4 I EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Equity in the New Zealand Curriculum: The Case of the English Syllabus for Forms 6 and 7 Courtney B Cazden From 1984 through 1990, New l.ealand had its fourth Labor later, the new National minister of education Lockwood Smith government. In the United States, we heard mostly about its anti­ announced that 'equity requirements' in the school charters were to nuclear foreign policy. Domestically, the government was an become optional rather than mandatory. Middleton concludes: unusual combination of an economic policy colloquially called "Rogemomics," to signify a hybrid of its local designer and The equity clauses in school charlers have, at the time of writing Reaganomics, and a social policy responsive to demands for honor· (January 1991), become foci for both local and nationwide ing the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi by a more equal partnership political struggles. .. The restructuring policies of New between the dominant Pakeha (European) majority and the indi­ Zellland's Fourth Labour Government both loc:allsed and genous Maori tangt1lll whenua (people of the land) who are one­ intensified educational debates within institutional and private lslth of the population with a single clllture and language. spaces... Formerly sensitive and often 'silenced' debales about Education came to as5Wlle a position of unusual importance in race relations in education were brought into public visibility this government when Prime Minister David Lange kept the educa­ (Middleton, 1991, 23). tion portfolio for himself after winning reelection in 1987. Under his leadership, a reorganization of educational administration in One instance of this enhanced public visibility and debate about the entire country was put into effect in October 1989. In the words the implications of'equity' arose during this period in response to a of New 1.ealand researcher, S Middleton: longstanding process for curriculum change in New l.ealand which, like Hawai'i, is a single educational system. In New In New Zealand social policy, debates about "race relations" have Zealand, a new syllabus in any subject is formulated by a broadly recently assumed increasing Importance. This was particularly representative committee that solicits responses to its drafts from true of the brief period in which Labour was designing and the teaching profession and the public. This has been happening putting into place its restructured system of educational admin· over the past five years with a proposed English syllabus for forms lstration - the years between 1987 and the 1990 general elections 6 and 7 - the oldest serondary school students. (Middleton, 1991, 5). Development of the Syllabus. The original curriclllum rommittee In this restructuring, decision making over appointments, bud· appointed in 1986 by the minister of education included "represen­ gets, and programs was decentralized into the hands of newly tatives of the Department, the secondary teaching profession, the elected boards of trustees in individual schools. These boards were universities, the teachers' colleges, the polytechnics, employer and made up of parents of enrolled pupils, the principal, one or more employee organizations, boards of governors, the young people staff representatives, and, in the case of secondary schools only, a themselves, the media and the community" (Department of student representative. Each board wrote its own 'Charter' - but Education, August 1968). Of the 22 persons, three were Maori and within the ronstraints of an obligatory commitment to 'equity.' one Samoan. After a highly consultative process, the committee The charter guidelines contained the statement that "equity issued its report in the form of a draft syllabus (hereinafter refened objectives" were to "underpin all school activities." to as Draft 4) in August 1988-with a request for responses by June 30, 1989. TMse re1111iremmts ~ particult1rly strong with respect to This draft was then rewritten within what had been the gender and blclllturalism. With respect lo biculturallsm, each Department and later became the Ministry of Education after the board of trustees was required lo a~t "an obligation to develop October 1989 reorganization. Draft 5 was issued by the Ministry policies and practices which reflect New Zealand's dual cultural before the end of 1989, with requests for further comments from heritage" (Middleton, 1991, 9). teachers and other community groups. One-hundred and fifty responses were received, representing 749 people, mostly second· In October 1990, just one year after the new boards took office, ary and tertiary teachers (Rathgen, nd). Labor lost a national election to the National Party. One month The Ministry then contracted with Elody Rathgen, head of EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES/ 5 English at Ouistchurch College of Education and president of the early statements about the unique language situation in this New Zealand Association for the Teaching of English (NZA TE), to country at this time to later statements about the general