Keeping the Korero Going: Reflections on the “Sifting Through the Draft Science Curriculum” Webinar

By Cheryl Mitchell

Yesterday, December 9^th, I joined the webinar “Sifting Through the Draft Science Curriculum”, which brought together Professor Sara Tolbert, Associate Professor Chris Eames, and Madeline Collins, with Claire Colman as MC.

What follows is my reflection on that korero. Any misunderstandings are mine, but I hope I have done justice to the intent and nuance each speaker brought.

The session opened with a simple but demanding question for the panel: What is science education for in Aotearoa?

From there, the speakers unpacked parts of the new draft science curriculum, asking what it seems to value and how it might play out in real classrooms. My main takeaways from that unpacking are sketched in that section.

The webinar closed with a harder question that sat behind the whole discussion and was left for us to reflect upon: What kind of science curriculum do we want?

I have attempted to offer some provisional answers to that second question, drawn from the themes of the webinar and shared in the spirit of keeping the korero going.

---

1. What is science education for?

The panel’s responses, and the research they drew on, pointed to three core purposes a future-focused science curriculum needs to hold together.

1) Participating in a scientifically shaped world

Young people live in a world where climate, health, energy, technology, and environmental change are constant features of public and private life. Science education needs to help them:

• interpret data, graphs, and scientific claims in media and everyday contexts
• reason about risk and uncertainty, for themselves and their communities
• recognise weak arguments and misinformation
• make informed decisions in home, work, and civic settings

This is about being able to take part in conversations and decisions that have scientific dimensions.

2) Keeping pathways into STEM open

Some ākonga will carry on into biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, environmental science and related fields. They need opportunities to:

• develop conceptual depth
• build representational and symbolic fluency
• spend time working with abstract models and explanations, not just skimming topics

Pathways are about more than covering the content. They require coherent, connected learning over time.

3) Understanding how science works and thinking critically about knowledge

Science is not just a storehouse of facts. It is:

• a way of asking questions about the world
• generating and testing ideas using evidence
• dealing with uncertainty and revising explanations
• shaped by people, cultures, politics, and history

Science education needs to support ākonga to think about how we know what we know: to judge the strength of evidence, notice when explanations do not really follow, and understand that some questions are still open.

In an era where AI can generate information instantly and sometimes inaccurately, this purpose becomes even more important. Science education cannot be limited to transmitting facts; it must also cultivate critical judgement about evidence, models, and claims, so that ākonga can use scientific knowledge wisely in a world where information is abundant, uneven, and increasingly produced by machines.

These three purposes give us a reference point for looking at the new draft.

---

2. Unpacking the draft curriculum

The panel did not work through every line of the draft, but they used it to surface some deeper questions about crowding, depth, belonging, and whose knowledge is visible. The points below are my main takeaways from that part of the korero.

a) Science in an already crowded primary curriculum (0–8)

In the primary years, the discussion touched on how the new, highly structured science sequences would sit alongside existing demands. Teachers are already working within intensive literacy and numeracy programmes, with limited discretionary time in the day.

The draft science materials add detailed expectations for what should be taught and when. The question, as I heard it, was less “can primary teachers cope?” and more:

• Where does science realistically live in that timetable, and what kind of science becomes possible?

There was an underlying concern that if science has to be squeezed into small remaining pockets of time, it may be hard to offer the kinds of hands-on, locally grounded, relational experiences that build understanding, curiosity, and a sense of belonging in science for younger learners.

b) Density and depth in Phase 4

At Phase 4, the focus shifted to how much is being loaded into the junior secondary curriculum. The draft sets out a large number of concepts, representations, and applications for Years 9 and 10. The language and symbolic demands are also significant.

Here the worry was about depth rather than just time. With so much specified, it becomes harder to see where teachers and ākonga will find space to:

• stay with big ideas long enough for them to make sense
• revisit and connect concepts across contexts
• build the kind of confidence that supports pathways into further science study

If junior science becomes mainly about moving quickly through tasks and symbolic work, there is a risk that understanding, enjoyment, and belonging are squeezed, even if the intention is to strengthen science.

c) How mātauranga Māori shows up

There was also some discussion about the place of mātauranga Māori. The draft science documents do include explicit references: concepts such as kaitiakitanga, maramataka, Matariki, and ngā tohu o te taiao are defined, and there are examples where ākonga might use local tohu such as flowering patterns or bird movements to talk about environmental change.

