top of page

NZ Science Curriculum Feedback (Years 0–10) | 700+ Educator Annotations – Bay Science

  • 4 days ago
  • 6 min read

This article shares Bay Science’s NZ science curriculum feedback on the draft Science Learning Area (Years 0–10), based on over 700 educator annotations, survey findings, and a Working Group Hui held in March 2026.


The feedback reflects the perspectives of classroom teachers, subject specialists, and education professionals, and has been made publicly available to support ongoing discussion and engagement with the science curriculum consultation process.


Bay Science science curriculum consultation feedback booklet displayed on wooden desk, showing Working Group Hui introduction and annotated draft pages for Years 1–10
Bay Science’s consultation feedback on the draft Science Learning Area (Years 1–10), developed through a Working Group Hui and over 700 educator annotations.

You can see our feedback, which was sent on April 19th, here:



Our feedback is shared publicly as (1) participants were concerned that organisational-level feedback only counted as a singular piece and (2) our feedback was too large for the official consultation portal (300 A3 pages, over 700 comments and 110 mb).

On Friday 24th 11:13 am, we received confirmation that our submission was received.


NZ Science Curriculum Feedback (Years 0–10)


On October 28 2025, the Ministry of Education New Zealand released a draft of Te Mātaiaho alongside various subjects, including the Science Learning Area for Phases 1-4 (Years 0-10) for public consultation.


A week later, on November 5 2025, Bay Science began canvassing its readership for initial impressions of the draft science curriculum. This survey remained open until early Term 1 of 2026.



  • Concerns around the amount of content

  • Concerns around progression coherence and gaps

  • Some concerns, and appreciation, for a clearer structure

  • Concerns about the apparent reduction of Nature of Science progression and Science Capabitilies

  • Sustainability, Climate Change and Real-World Issues not yet being clearly signalled as central to contemporary science education

  • Concerns about the limited / tokenistic approach to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Māori and Mātauranga Māori.


Recognising the volume of content for educators to consider and feedback on, Bay Science also began including informal and open polling via weekly newsletters.




  • 85% think that that the science curriculum should teach students how science works, including how scientists and the wider science system operate (8% No, 8% Not Sure)

  • 80% feel that there is far too much content in the draft science curriculum (13% slightly too much, 7% about right, 0% slightly too little).

  • 77% believe there is very little opportunity for student agency and action in the draft science curriculum (10% a lot, 10% some, 3% not sure)

  • 67% believe the science curriculum refresh is not working well so far (19% working well, 11% mixed results, 4% not sure).

  • 83% do not think the science curriculum adequately prepares students for a world shaped by AI, climate change and global uncertainty (17% Yes, 0% Unsure).

  • 94% think that the Nature of Science should be explicity taught in the science curriculum (3% No, 3% Not Sure)

  • 69% indicate that the overall pace of the science curriculum changes feels too fast (31% about right, 0% too slow).

  • 84% of respondents have major concerns about the draft science curriculum and that it requires substantial change (7% Mixed, 5% Not Sure, 4%

    Largely Works).

  • 88% of readers share that General Science should be a subject in Year 12 and Year 13 (12% No).

  • 56% did not trial the draft science curriculum in term one (44% did).



While open and informal polling is exactly as the name suggests, it enabled Bay Science to keep the conversations open while determining a means to collate more detailed feedback from educators. During this timeframe the Science Learning Kits were also published, adding another layer of complexity.


On March 26th 2026, a Working Group Hui took place where just under 20 educators, including secondary specialist science teachers, education outreach

providers from care groups, and teacher mentoring professionals sifted through the draft curriculum material in detail. Throughout the day, these professionals took on and rotated through various roles:


  • Advisory Group Members*

    In this role, participants identified specific sections from science education literature which they felt was important to consider for curriculum reform.

  • Contributor Group Member*

    Contributor Group Members were given one phase at a time. Their job was to zoom in and focus on particular year levels right down to the wording of individual bullet points.


  • Subject Matter Expert*

    Subject Matter Experts considered the learning journey from Years 0-10. By looking across the years, they considered the progression of ideas and how this might enable the development of a students understanding of the Big Ideas in science in the context of global frameworks i.e. the PISA 2025 Science Framework.

  • Subject Matter Expert*

    In this role, attendees looked to learning areas such as English, Mathematics and Social Sciences. They considered alignment and consistency.


In the spirit of inclusivity and collaboration, Bay Science also provided a remote option for educators to provide specific feedback. While a name was not assigned to this group of participants, in our feedback we refer to them as the External Review Group*.


*To support a consultation-style approach, we’ve used role titles similar to those in the official curriculum development process. These are used for the purposes of this exercise only and may not reflect how those roles are defined or enacted in the official process.


In total, just over 20 educators wrote over 700 comments, annotations, questions, suggestions, critiques, and tautoko (agreement) - sometimes appearing as a small tick.



While we had initially intended to provide a detailed synthesis of all 700+ comments, systematically processing this volume is a substantial task in itself.

Instead, we have provided numbered comments as a useful index for those who need a reference point when working with our association feedback -- whether for the purposes of officially informing the curriculum development process, for continuing the conversation in workrooms, or for personal research.


While much of our kōrero (discussions) took place within the span of a day, we were blown away by the number of comments that arose from the Working Group Hui.


We would have loved the opportunity to work with you all over a longer period. Your annotations have brought attention to some of the specific aspects of the draft curriculum, and we are left wondering what further noticings and ideas might have emerged.

When we imagined and sought out our ambitious quest to gather specific feedback we had hoped to have had more time to contribute to the consultation process by synthesising all of the shared commentary against nationally relevant and globally significant literature to look for emerging themes.

Based on the annotations collected, we notice that the draft for the Science Learning Area:


  • is not internationally comprable and has knowledge-gaps see p207 - 214 and annotations 014-027

  • does not honour Te Tiriti see annotations 044, 086, 105, 116, 168, 170, 223, 236, 279, 306, 307, 310, 311, 322, 337, 338, 352, 501, 541, 592, 598, 691

Many of the annotations also appear to highlight specific sections which awhi (support) the emerging themes from our Initial Impressions Survey (see p5-7).

Finally, it is important to note that even though 700+ annotations may seem like a large volume to consider, this almost-300-page document should not be the only feedback which is considered. Our work here aims to complement the educators and educator-groups who have, well before Bay Science, shared evidence and opinion pieces to inform the future of the curriculum.



We include some of these below:









Comments

Join Bay Science - Stay in the Loop!

A curated roundup of science education news, opportunities, and events from across Aotearoa New Zealand — delivered to your inbox.

© 2025 Lian Soh and Vicki Alderson-Wallace

info@bayscience.nz

bottom of page