Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 8, 2019 5:30:01 GMT 12
Otago Daily Times 8/2/19
COMPULSORY HISTORY TEACHING IS A COMPLEX ISSUE
I COMMEND the call from the History Teachers’ Association for the compulsory teaching of New Zealand’s Maori and colonial history in schools (ODT, 6.2.19) but wonder how this can be made possible at secondary school level as long as history remains an optional subject.
The petition to Parliament to pass a law to ‘‘make compulsory the coherent teaching of our own past across appropriate year levels in our schools’’ could only become a reality for all students, as seems to be the intent of this petition, if history was made a compulsory subject, at least at year 11, rather than the current situation where less than 20% of year 11 students opt to take history and even fewer at more senior levels.
Would school hierarchies, or indeed the Ministry of Education, have the courage to make history a compulsory subject, as is the case in a number of countries, given our already ‘‘overcrowded’’ New Zealand curriculum and competing demands from other subjects?
I am intrigued that the Education Ministry early learning and student achievement deputy secretary, Ellen McGregorReid, has stated that ‘‘. . . we expect schools and kura to teach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Maori history and the New Zealand land wars’’ when the only explicit curriculum reference to this at secondary school level is the level 5 social studies achievement objective (‘‘Understand how the Treaty of Waitangi is responded to differently by people in different times and places’’).
Can the ministry be assured that all schools’ social studies programmes are fulfilling this expectation and what is the mechanism for ensuring this?
Moreover, can there be an assurance that our schools’ social studies teachers have the specialist social science background to meaningfully teach the complexities of multiple perspectives around this topic or are some/many schools being forced into the expedient action of putting nonspecialist teachers in front of social studies classes due to restrictive staffing formulas?
JOHN DOWNES, Kenmure
Dominion Post 8/2/19
The decision of Waitangi Day organisers to invite Don Brash to speak demonstrates a robustness and generosity of spirit that is absent in many other settings. Compare this to the decision last year of Massey University not to allow him to speak. This shows us how presumptuous and overzealous many self-appointed advocates can be. It is possible that all sorts of difficult issues could be productively discussed if mouthy advocates didn’t get in the way.
GAVAN O’FARRELL, Lower Hutt
NZ Herald 8/2/19
PAKEHA DEFINITION
A letters to the editor a correspondent said that according to his Maori/English dictionary, “Pakeha ” meant “foreigner”. To me, a third generation New Zealander, that is even more distasteful than all other versions of “Pakeha ” that I have heard.
DI MONKLEY, Hamilton.
NZ Herald 8/2/19 (Short & Sweet section)
ON BRIDGES
Simon Bridges reportedly said at Waitangi Maori want autonomy and independence and then said, “Yes, agreed [with one law for all]”. I know politicians are famous for being two-faced, but that takes the cake.
REX BEER, Manly.
ON SHADES
Symbolic difference or common courtesy? Minister Kris Faafoi, during a TV interview at the Nelson conflagration, held his sunglasses in his hand. At Waitangi, self-proclaimed bishop Brian Tamaki wore his sunglasses during a TV interview.
MIKE DONOVAN, Remuera.
ON NAVIGATION
That the Polynesians discovered celestial navigation at sea is a misconception. The first western civilisation to navigate using charts and the position of the sun and the stars were the Phoenicians about 4000 years ago.
GARY HOLLIS, Mellons Bay.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
COMPULSORY HISTORY TEACHING IS A COMPLEX ISSUE
I COMMEND the call from the History Teachers’ Association for the compulsory teaching of New Zealand’s Maori and colonial history in schools (ODT, 6.2.19) but wonder how this can be made possible at secondary school level as long as history remains an optional subject.
The petition to Parliament to pass a law to ‘‘make compulsory the coherent teaching of our own past across appropriate year levels in our schools’’ could only become a reality for all students, as seems to be the intent of this petition, if history was made a compulsory subject, at least at year 11, rather than the current situation where less than 20% of year 11 students opt to take history and even fewer at more senior levels.
Would school hierarchies, or indeed the Ministry of Education, have the courage to make history a compulsory subject, as is the case in a number of countries, given our already ‘‘overcrowded’’ New Zealand curriculum and competing demands from other subjects?
I am intrigued that the Education Ministry early learning and student achievement deputy secretary, Ellen McGregorReid, has stated that ‘‘. . . we expect schools and kura to teach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Maori history and the New Zealand land wars’’ when the only explicit curriculum reference to this at secondary school level is the level 5 social studies achievement objective (‘‘Understand how the Treaty of Waitangi is responded to differently by people in different times and places’’).
Can the ministry be assured that all schools’ social studies programmes are fulfilling this expectation and what is the mechanism for ensuring this?
Moreover, can there be an assurance that our schools’ social studies teachers have the specialist social science background to meaningfully teach the complexities of multiple perspectives around this topic or are some/many schools being forced into the expedient action of putting nonspecialist teachers in front of social studies classes due to restrictive staffing formulas?
JOHN DOWNES, Kenmure
Dominion Post 8/2/19
The decision of Waitangi Day organisers to invite Don Brash to speak demonstrates a robustness and generosity of spirit that is absent in many other settings. Compare this to the decision last year of Massey University not to allow him to speak. This shows us how presumptuous and overzealous many self-appointed advocates can be. It is possible that all sorts of difficult issues could be productively discussed if mouthy advocates didn’t get in the way.
GAVAN O’FARRELL, Lower Hutt
NZ Herald 8/2/19
PAKEHA DEFINITION
A letters to the editor a correspondent said that according to his Maori/English dictionary, “Pakeha ” meant “foreigner”. To me, a third generation New Zealander, that is even more distasteful than all other versions of “Pakeha ” that I have heard.
DI MONKLEY, Hamilton.
NZ Herald 8/2/19 (Short & Sweet section)
ON BRIDGES
Simon Bridges reportedly said at Waitangi Maori want autonomy and independence and then said, “Yes, agreed [with one law for all]”. I know politicians are famous for being two-faced, but that takes the cake.
REX BEER, Manly.
ON SHADES
Symbolic difference or common courtesy? Minister Kris Faafoi, during a TV interview at the Nelson conflagration, held his sunglasses in his hand. At Waitangi, self-proclaimed bishop Brian Tamaki wore his sunglasses during a TV interview.
MIKE DONOVAN, Remuera.
ON NAVIGATION
That the Polynesians discovered celestial navigation at sea is a misconception. The first western civilisation to navigate using charts and the position of the sun and the stars were the Phoenicians about 4000 years ago.
GARY HOLLIS, Mellons Bay.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers