Creating a New English Curriculum
During 2022 and 2023 we saw much debate on the previous Labour government’s Refreshed New Zealand Curriculum - "Te Mātaiaho" (Ministry of Education, 2022). Following public release, there were mounting concerns about the near-absence of academic subject content, the heavily Treaty-centric nature of the proposed curriculum, and the embedding of traditional knowledge as central to every subject or “learning area” (e.g. Lillis, 2022a and 2022b; Lillis, 2023).
Parents were becoming increasingly worried about what was being taught to their children. School reports on their children’s progress were vague and sometimes written in language that concealed more than they revealed. In pushing race-based ideology, in its lack of subject matter content and guidance, and because it was due to be imposed on all students across all schools for decades to come, the proposed curriculum may have contributed to Labour’s election defeat.
What is the replacement? The Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, and the Ministerial Advisory Group (Ministry of Education, 2024a) have produced a report that guides the development of an updated curriculum, which to date includes Literacy (0 - 6), Mathematics and English (Years 7 - 13). Schools and kura must teach the Years 0 - 6 Literacy curriculum from Term 1 of 2025, and the updated English learning area for Years 7 - 13 from Term 1 of 2026. Parents and many in society more widely, are waiting expectantly for the upgraded Science curriculum and the Health and Physical Education curriculum – particularly its component on relationships and sexuality. Widespread demands continue for a proper History curriculum, including New Zealand history, to replace Labour’s Aotearoa New Zealand Histories, one that was imposed with great haste and little thought by the Labour administration.
In this article in no way do I intend to either promote or denigrate any political party or government, and the concerns articulated here relate purely to the quality of our national curriculum. Currently, Erica Stanford and the Ministerial Advisory Group are developing a new curriculum to be released before the end of 2024 (perhaps we might call it the “Coalition Government Curriculum” or “New Curriculum”) that will serve the education needs of students for the foreseeable future, without the ideology of Labour’s Te Mātaiaho. What was so wrong with Labour’s curriculum should not be forgotten and now we must keep a close eye on the update to ensure that the ideology of Labour’s curriculum, discussed below, is completely removed in the New Curriculum.
Purpose Statement for English
In the Purpose Statement for English in the Labour Party’s proposed curriculum we read:
Ko te reo tōku tuakiri, ko te reo tōku ahurei, ko te reo te ora.
Language is my identity; language is my uniqueness; language is life.
This is a lovely thought and, hopefully, many students and teachers will find it truly inspiring. But - is there not a danger that already we are straying close to identity politics? Giving the benefit of the doubt, most probably this is not the intention at all. But, as we perceive it in other subjects (the so-called learning areas) of Labour’s English curriculum, the risk of provoking identity-based discourse along particular lines within schools is of genuine concern.
In the very first paragraph of Labour’s English curriculum we read that engaging with mātauranga Māori through the creation and interpretation of texts provides opportunities to strengthen knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori and Māori perspectives, and to play a part in giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Here we recall Labour’s original curriculum document (Te Mātaiaho), made public in 2022:
Te Mātaiaho is designed to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to be inclusive of all ākonga. Ministry of Education (2022)
It is very debatable as to whether in our curriculum we should make both a treaty and traditional knowledge the central foci of the curriculum itself and of all subjects. The general notion that traditional knowledge has value is not at all controversial, but extending this idea to insert it everywhere in education as high priority is another matter entirely. Surely, a national curriculum should constitute a vehicle for ensuring equality of opportunity for effective education and teaching, and support the delivery and acquisition of learning. A curriculum should never be seen as a chance to advance anyone’s political views or ideologies. Our children and their education are much too important to be used in that manner and, in any case, what about the perspectives of New Zealand’s diverse ethnicities?
Young People and the Curriculum
A national curriculum sets the aspirations for learning for a nation and to some extent captures society’s vision for its young people. It can indeed inspire and guide the kind of education that enables young people to be confident, connected and actively-involved members of society. However, it is not the role of a national curriculum to indoctrinate or advance political change outside the domain of education.
