David Lillis: Debating Education on TV

Going Live

Responding to an invitation, on Tuesday 27 February I joined a brief early-morning TV3 debate with Sir Ian Taylor on the place of matauranga Māori in New Zealand’s curriculum. You can hear the debate using the link given at the end of this article.

I was very reluctant and in going live I had to take the risk of public criticism, but decided to take the chance. 

Like others, I believe that Indigenous knowledge should have a special place in a nation’s curriculum but not in science - and not everyone will take that view favorably. In engaging in such debates, I choose to refer to Indigenous knowledge rather than matauranga Māori, as the same arguments for and against apply to all forms of such knowledge – of which matauranga Māori is one. I emphasize that none of us who engage in these debates wish to be seen as either left or right wing, but interested only in what is good for the education of our children.

We had limited time and I had much more to say but no chance to say it; for example, that I believed both he and I and those who share our perspectives, are genuine about education rather than wanting to score political points. To be fair, for me Sir Ian presented a compelling case in arguing for inclusion of myths and legends and accounts of early Māori navigation across the Pacific as motivators for school children. Possibly they may engender wonder and even “aroha” for our physical and living worlds. However, our caveat is that mythology and various concepts that have no basis in science should remain out of science class unless the teacher is very clear that myths and legends are not real. In fact, I agree with Sir Ian in that some Indigenous knowledge, including matauranga Māori here in New Zealand, could inspire students but I suggest that Indigenous knowledge should not be treated as science.

The Right People?

Sir Ian’s opinions may resonate with the New Zealand public more than mine, though many people, including myself, disagree philosophically with positioning Indigenous knowledge within science class, except in specific cases where Indigenous knowledge has a clear basis in science. One excellent example is that of the discovery of quinine as an anti-malarial drug by the Indigenous people of Peru.

Sir Ian expressed a most reasonable opinion that we need the right people to lead education and its curriculum. Indeed, we do need the right people and surely we should have a mix of Māori and other minority experts and educators. We also need experts in education research, curriculum design and administration, and those who know what works in the classroom and what does not. For such expertise, ethnicity, skin color and religion are of no importance.

Did we have the right people on board when developing the draft curriculum? I did notice a much greater preponderance of people of Māori heritage on various panels than we see in the total population of New Zealand. I had no issue with that situation provided that their intent was to produce a balanced curriculum that indeed accorded respect to the first people to live in New Zealand but was otherwise balanced. However, what we actually got as a draft was grossly unbalanced and ill-posed as a guide to the learning of young New Zealanders and as a guide to teachers and schools. The indigenous knowledge of one community was now saturating the entire curriculum, across all subjects and learning areas, potentially taking class time away from literacy, numeracy and other vital areas – for each and every child- not only Māori. 

If I had had more time, I would have made the point that New Zealand is a multicultural society where non-Māori/non-European constitute 25% of the total population. The current draft curriculum pays scant attention to them and offers few or no examples of their knowledges or world views. It is highly asymmetric in this regard and therefore unfair on non-Māori/non-European children.

And so, I have much greater confidence in the Ministerial Advisory Group that has been appointed to provide advice to the Minister of Education on the Mathematics and Statistics and English learning areas and literacy and mathematics (Te Poutāhū, 2024). The group comprises education experts who understand what is needed in a national curriculum, and many who have experience in teaching.

Navigating the Oceans

With limited time in a live TV discussion, I did not wish to get caught up on whether the navigation and weather prediction skills of twelfth or thirteenth century communities, say, did or did not constitute science. In my view, though they embodied science-like qualities, they did not quite constitute science in the way we think of it today. I have partial Irish and possibly some Celtic ancestry, but would never argue that the Indigenous knowledges of early Irish or Celtic communities amounted to science. However, I do feel that applauding the skills and knowledge of early societies in navigation, astronomy and in understanding their environments, is entirely legitimate and can lift the enthusiasm and self-respect of minority schoolchildren and others too. How about the construction of the giant pyramids of Egypt more than four and a half thousand years ago? In truth, what early communities achieved and the knowledge and insights that they developed back then were truly remarkable and even today remain highly impressive.

Unfortunately, such knowledge does not constitute science unless tested through the means of science – falsification, in other words. Here, an idea or hypothesis must be tested rigorously through experiment, comparison of conceptual models, statistical evaluations or other means, and thrown out if it does not meet the standard. And, unfortunately, we see little or no falsification within Indigenous knowledge.

