David Lillis: Unpublished Paper on our National Science Curriculum

Nearly a year ago I wrote a piece for a special edition of a journal. It was submitted as a commentary rather than as a research paper, but was roundly rejected. In fact, the journal’s reviews of this piece were scathing in the extreme.

However, here I give this paper for those interested in discussions on New Zealand’s science curriculum. It is essentially the same as the original manuscript but slightly longer because the original limit of 3000 words precluded the inclusion of certain detail. It embodies only a few additional ideas and a light edit here and there for a public audience.

Much material espousing a Treaty-centric curriculum that incorporates indigenous knowledge, or advocating decolonization of our education system, had already been published by the Ministry of Education, the New Zealand Council for Educational Research and others. In fact, the New Zealand Council for Educational Research lists decolonization of education as a strategic priority (NZCER, 2025). Thus, my motivation for writing this piece was simply to provide other perspectives for consideration as we continue to develop our thinking on the future of education in this country.

In making this commentary available publicly, I acknowledge helpful discussions with several colleagues in developing the ideas expressed within this paper.

David Lillis
13 November 2025

Towards a Knowledge-rich Science Curriculum for New Zealand

Introduction

This paper responds to attempts to decolonize education and center indigenous knowledge and “knowledge systems” within New Zealand’s national curriculum, especially the science curriculum. I argue that indigenous knowledge and science serve completely different purposes and should not be conflated, particularly at a time when New Zealand’s educational performance has been in long-term decline. I suggest that knowledge systems approaches could degrade science education and confuse students. Finally, I propose the idea that the national science curriculum should be configured on the basis of research-based evidence on effective pedagogy, especially on the science of learning.

New Zealand’s Performance in Education

Over the last 20 years New Zealand’s academic performance across international evaluations has declined. For example, Long and Te (2019) reported a drop in achievement as evaluated in PISA assessments, and suggested bullying, poor classroom environments and truancy as possible causes.

Barshay (2024) gives country rankings of the 2023 TIMSS assessments in which our fourth graders (Year 5) took a mediocre 39’th place. Further, New Zealand was not reported in the eighth grade (Year 9) analysis because of failure to meet minimum standards for school participation rates (TIMSS, 2024). Clearly, New Zealand has a problem and needs effective approaches to restore world-class education.

Recently, we have seen pushback on the issue of underperformance. For example, Darragh et al. (2024) effectively interpret stability in mathematics scores since the previous TIMSS evaluation as acceptable, and discuss broader societal issues rather than education practices. They focus on classroom disorderly conduct, now ranked fourth worst in the developed world, as a major cause. Indeed, New Zealand’s classrooms are the very worst in the OECD for disruptive behaviour in Mathematics classes and in the bottom quarter of PISA countries in English classes (Education Review Office, 2024).

Inquiry-based learning is largely student-centered, where students explore, investigate and construct their own understanding. Progressive education often involves inquiry-based learning, which can impact negatively on student learning (Ministry of Education, 2019). It can erode teacher authority, which in turn can lead to disruptive behavior. Indeed, John Sweller and colleagues (2021 & 2024) report that the more inquiry-based learning is used in classrooms, the lower the students’ test scores, and they see little justification for inquiry-based learning.

However, irrespective of pedagogical approaches, restoring world class education to New Zealand will require a modern, international-class curriculum, including a robust science curriculum. The configuration of such a science curriculum is the subject of this article.

The Refreshed Curriculum of 2022

During 2022 and under the Labour Government, a “refreshed curriculum” was made available for public comment – “Te Mātaiaho: A draft Te Tiriti-Honouring and Inclusive Curriculum Framework” (Ministry of Education, 2022). One form of indigenous knowledge was to sit at the heart of all subjects and the curriculum was to involve “respectful inclusion” of this particular form of indigenous knowledge as a deliberate feature “that helps ākonga to understand a dynamic and evolving knowledge system unique to Aotearoa”.

That draft curriculum mentioned the word “Māori” 54 times and the word “mātauranga” 31 times. However, only twice were New Zealand’s Pacific People mentioned, and neither our Asian, nor our European, nor any other population, were mentioned at all. On page 5 we were told that educators should hold themselves accountable to the principles of Te Tiriti and that we give effect to Te Triti through the curriculum.

