When the first thing you read about the new science curriculum is a group of science teachers saying “Where’s the Science” it’s hard not to feel despondent - especially if your child is going through the school system.  

It’s important to say before we begin this conversation that the information being commented on has come from a leaked draft document from the Ministry of Education - which was sent to just a few teachers for their feedback. They were so taken aback by what they saw they couldn’t help sharing it.  

It is a draft document. Once selected feedback has been collected a full document will go out to the wider sector and public for feedback in August. So what’s been seen isn’t set in stone, but I’m grateful to those who have raised alarm bells because it’s in all parents’ interest to be engaged in this conversation.

The main concern expressed by the science teachers is that the proposed school science curriculum makes no mention of physics or chemistry. I don’t know about you but I’m under the impression these are quite central to the study of science.  

The Ministry wants to take a more holistic approach and excite students by engaging with the issues of the day and teaching science through five contexts: earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, and infectious diseases.

My science-loving daughter just groaned. “They’re turning it into a social studies or English class. We’re already dealing with the big issues of the day in every other class”, she said, “can’t we just keep setting our hands on fire”  

Some context is probably required here. My daughter loves science, not because of the curriculum or because she’s good at solving problems with a formula, but because she has an awesome science teacher who engages the class with exciting experiments to bring the science basics to life. And yes, if the class has done well or has had a good week she lets them set their hands on fire - in a perfectly safe and scientific way.  

There’s something in the idea of making a curriculum more relevant and fun for students. Great teachers have already worked out how to do this, but school can’t always be fun and engaging - sometimes it's work.  

No amount of playing around with the curriculum is going to make a kid who doesn’t like science suddenly like science. It’s one of those subjects you tend to like if you’re good at it, but will those students be happy to study just five main areas throughout their secondary education.  

More importantly though, how is this going to prepare our teenagers for tertiary education. From the friends I know whose offspring have headed off to university to study engineering, math or science, many speak about what a step up it is and how in some ways they didn’t feel adequately prepared. Surely the curriculum also needs to be driven by what universities require of students.

When the first thing you read about the new science curriculum is a group of science teachers saying “Where’s the Science” it’s hard not to feel despondent - especially if your child is going through the school system.  
It’s important to say before we begin this conversation that the information being commented on has come from a leaked draft document from the Ministry of Education - which was sent to just a few teachers for their feedback. They were so taken aback by what they saw they couldn’t help sharing it.  
It is a draft document. Once selected feedback has been collected a full document will go out to the wider sector and public for feedback in August. So what’s been seen isn’t set in stone, but I’m grateful to those who have raised alarm bells because it’s in all parents’ interest to be engaged in this conversation.
The main concern expressed by the science teachers is that the proposed school science curriculum makes no mention of physics or chemistry. I don’t know about you but I’m under the impression these are quite central to the study of science.  
The Ministry wants to take a more holistic approach and excite students by engaging with the issues of the day and teaching science through five contexts: earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, and infectious diseases.
My science-loving daughter just groaned. “They’re turning it into a social studies or English class. We’re already dealing with the big issues of the day in every other class”, she said, “can’t we just keep setting our hands on fire”  
Some context is probably required here. My daughter loves science, not because of the curriculum or because she’s good at solving problems with a formula, but because she has an awesome science teacher who engages the class with exciting experiments to bring the science basics to life. And yes, if the class has done well or has had a good week she lets them set their hands on fire - in a perfectly safe and scientific way.  
There’s something in the idea of making a curriculum more relevant and fun for students. Great teachers have already worked out how to do this, but school can’t always be fun and engaging - sometimes it's work.  
No amount of playing around with the curriculum is going to make a kid who doesn’t like science suddenly like science. It’s one of those subjects you tend to like if you’re good at it, but will those students be happy to study just five main areas throughout their secondary education.  
More importantly though, how is this going to prepare our teenagers for tertiary education. From the friends I know whose offspring have headed off to university to study engineering, math or science, many speak about what a step up it is and how in some ways they didn’t feel adequately prepared. Surely the curriculum also needs to be driven by what universities require of students.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.