Making Sense of the Proposed New Zealand Science Curriculum Changes

So, the long-awaited draft of the refreshed New Zealand Science Curriculum has arrived, with implementation planned by 2027. My social media has blown up with pushback from the scientific education community. This is why I have taken some time to digest the changes and tried to listen to a wide range of voices and explore the underpinning educational research. While this new curriculum offers clarity and structure, it also signals a significant philosophical shift in how science is taught and understood in Aotearoa. As teachers, it’s crucial to focus not just what has changed, but why it matters for our students, our teaching, and our collective vision of science education. 

At first glance, the new curriculum gives us a strong underpinning of factual knowledge, however it will need heart, context, and flexibility of teachers to make it come alive in our classrooms. As teachers, our role will be to bridge that gap to ensure the next generation not only knows science but thinks and acts scientifically, with curiosity, compassion, and connection to Aotearoa’s unique world. That takes time.

The first thing I noticed was that new framework trims the five existing strands down to two with Physical Science and Biological Science and replaces the flexible, inquiry-driven model with something much more structured and specific. The much-vaunted knowledge rich curriculum.

I will start with the positives; the strength of the new curriculum is clarity. For years, teachers have been asking for more specific guidance about what to teach and when. The new structure provides year-by-year examples of content and equipment, which should help reduce the unevenness in science teaching that national and international studies have often highlighted. 

This approach aligns with what we know from cognitive science. Research on cognitive load theory shows that students learn best when information is clearly sequenced and explained rather than left to chance discovery. In other words, carefully building knowledge step by step can make learning more durable. 

This is the approach of explicit teaching, which does get a bad name. Explicit teaching doesn’t mean abandoning curiosity or creativity what it does mean is ensuring students have a solid foundation before tackling complex ideas. Studies also show that combining explicit instruction with guided inquiry produces the strongest learning outcomes.

The developmental arc is also in the preamble of the new curriculum, which is based on the work of Piaget. From a developmental point of view, the emphasis on concrete examples at primary level (like “water boils at 100°C”) suits how children think at that age. According to Piaget, children in the “concrete operational” stage (year 2 to 4) learn best through real, observable experiences. So, there’s good alignment there.

But like all things, there are negatives. One major loss is the removal of the Nature of Science strand which is the part that focused on understanding how science works as a process of investigation and reasoning. International research calls this understanding essential for scientific literacy. Without it, students risk seeing science as just a set of facts, not a way of asking and answering questions about the world. (This is the exact conversation I have with my Year 13s)

Inquiry-based learning also takes a back seat. While research supports structured guidance, it also shows that guided inquiry where students design, test, and reflect with teacher support significantly boosts critical thinking. A purely prescriptive curriculum like the one outlined could limit those opportunities.

My colleagues have also raised concerns about when certain ideas are introduced. For example, introducing genetics in Year 8 (rather than Year 9) could be developmentally challenging for students still transitioning from concrete to abstract thinking. Curriculum coherence also seems uneven, with some years overloaded and others lighter. To this, another concern is students already starting the new curriculum at year 9 will not have all this foundational knowledge having been taught under the old curriculum.

While there are nods to Te Ao Māori through concepts like kaitiakitanga and Matariki, Mātauranga Māori is not meaningfully integrated. Of the roughly 75 scientists mentioned in the curriculum, only 3 were Māori and none were Pasifika. Representation matters, students are more likely to engage when they see their own cultures and communities reflected in what they learn.

Equity is another concern. New Zealand continues to have one of the largest science achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students. A knowledge-rich curriculum can help close that gap if teachers receive strong professional learning and resources. Without that investment, the opposite could happen, and the gap could widen.

Perhaps the most surprising omission is climate change. It only appears in Year 10, with minimal focus in earlier years. Research shows that understanding environmental issues needs to start early and build over time, not appear suddenly at the end of schooling.

Interdisciplinary connections linking science with other subjects also appear very late in the curriculum. That’s a missed opportunity. Real-world problems like climate change or sustainability require students to draw on multiple disciplines, not just science in isolation.

Another gap is the limited attention to critical thinking. The ability to evaluate evidence, question sources, and make informed decisions is a cornerstone of science and it’s a key skill measured in global assessments like PISA. Yet, the draft curriculum doesn’t make this a visible priority.

Even the best curriculum depends on teachers being confident to teach it. Successful implementation will require substantial, sustained professional learning and not just one-off workshops. Teachers will need support to interpret the new content, integrate cultural perspectives, and use new pedagogies effectively.

Ultimately, the new curriculum’s strength lies in its clarity and coherence where students will know what’s expected at each stage. But it risks losing what made New Zealand’s science curriculum distinctive: its flexibility, focus on inquiry, and connection to community and culture.

With that in mind, I would suggest the following changes to the new curriculum in the following ways. Begin with a restoration of the nature of science in an integrated way throughout the curriculum, not as a separate strand but woven into knowledge and practices at each level.​ The introduction of climate change earlier with age-appropriate, action-oriented approaches that build progressively from primary years needs to occur.​ Incorporation of interdisciplinary connections explicitly, particularly for complex topics like sustainability and human impacts needs to be incorporated​. Strengthening cultural responsiveness by including more diverse scientists, integrating Mātauranga Māori meaningfully, and providing flexibility for local context​ needs to be reinstated. Embedding critical thinking explicitly in practices at all levels, showing how students develop evaluative and analytical capabilities progressively needs to be added​. Balancing prescription with flexibility by providing clear learning progressions while allowing teacher autonomy in pedagogy and contextualization needs to be emphasized​. Investing substantially in professional learning and development with sustained, content-focused, collaborative programs that build teacher capacity needs to be implemented. and developing robust assessment frameworks that include formative assessment guidance and align with the curriculum's knowledge and practice expectations needs to be added.

To summarize, the new curriculum gives us a strong basis of knowledge, but it will need time and effort to implement. We need our students to see science to not only as a body of knowledge but a process to explore the world with curiosity, compassion, and connection to our unique place here in Aotearoa.