I had intended to write my next article analysing the claims that New Zealand’s education system was in crisis; however this will have to wait while I discuss the latest post from Bevan Holloway, the title of which I’ve also used as the title for this post.
In my last article I highlighted a comment from Brie Elliot:
“The Education and Training Act 2020 makes it very clear – schools and boards must give effect to Te Tiriti which means embracing tikanga Māori and Maatauranga Māori and te Reo Māori in your curriculum.
You cannot import a strait jacket curriculum without accounting for that.
So if this knowledge bandwagon sidelines Māori knowledge, boards have both a legal and moral duty to fight back.”
I then commented that, given this, we could expect to see the introduction of legislation in the near future to remove this impediment to the ‘recolonisation’ of New Zealand education through changing the curriculum (Elizabeth Rata’s well used phrase), or to put it much more bluntly, continuing the work of this very racist government to remove all things Māori from our lives and to take the country back to their desired ‘good old days’ when Europeans (i.e., Anglo-Saxons) dominated and Māori knew their place.
It’s hard to construe their actions in any other way.
As usual I will highlight selected aspects from Bevan’s article; however please go and read it for yourself.
“Is Erica Stanford woke for keeping reference to Te Tiriti in the amendments to the Education and Training Act? That’s a question that has been vexing a number of people on the right.
Michael Johnston went on The Platform to defend her from that accusation. His defence wasn’t that keeping reference to Te Tiriti is essential, but that Stanford was being politically sensible to not remove it at this point. He pointed to Stanford saying in “another interview” that Te Tiriti “would be considered under ‘Minister Goldsmith’s “omnibus reform of legislation”, so avoiding a “fight with the school sector’ is the right thing to do while she focuses on driving curriculum reform”
Not that I like to agree with anything Johnston says, however in this case I think he is correct.
Removing all references to Te Tiriti from the Education and Training Act would be a provocative move that will undoubtedly raise a commotion. While I am sure this will happen, I suspect that there’s a plan afoot to do it in a way that doesn’t attract attention, like doing as Trump did with his Beautiful Big Bill, and hide it amongst other, possibly more contentious legislation.
Stanford is under enough pressure as it is, for example, the letter from 89 secondary principals about the changes to NCEA that resulted in them being summoned to an online Teams meeting with Stanford the following day. Unfortunately I don’t know what was said at the meeting or what the outcome was.
Bevan continues:
“Of particular note, in his defence of Stanford, Johnston challenges anyone to go and look at the new English and Maths curriculums and “find any evidence of woke material”. Make of that what you will.
Why should we be alarmed?
In case you need reminding, Johnston was Stanford’s choice to be MAG (Ministerial Advisory Group) chair despite the recommendations of the Ministry.”
Bevan goes on to highlight discuss the outcomes of MAG’s work, as we’ve discussed in previous articles.
His conclusion:
Let’s lay this out. Plunket’s main criticism of Stanford is she has missed an opportunity to make good on the Government’s promise to remove reference to Te Tiriti in legislation. Johnston’s argument to that is, essentially, keep the faith – look at what she’s done already with the curriculum, and remember what she has said about Goldsmith’s work.
So, we should be alarmed because here we have a close aide of the Minister, who has successfully directed curriculum change as ‘directed’ by Stanford, suggesting they’re not done yet.
We have been warned. Is this what we want?
Bomber, I’d like to see you substantively engage with the arguments presented by Rata, Johnston and others to justify the changes they’re making.
They’re operating from a good faith, well reasoned place. While reasonable minds can differ on whether their approach is ultimately justifiable, I think you have an obligation to actually address their position, rather than assuming they’re wrong and advocating against them
What you seem to want to argue about Alex has been discussed by older people than you since you were in nappies. It is bad faith to attempt to put your youthful or rather empty thoughts on display as if they can match up with the previous studies just because they seem new and fresh to you. They are not; just clever cooks serving up stuff that has been on the shelf till past its use by date. However it is good stuff and still holds true today no matter your determinations.
I learnt about the Tower of London at school nice tortures like the rack and limb severing instruments
PP2 we have a right to our language and our culture, only two groups signed the TOW and we were one. There is plenty of evidence that Māori children attending Māori Kura do better than mainstream schools.
You view is an outdated racist small-minded bigotry that belongs in the past, we are now in 2025.
I suggest you get a life and if you don’t like it here in Aotearoa you can always fuck off.
The next cab off the rack will be NZ history where the land grab wars will become the British soldiers were touring the country assisting Maori to move into their nice new state whare after giving their land to white colonists as a welcome to NZ .The white washing of school is continuing at pace .
How ever I did notice that some posh white school won the recent school competition singing a waiata and not a Maori in sight because they were from the posh end of town .Just shows how white folk are happy to cash in on the culture when it suits them .I bet none of those elite kids parents voted for Te Pati Maori or any of the center left parties at the last election .
The white washing of our schools continues .
Comments are closed.