pathways, but we really need to be adding in the participatory and planetary purposes in science" (4m 27s)
Content overload risks undermining deep learning
There is widespread concern about the sheer volume of content, particularly in primary settings where time for science is limited. With examples like more than 100 learning statements in a single year level, this becomes “a whistle-stop” approach, where concepts are introduced briefly without the time needed for meaningful understanding. As Cathy Buntting put it, “there are more than 100 learning statements… it’s like more than three per lesson. That is a whistle-top lesson, wave as you go past.” (16m 14s)
Progression across year levels lacks coherence
Ideas are not clearly revisited or built upon across phases, weakening the development of understanding over time. The absence of a spiral structure means students may encounter complex ideas without sufficient prior grounding, and teachers are left to fill in the gaps themselves.
Students are positioned more as recipients than active thinkers
The draft tends to frame learners as receiving knowledge rather than engaging with it. There is limited emphasis on students making informed decisions, evaluating evidence, or taking action. This raises concerns about whether the curriculum prepares young people to respond to real-world scientific challenges.
The nature of science is not clearly visible
There is little explicit focus on how scientific knowledge is generated, tested, and refined. This weakens students’ ability to understand science as a process, including how evidence is used, debated, and challenged. As highlighted in the webinar, “there's no real sense around that nature of science, thinking about how we generate and understand knowledge within a scientific context.” (5m 40s)
Alignment with international thinking is partial at best
While there are elements that support explaining scientific phenomena and inquiry, the curriculum does not strongly support students to evaluate information or respond to complex issues. This is a key part of frameworks like PISA 2025, particularly in a world shaped by misinformation and rapid change.
“PISA 2025 also asks around constructing and evaluating designs for scientific inquiry and interpreting scientific data and evidence. Again, there's a little bit of that here in this curriculum. What we don't see though… is students being supported to learn to research and evaluate new scientific information for decision-making and action.” (6m 40s)
Aotearoa New Zealand contexts are not strongly embedded
The draft does not fully reflect the unique environmental, ecological, and cultural context of Aotearoa. There are missed opportunities to connect learning to local places, as well as limited visibility of mātauranga Māori and connections with iwi and hapū.
Important areas of science are missing or underdeveloped
Climate change, environmental systems, and contemporary scientific developments are either absent or not given sufficient emphasis. This creates gaps in what students need to understand about the world they are growing up in.
Consistency across the system may be harder to achieve, not easier
One aim of the curriculum is greater national consistency, but the volume of content makes this difficult in practice. If teachers cannot realistically cover everything, they will make different choices about what to prioritise, which may increase variability between schools.
A significant opportunity for meaningful change may be at risk
The curriculum has been described as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. However, there is concern that in its current form it does not fully realise that potential, and may “squander” the chance to design something more coherent, relevant, and future-focused.
Comments