What about the achievements of the Islamic world of the ninth through to the thirteenth centuries  and beyond? Actually, some of the advances in the Islamic world of that time may meet the threshold of science, particularly the work of Ibn al-Haytham (965 AD – 1040 AD), who may have been the first to propose that an idea or hypothesis must be confirmed through experiment, mathematical reasoning or other means. For this reason, Al Haytham is seen today as the world's first true scientist.

Differences between Indigenous Knowledge and Science

The main differences between Indigenous knowledge and science include the divergence between Observation and Trial and Error of Indigenous knowledge (also seen in science) and the much deeper How and Why of science – and, of course, the testing and validating of scientific ideas through experiment and quantitative analysis. Neither trial and error nor careful observation seek to falsify, which requires a theory and prediction. A scientific approach using falsification demands a level of abstraction and a logical structure that go beyond trial and error. 

Between 2014 and 2018 global spending on research and development grew faster than the global economy, as nations sought to invest in order to accelerate environmental and electronic transitions and to meet economic, public health and other objectives. Global science spending increased by 19% during those four years, and the number of scientists increased by 13.7% to approximately 8.8 million (Science Business, 2021). In 2024 the number may be close to twelve million, and those professional scientists are supported by numerous technologists, technicians, engineers and physical and electronic infrastructure. It is no shame that Indigenous knowledge cannot compete in the purely scientific sense and so we value it for other reasons.

Of course, science transcends geographic, political, ethnic, cultural and religious frontiers, while Indigenous knowledge is tied to particular locations and to specific communities. Science requires contest, confrontation and challenge to the status quo, whereas some Indigenous knowledges are closed and not available for criticism. Of course, science does not answer everything and is not always right, and we can only agree that morals and values are crucial to a prosperous and humane society.

Science has a major place in the school curriculum because it:

a)  Provides knowledge about the human and natural worlds and about human ways of coping with and harmonising with these worlds

b)  Develops students' complex thinking abilities

c)  Develops a critical attitude towards knowledge (Science Statement, 2023).

Indigenous knowledge, including Matauranga Māori, and the beliefs, customs, languages and practices of other ethnic or cultural groups, have a place within language studies, social studies and history within the school curriculum. Students should be taught about, but not inducted into, the beliefs of any form of Indigenous knowledge, including matauranga Māori (Science Statement, 2023).

Stephen Knight reminds us that science does not care about what you look like or where you come from. He tells us that all science cares about is whether your methods and conclusions are sound enough to survive scrutiny and that this clearly cannot be said for Indigenous knowledge (Knight, 2024). This is why we see no Indigenous ways of flying an airplane that supersede the scientific understanding of aerodynamics and why exorcisms are no longer offered as part of mental-health services.

A blood test administered in a clinical setting will yield the same results, whether it’s carried out in London or Nairobi – because science actually works anywhere you do it. It’s about the ‘how’, not the ‘who’. (Knight, 2024)

Other Issues with the Curriculum

Given more time in that TV debate, I would have outlined diverse problems with the draft curriculum. One of them concerns a lack of specificity and detail around content, and the consequent requirement for schools to create their own curricula, thus placing heavy burdens on those schools and leaving the door wide open for variability in quality and delivery of content. We believe that some localized content is positive and motivating, but contend that a high degree of uniformity is necessary in any national curriculum.

Another issue is the artificial status claim of equality between Indigenous knowledge and science. Different countries and institutions hold to different definitions of science and, 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). Possibly, strict definitions of what constitutes professional science could be relaxed for the purposes of early-stage education and motivating minority students, but how far should we go down this track? I repeat my view that Sir Ian’s examples relating to the navigation skills of communities of centuries ago are fully worthy of discussion in class, even in science class, but should not be treated as science.

A Life Force within Inanimate Things?

We read that Te Mātaiaho, the refreshed New Zealand curriculum, is designed to give practical effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to be inclusive, clear and easy to use. We have no issue with this statement provided that it is made clear that the Treaty of Waitangi is being invoked in order to assure first-rate education for our children, equality of opportunity within education and to address the challenges of education equitably for each and every child across all ethnic and cultural groups. However, it seems to me that this last point is clearly not the case within the draft curriculum, because the world views and interests of one group dominate those of others. Anyone who reads the draft curriculum could be forgiven for deducing that honoring the Treaty has been accorded greater priority than ensuring first-rate education for all students. 