impor­ prepare yet another draft of the syllabus -which was submitred in tance of English for personal, vocational, and lifelong growth. December 1990. Draft 5, in reverse, places earlier emphasis on English as an inter· national language and the universality and timelesmess of Shalces­ Draft 4 and Draft 5: Some Differences. My focus here is on differ­ peare (6), and only later contextualizes language and language ences between Draft 4, prepared by the representative cuniculum study in New Zealand. Then, having eliminared all mention of committee, and Draft 5, rewritten within the govemmenl Those partnership under the Treaty, Draft 5 ends with a very general differences were the subject of a panel presentation by members of sentence about "equity objectives." (Shalcespeare appears in the the original committee at the International Federation of Teachers Literature section of both drafts and is the only author so men­ of English (IFTE) meeting in Auclcland in August 1990, and were tioned by name.) clearly of great concern to Maori educators at that conference. The two sections in which the changes were of greatest concern were Otanges in the Section on Language. Significant changes in the the Introduction and the section on Language itself. Language section are more easily summarized. Draft 4 states that the "desaiptive study of language ... will include a simple com· Otanges in the Introduction. The Introductions of both drafts are parison of English and Maori." And "Issues relating to language" reprodua!d at the end of this article, with paragraph numbers in include "the state and status of the Maori language in New Zealand brackets added for easier citation. Significant differena!S in how and the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi." In Draft 5, a Maori/ the cuniculum is framed with respect to equity will be evident to English comparison is one of "several approaches" to Descriptive any reader. Five changes epitomize the resl Study; and there is no mention of Maori and the Treaty as issues. First, Draft 4 begins (1) with a statement in Maori about the im­ While the Introduction presents a framework and point of view, portant'e of "my language," and two paragraphs later (3) reminds the later sections, including the one on Language, set down the us that both "Maori and English are official languages." Draft 5 experiences that students are expected to have, and teachers there­ begins (1) with statements about the important'e of language "with· fore obliged to provide. So, whereas I have spent more space on in a New Zealand context and the wider world community," and the Introduction, it is not surprising that the requirement of Maori/ its contribution to "the wider aims of education." Maori is men· English language comparison should have prompred more contro­ tioned for the first time in 19) as one of the "two major traditions versy in New Zealand. In an excellent half-page newspaper article (that) have shaped ... New Zealand language and identity" - and on the 1990 IFTE conference, Peter Calder (identified as "himself a no words in Maori are included anywhere in this Introduction. former English teacher") devotes half his space to the panel on tru Second, in Draft 4 the name of the country is introduced first 13) syllabus and most of that to a discussion of the proposed require­ as 'Aotearoa' (the Maori name for New Zealand, meaning llind of ment of a Maori/English language comparison: the long whilt cloud), and then shifts to 'New Zealand.' Draft 5 uses 'New Zealand' throughout, except for one shift (5) to the increas­ (ll\e} draft syllabus raised howl9 of outrage among educational ingly common combined form: 'Aotearoa/New Zealand.' conservatives for Its prescription of a comparative study of Third, paragraph four of Draft 4 asserts that "The Treaty of English and Maori. Waitangi is a cornerstone for educational policy, including English. The Idea has been widely portrayed as requiring English stu­ We work in parmership but we speak with our own voices." The dents lo "learn" Maori - although lhere Is no such statement term 'partnership' has become a symbol for Maori demands for explldt or implldt In the syllabus. Rather the syllabus used a equity under the Treaty in all domains of social life. This Introduc­ comparative llngui!ltic model lo illuminate the study of a native tion uses it again between the sexes (14) and at the end 1221 among language by reference to another - preferably unrelated - "students, teachers, families, and the community." Draft 5 does not language. •.. mention the Treaty- and the word 'partnership' refers only to (ll\e syllabus') aitiC!I iia w the sinister hand of eodal engineer­ "between the sexes" (14). ing in a proposed syllabus that quite simply reflected the most Fourth, and most illuminating of all, Draft 4 says (5), "In the past, up-to-date research about how language was best taught (Calder, the Palceha looked to Britain for language standards and literature." 1990). Draft 5 speaks in direct response (7), but with a aitical shift in the referent for the pronoun we and therefore in the identity of the Discussion.