Draft Science Curriculum Survey | Early Findings
- Lian Soh
- Nov 15
- 5 min read
A summary of early themes gathered from our open community survey
On 5 November 2025, Bay Science began collecting first impressions of the draft science curriculum from across the science education community. Our Draft Science Curriculum survey remains broad, informal, and open to all readers so we can capture the full range of early impressions, reactions, and initial thoughts.
To keep the survey simple and accessible during a busy part of the school year, we asked a single open-ended question: “Please share your initial impressions, broad-picture thoughts, and anything that stood out to you.”
Most respondents provided four to five sentences. To process these early findings, we used internal AI tools (Gemini 2.5) to identify individual points within each response and group them into emerging themes. Because the number of responses was small, it was straightforward to cross-check the AI output against the raw data to ensure nothing had been hallucinated or overlooked.
From these early responses, several clear themes have begun to emerge in how respondents framed their feedback. We share these below to support colleagues who may be engaging with the draft for the first time.
Workload & Resourcing
Concerns were raised about whether the curriculum is feasible within existing school timetable structures and resourcing. Respondents noted that both time and support will be critical for successful implementation.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
The required content being unrealistic within current timetable structures, particularly in Years 7–8.
Increases to timetabled science hours impacting opportunities for students in other learning areas.
Primary and intermediate teachers facing difficulty managing the increased level of detail and complexity.
Some respondents expressing hope that new resources will support implementation of the curriculum, alongside uncertainty about the science kits (including what they will contain and whether the described equipment lists in the draft will be supplied by the ministry or need to be purchased by schools).
Curriculum Structure & Design
Early impressions suggest that the structure of the draft curriculum may limit the breadth of science and reduce opportunities for students to engage in the kind of cross-curricular learning that science often enables. While some respondents welcome more prescription, others feel that this introduces unnecessary constraints.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
Narrowing the science content reducing opportunities for students to learn and revisit skills and concepts from other learning areas through science.
The checklist format limiting opportunities for students to make connections across learning areas, ideas, and contexts.
The curriculum feeling content-heavy but not sequential, creating overload and disjointed progression.
Complex concepts being introduced earlier than before.
Increased detail and prescription supporting nationwide clarity.
Learning objectives being clearer and more explicitly stated.
Content & Progression
Feedback points to concerns about the alignment between content difficulty and year levels. The progression feels accelerated in some places and inconsistent in others, raising questions about readiness, coherence, and continuity.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
A significant mismatch between year levels and the difficulty of content.
Some concepts traditionally taught at Year 13 now appearing in the Year 10 space.
Some Year 10 content shifting into Years 7–8.
The overall volume of content leaving limited time for depth, exploration, and inquiry.
Year 9 students potentially struggling if they have not encountered the newly shifted earlier content.
Critical topics being missing or poorly placed — for example, motion not appearing in either Year 8 or Year 10.
Technical errors, such as the incorrect symbol for electrical resistance, raising concerns about quality control and authorship.
Ongoing concern for older students who have missed foundational learning at earlier stages of the progression.
Nature of Science & Critical Thinking
Many respondents expressed concern that the draft curriculum shifts away from the core purposes of science education. Reduced emphasis on inquiry, process skills, and critical thinking is seen as undermining students’ development as scientifically literate citizens.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
The near removal of the Nature of Science strand being viewed as a significant backward step.
More than a decade of progress in Science Capabilities and process skills being undervalued.
The curriculum emphasising memorisation over inquiry, curiosity, and critical thinking.
Factual recall being prioritised over developing worldview, scientific literacy, and the ability to critically evaluate information.
Sustainability, Climate Change, and Real-World Issues
Respondents highlighted the importance of preparing students for the environmental challenges shaping their futures. Respondents noted that the draft places limited emphasis on sustainability and climate change, which they see as a missed opportunity to anchor science in real-world issues.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
A far stronger focus on sustainability and climate change being needed.
Limited real-world relevance restricting opportunities for students to explore issues that affect their lives, communities, and futures.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Māori, Mātauranga Māori
Respondents expressed concern about what they saw as a limited or tokenistic presence of mātauranga Māori, Te Ao Māori, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the draft.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
Mātauranga Māori and Te Ao Māori appearing marginalised or removed.
The inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi being described by some as “absolutely tokenistic.”
Some Positive Reflections
Some respondents also noted positive aspects of the draft, including clearer expectations and potential benefits for consistency across the motu.
In particular, respondents raised points such as:
Greater detail and clearer expectations supporting consistency across the motu and reducing uncertainty for students who move between schools.
Space remaining for teachers to bring in contexts throughout the prescribed content.
New resources potentially being helpful for primary and intermediate teachers.
We know many kaiako are only now finding time to look at the draft science curriculum, especially with consultation underway while the sector is also feeling pressure to prepare for implementation.
As you begin forming your own views, we hope this early snapshot offers something useful — both for shaping your individual feedback on Tāhūrangi, and for supporting the kōrero within your own teams and departments. If you’re willing, we also encourage you to continue sharing your impressions with us so we can better understand the range of perspectives across the motu as we look towards planning for PLD, resource options, and organisational-level feedback to support your efforts in the new year.
Notably, many of the themes emerging from respondents echo the concerns raised in the recent Open Letter from the executive team of Earth and Space Science Educators NZ.
A broad range of open letters from various educator associations and groups is currently visible under Sentiments from the Sector.
Whakapono | For TransparencyBay Science acknowledges that:
|