Today was just another day at my "home base" school, but as I have a think about it, I realize how lucky I am to have found this school and this teacher-- Michael Harcourt. There are three classes of his that I observe fairly regularly: 2 sections of Social Studies for year 9 and 1 section of Year 11 History. The two social studies classes are in slightly different places, but are both studying responses to cultural diversity in New Zealand.
Today one group had a Socratic Seminar on the question "Should Te Reo Maori be compulsory in schools?" Listening to year 9 students (equivalent of US grade 8) grapple with this question, I was struck by how much the idea of respect for Maori culture is ingrained into their sense of what it means to be a New Zealander. Now, these are mostly Pakeha kids and I'm not claiming everything is peace and love over here, but when you compare it to a similar conversation in the US, it really was remarkable. I feel like in the US any arguments about requiring another language would focus on the economic reasons, the fact that Latinos are soon to be the largest demographic group, and maybe that learning a language makes you smarter or more able to think creatively. These arguments came up at times today, but in their own year 9 way, the biggest part of the conversation centered on how to respect and support Maori culture and whether requiring learning Te Reo was the best way to do that. They argued back and forth about forcing people to learn languages, what it takes to learn a language, and how could NZ realistically get enough Te Reo teachers to pull this off? And they told personal anecdotes about how poorly they were taught Te Reo in primary school because their teachers didn't know it well enough (where it is technically required, but the reality is that it looks very different in every school) and how knowing or not knowing Te Reo has influenced themselves and people they know.
At one point in the conversation, they were prompted with the statement "Chinese or Spanish are more useful languages to learn than Te Reo Maori," and many kids agreed, but their rationale was classic NZ-- if you don't plan to live in NZ for the rest of your life, those languages might come in handy. They seemed to agree that if you do plan on living in NZ it would be good to know Te Reo. The teacher in me felt like it was a really hard conversation for them, because the the agruments for Spanish and Chinese are pretty concrete and straightforward. However those arguing on behalf of Te Reo had a much more philosophical argument to make.
The second class I watched had done their seminar yesterday, so today they were using a homework reading to learn about four different perspectives on diversity in New Zealand. The reading had four different people sharing their opinions about Te Reo in New Zealand society. Today's lesson focused on teaching students the word "perspective" and then four different perspectives seen in New Zealand: bicultural, multicultural, conservative, and white supremacist.
Today one group had a Socratic Seminar on the question "Should Te Reo Maori be compulsory in schools?" Listening to year 9 students (equivalent of US grade 8) grapple with this question, I was struck by how much the idea of respect for Maori culture is ingrained into their sense of what it means to be a New Zealander. Now, these are mostly Pakeha kids and I'm not claiming everything is peace and love over here, but when you compare it to a similar conversation in the US, it really was remarkable. I feel like in the US any arguments about requiring another language would focus on the economic reasons, the fact that Latinos are soon to be the largest demographic group, and maybe that learning a language makes you smarter or more able to think creatively. These arguments came up at times today, but in their own year 9 way, the biggest part of the conversation centered on how to respect and support Maori culture and whether requiring learning Te Reo was the best way to do that. They argued back and forth about forcing people to learn languages, what it takes to learn a language, and how could NZ realistically get enough Te Reo teachers to pull this off? And they told personal anecdotes about how poorly they were taught Te Reo in primary school because their teachers didn't know it well enough (where it is technically required, but the reality is that it looks very different in every school) and how knowing or not knowing Te Reo has influenced themselves and people they know.
At one point in the conversation, they were prompted with the statement "Chinese or Spanish are more useful languages to learn than Te Reo Maori," and many kids agreed, but their rationale was classic NZ-- if you don't plan to live in NZ for the rest of your life, those languages might come in handy. They seemed to agree that if you do plan on living in NZ it would be good to know Te Reo. The teacher in me felt like it was a really hard conversation for them, because the the agruments for Spanish and Chinese are pretty concrete and straightforward. However those arguing on behalf of Te Reo had a much more philosophical argument to make.
The second class I watched had done their seminar yesterday, so today they were using a homework reading to learn about four different perspectives on diversity in New Zealand. The reading had four different people sharing their opinions about Te Reo in New Zealand society. Today's lesson focused on teaching students the word "perspective" and then four different perspectives seen in New Zealand: bicultural, multicultural, conservative, and white supremacist.
For each perspective, students read some descriptive bullet points and highlighted in 2 colors-- those they agreed and those they disagreed with. Of course the white supremacist perspective on diversity is "easy" in the sense that students could read it and quickly see how racist it is. But the other three perspectives all had ideas that sounded good at first. Listening in to their discussions, it was pretty amazing how seriously they were considering each of the other perspectives. They didn't know what the word "conservative" meant but I think they had heard multicultural and bicultural before. Before today, I'm not sure they could have explained the difference between the two. When I arrived here, I definitely didn't understand the difference. It seemed so obvious from my American perspective: clearly there are lots of cultures, therefore this is a multi-cultural society.
A few months in and I'm slowly getting a better sense of what people mean when they say this is a bicultural society. Historically New Zealand was established by two distinct cultures: the British and the Maori. They signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 and today people refer to them as "treaty partners." So in this sense, the Maori hold a very distinct place in New Zealand culture and politics, different from other groups who have since come to New Zealand. The fear is that if NZ stops recognizing the bicultural foundation, Maori people will soon become just another group in New Zealand, rather than tangata whenua, the people of the land. Some exmaples of this biculturalism in action in New Zealand are the minimum of four Maori seats reserved in parliament, special protections for Maori language, schools taught in Maori by Maori, and special hunting and fishing rights in some areas for Maori people.
A few months in and I'm slowly getting a better sense of what people mean when they say this is a bicultural society. Historically New Zealand was established by two distinct cultures: the British and the Maori. They signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 and today people refer to them as "treaty partners." So in this sense, the Maori hold a very distinct place in New Zealand culture and politics, different from other groups who have since come to New Zealand. The fear is that if NZ stops recognizing the bicultural foundation, Maori people will soon become just another group in New Zealand, rather than tangata whenua, the people of the land. Some exmaples of this biculturalism in action in New Zealand are the minimum of four Maori seats reserved in parliament, special protections for Maori language, schools taught in Maori by Maori, and special hunting and fishing rights in some areas for Maori people.
After reading about each perspective, students had to read quotes from people and label them with one of the four perspectives. This was easy for them to do, but I think what's harder for them to consider is where multiculturalism and biculturalism overlap.
Finally, in the last class of the day Year 11 History students were asked to think about the final part of their assessment, where they have to explain how the history they've been learning is of significance to New Zealanders. They've been learning about the colonization of Wellington, so for me it was a pretty clear, easy thing to explain. But together we read a news article explaining land given to the people of Te Aro Pa as part of a treaty settlement (the Waitangi Tribunal hears cases about Treaty of Waitangi obligations being broken and determines what reparations, if any, will be given to Maori people), read two different perspectives on the importance of colonial history in general, and finished by watching a film about the movement to get rid of Rhodes' statues in South Africa. The students have spent a lot of time whining about how this unit is boring, because New Zealand history and Maori history are boring... but today felt like they had turned a corner in their complaining, like maybe they finally understand the significance of it all and see how it's important to study. Too bad is was the very last day of the unit. :)
All in all, today was an amazing example of what I had hoped to experience in coming to New Zealand. I get to hang out with a really thoughtful teacher and I get to listen in as students grapple with some important stuff, but in a context very different from mine.
All in all, today was an amazing example of what I had hoped to experience in coming to New Zealand. I get to hang out with a really thoughtful teacher and I get to listen in as students grapple with some important stuff, but in a context very different from mine.