Draft Science Curriculum NZ Feedback | Bay Science Initial Impressions Survey Now Closed

Final Themes from Bay Science’s Community Feedback

In November 2025, Bay Science invited educators to share their initial impressions of the Draft Science Curriculum (Phases 1–4) through a short, open-ended survey.

Readers were also invited to view the earlier summary, and were notified in early 2026 when the survey would close.

As the survey has now closed, this post summarises the themes that emerged across all responses received.

Content Volume and Feasibility

The most common aspect people raised was: is this teachable in the time we actually have?

A number of responses described the draft as content-heavy:

“The amount of content put into each year… means… there is no time to explore concepts in depth.”

“Seems like a lot to teach. We only have 3hrs a week timetabled.”

Beyond workload, many respondents described this as a depth versus coverage tension. In their view, increasing the amount of content without considering the time available could come at the expense of deep and meaningful conceptual understanding. In other words, there is a concern that we may end up covering more, but understanding less.

A related issue was year-level placement. Multiple respondents noted that topics traditionally taught later now appear earlier:

“Year 10 learning is now within the Year 7/8 space.”

“Information that was taught at Year 13 is now within the Year 10 space.”

Several responses suggested that introducing higher-level ideas at earlier year levels could increase the likelihood of students forming misconceptions, which can complicate later conceptual development.

Primary teacher capacity was also raised:

“Liked the knowledge content but feel primary teachers may struggle with the increase in detail.”

     Progression Coherence and Gaps

Beyond volume, multiple responses questioned whether the progression of ideas as appropriate across the phases.

Examples raised included:

• Electricity appearing in Year 6 and Year 8 but not revisited in Years 9–10

• Genetics introduced in Year 8 but not clearly built upon in Year 9

• Photosynthesis covered in Year 7 but not explicitly revisited later

  
  

One respondent summarised:

“Some topics demonstrate a progressive increase… while others are introduced… but are not revisited or further developed.”

The concern was not simply about what is taught, but about how learning builds. Several responses suggested that without deliberate revisiting and deepening, students may struggle to consolidate understanding before progressing to more abstract ideas.

There were also questions about transition cohorts during implementation:

“Is this approach feasible?”

Secondary educators in particular expressed concern about inheriting assumptions about prior knowledge that may not yet be in place across all primary contexts.

Responses also pointed to editorial inconsistencies and technical errors, which, while minor in isolation, contributed to uncertainty about the robustness of the drafting process.

     Clarity and National Consistency; Recognised Strengths

While concerns dominated, some appreciation for clearer structure was expressed:

“I quite like the prescriptive nature… more consistency across the motu.”

“The guidance itself is a good guide — removes a lot of the guesswork.”

Several respondents viewed stronger specification as reducing ambiguity and supporting national coherence; particularly for students transitioning between schools.

However, this support was often accompanied by a caution: clarity is valuable, but not if it narrows professional judgment or reduces space for contextualised, inquiry-rich learning.

The tension between prescription and flexibility surfaced repeatedly. For some, this draft resolves long-standing ambiguity. For others, it risks narrowing learning to a checklist of surface-level understanding.

     Nature of Science and Science Capabilities

A particularly consistent theme concerned the apparent reduction of explicit Nature of Science (NoS) progression and science capabilities.

“The reduction of the NoS… is a major backwards step.”

“The process and science capability work… over the last 12 years has been ignored… big mistake.”

Respondents did not frame this as a longing for NZC07, but as concern about what science education is ultimately for. Several emphasised that science is not only a body of knowledge but a way of knowing; involving reasoning, modelling, uncertainty, critique, and evaluation of evidence.

“Boiling Science down to hard facts… rather than a worldview and a mind that can read information critically.”

Some connected this to broader societal issues, including misinformation and complex decision-making in areas such as climate, health, and technology. The absence of an explicit epistemic progression was viewed by several respondents as a significant structural concern rather than a minor omission.

     Sustainability, Climate Change, and Real-World Issues

Many responses highlighted sustainability and climate change as central to contemporary science education.

“Reduction in the teaching of sustainability and climate change is also of concern.”

“In today’s world this is probably the single-most significant issue… going to impact their lives.”

The issue raised was less about presence and more about depth and continuity. Respondents wanted to see these ideas meaningfully developed across year levels.

Several respondents called for stronger Earth systems framing, arguing that hazards, climate, oceans, and environmental chemistry require systems-level thinking rather than isolated topic coverage.

For these respondents, science learning should prepare students to engage with real-world complexity, not simply master discrete content.

     Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Māori, and Mātauranga Māori

Some respondents described the integration of Te Tiriti and mātauranga Māori as limited or tokenistic.

“Apart from token Matariki inclusion, no Te Ao Māori perspective.”

“Absolutely tokenistic towards Te Tiriti.”

A number of respondents made it clear that this is not simply about whether mātauranga Māori appears. It is about how it appears, and how it is treated. Several were looking for clearer expectations around place-based learning and genuine local partnerships, and for mātauranga Māori to be recognised as a knowledge system in its own right rather than something layered on as context.

At the time of writing, our informal open community polls show that:

• 73% feel that the pace of the science curriculum changes are too fast.

• 55% are trialling or implementing the draft science curriculum this term.

• 89% would like General Science to be a subject at Year 12 and Year 13.

• 83% have major concerns about the draft science learning area, with a need for substantial changes.

These reflections are a starting point, not an endpoint. They capture early reactions from those who chose to respond.

In the coming weeks, we will shift from initial impressions to closer analysis. If this draft is to shape the future of science education, it deserves careful, thoughtful reading.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou to all those who had submitted their views. The themes above, along with the full set of responses, will inform our organisation-level feedback.

We are organising a small working group for Cluster No. 1 2026 to work carefully through the draft science learning area. In the meantime, individual feedback on Tāhūrangi is open until April 24th 2026.