Back to the future
How compulsory history teaching might work
The Government wants the teaching of New Zealand history to be compulsory. We asked teachers, academics and others who agitated for change just how that might work and what it could look like. Jessica Long and Rob Mitchell report.
Jacinda Ardern has made history. Now the hard work begins on how to teach it. The prime minister was welcomed by cheers and tears of joy in September when she announced the compulsory teaching of New Zealand history in schools and kura.
Ardern wants a new curriculum, ready to roll in 2022, that teaches students key aspects of our history, including the arrival of Ma¯ ori in Aotearoa; first encounters and early colonial history, the Treaty of Waitangi; colonisation of, and immigration to, Aotearoa; the New Zealand Wars; the evolving national identity of New Zealand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; and the country’s role in the Pacific.
Ellen MacGregor-Reid, the Ministry of Education early learning and student achievement deputy secretary, says discussions are under way between other government agencies and organisations.
Those agencies will pass on their views on how they believe the New Zealand Curriculum and Ma¯ ori schools’ Te Marautanga o Aotearoa should be updated, and help to develop it.
‘‘The engagement with communities, parents and wha¯ nau, leaders, teachers, a¯ konga and students will begin in early 2020,’’ she says.
But what will the national framework look like, and who gets a say in writing the story of our past, which many believe has such a significant impact on the present and future?
We approached academics, teachers and commentators to ask: Is compulsory teaching of New Zealand history a good thing? How should an appropriate curriculum be put together and who should be in charge of that? What do you think that might look like? How should that curriculum approach, among other topics, the arrival of James Cook, Parihaka, colonisation? Would it be factual, or more contextual, nuanced? Would it stretch into the modern impacts of that landing? Here are their responses.
Steve Watters: lead educator-historian, research & publishing group at Manatu¯ Taonga, Ministry for Culture & Heritage.
At the time of the O¯ torohanga College petition calling for the government to mandate the teaching of the NZ Wars in schools, a parent commented how ‘‘our youth were ripped off from learning their history’’.
She was right. Helping young New Zealanders understand the connections between our past and present is so important if we expect them to be able to fully participate in the important conversations that shape and define us.
As this is about a national curriculum, the Ministry of Education should lead the process, with the assistance of other relevant government agencies. Engagement with experts, Ma¯ ori, Pacific communities, the sector, students, parents and wha¯ nau to shape the curriculum must be a fundamental part of the process. Finding a place in this national curriculum for communities to be supported in teaching meaningful local history will also be important.
History is all about nuance, subtle variations of interpretations that can be easily overlooked when seeking the grand national narrative.
Teaching a set of prescribed dates and events such as Cook’s arrival, or Parihaka, is largely meaningless unless they are contextualised and seen as part of larger historical forces.
Viewed in isolation it is easy to portray such events as having a clear beginning and end, but they don’t. Their impact continues to be felt, even if not equally by all people affected or involved. This is where some people struggle with our history, as they think it is possible to draw a line under things and leave events in the past.
I think it is time to be brave and teach a balanced history that acknowledges and incorporates a Ma¯ ori world view, not just the European narrative, which is crucial to meaningful historical inquiry and learning.
Joanna Kidman: professor of Ma¯ ori education at Victoria University of Wellington.
Generations have grown up without a good working knowledge of their own history. A lot of people don’t understand some of the tensions and flashpoints that have shaped who we are as a nation.
We need to ‘‘own’’ the past even when it’s difficult or uncomfortable, because that knowledge will help us to plan our future.
Ma¯ ori need to be at the heart of a curriculum that covers the New Zealand Wars, Treaty of Waitangi, etc. Their voices have often been missed out.
The ministry needs to work quickly to invite iwi leaders and iwi education representatives to decide how resources might be put together and how these histories might be taught.
A lot of teachers will need help to establish relationships with hapu¯ and iwi in their local areas. There are real risks if iwi voices are missing from this new curriculum.
James Cook, Parihaka and colonisation are complicated and can be approached in many different ways. One of the exciting things about the announcement is that there’s potential for these histories to form part of a ‘‘place-based’’ curriculum where people learn their local histories and then look at how these fit into broader historical themes.
A big part of the curriculum will probably be about getting students to think critically about history; how to evaluate the evidence and come to an informed point of view.
Leah Bell: O¯ torohanga College student who organised a petition to Parliament promoting compulsory NZ history.
Learning about our shared past together informs us about how we want to shape our future together. Shared knowledge builds community and therefore informs us as a nation.
Kauma¯ tua, kuia and grandparents are essential and pivotal to our stories as they hold living memories of their grandparents’ lives, and connect youth to our own history.
All aspects of our history are critical at a local and national level. Facts can be contested and should generate conversations. The contexts are important, which obviously include colonisation.
Our social history is vital, and tells our stories, even tough stories; horrific truths and heroic acts can be embraced as people’s stories are important to us all. We can sit at the same table when gritty and authentic tales are shared.
Perhaps the critical change now is understanding that this history is personal to all of us; so learning about James Cook, for example, can no longer be taught clinically. In this case, it should be alongside narratives of Moriori and Ma¯ ori navigators.
Learning our history makes us better informed to make more
insightful decisions about the future of our country and our relationships. Understanding privilege and being cognisant of differing historical privilege and benefit is not something to be afraid of, because when we have the courage to have these conversations it can only garner respectful insight, and ultimately generate unity and pride in our nationhood.
