Editorial: Science written out of the equation?

Science is a crucial pathway for New Zealand children to connect with their world and to aspire to understand more about it. Photo / A J Rich, Getty Images, File

EDITORIAL

One could be forgiven for assuming the authors of a proposed new science curriculum for New Zealand schools had simply made a spelling mistake.

That is, this was a daft curriculum, rather than a draft one.

But, as we know in the universal subject - the one that spans the branch of knowledge examining the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment - assumptions can be foolish in themselves.

What we do know is that teachers and academics who read the draft were shocked, appalled and outraged. So much so, that they were willing to defy convention and go public with their concerns.

Teachers who saw the draft - named Te Mātaiaho or “to observe and examine the strands of learning” - told RNZ that it was embarrassing and would lead to “appalling” declines in student achievement.

Their key concern sent pulses racing around education circles and hairs rising on parents’ necks - the new guiding document, teachers said, contained no mention of physics, chemistry or biology.

Reportedly, this so-called “fast draft” directed that science would be taught through five contexts - the Earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, infectious diseases, and “at the cutting edge”.

One of the curriculum writers, director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research at the University of Waikato, Cathy Buntting, rubbished suggestions that key areas physics and chemistry wouldn’t be taught. But her assurances fell short of providing the kinds of certainties those in the fields of science prefer.

“[Teachers] will be teaching the chemistry and the physics that you need to engage with - the big issues of our time - and in order to engage with the excitement of science and the possibilities that science offers,” she said.

Buntting also added the document was intended to encourage change - again, not a popular construct when talking about subjects thousands of years in the distillation and confirmation.

“What we are pushing towards with the current fast draft is more of a holistic approach to how the different science concepts interact with each other rather than a purist, siloed approach.”

Buntting said the draft was very high-level, as were curriculum documents for other subjects, but it was clear it needed more clarity about where teachers should expect to teach various science concepts.

Education Minister Jan Tinetti said there was no question the final curriculum would absolutely include chemistry, physics and biology and other core science topics.

“The Ministry of Education, experts and the sector are working on a new curriculum and are testing different options - this is essentially a draft of a draft.”

If so, this proposal needs a redraft, perhaps of the redraft. This document is supposed to provide the top lines for a refresh of the teaching of sciences throughout our school system, from primary through to the end of secondary.

Its primary objective must be to guide our young through the gates to physics, chemistry and biology. These sciences are the pathways to our consensus thinking, generations in the making, of the entire world.

The ministry wants Mātauranga Māori - that is, the accumulated traditional knowledge of Māori - to “sit at the heart of the learning areas”. There is nothing wrong with that but if Mātauranga Māori is at the heart, then physics, chemistry and biology must remain front of mind.

The final draft of Te Mātaiaho will be released in Term 3, 2023 and the curriculum is scheduled - perhaps ambitiously, given the uproar - for implementation in 2024.

The Ministry of Education has been warned by teachers that it needs revising now before continuing. It would be wise to do so. Or daft not to.