These inclusions matter. They signal that Māori environmental knowledge has a place inside junior science rather than sitting entirely outside the learning area.

For me, they also raise a wider curriculum question: in a dense, tightly specified document, the things that are written down can easily become the practical limits of what many teachers feel able to do. If these examples are the main places where mātauranga Māori is named, do they function as a starting point, or do they end up becoming the ceiling?

---

3. So, what kind of curriculum do we want?

This final section is less a direct report of what was said, and more my synthesis of the discussion. If we take the panel’s three purposes seriously, what sort of science curriculum might better serve Aotearoa?

A curriculum that helps ākonga live in a scientifically shaped world

If we want young people to participate in climate, health, energy, and technology conversations, then the curriculum needs to:

• foreground a small number of big ideas that keep turning up in real issues
• make room for current, local, and future-focused questions, not just textbook examples
• give time for students to read, talk, and write about evidence and claims, not just complete tasks

In this kind of curriculum, the structure helps teachers return to important ideas often enough that they become usable in life beyond school.

A curriculum that keeps doors open rather than closing them early

If we want to keep pathways into STEM genuinely open, then the curriculum needs to:

• build ideas in a deliberate sequence, so later learning feels like a deepening, not a reset
• offer multiple ways into complex concepts, so different ākonga can find an entry point that makes sense for them
• notice and grow a wide range of strengths in science learning, including curiosity, careful thinking, collaboration, and confidence

In this kind of curriculum, more ākonga who are curious and capable can see a place for themselves in science and are still in the room when choices about senior science and future study are made.

A curriculum that creates room for thinking and argument

If we think science education should develop critical judgement about knowledge, then the curriculum has to:

• allow time to sit with puzzling phenomena, conflicting explanations, and messy data
• support students to compare ideas, question models, and revise their thinking
• treat talk, disagreement, and uncertainty as normal parts of learning science

This points towards fewer things done more deeply, rather than constant movement across long lists of content.

All of this still has to be possible in real New Zealand classrooms, with the time and people we actually have. If the design is too crowded, the purposes that matter most participation, pathways and critical knowing, are the first to be squeezed out, no matter how often we name them.

---

4. Why process and participation matter

If this is the kind of curriculum we say we want, then the way we get there matters as much as the words on the page.

Right now:

• science 0 to 8 is shifting to a more explicit year-by-year design
• Phase 4 is dense and tightly specified
• Phase 5 is only partially visible
• NCEA is being abolished
• the replacement qualifications framework is not yet clear

Against that backdrop, the panel raised concerns about pace, consultation, and transparency. New documents are being released and revised on tight timelines, and it is not always clear how feedback is being gathered, weighed, or acted on.

Moving quickly in this environment risks:

• locking in a curriculum that has not had the benefit of robust, diverse feedback
• fixing assumptions about assessment and pathways that may change
• leaving many of the people who will have to live this curriculum feeling that it was done to them, rather than with them

The call to slow down is not a call to avoid change. It is a call to make sure that the purposes we say we care about are reflected not just in the final documents, but in the process of getting there, and that the profession and communities have a real chance to shape what is being built.

---

5. As we head into the summer break

Many of us are tired, and rest matters. We need a break before we can meaningfully re-engage with big national conversations.

But the questions raised in the webinar will still be there in the new year.

This korero needs to continue, gently and sustainably, with:

• colleagues and department teams
• school leaders and boards
• whānau and community groups
• iwi and hapū
• and ākonga themselves

Curriculum is not just a document. It is a collective commitment to the learning futures of our rangatahi.

If we keep the conversation open, even in small ways, we have a chance to shape a science curriculum that is clear, coherent, inclusive, and genuinely worthy of the young people who will live with its consequences: a curriculum where more ākonga can see themselves, their knowledge, and their futures reflected in what science education means.

If you were at the webinar, or you have been reading through the draft science curriculum yourself, I would really value your thoughts.

What resonated for you? What worried you? What do you hope we do not lose sight of as this work continues?

Please share your reflections, questions and any ideas on how we can expand the korero in the comments.