Elizabeth Rata: Extracts from Submission to the Consultation on the Draft English Curriculum

Language and Trust in the Curriculum

Political interests control the curriculum’s language when disciplinary authority is usurped by ideologies. This happened to the New Zealand curriculum from the 1990s. Within a tightening straitjacket of permitted language, words were disconnected from meaning. George Orwell described this ideological tactic as thought corrupting language and language corrupting thought. The solution was to let meaning choose the word.

The Te Matawai Maihi Maori Strategy and Implementation Approach launched by Cabinet Directive in December 2018 illustrate what happens when words choose meanings to serve ideologies. Te Maihi Karanua’s three Audacious Goals were to drive the meaning of public policy. The goals were truly audacious with ‘Aotearoatanga’ intended as the outcome for Audacious Goal One – a transformation of what New Zealand is as a nation.

From 2018 to 2023 Te Maihi Karanua was an imposed experiment in ideological control. The public service, publicly funded media, and the health and education sectors obeyed without hesitation and, in most cases, without question. The intention, to change the nation by changing New Zealand English, would occur, not through the usual organic process of word borrowing, but by top-down degree. The strategy kicked off at a remarkable pace with national radio and television presenters eager to demonstrate how we were to speak in the new nation.

Given that it is a direct way to reach entire generations the Refreshed English Curriculum of January 2023 would be a powerful vehicle for the strategy’s Three Audacious Goals. However, its potential ended abruptly with the March 2025 Draft English Curriculum. The new curriculum, if the final version is true to the Draft, will return language to the real world, one where real-life meaning drives word choice. Because it is subject-based – its content is clearly disciplinary-derived and accountable – ideologies are more easily detected and removed. A few traces of Te Maihi Karanua do remain in the Draft, more likely by oversight than intent. There is a relapse to the ideology on page 6 and in some headings, for example the Draft is authorised by Te Poutahu of Te Tahuhu of te Matauranga of Te Kawanatanga of Aotearoa and the nation is Aotearoa New Zealand. These minor details can be remedied.

On the whole the Draft does remove ideology. Māori word borrowings are again recognised as the organic process of language change and a key defining feature of New Zealand English.

A subject-based English curriculum includes Māori words in these ways:

1. Commonly accepted borrowings in vocabulary lists and in etymological study.
2. Titles: e.g. Pounamu Pounamu; Poems from Nga Moteatea, Na to Hoa Aroha, from Your Dear Friend. The Correspondence of Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck; Whitiki! Whiti! Whiti! E! Māori in the First World War; Ngatokimatawhaorua, the Biography of a Waka.
3. Biographical information about authors.
4. Characters in literature, including conversations (e.g. in Pounamu, Pounamu) and context features such as placenames and events.

Sex-specific words and meaning

While Te Maihi Karanua is one ideology that made astonishing headroads in just five years, it is not the only ideology to permeate the curriculum.

The subsumption of female-specific words into male words or the removal of the female term demonstrates the unintended, ‘be careful what you ask for’ consequences of 1960s’ feminism. We believed, wrongly as it turned out, that changing the words would change meaning. Supported by the postmodern ideas that language creates reality (all you need to do it to make people think and speak in the new required way), a new vocabulary emerged to re-create the relationship of female to male.

Heroine was subsumed by hero, actress by actor, waitress by waiter.  The sex neutral ‘principal’ replaced headmaster and head mistress. In extreme cases, words were removed completely – widow and widower disappeared in the desire to equate divorce to death.

Feminism scored the ultimate own goal when words for the female sex itself were removed completely. The nadir was the removal of the word which holds the most meaning for women  – woman itself. Once a word goes, then so does the very referent – the adult female and what it means.

My advice is to watch the language in all curriculum documents so that no word escapes your scrutiny. Consider the greatly improved 2025 Draft Relationships and Sexualities Framework. For all the improvements on its predecessor, the document reveals that ideological influences still attempt to compete with biological reality. Thankfully male and female did make an appearance – it would have been impossible to refer to genital parts without these words – but it was a reluctant mention. What is astonishing is the omission of girl and boy, she and he. If reality is to be acknowledged, those four words should be there.

In the real world, the last word must surely go to Mad Hatter and the March Hare. When Alice told the Mad Hatter that she didn’t think, his reply was – then you shouldn’t talk. The March Hare advised – say what you mean. The purpose of the English curriculum is to ensure that young New Zealanders can think meaningfully and can communicate those considered thoughts. Meanings in the English language are built on centuries of use and change. Knowing how others use them helps us to trust language.

To read Professor Rata’s full submission click HERE.  

Submission on the Draft Education Curriculum close on June 13. Professor Rata is urging anyone interested to send in a submission – full consultation details including links to curriculum documents can be found HERE.

Professor Elizabeth Rata is a sociologist of education in the School of Critical Studies, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland where she is Director of the Knowledge in Education Research Unit (KERU).