While recognizing the need to lift the performance of minorities in education, and, while recognizing the historic importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, many parents and teachers saw the refresh as ideology-driven and believed that it could harm education. Due to come into force in 2026, it would have involved more than a million students over future decades (Lillis, 2023). Following release, public and expert discourse centered on its heavily Treaty-centric nature, embedding of indigenous knowledge within every subject, and the imposition of equality between one form of indigenous knowledge and modern global science. Further concerns centered on possible diminished educational value and opportunity costs from possible contraction of core curricula.

Another document, the NCEA Biology and Chemistry Glossary (NZQA, 2022), had incorporated the spiritual concept of “mauri”, defining it as the vital essence, the life force of everything, including physical objects. In addition, it referred to the health and life-sustaining capacity of the taiao (nature) on biological, physical and chemical levels.

The notion of the health of an ecosystem or population, for example, is understood, but the given definition had no scientific basis and quite possibly would mislead students. Here, we saw conflation of indigenous knowledge with modern science and, following vigorous public debate (Kilmartin, 2022), the concept was withdrawn.

In relation to the objective of equal value of indigenous knowledge and science, Atkinson and Ryen (2016) argue that indigenous research is antithetical to the principles of social research and of ethnography in particular. In their view the problem of indigenous research is that understanding is based on identity. They note that the methodological literature gives no definitive answer as to who is indigenous, and that the category itself is both ill-defined and constrained to a small number of peoples - mainly those of North American first nations, Pacific, Māori and Australian Aboriginal heritages. Finally, they suggest that most indigenous research methods do not constitute methods in the accepted scientific sense.

The Role of a National Curriculum

Previous versions of the national curriculum were developed in order to set directions for student learning and provide guidance for schools (e.g. Ministry of Education, 2007). However, the proposed changes appeared to assume that the lower achievement of minorities resulted from cultural exclusivity, but in fact many Māori and immigrant students from other cultures (e.g. China and India) excel in our schools.

While New Zealand’s science curriculum undergoes re-development in 2025, debate continues on how the curriculum should be configured. Naturally, it should be a curriculum for all students, and the idea of a Western curriculum is a purely ideological construct. However, the push towards inclusion of indigenous knowledge within the curriculum continues to this day. For example, Tolbert et al. (2024) argue for inclusion of indigenous knowledge and suggest that the curriculum should demonstrate relevance and serve to increase engagement for groups that underperform in education.

Of course, all curricula should be relevant and engaging. However, the authors appear to believe that the problem lies in disenfranchisement within education, when the strongest predictor of educational achievement, and indeed under-achievement, is socio-economic status, especially deprivation during childhood (e.g. Marie et al., 2008).

Science and Non-Science

In our debates on indigenous knowledge within the science curriculum, it is necessary to consider the similarities and differences between indigenous knowledge and science. Many definitions of science have been proposed. For example, the International Science Council defines science as the systematic organization of knowledge that can be rationally explained and reliably applied (International Science Council, 2021).

Most definitions involve the creation of knowledge about natural and social phenomena, but on the basis of systematic methods that are grounded in evidence. Regardless of definitions, modern global science embodies two fundamental principles. First, that knowledge is not protected, but instead is shared and open to criticism. Second, that science recognizes no particular authority, so that every person is free to engage in science on the basis of evidence and reason.

In addition, various authors have proposed criteria that impart structure to science (e.g. Merton, 1942). The Mertonian norms are as follows: communality (the findings of science are owned by the community), universalism (truth-claims are subjected to impersonal criteria), disinterestedness (science is to be uncorrupted by self-interest) and organized skepticism (detached scrutiny of beliefs in terms of empirical and logical criteria). Such norms are not clearly evident within indigenous knowledge.

Kuhn (1962) saw scientific paradigms as universally-recognized scientific achievements that provide model problems and solutions for researchers. For Kuhn, a paradigm describes what is observed and scrutinized, and he suggests five criteria for good theory. These criteria are accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness.

Indigenous knowledge embodies many positive attributes in relation to values, ethics and morals, particularly in relation to how humans should respect each other and live harmoniously within our natural environments. However, in the understanding and verification of universal truths, indigenous knowledge offers neither the accuracy, consistency, scope, nor fruitfulness of modern global science.