In Labour’s curriculum, we are told that the English learning area has been designed to support the vision of Mātaitipu and provides personal value, participatory value, pathways value and planetary value. Further, we are told that the tools and literacy practices that students develop in the English learning area build on their existing ways of interpreting and expressing meaning. All of this is very positive, although the word “Mātaitipu” is not explained anywhere in the document. However, it is explained in Te Mātaiaho and elsewhere; see, for example, Ministry of Education (2023). Apparently, it is about how the curriculum can support young people and was “written by young people for young people.” Very good!
Young people should indeed have a voice in the configuration and delivery of education and perhaps even to the extent of contributing to a national curriculum. However, it goes without saying that it is experts in subject knowledge, teaching, the science of learning, curriculum design, pedagogy, child and adolescent psychology and education policy and research who must take ultimate responsibility for the design and delivery of curricula. Unfortunately, though the intervention of activists and others, the Labour Government’s draft curriculum has proved most controversial. We wait to see if the new Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, will strengthen the content focus and eschew ideology in the proposed updated version.
Language Shaped by History
In the Overview of Labour’s English curriculum, on page 4 we read that how we use language in New Zealand has been shaped by our histories and linguistic heritages and the encounters between them. Probably this assertion is as true for New Zealand as it is for all other nations and their native languages. Further:
Throughout history, literature, language, and texts have been used to uplift and share, and to dominate and exclude. Recognising and using the power and influence of literature, language, and texts give us tools to advocate for ourselves and others. Exploring the effects of colonisation on our languages and literatures is an important part of understanding power relations in Aotearoa New Zealand.
There is little to disagree with here, provided that the official position, if any, on the effects of colonisation on our languages and literatures is a balanced position, and acknowledges the positives as well as the negative effects of colonisation. As a corollary, what is taught and discussed in the nation’s classrooms must be balanced too. Discussion of power relations and politics is quite appropriate in secondary school, but there must be no hint of any agenda at play.
Also – is it the function of an English curriculum to discuss power relations within a society? Perhaps so, but maybe such discussions are better placed within history or social studies. Surely, balance would mean facing up to the wrongdoings of colonisation but, in addition, recognising the many good things that emerged too. Balance would encourage discussion of past oppression, racism, inequality and harm to the environment, but also of the low quality of life, short life expectancy and the sometimes brutal and environmentally-destructive behaviours of Indigenous people. It would speak of the many initiatives that New Zealand and other nations have put in place in order to empower minorities and even to accord a degree of enhanced status to Indigenous people especially.
Know Contexts: Ngā ariā | Ideas within, across, and beyond texts
All texts carry ideas and help us to form our ideas about the world. Ideas within, across, and beyond texts focuses on the knowledge needed to identify, respond to, and create ideas across all forms of texts. It places a particular focus on how texts help us to think about our place in Aotearoa New Zealand and our own role in giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We agree that texts carry ideas and help us to form our ideas about the world. However, within secondary education and within our schools, exactly what is the expected role of students, teachers and others in giving effect to any historic document, and why was our national English curriculum to be used as a vehicle for promoting political or ideological agendas?
PHASE 1 (YEARS 0 – 3): Ngā ariā | Ideas within, across, and beyond texts
There are stories and ideas from Aotearoa New Zealand that matter to me. Those from te ao Māori help me to understand my connection to Aotearoa New Zealand.
We agree fully, but where in Labour’s English curriculum do we find connections with the world views of other peoples in New Zealand?
Te reo Māori is a taonga, unique to Aotearoa New Zealand; its influence is part of what makes our texts and language unique. Some people use augmentative and alternative communication to support their understanding and expression of language. Our diversity of language enriches us.
Yes, and the influences of other populations are exactly why we should include their languages too. If te reo Māori is taonga, then are not those other languages also taonga?
We are told that literature, language and texts embody power relationships, and this notion is central to every phase of Labour’s proposed English curriculum. We agree, but the observation of power relationships should not invite ideology or indoctrination in English class nor, indeed, in any other class.
Phase 2 (Years 4 – 6)
Local stories provide insights into my rohe and community. Stories from Aotearoa New Zealand can strengthen my knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori and Māori perspectives.
