The elements of a successful chemistry curriculum
Our vision for 11-19 chemistry education
January 2026
Everyone deserves an excellent chemistry education that is engaging, inspiring and relevant. We have worked closely with the chemical sciences and education communities to update and expand our original framework, published in 2020, so that we continue to be aligned with their needs and have broad support for our proposals.
Our new framework
Our new curriculum framework sets out a vision for an inclusive, coherent and future-focused approach. It aims to spark curiosity, build scientific literacy and equip learners with the knowledge and skills for further study or careers in the chemical sciences.
Our vision continues to adapt and respond to the needs of society and young people; our policy positions expand on the ideas in this framework.
What is in the framework?
Our framework for ages 11鈥�19 is built around three interconnected strands:
- chemistry as a science
- chemical concepts
- chemistry and the world
It uses Big Questions to create a clear narrative that connects core ideas, practical skills and real-world applications, ensuring relevance and progression across educational stages. Originally published in 2020, the framework can be used flexibly in different education systems and types of qualification.
It stresses the importance of practical skills, coherent progression from ages 5-19, and assessment approaches that prioritise understanding and application over memorisation. Broader skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication are embedded within the chemistry context.
Answering the Big Questions: our chemistry curriculum in detail
This new technical document is key to our updated framework.
It explains in depth what content could, and should, be included at each educational stage for each 鈥楤ig Question鈥�. A rationale is provided for each curriculum strand in terms of how it seeks to answer the Big Question to which it relates, and why this is a relevant area of study. Examples of applications and contexts mentioned in these sections are intended to be illustrative, as opposed to prescriptive.
Beyond the subject-specific content, the curriculum should enable learners to develop a broader range of skills and attributes. Without being directly subject-specific, these skills are fundamental to success in chemistry-related careers, as well as being more broadly applicable. The document includes further details and suggested implementation.
References
The curriculum framework was developed by working groups of experts in curriculum design and experienced educators. It draws on research, best practice, and current thinking to influence curriculum development across the UK and Ireland.
The following is a selection of references that have either directly informed the development of the contents of this document, or would act as useful context in adapting the recommendations into a full curriculum.
Bennett, J., Dunlop, L., Knox, K. J., and Whitehouse, M. (2017), The assessment of chemistry subject knowledge in secondary education: a critical evaluation of the literature: Final report to the 九州影院, April 2017. York: Department of Education, University of York
Boohan, R. (2016), The language of mathematics in science. A guide for teachers of 11鈥�16 science, Hatfield: Association for Science Education
Harlen, W. et al. (eds) (2015), Working with big ideas of science education, Science Education Programme of IAP
Johnson, P. (2014), 鈥楢n evidence-based approach to introductory chemistry鈥�, School Sci. Rev., vol. 95, 89鈥�97
Johnson, P. and Roberts, R. (2016), 'A concept map for understanding `working scientifically'.', School Sci. Rev., vol. 97, 21鈥�28
Johnson, P. and Tymms, P. (2011), 鈥楾he emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry鈥�, J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 48, 849鈥�877
Kind, P. and Osborne, J. (2017), 鈥楽tyles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education?鈥�, Sci. Ed., vol. 101, 8鈥�31
Oates, T. (2010), Could do better: Using international comparisons to refine the national curriculum in England, Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment
OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving, revised edition, Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing
Stabback, P. (2016), What makes a quality curriculum?, UNESCO International Bureau of Education
Taber, K. S. (2013), 鈥楻evisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education鈥�, Chem. Ed. Res. Pract., vol. 14, 156鈥�168
Taber, K. S. (2017), 鈥楳odels and modelling in science and science education鈥�, in Taber, K.S. and Akpan B. (eds) Science education: An international course companion (263鈥�378), Rotterdam: Sense Publishers
Talanquer, V. and Pollard, J. (2010), 鈥楲et鈥檚 teach how we think instead of what we know鈥�, Chem. Ed. Res. Pract., vol. 11, 74鈥�83
Turner, J., Keogh, B., Naylor, S., Lawrence, L. (2011), It鈥檚 not fair 鈥� or is it? A guide to developing children鈥檚 ideas through primary science enquiry, Sandbach, Cheshire: Millgate House
Contact our education policy team
For enquiries about education policy.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7440 3353
