From the present government’s perspective, "well" means what Prime Minister Christopher Luxon likes to call a "laser-like focus" on literacy and numeracy.
Previous governments, while not neglecting those core educational concepts, have taken a wider lens on what "well" might mean.
What does not serve learners well, however, is for their education to become a political football.
Last week, as we wrote about on Monday, the government released the draft of the new year 1-10 curriculum for consultation. Education minister Erica Stanford has hailed it as being designed for Kiwi learners, ensuring both local relevance and global standards, but educators have expressed concern that they are overly complicated, have unrealistic expectations, and that uniquely New Zealand aspects of the curriculum have been watered down in favour of more international concepts.
The following day the government announced it would remove schools’ legal obligation to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, further alarming educators, as well as Māori leaders.
The Treaty mandate dates back to 2020; its removal was the topic of a high-profile campaign from pressure group Hobson’s Pledge, as well as being Act New Zealand policy.
Act leader David Seymour was quick to argue that schools could still respond to the Treaty as they saw fit, and that the government was merely making that course of action voluntary rather than compulsory.
Ms Stanford said a government review of the Education Act had raised the question as to whether it was appropriate for school boards to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty.
Both make fair points. The essence of the board of trustees system of school management is that the school community decides how and what should be taught, and the weight of honouring the hefty obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi is one for the Crown to bear and to be accountable for.
That said, for generations the Treaty of Waitangi was little taught in our schools and even less understood. In modern New Zealand the impositions and obligations contained in its three articles are broadly understood by most, even if the legal intricacies of concepts such as sovereignty are not and, in some quarters, remain hotly debated.
The education system has had an important part to play in that growing understanding of the country’s foundational document, and that is no bad thing. The citizens of this country should know its history, and for Maori as well as Pakeha the Treaty remains a living and essential document.
Critics have argued that the balance has tipped too far in that directions, using rhetoric such as children having to karakia three times a day but being unable to do the basics at school.
The other side of the debate would claim that after more than a century of the lead weights all being on one side of the scales, even a small amount of rebalancing is well overdue.
Politicians in their Waitangi Day speeches like to refer to the Treaty as a partnership. That implies some level of equal and fair dealing, and that would seem to be what is required here.
Bring a "back to basics" approach to education by all means, but include with that a comprehension that for a substantial proportion of New Zealanders the Treaty is something that is "basic".
If not a mandatory obligation to bring the document into effect, a compromise whereby its criticality to New Zealand is guaranteed to remain central to relevant parts of the educational experience should be workable.
Legislation still requires school boards to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, take reasonable steps to ensure teaching in Te Reo is available if requested, and that schools reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. It also states that the education system should honour the Treaty.
If boards are to be relieved of their mandate, then somewhere in those clauses some appropriate language should be inserted to allay concerns that the Crown remains committed to future generations well understanding the Treaty of Waitangi.