Indeed, local stories provide such insights, but what about strengthening students’ knowledge and understanding of other world views and peoples? Asian people contribute more than 15% to the total population of New Zealand, while Pacific people make up more than 8%. And we have others, especially Asians, Africans and people from the Middle East and South America. Are their stories less interesting than those of Māori? The word “rohe” is not explained anywhere in Labour’s English curriculum document but it is explained in the original Curriculum document - Te Mātaiaho. The Te Aka Māori dictionary defines it as “boundary, district, region, territory, area, border (of land)”.
Phase 3 (Years 7 – 8)
Texts from Aotearoa New Zealand help us to understand local and national events and ways of thinking and interacting. These insights can help us to make sense of ourselves as individuals and a society and to think about our role in giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Sorry! This one is not acceptable. Our curriculum is for education and teaching, rather than a vehicle for politics and indoctrination. Giving effect, or otherwise, to the Treaty of Waitangi is for discussion outside of English class and then only on condition that diversity of perspectives is permitted. Giving effect to the Treaty is presented here almost as a fait accompli and a major objective of the English curriculum. By whose authority?
How language is used varies across time, place, and social contexts. Recognising this variation helps us analyse social roles, relationships, and power.
We agree, as long as our analyses of social roles, relationships and power are balanced and as long as students and others are encouraged to embrace diverse perspectives.
Within Labour’s English curriculum it is a stated intent that students can recognise patterns in how people, places, objects and ideas are included, excluded, or represented across multiple texts. Fair enough, and minorities may be at particular risk, but anyone of any background can exclude other people and their ideas or, indeed, be himself or herself excluded. Indeed, in New Zealand a person of any political affiliation, or of any ethnic or cultural group, can find himself or herself cancelled.
Phase 4 (Years 9 – 10)
Aotearoa New Zealand has unique literary traditions shaped by tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, and those who have come from around Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. These traditions help me understand and contribute to the uniqueness of this place.
This statement on page 14 of Labour’s English curriculum may be well-intended but is it strictly necessary to demarcate New Zealanders into distinct categories in this particular manner? Discriminating between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti is of itself innocent enough, but the ensuing conversations have already led to difficulties and bad feeling. However, we take it that the intent is positive. No harm is done here and it is undoubtedly true that our literary traditions were shaped by Māori, British and European settlers and those who have come from around the Pacific and elsewhere. Indeed, various peoples, including Māori, have contributed to the New Zealand of today in unique ways. As stated, the demarcation is innocent enough and embodies no implicit notion of differential status for different people. However, a strongly-held view is that each and every one of us is a New Zealander and that further classification within the English curriculum on the basis of a treaty is unnecessary, beyond celebrating diverse communities and their distinctive contributions and, indeed, their unique histories.
Unfortunately, outside education, such demarcations make a great difference to the politics of New Zealand, and the prevailing politics do not always play out politely or fairly or for the greater good. Those same negative politics should not have any place in our classrooms. We remember that the Labour curriculum was designed to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi but the expectation of most New Zealanders is that each and every one of us is absolutely equal. Full equality must extend right across the nation’s classrooms and to each and every child of each and every background, and no ethnic or cultural group should be accorded additional status over others. The danger inherent in the present discourse is that an historic document may well be used to achieve advantage for some but not for others.
Our language choices and how we interpret language can reveal our values and beliefs.
Fair enough! Understanding our own values and beliefs and how we arrived at them, and understanding the values and beliefs of others, are crucial for a fair and just society. Further, social justice for everyone is most desirable and surely must constitute one of the highest aspirations for our country. However, we must ensure that the Coalition Government’s new English curriculum is for the education and teaching of English, rather than a vehicle for pushing particular kinds of value and belief, while potentially marginalising others.
Neither should it constitute primarily a vehicle for social justice, particularly where that social justice may in the end not be accorded or distributed equally. Various legal, political and other processes exist for the purpose of social justice. However, at all times we must be vigilant about a kind of social justice, both within and outside of education, that appears outwardly to intend equality, but in reality is calculated to achieve special status or dominating economic or political power.