The Methods of Global Science

Durie (2004) believes that systems of knowledge that do not subscribe to scientific principles are afforded lower status. In reality, recognizing genuine cultural, historic and religious interest even today, indigenous knowledge has diminished in importance because global science has advanced far beyond it in the explanation of natural phenomena.

Science involves error correction and induction; that is, processes of reasoning whereby general conclusions are drawn from evidence and recorded in peer-reviewed journals, libraries and databases. Conversely, most indigenous knowledge is limited to observations of nature and trial and error; practices that say little about the causes of observed phenomena, and is passed down through word of mouth.

Indigenous knowledge does not provide epistemological resources such as hypothesis-testing, randomized sampling, experimental design, statistics or blind testing. Rather, it is knowledge that has been acquired independently of the methods of modern global science (McCarthy, 2018). Therefore, apart from aspects of indigenous knowledge that can be verified through the methods of science, it is inappropriate to center such knowledge within a national science curriculum.

Knowledge Systems

Initiatives that aim to position indigenous knowledge in education are based partly on knowledge systems ideology, a doctrine that is evident at every level of education. For example, one project aims “to address a critical priority in New Zealand education”; that is, positioning one form of indigenous knowledge “alongside in science education” (University of Canterbury, 2024). Aiming to ensure equality for indigenous knowledge, the project “seeks to contribute to a more robust curriculum for secondary school students”.

Indigenous and local knowledge systems can be defined variously. Hertz et al. (2020) define them as holistic conceptualizations that specify knowledge institutions, agents and the interconnections among them, including the provision of evidence from knowledge producers and the demand for evidence. Henri et al. (2021) see indigenous knowledge systems as a way of life, and believe that enactment of knowledge is integral to the overall system.

In New Zealand Hipkins and Waiti (2023) explain knowledge systems as the ideas and experiences captured in words and phrases, but also the institutions, structures, assumptions, values, standards and all things that help the various pieces of the system to interact with each other. They say that forms of logic and explanations are the essential mechanisms that hold those pieces together, including the ways in which knowledge is validated, communicated and applied.

However, among others, Tolbert et al. (2024) want knowledge systems to “desettle” school science and to honour the notion of equal value for mātauranga Māori and modern global science. They believe that all students must know how to draw on science and other ways of knowing.

Nevertheless, irrespective of views on what should or should not be taught within our science classrooms, knowledge systems ideology implies that identity is a critical factor and often appears to assume that science is Western and non-inclusive for others. In fact, any interested person can participate in science, and ethnic or cultural backgrounds are irrelevant. Further, there is no evidence that equal status will underpin a more robust curriculum, especially if significant class time is taken from critical areas (e.g. literacy and numeracy). In using the word “value”, proponents of knowledge systems may mean respect, but the purpose of science education is to teach science rather than to enforce ideas about cultural value or to contrast knowledge systems.

Knowledge Systems and Decolonization

Tolbert et al. believe that knowledge systems approaches emerge in response to the challenges of the Anthropocene, requiring a radical reset for science education and initiatives that guide New Zealand toward “decolonial futures” through education. They refer to epistemological pluralism, particularly within decolonial, postcolonial and feminist science scholarship. However, where is the evidence that decolonial, postcolonial or feminist science have contributed materially to science, or even that these entities represent science in the commonly-accepted sense?

Tolbert et al. see “the interface” as an area where multiple knowledge systems exist in an ongoing process of dialogue and desettling, and they seek an epistemologically-diverse position.

Naturally, the work of indigenous people in caring for the world’s environments and in contributing to policy, management and setting of research agendas, is highly important (e.g. Clements et al., 2021). Further, indigenous knowledge systems around the world do encompass ideas that can be verified scientifically; for example, quinine as a treatment for malaria. However, how would knowledge systems be selected for New Zealand’s science curriculum and how would they support organic chemistry, contribute to the understanding of cancer and its treatment, or enhance our application of the laws of thermodynamics? What is meant by “desettling”, and is desettling the true motive? Are knowledge systems to be used as a mechanism to justify the equivalence of indigenous knowledge and science?

Of course, the laws of science are invariable across societies and knowledge systems. So, given that science embodies formal methods for testing and judging claims, what are the equivalents within other systems? If they do not embody such methods, in what sense do they constitute knowledge systems, as opposed to belief systems?

