This essay analyses the content of the New Zealand Social Studies and History syllabi of the past 55 years. It concentrates on the one hand on content that refers to race relations in the country, to see what information was included or excluded to draw a certain picture of race relations; on the other hand it looks at how New Zealand interprets its links to other countries, to find out where it places itself culturally and politically in the world. It looks for patterns within the curriculum content that indicate certain ideological directions at the time the curricula were written, and for changes in these patterns over time. The underlying assumption here is that ‘any school curriculum, regardless of its composition, is invariably a political instrument.’ Openshaw and Archer have shown that even Social Studies, which have been regarded as unbiased and value-free, are as indoctrinated as history syllabi of the early 20th century.
The main objective of Social Studies since its introduction in 1947 has not been to teach history. With little changes in formulation its aims have been to prepare children for life in New Zealand society, to introduce them to democratic institutions and make them eligible citizens. History as such plays a minor part in this. In 1986, Ann Low-Beer, a visiting British historian, reported that the majority of Social Studies teachers had no training in history, and historical material like primary resources hardly existed. The framework of Social Studies in the 1980s, like today, was sociological, based on general conceptions of human nature and interaction. Low-Beer’s survey of teachers in 15 Wellington Junior schools asked whether students at the end Form 4, that is at the end of the compulsory Social Studies course, had an overall view of New Zealand human history. The responses made clear that ‘“Social Studies is about the present” and a picture of New Zealand [sic] past “is not the point of the course”’. According to the teachers, after eight years of Social Studies the pupils had “no idea”, they knew “not even the basics like the names of Prime Ministers this century” and it was “best to assume total ignorance of history in all pupils entering Form V”.5 Pupils thought similar about this issue. Keen found in 1977 that only 25% of older pupils felt that Social Studies had given them any insight into history.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Social Studies
The 1947 syllabus
The 1961 syllabus
The 1981 reassessment of the 1961 syllabus
The monocultural nature of the 1961/1981 syllabus
The 1997 syllabus
Debate about the new curriculum
The final version
History
Race relations
Great Britain
Relations in the South Pacific and Asia and Studies of Imperialism
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Themes
This essay examines the ideological evolution of New Zealand's Social Studies and History curricula from 1947 to 2002. The primary objective is to analyze how these educational frameworks have historically constructed national identity through the selective inclusion and omission of historical events, particularly concerning race relations and New Zealand's geopolitical positioning.
- The role of the school curriculum as an instrument of political indoctrination.
- The concept of "social amnesia" and the systematic marginalization of New Zealand's colonial history.
- The transition from mono-cultural assimilation paradigms to attempts at biculturalism and multiculturalism.
- Shifting perceptions of Britain and international relations within the educational framework.
- The influence of interest groups and political pressure on the formation of contemporary curricula.
Excerpt from the Book
The monocultural nature of the 1961/1981 syllabus
The syllabus reassessment in 1981 brings the acknowledgement of New Zealand’s multiculturalism, as far as content is concerned. Several educationalists have argued, however, that this content is still imbedded in a safely monocultural framework. They have criticised Social Studies for its inability to change existing patterns of race and power relations. In their assessment, Social Studies of the 1980s and early 1990s is still the dominant culture’s instrument to sustain existing inequalities. Archer and Openshaw argue that however great the recognition of Maori culture has become, the teaching of it is pressed into existing patterns. Social Studies places ‘a premium on consensus within the group and on group belonging, in one sense or another, at the expense of highly individualistic or radical alternatives.’ The subject does not break open structures of racial pre-selection and class differences. It fundamentally supports the school’s function in promoting a culturally homogeneous values consensus. With the same tone Stephen A. May voices doubt about the populist claim that learning about other cultures in school will automatically reduce racism and discrimination first in the classroom and finally in society. This will not happen in a so benevolent and naïve multi-cultural education as it is pursued under the 1961/1981 syllabus, because it simply reflects a ‘”one big happy family” ideology [which] ignores [the] reality of class and cultural dominance.’ It emphasises the importance of cultural diversity which enrich the society and co-existence, rather than giving children awareness of power differences and skills for successful negotiations with the majority group.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the scope of the study regarding the political nature of school curricula and introduces the concept of social amnesia in the context of New Zealand history.
Social Studies: Provides a longitudinal analysis of curriculum evolution, focusing on how different syllabi since 1947 have shaped the understanding of New Zealand society and culture.
History: Evaluates the declining status of secondary school history and analyzes specific thematic modules, including race relations and international diplomatic links.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, arguing that while there is an acknowledgement of cultural diversity, a coherent post-colonial identity remains elusive due to the persistent omission of critical historical conflicts.
Keywords
Social Studies, New Zealand History, Social Amnesia, Curriculum Reform, Biculturalism, Multiculturalism, Race Relations, Colonisation, National Identity, Political Indoctrination, Maori-Pakeha Relations, Educational Policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work investigates the content of New Zealand Social Studies and History curricula over a 55-year period to determine how these subjects have historically portrayed national identity and international relations.
What are the primary thematic areas explored in the book?
Key areas include the representation of race relations, the shifting focus on British heritage, the treatment of colonial history, and the evolution of multicultural concepts within the classroom.
What is the central research question?
The research asks how ideological patterns in the curriculum have changed over time and to what extent these documents serve as political instruments to shape or obscure a national historical consciousness.
Which methodology is utilized?
The author performs a critical content analysis of official syllabus documents, supplemented by educational theory and existing academic critiques regarding curriculum design.
What does the main body cover?
It provides a chronological breakdown of various syllabi (1947, 1961, 1981, 1997) and secondary history curricula, detailing the inclusion and exclusion of specific historical narratives.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is defined by concepts such as social amnesia, biculturalism, the eclipse of history, and the political construction of a monocultural or multicultural identity.
How does the 1997 syllabus differ from its predecessors?
The 1997 syllabus marks a shift by incorporating bicultural and multicultural perspectives for the first time, though the author argues that this remains problematic and vague regarding actual power relations.
What is meant by the "one happy family" ideology?
It refers to a specific approach in the 1961/1981 curriculum that emphasizes cultural consensus and harmony, effectively ignoring the realities of historical class and cultural dominance.
- Quote paper
- David Glowsky (Author), 2002, Social Amnesia and the Eclipse of History in New Zealand School Syllabi 1947-2002, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/20228
