A shocking revelation about New Zealand's history curriculum has sparked controversy and concern among educators, academics, and the public. The proposed changes, which aim to revise the curriculum, have raised fears that Māori knowledge and culture are being diluted and erased.
Imagine a peaceful scene with cows grazing in a paddock, a typical sight in New Zealand. But for then-14-year-old Leah Bell, this tranquil moment was interrupted by the sight of a local Māori elder in tears. Bell, now a masters student, witnessed this emotional response while standing at the site of the 1864 Rangiaowhia massacre, where Māori people were tragically burnt to death by the British crown. Shockingly, this historical event was never mentioned in her history classes; instead, they studied the American Civil War.
This "shameful" realization prompted Bell and her classmates to take action. In 2015, they organized a powerful petition with over 13,000 signatures, demanding that accurate New Zealand history, including the wars over land, be taught in schools. Their efforts paid off, and in 2023, it became compulsory.
However, the government's recent plans to rewrite the history curriculum have caused an uproar. Critics, including teachers, principals, and academics, argue that the proposed reforms erase Māori knowledge and reintroduce rigid, outdated educational methods. They question the motive behind these changes, asking, "Why are they trying to reframe this history?"
The proposed curriculum covers primary and junior high school students aged 5 to 14. Those involved in writing or overseeing the changes claim it's a long-awaited shift to a "discipline-driven" approach, aiming to improve school results and "rebalance" the curriculum. But many see this as a politically-driven move, part of a wider attack on Māori language and culture in schools.
"It's deeply alarming," says Bell, who is of Pākeha (European New Zealand) descent. "We need to grapple with our history, not sweep it under the rug."
The controversy deepens as more than 200 schools petition the government to reinstate a rule ensuring the inclusion of Māori language in classrooms. Additionally, Māori words have been removed from early readers, further fueling concerns.
"Eurocentric" Focus
Work on the new curriculum began under former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and a "refreshed" English and maths curriculum was released late last year. However, the recent release of the final version of these subjects, along with drafts of overarching documents and social sciences (including history), has caused distress among Māori educators.
Nepia Mahuika, an associate professor in history at Massey University, explains that the new curriculum is "unrecognizable," lacking Māori themes, words, and references to the Treaty of Waitangi, the country's foundational document. While New Zealand history will still be taught, Mahuika argues that it has been rewritten with a eurocentric focus.
"It doesn't critique nationalism as you would expect in social sciences histories. It removes Māori content and replaces it with a world focus. We've always been skeptical of working with the state and what happens to indigenous histories, and now we see why."
Teachers and unions criticize the draft, which has been out for consultation for six months, for containing too much prescriptive content and setting higher academic expectations for younger students.
Education Minister Erica Stanford defends the changes, stating, "I absolutely reject assertions that we are sidelining Māori." She explains that social science should include New Zealand history, world history, geography, civics, and financial literacy, adding that the previous curriculum was too vague and lacked consistency.
Stanford argues that the new curriculum is designed to improve attainment, as New Zealand pupils have "tanked" in OECD education rankings over the last 20 years. She believes that Māori knowledge remains throughout and that her structured literacy approach is already showing improved results.
"The core tenet of the treaty is that we raise Māori achievement, and nobody has been able to do that. That is my responsibility."
However, the coalition government's agreement with the libertarian ACT party includes a policy to "rebalance" the curriculum. ACT leader David Seymour applauds the changes, stating that the curriculum has been "fixed," removing "Marxist 'big ideas'" and replacing them with a "new and balanced History Curriculum."
Paul Moon, a professor of history at Auckland's University of Technology, agrees that the rewrite is more holistic, challenging the monolithic view of colonization as a simple good vs. bad narrative.
"It's not as simple as it was made out."
"Going Back to the Past"
For those on the frontline, still negotiating pay and conditions and tasked with introducing the new curriculum next year, there is a sense of disillusionment. Adrianne McAllister, principal of Mt Cook School in Wellington and of Te Aitanga o Mahaki descent, feels they are battling a barrage of changes that amount to an erasure of Māori.
"Whose knowledge is this? We want kids to be critical thinkers, to dissect information. We know this one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. It's like going back to the past, and it didn't work then. It's just draining, and it breaks my heart."
Others view this as a deliberate step backwards, undoing the progress made in breaking the cycle of historical amnesia about New Zealand's past. Pre-eminent historian Vincent O'Malley warns, "And now we're putting it all at risk."
This controversy raises important questions: How can we ensure an inclusive and accurate representation of history in our education system? Should the curriculum be "rebalanced" to prioritize certain subjects over others? Join the discussion and share your thoughts in the comments!