Desettling or decolonizing science is an ideological position, and proponents have not explained how such approaches improve outcomes. Thus, New Zealand must maintain awareness of the opportunity cost that desettling or decolonisation pose to education, and evaluate the possible adverse effects on curriculum content, credibility of the education system and professional outcomes.

Finally, if any form of indigenous knowledge belongs only to the people who developed that knowledge, and it is not appropriate for others to contest it, then what is the point of teaching it to others?

Science Curriculum Design

Indeed, the entire curriculum should set the direction for student learning and provide guidance for schools (Ministry of Education, 2007). Specifically, science education should be meaningful, engaging and accessible for all students, regardless of cultural background (e.g. Stewart et al., 2024), and should provide a basis for more advanced education.

Thus, in order to establish a foundation for advanced inquiry, the science curriculum should address the nature of science and introduce its research methods, including data collection, analysis and reporting. It must provide the requisite skills and knowledge at each year-level and support appropriate assessment tools. While embracing some student-led and community-led work and local knowledge, it should provide rich content knowledge; for example, see Stewart et al. (2024) who want a knowledge-rich and competency-based curriculum, and Surma et al. (2025), who advocate content richness as the soundest way to teach knowledge and complex skills.

It should teach how to think, but not what to think, in relation to social and political issues on which science has a bearing; for example, climate change, sustainability and issues surrounding gender and sexuality. Addressing the needs of students of all backgrounds equally, it should retain a clear distinction between science as the most widely-accepted approach to generating knowledge yet devised, and the indigenous knowledge of small communities of the past. Accordingly, while valuing indigenous knowledge and sometimes using myths and legends as motivation in classrooms, the science curriculum cannot present mysticism or untested ideas as adjuncts to modern science (Clements et al., 2021 & Ahdar et al., 2024).

Each subject should include a teaching sequence, associated teaching methods, stages at which students are assessed, and sufficient detail to support teacher planning (Ministerial Advisory Group, 2024). Each sequence should encompass historic context and the rich philosophical debate within given topics at each grade level (Matthews, 2014 & 2015).

The curriculum should take account of cognitive load theory (e.g. Sweller, 1988 & 2009), associated research on how people acquire and store information, and on the teaching practices that support learning. Teaching sequences should support students in establishing robust cognitive schemas and aim to minimize cognitive overload which can affect learning and lead to anxiety, disengagement and disruptive behavior (Ministerial Advisory Group, 2024).

It should take account of the current research literature on cognitive psychology - the science of human information processing, including perception, memory, attention, language, motivation, the emotional factors that influence learning, and the medical and psychological conditions that affect learning, including dyslexia and autism. It should be written in plain language and be accessible to teachers, parents and students.

Conclusion

The science curriculum must be evidence-based, ideology-free and fully comparable with the best curricula of other nations, and must support fulfilling lives and rewarding careers. Otherwise, a great disservice is done to the nation’s children.

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.

References

Ahdar, R., Boyd, B., Chaudhuri, A., Clements, K., Cooper, G., Elliffe, D., Gill, B., Gray, R., Hamilton-Hart, N., Lillis, D. and Matthews, M. (2024). World science and Indigenous knowledge. Science, 385, 151-152.

Atkinson, P. and Ryen, A. (2016). Indigenous Research and Romantic Nationalism. Societies, 6, Article No. 34.

Barshay, J. (2024). Six observations from a devastating international math test

https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-2023-timss/

Clements, K., Cooper, G., Corballis, M., Elliffe, D., Nola, R., Rata, E. and Werry, J. (2021). In Defence of Science. New Zealand Listener, 31 July 2021.

Darragh, L., Eden, R. and Pomeroy, D. (Newsroom, 23 December 2024).

What’s the real crisis in education? Latest international test results do not support the Government’s narrative about maths teaching.

Durie, M. (2004). Understanding health and illness: Research at the interface between science and indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(5), 1138–1143. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh250

Education Review Office (2024). Time to Focus: Behaviour in our Classrooms.

https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/documents/time-to-focus-behaviour-in-our-classrooms

Henri, D., Provencher, J., Bowles, E. and Taylor J. (2021). Weaving Indigenous knowledge systems and Western sciences in terrestrial research, monitoring and management in Canada: A protocol for a systematic map.

Wiley Ecological Solutions and Evidence.