Phase 5 (Years 11 – 13)
Texts are not neutral. Text creators have their own political, material, and social interests that inform their purposes. Sometimes this leads to texts that are deliberately confrontational or intended to cause harm.
Very true, and written or spoken word that is deliberately confrontational or intended to cause harm can come from every faction within the social and political environment, including the far right, the far left and everything between. There is a very solid argument that universities, for example, should refrain from declaring official positions on political matters, so as to embrace diversity of views and not to marginalise dissenting opinion. Perhaps the same should be expected of our primary and secondary schools. What of the beliefs of students and teachers that do not cohere with a given official position as declared by a government, a ministry, a school, a teacher or even other students?
Perhaps it has become necessary to establish guidelines with respect to freedom of expression within our schools and agree on definitions of what it is that constitutes harm. Of course, emotional and social harm can be all too real, especially for minorities and other vulnerable groups, but at present there is a risk that vexatious or exaggerated assertions of harm may be used to silence unpopular or dissenting views.
At our universities several staff have been pushed out of employment and others have received abuse, threats of disruption and attempts at cancellation for expressing unpopular views – especially at Massey University (Lillis, 2024). We must ensure that similar repressive behaviours do not emerge within our schools.
A Message to the Ministry of Education and its Advisors
Here is a suggested mission statement for the development of the Coalition Government’s “New Curriculum”, including that for English:
Deliver a relevant curriculum that is politically neutral, indeed nurtures and teaches traditional knowledge but not to the extent of compromising subject knowledge, teaching, education, critical skills and learning; that embraces elements of the languages and world-views of all immigrant communities, especially but not exclusively, of Māori; that recognises the diverse needs of all students of all backgrounds equally, and that retains a clear distinction between the traditional knowledges of the past and science as the most widely-accepted and overarching approach to generating knowledge yet devised by mankind.
Again, we emphasise the need for support of the current work of the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, and the Ministerial Advisory Group in reforming education. Critically important is to provide a knowledge-rich curriculum for the next generations of our schoolchildren. Unfortunately, Erica Stanford and the Ministerial Advisory Group have much work ahead of them if they are to undo the excesses of the previous Labour Government, the Ministry of Education and its previous advisors, and repair their collective mishandling of education.
An Aspirational Curriculum
We concede very willingly that, apart from its lack of content and rather blatant indulgence in ideology, the Labour Government’s English curriculum had much of pedagogical value to commend it. Thus, in its intent to promote skills in comprehending and creating texts, critical analysis, reading for pleasure and connecting through storytelling, we are enthusiastic. Its reliance on Progress Steps that enable teachers to notice, recognise and respond to student learning is entirely appropriate. It is its lack of content and its misuse as a vehicle for promoting ideology with which we take exception.
Of course, the literature presented within our curricula should embrace our diverse communities and it is vital that the works of Māori, Pacific, Asian and other writers and authors are made available to students in order support their education and teaching and also for their enjoyment. And so, for example, in addition to supporting the creative literature of Māori (Witi Ihimaera, Keri Hulme and Hone Tuwhare, for example), Pacific people (for example, Albert Wendt, Savea Sano Malifa and even the highly controversial Tusiata Avia) and of other minority groups, we support the inclusion of Shakespeare at school.
We support Shakespeare, not because he derives from a nation that achieved greatness of a kind and brought a degree of civilisation to the world, while indeed colonising other nations, but rather because of his extraordinary genius for the English language and because of his deep insight into the human condition. Indeed, Shakespeare was a true humanitarian and known to abhor bigotry and racism. For example, see Winsley (2015).
Concluding Remarks
Since the initial publication of the proposed Labour curriculum in 2022, many teachers and other educators have become uncomfortable about having to deliver a traditional knowledge-based and ideological curriculum, but feel unable to voice concerns. All the traditional knowledges of the world have historic, social and cultural relevance today and should be preserved and treasured. Indeed, matauranga Māori should be taught within our curriculum at early childhood and primary levels and made available at secondary school for those who wish to experience it further, but neither any treaty nor traditional knowledge of any kind should made central to each and every subject across a nation’s curriculum. Further, if we embrace one form of traditional knowledge, then do we not have duty of care to embrace those other forms that pertain to our diverse communities?