Graeme Ball: head of history at Northcote College; chair of the NZ History Teachers’ Association.
The compulsory teaching of our own history is a good thing. We are one of the few countries among those against which we like to measure ourselves that don’t compulsorily teach their own past.
It has long been an accepted saying that to know ourselves in the present, and to map out a path to the future, we need to know our past. For New Zealand this is especially so, given the coming together of two peoples in 1840 around a Treaty that seemed to promise such a bright future.
That the expectations of Ma¯ ori especially were not met, and that their ability to sustain themselves as a full partner under that Treaty was undermined by the Crown – so much so that by the end of the 19th century they were marginalised in all meaningful ways – is something we need to understand so that the ongoing steps to put past misdeeds right are seen in their true context.
The curriculum by which this understanding of our shared past will be delivered needs to be based on the tenets of the history profession. This includes seeking out the voices, stories and perspectives of as wide a range of relevant people as possible, and then using the skillset intrinsic to the study of history to analyse the evidence and interpretations.
This must be done without attaching blame or a sense of guilt, or with any agenda to present a case in favour of one view or another; that is definitely not the job of history. Practically, there needs to be an over-arching framework of ‘‘big ideas’’ that also leaves space for regional and local histories.
Michael Belgrave: professor of history at Massey University; worked in the Treaty of Waitangi and settlement process.
In other countries not only is an awareness of their national history important in primary and secondary schools, it also plays a much more significant role in university education. An appreciation of the past is crucially important in understanding the present and in ensuring an informed, confident and articulate citizenship.
I expect that government will decide on some broad objectives, but how these are put together will depend on communities, schools, iwi, museums and libraries. For teachers, ensuring there are readily available resources, that will engage and interest students, is a major challenge.
Deciding what is important for us should be a broader debate, and not left to historians, teachers and civil servants.
The 250th anniversary of the arrival of James Cook has been controversial, has involved a series of conflicting interpretations of the event, which also linked the arrival to the process of colonial and imperial expansion occurring long after Cook’s death.
Not only would we expect teachers to understand the way that historical sources have been used to construct these interpretations, we would expect students, at levels appropriate to them, to be able to understand these debates and participate in them.
This will only work properly if all New Zealanders can see their own history in the curriculum, understand the stories of their own origin beyond New Zealand, and their experience as migrants, whether that be seven centuries ago or in the last decade.
But at the same time, history is not just a series of competing stories, it is also about how people work together, share the same land and experiences. Both these objectives need to be kept in mind.
Colonisation, warfare and land confiscation do have to be addressed, but they are only part of the story.
Paul Enright: head of humanities and a teacher of history at Logan Park High School, Dunedin.
I’m glad we finally have a Government with the ability to see and act on the need for New Zealand history to be taught in our schools, but I’m not sure that the full task is understood. To reach all students and genuinely build knowledge, skills and insight, New Zealand’s histories will have to be presented from the earliest stages.
That will require training and support of a level the ministry has never proven willing or able to provide for any curriculum initiative throughout the 37 years I’ve been teaching.
The curriculum must recognise local, regional and national perspectives, forces, links and differences, while also recognising and reflecting international contexts.
Discussions I’ve seen in teacher groups and academic circles show there is no clear, consistent idea of what that curriculum should be. A good curriculum should be a directive framework (setting themes, chronologies and big questions) for teachers and communities to develop and adapt.
Obviously there will be commonalities, and networks will work collaboratively in those areas (as many teachers have always looked to do), but there must also be the capacity to explore and include local variations – the stories in Otago will be different and might illuminate different truths than those in Waikato or Wellington.
It must be something communities can own and invest time and energy in – some ‘‘plugand-play’’ option from a Pearson edu-clone will be another disaster.
It should be put in the hands of experts – mana whenua, academics from relevant key disciplines and credible practitioners (preferably a mix of enthusiasts and sceptics). Their proposals should be subject to broader discussion and review (as with all previous big curriculum developments).
Events such as the arrival of James Cook, Parihaka and colonisation should be taught and explored in context, from multiple perspectives and with recognition that processes and events are seen differently at the time, since and now. If we consider something significant enough to discuss now, it is because it continues to resonate.
Jim McAloon: professor of history at Victoria University; president of the NZ Historical Association.
Compulsory teaching of New Zealand history is a very good thing, for a number of reasons.
We need to know where we’ve come from. The present curriculum emphasises themes like identity, culture, and continuity and change. It’s hard to see how you can address these without some anchoring in history. We need to understand the past – including the difficult and the shameful parts.
I’d expect the ministry to lead the work, but it should involve teachers, academic and professional historians, and those who train teachers.
What that curriculum should look like depends on the level, of course. I think the range of material should be broad and I am pleased the Government agrees. At the very least topics like James Cook, the New Zealand Wars, colonisation, Parihaka, should be taught honestly and with acknowledgement of different perspectives.
There’s more to it than that, including the arrival of Ma¯ ori, European immigration and settlement in the 19th century, social and political change, and so on.
There’s a lot of good historical writing now and I hope this will be taken advantage of.
It’s important to remember that history is about argument, too, and I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting a single authorised version.