If I had had more time in that TV debate, I would have mentioned the notion of “Mauri”. As I understand it, this concept can mean both “life force” and “health”, as in the health of an ecosystem. Most children will understand what is meant by the Mauri of their local ecosystems, under pressure from pollutants from nearby towns and cities, agricultural runoffs and emissions and, of course, climate change. Many of us rather like the idea, but the problem was that the draft curriculum presented Mauri as a real life force:

The vital essence, life force of everything: be it a physical object, living thing or ecosystem. In Chemistry and Biology, mauri refers to the health and life-sustaining capacity of the taiao, on biological, physical, and chemical levels. NCEA Chemistry & Biology Glossary.

We see a valid point about health and life-sustaining capacity, provided that these concepts are defined appropriately and in a scientific manner but the first sentence, while we understand the motive behind it, could mislead children. Pushback on this definition did result in partial withdrawal of that notion from the curriculum, though it may remain within the subject of Geography.

Unfortunately, I know teachers who believe in the literal truth of a life force and are happy to communicate the idea to children at school. Even more disturbing are anecdotes reported to me by university academics to the effect that certain people brought in to lead the indigenization of our universities believe it too. So - we must discourage such activity by addressing it at its source - the science curriculum - by allowing discussion of such things in particular areas of the curriculum, including social studies, history and languages, provided that myths and legends are not advanced as truth. If such discussions are to be had in science class, then teachers must make it abundantly clear that myths and legends have cultural and historic interest but have no scientific basis.  

Weaving Indigenous Knowledge and Science?

When it comes to the often-repeated notion that Indigenous knowledges will harmonize or somehow weave with “Western Science” in combatting challenges such as pandemics and climate change, and even lead the way, we agree to a point, but do we not over-promise on the contribution of Indigenous knowledge? We read:

How our understandings about the natural world are advanced and enriched by contributions from multiple knowledge systems. (Year 8)

AND . .

Technologists draw on knowledge and practices from other knowledge areas, particularly mātauranga Māori, mathematics and statistics, science.

The reality is that in the twenty-first century, science and technology draw only very rarely from Indigenous knowledges, but it does occur and sometimes Indigenous knowledges, including mātauranga Māori, have something valuable to add.

Naturally, the input from Indigenous people and other minority groups to research agendas and policy-making will be vital. Indeed, we may learn something from Indigenous communities about caring for each other (manaakitanga) and for the environment (kaitiakitanga), though other societies embrace such values too - even Western societies.  

The point is well taken that some Indigenous knowledge systems embody holistic perspectives on the natural world – as do the sciences of geology, geophysics, astronomy and astrophysics, ecology, evolutionary biology and population health, among others. Further, the timescales of Indigenous knowledges are often inter-generational, but these same sciences of the previous sentence, and others, pertain to both the present as well as inter-generational, historic, geologic and evolutionary time.

We read about:

The impacts that the suppression of some knowledge systems and marginalisation of some people has had on advances in knowledge about the natural world. Some of the human-induced challenges that are impacting the natural world and the radically different thinking and exploration of the interface of multiple knowledges that will be required to address them. (Year 10)

We know that suppression of Indigenous knowledges did occur, but surely the main reason for their lack of presence in the twenty-first century has to do with having been overtaken and vastly superseded by world science. Unfortunately, false equivalence between Indigenous knowledge and science will lead to a world of alternative truths and confusion between work that advances ideology and genuine research.

Simple or Complex?

Sir Ian made the point that in voicing my own concerns about the curriculum, something that is easy has been made complex. Fair enough! I concede that point to him if he is talking about motivating children and surely it is not that hard! But designing and administering a national education system?

Well - we have limited resources for schools; different kinds of school (approximately 2,500 of them in New Zealand, including private and public, kura and State-integrated schools, single sex and coeducational schools); variability in delivery across schools; variability in the skills and delivery of teachers; variability in teacher training; a diverse population within the student body (different social backgrounds, different socioeconomic circumstances; religions, ethnicities, academic strengths and preferences); different expectations in relation to future careers or vocations; students with disabilities; male, female and LGBTQ students; the need for seamless progression from the first years of education to the last years of high-school; the need to prepare children for tertiary education or the workforce; the need for understanding of child and adolescent psychology; the need for a twenty-first curriculum that is credible domestically and overseas, and the need for robust assessment that is fair across schools and subjects and stable over time.

In addition we must consider declining performance in education over the last twenty years or so, and the New Zealand public has been made very well aware of this reality. It is by now well-known that the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a survey of 15 year-old students conducted every three years, shows New Zealand's performance in mathematics to have undergone one of the largest declines within participating countries (OECD, 2018). New Zealand's mean performance has been declining steadily in reading (2000-18), mathematics (2003-18) and science (2006-18) from originally high levels of performance. Is this really the time to embed Indigenous knowledge systematically throughout our national curriculum and establish equality of status between Indigenous knowledge and science?