Hertz, J., Brinkerhoff, D., Bush, R. and Karetji, P. (2020). Knowledge Systems: Evidence to Policy Concepts in Practice. RTI Press Publication No. PB-0024-2006. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.

Hipkins, R. and Waiti, P. (2023). What is a knowledge system? Science Learning Hub.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system

International Science Council (2021): Science as a global public good. ISC Position Paper.

https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ScienceAsAPublicGood-FINAL.pdf

Kilmartin, P. (2022). Mātauranga Māori and chemistry teaching: 'mauri is present in all matter'. Chemistry in New Zealand (Christchurch), 86(4).

https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE84206754

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago.

https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf

Lillis, D. (2023). Comments on the Refreshed Curriculum for Science, Technology and the Arts.

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/06/david-lillis-comments-on-refreshed.html#more

Long, J. and Te, M. (2019). New Zealand top-end in OECD's latest PISA report but drop in achievements 'worrying'.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/117890945/new-zealand-topend-in-oecds-latest-pisa-report-but-drop-in-achievements-worrying

Marie, D., Fergusson, D. and Boden, J. (2008). Educational Achievement in Maori: The Roles of Cultural Identity and Social Disadvantage. Australian Journal of Education. 52: 2, 183-196.

Matthews, M. (ed.). (2014). International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (three volumes), Springer, Dordrecht.

Matthews, M. (2015). Science Teaching: The Contribution of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York.

McCarthy, C. (2018). ‘Cultural Studies of Science Education: An Appraisal’. In M.R. Matthews (ed.) History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: New Perspectives, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 99-136.

Merton, R. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science.

https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html

Ministerial Advisory Group (2024). Initial Report. Ministry of Education.

https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/Curriculum/Report-from-the-Ministerial-Advisory-Group-March-2024.pdf

Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Learning Media Limited.

Ministry of Education (2019). Inquiry-based or teacher-directed science? Evidence from PISA.

https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/insights-for-teachers/teaching-in-nz-inquiry-based-or-teacher-directed

Ministry of Education (2022). Te Mātaiaho Draft for Feedback.

https://curriculumrefresh-live-assetstorages3bucket-l5w0dsj7zmbm.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-09/Te%20Mataiaho%20draft%20for%20feedback.pdf?VersionId=NcP2C6bv8ElasJlXbg7oZJLFRqlkef.E

NZCER (2025). Rangahau Mātauranga o Aotearoa | New Zealand Council for Educational Research

https://www.nzcer.org.nz/

NZQA (2022). https://ncea.education.govt.nz/science/chemistry-andbiology?view=teaching (accessed 20/8/2022).

Stewart, G., Eames, C., Hipkins, R., Cheng, M., Birdsall, S., Buntting, C., Carpendale., Edwards. R., Hunt, D. and Swanson, C. (2024). What’s the Future for Science in the New Zealand Curriculum?

New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies (2024) 59:371–375

Surma, T., Vanhees, C., Wils., M., Nijlunsing, J., Crato. N., Hattie, J., Muijs, D., Rata, E., Wiliam, D. and Kirschner, P. (2025). Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking. SpringerBriefs in Education.

ISBN 978-3-031-74660-4

Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning". Cognitive Science. 12 (2): 257–285.

Sweller, J. (2009). ‘What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism’. In S. Tobias & T.M. Thomas (eds.) Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Routledge, New York, pp.127-143.

Sweller, J. (2021). Why Inquiry-based Approaches Harm Students’ Learning Centre for Independent Studies. Analysis Paper 24.

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/why-inquiry-based-approaches-harm-students-learning/

Sweller J., Zhang L., Ashman G., Cobern, W. and Kirschner P. A. (2024). Response to de jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let’s talk evidence - the case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction.” Educational Research Review.

TIMSS (2024). Explore how U.S. 4th- and 8th-grade students' mathematics and science performance compared internationally in 2023!

https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results23/index.asp#/math/intlcompare

Tolbert, S., Hipkins, R., Cowie, B. and Waiti, P. (2024). Epistemic agency, Indigenous knowledge, and the school science curriculum: reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Science Education, 1–17.

University of Canterbury (2024). UC secures funding for two innovative education projects.

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news-and-events/news/2024/uc-secures-funding-for-two-innovative-education-projects