New Zealand looks forward to the Coalition Government’s knowledge-rich and ideology-free New Curriculum, including that for English. I urge the public of New Zealand to support it. If the faults of the Labour curriculum are not addressed, then damage to the education and teaching of generations of students and significant diminishment of the credibility of New Zealand's education system could prove to be unwelcome outcomes for acceding to ideology, and we must stand up to agitators who demand a curriculum that advances ideology of any kind. In the end, it is our students who will pay the price for a second-rate curriculum, and the cost to their education will be high.
References
Lillis, D. A. (2022a). Education is in Big Trouble
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/01/david-lillis-education-is-in-big-trouble.html
Lillis, D. A. (2022b). Reactions to the Proposed New Zealand Curriculum Refresh
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/search/label/Dr%20David%20Lillis
Lillis, D. A. (2023). New Zealand Must Fight the New Curriculum
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/01/dr-david-lillis-new-zealand-must-fight.html
Lillis, D. A. (2024). New Initiatives at Massey University
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/06/david-lillis-new-initiatives-at-massey.html
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
Ministry of Education (2023). Vision for Young People NZSL
Ministry of Education (2024a). Ministerial Advisory Group
Ministry of Education (2024b). English learning area
https://curriculumrefresh.education.govt.nz/english
Winsley, Peter (2015). The upstart crow and why I feel I belong here
https://winsleys.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/the-upstart-crow-and-why-i-feel-i-belong-here/
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.
8 comments:
"Ko te reo tōku tuakiri, ko te reo tōku ahurei, ko te reo te ora.
Language is my identity; language is my uniqueness; language is life."
It is not appropriate for non-Maori to impress upon Maori their own cultural and spiritual beliefs. Therefore it is only fair to say the reverse is also true.
The idea presented in this statement is clearly derived from a Maori worldview - and yet is being impressed upon the English curriculum. People whose ancestors are English speaking generally see language as a tool to use for communication. They don't typically have the kinds of feelings abour language that Maori have about their language - that it is a taonga, a treasure. Is there any mention in the curriculum about this widely held viewpoint, that language serves to faciliate communication and therefore we should not be overly protective of it, preserving it at the cost of its usefulness? (To be clear I am not suggesting that Te Reo Maori is not useful and therefore should be given up to history, rather that different people have different ideas about the purpose of language and we should not simply apply the Maori worldview to the language and usage of language of ALL peoples)
I cannot help but assume based on everything I have read about the curriculum, that students are being bombarded on the daily by mentions of colonisation. It sounds like they manage to cover it in every single subject, in every single year level. I cannot imagine how exhausting it must be, for all students, Maori, Pakeha and others alike to be reminded day in day out of colonisation and all its ills. Can we give our kids a break please?
To Anonymous 10.51 te reo being a taonga is a construct. An artful device to justify govt funded maori channels etc as a spearhead for maori political ambition. Is any teacher permitted to point out the advantages of colonisation and the eagerness of many early maori for it? Countrirs which have resisted steadfastly have not fared well ie Afghanistan. Nor those that have rejected it ie Cuba, Zimbabwe, South Africaetc.
It is absurd that such waffly language as in the Labour syllabus was ever released. Very few teachers would have deigned to read it and very very few would be capable of translating it into straight Churchillian English. (It would take me days) Little wonder they allow themselves to be driven by the Teaching Council, apparently even more infiltrated than the Ministry. As far as I have established the public submissions on the histories syllabus was never released and the msm never demanded release, as they should have (although the PIJFund would have blocked criticism). Would be f helful if released even now.
Firstly, get rid of the bastardisation of Aotearoa New Zealand. The name is New Zealand English now
Secondly get rid of NZ bastarding the English language by filling it up with mangled Maori. We have enough to contend with, with the American distortions.