It’s not so simple! 

Neither is it simple in our tertiary environment, where Indigenous knowledge is being pushed into degree programs and potentially funding taken from excellent science and allocated to Indigenous research. This problem is also occurring more and more in the non-university research sector. Can we conceive of taking funding from an institution that researches the human immune system and novel methods of treating cancer, and giving that money to research on traditional or folk remedies?

Such measures may already be hurting our tertiary sector and in the Appendix to this article I provide a light-handed analysis of a decline in the average international rankings of our universities.

Meeting Global Challenge

Challenges such as pandemics, malnutrition, climate change, loss of biodiversity, oceanic and atmospheric health are global and in truth will be addressed through mainstream science and technology. Indigenous knowledges will play a part, but a relatively minor part, however much we wish to valorize them. Aside from a renewed will from all of humanity to live more simply, damage to the world’s environments and climate change will be addressed largely through green science and green technology that include atmospheric and marine biology, chemistry and physics; hydrology; research into cleaner agriculture and forestry and research into cleaner and sustainable energy, transport and manufacturing.

Similarly, pandemics, and public health generally, will be addressed through mainstream medicine and medical research and improved public policy. By all means we should value Indigenous knowledges and keep them alive. Where they contribute something useful that is complementary to those things that are provided already by science and technology, then we applaud! But let us remember that the future of mankind depends critically on first-class education and world-class science.

Link to the Debate

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/watch-experts-clash-over-integrating-m%C4%81tauranga-m%C4%81ori-into-education-in-heated-am-interview/ar-BB1iVVk1?ocid=socialshare&pc=ACTS&cvid=037c8b7e680d43fa93892c4880b303f3&ei=21#

References

International Science Council (2021): Science as a global public good. ISC Position Paper.  
https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ScienceAsAPublicGood-FINAL.pdf

Knight, Stephen (2024). The nonsense of ‘indigenous ways of knowing’. 
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/20/the-nonsense-of-indigenous-ways-of-knowing/

OECD (2018). New Zealand - Country Note - PISA 2018 Results. 
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_NZL.pdf

Science Business (2021). Number of scientists worldwide reaches 8.8M, as global research spending grows faster than the economy. 
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/number-scientists-worldwide-reaches-88m-global-research-spending-grows-faster-economy#:~:text=Number%20of%20scientists%20worldwide%20reaches,than%20the%20economy%20%7C%20Science%7CBusiness

Science Statement (2023). A Message to New Zealand Teachers about Science in the National Curriculum. This letter was sent to New Zealand schools and signed by Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger FRSNZ, Professor Elizabeth Rata, Professor John Raine, Dr David Lillis, Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin, Professor Ananish Chaudhuri, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Brian Boyd and Dr Raymond Richards.

Te Poutāhū (2024). Ministerial Advisory Group 
https://curriculumrefresh.education.govt.nz/ministerial-advisory-group

Appendix: Average Rankings of New Zealand Universities

I have looked at the high-profile Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings for New Zealand Universities over the past 15 years, as shown in the figure below (where 1 denotes the highest rank). This graph shows that there has been a gradual decline 2008-2023, though we see an intermediate improvement following 2013/2014.

Trend in QS Average Rankings of New Zealand Universities 2008-2023

The data are not highly linear but are close enough to linearity that a regression analysis is acceptable and helpful. This model is denoted by the fitted straight line. In 2008 our universities averaged 210th place internationally, but declined to 254th place by 2023, a year in which we saw a welcome correction to rankings of previous years. The linear model suggests a consistent decline of about four ranking places per year since 2008 though, in the absence of the correction for 2023, the average would have been five placings per year.

This trend should not be of major concern, as international rankings are based on diverse and sometimes subjective criteria but, nevertheless, it should be borne in mind.

These rankings are influenced by several factors in addition to institutional culture and teaching and research foci, including levels of institutional funding. To maintain and improve these rankings, and to grow our reputation and international student enrolments, New Zealand universities must be funded at an internationally-competitive level. However, we must teach a broad range of internationally-relevant courses, free of politically-motivated ideologies, and strive to be research-intensive in internationally-relevant research. We will not achieve this objective by becoming inward-looking and focusing on social justice and equity at the expense of excellence. Neither will we achieve it by teaching science which has been mixed with myth and legend.

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.