Thirdly - no, English is not a taonga to me. That word is a nasty political manipulation.
Fourthly - I feel hugely privileged to have the extraordinary rich English language as my parent tongue. I feel hugely privileged
that it is acknowledged by so many people around the world, as essential to learn, and that they do so and make the effort to communicate with me when I am in their country.
As an English speaker ( and commu nicable in another couple of languages) I treasure English and it's culture and history and flexibility and inclusiveness.
English is a very rich language with the largest vocabulary of any language. This means we are able to have tremendous subtlety in expressing ourselves.By being phonically based rather than like hieroglyphic as Chinese languages we can have an enormous vocabulary and learn it without having the need for a photographic memory This is the power of a phonically based language. It is a difficult language to learn to read because of the its many sources from other cultures which introduce a wide range of variant spelling patterns
I am glad I have English as a first language since I am not linguistically able and would have had great difficulty learning it. Original Maori has only a tiny vocabulary compared to English - possibly less than 20,000 words compared with English with about half a million. I don't think of English as sacred but a treasure. I think made -up modern Maori words for microwave, toaster , thermodynamics etc is contrived and silly
No surprises that education has gone downhill to those of us who have worked in education policy and/or assessment. New Zealand needs a thorough review of its Public Service, especially of those two agencies in education. Apart from the provision of a very poor draft curriculum, there we witnessed numerous episodes of abuse of staff and subsequent covering-up of those abuses.
In education, so-called middle managers were in some cases very poorly qualified, sometimes holding no qualifications whatsoever and using their positions to torture highly-qualified staff out of work and out of their careers. This stuff occurred ad nauseam in my own unit.
Many years after I observed these behaviours going on around me, I see those same bullies in a certain education ministry and an organization that has to do with assessment, safe in highly-remunerated positions that they never deserved in the first place. The rise of people like them has led to a serious decline in organizational capability and has degraded the working environment for many staff.
In my unit - unqualified people in lucrative management roles, plagiarism, taking over other peoples' work and taking credit for the work of others, constant public reprimands and other harassments for disliked staff, framing of disliked staff (falsely accusing them publicly of error-ridden work) to make them look incompetent, isolating staff and instructing others not to talk to or otherwise communicate with those being targeted, physical intimidation and, of course, the inevitable covering-up by other managers, senior executives and Human Resources. And more bullying from Human Resources.
I have attempted to expose the bullying of a certain female research manager (a woman who has no research background at all but who abused several people in my own unit at a place that deals with assessment before she moved to the relevant ministry) but was ignored. The Ministry has systematically declined to answer communications from me, so that nothing can be done about the bullying.
After I left the public education sector I submitted lengthy complaints to the Public Service Association, detailing abuse of staff within my unit. My complaints were discussed between the Public Service Association and the top people in my former place of employment, and my allegations of bullying were upheld. But – did the bullying stop at that point? Years later many others were subjected to much the same mistreatment and an unknown amount of public money has been “invested” in non-disclosure agreements designed to shut down complainants. I have some data on non-disclosure pay-outs in a certain education ministry that I sourced through the Official Information Act. It's frightening! The other organization has refused to supply the requested data.
Several former colleagues tried to call out the bullying but were threatened with loss of their jobs if they persisted.
As a “reward” for attempting to expose bullying at the assessment organization, I am told by my former colleagues that my name has been removed from work that I had conducted while I was a member of staff there.
My view of those two agencies in the education space is that they must be closed down and re-built from the ground up.
David Alexander Lillis
David, great piece, thankyou for your research and knowledge and presenting it here to share to the public.
I'm totally sure the lefties will hate you for highlighting their despicable racist agenda .
We must be vigilant against these far left parties and supporters and hold them to account and call out their terrible behavior at all times
Despicable is not strong enough to describe the nature of the Min.of Ed. Ignorant and morally degenerate.
You wouldn't want these contemptibles to be in charge of this countries laboratory rat raising farms but here they are determining the futures of our most precious possession our children instilling social engineering agendas into them.
Home school your children by snaring supervision with other families. Honestly you couldn't possibly do worse.
Post a Comment