NCEA Change Programme

Few parents are aware of the dire state of education in New Zealand. If they were, and if apathy were not so prevalent in our country, they would already be aware, there would be a general public outcry about what is being foisted upon our children. It is bordering on criminal the way we are short-changing our children of an academic education while brainwashing them with the latest degeneracy and inciting fear of an imminent environmental disaster.

Take for instance the NCEA Change Programme which a reader alerted me to. As if NCEA was not a farce already, our educational leaders and experts have decided to weaken it still further. How? Apparently, the aim is to “improve well-being, equity, coherence, pathways and credibility – for students and teachers alike.” The reality? A backward qualification that will lead us to Woketearoa.

So the first reason for change is to make NCEA more accessible. Apparently, the current assessment standards were not “designed with New Zealand’s diversity in mind, and don’t do enough to include students of all cultures, identities, disabilities, genders, and sexualities.” What does this even mean? How does belonging to the alphabet cult mean one is unable to access knowledge like everyone else?

But let’s leave the crazy alphabet cult for now and focus our time on the second of seven reasons for the change. The goal here is to ensure equal status for mātauranga Māori in NCEA. Mātauranga Māori means Maori knowledge. We are informed here that the changes are designed to “integrate te ao Māori (Maori worldview) and mātauranga Māori (Maori knowledge) into the new ‘graduate profile’ for NCEA, and into the design of achievement standards.”

Let me give you an example of what this nonsense looks like in terms of assessment. I took the following screenshot from here on June 28th.

You will note that in the proposed NCEA level 1 Chemistry and Biology Assessment standards for Chemistry and Biology, matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge) is put alongside Western science understandings. For those of you who have a Science background, you will no doubt be horrified by the broad and seemingly ill-defined body of knowledge that is being assessed.

A couple of questions are in order. What exactly is matauranga Maori with respect to chemical reactions and microorganisms? My New Zealand history might not be the best, but even I know that pre-colonisation, Maori were not exactly world leaders in Science. Sure their ancestors had impressive navigational skills, but their knowledge of chemical reactions and microorganisms was rudimentary to non-existent. To add the words ‘matauranga Maori’ to these assessment standards is pure tokenism or historical revisionism.

Now this is not to denigrate Maori. Geographical isolation was a good excuse for their lack of scientific know-how. They had not the advantage of learning from others which cultures of Europe had. Furthermore, their animistic beliefs were an obstacle to scientific knowledge. As Herbert Schlossberg puts it in Idols for Destruction, “Animist cultures…are not likely to produce large numbers of skilled engineers as long as they believe that physical objects have spirits.” Beliefs like not being able to step over cut flax because it contains the spirits of one’s ancestors, or that people should not stand on the top of mountains because they are tapu are examples of primitive animist fear which ultimately cripples learning and development of knowledge.

With the coming of Christianity, Maori were freed from this unfortunate and debilitating worldview. It seems our wokeocracy is trying to celebrate and reintroduce it again. Fortunately, as many of you are aware, a number of academics protested this in a letter to the Listener. They pointed out that maturangi Maori has no well defined or agreed-upon definition, that it is not science and they argued that “if mātauranga Māori is to be included so fully into the education system at all levels, then it needs to be subjected to full critical scrutiny – as do all science claims.” It should not surprise anyone that these brave souls were pilloried and ‘cancelled’ by the usual suspects – spineless cultural elites like the president and academy executive committee chair of the Royal Society as well as activist agitators. This only proves the point they were making. We are not dealing with a scientific view that can be critiqued and argued about. We are dealing with something more akin to a blind faith.

Now I don’t know if this is a coincidence or not, but when I relooked at the Assessment standards for Biology and Chemistry on August 8, they had been altered. The screenshot of these standards is below.

You’ll notice that the words matauranga Maori have been removed from each of these assessments. What we have is not a whole lot better though. The first assessment is, “Explore a microorganism within the mauri of the taiao.” Translated this means, “Explore a microorganism within the life force of the earth. This sounds rather pantheistic to me. I’m sure it won’t just be Christian families who oppose this approach to Science. I imagine materialists would be rather concerned also.

What to do? Get your children out of public schools. The power in our public system is in the hands of people who support this approach. If you want your children to have a decent education, you are almost certainly going to have to make a financial sacrifice. Put them in an independent school that teaches an internationally recognised curriculum like Cambridge. The good news is that this should pay dividends because children brought up on this nonsense are going to be no match for children who have been given an actual education.

Shepherds! Protect the Lambs

One of the most frustrating things I have found in over two decades of working with youth in both a church and Christian school context has been the response of Christian pastors to Christian education. It ranges from apathy to antipathy. Few have the courage to call their congregations to obedience to Christ in this area. This despite the very real danger state education presents to the little lambs in their flock.

My experience has been that many young adults from Christian homes are either incapacitated and rendered impotent by the secular worldview they imbibe during their 17-year secular discipleship programme, or they leave the faith. And a lot of them do leave the faith.

Just this week, I was chatting with a friend who spoke of two young people he knew, both attending secular schools. One no longer attends youth group or church and has decided he is not a Christian any longer. The other, a young woman, has been so indoctrinated by feminism and humanism that she looks up to feminist icons who are responsible for the liberalisation of abortion.

Can pastors continue to look the other way? A pastor is a shepherd. When a lion or a bear came to attack and kill David’s sheep, he would seize them by the hair and kill them ( I Samuel 17:35). That takes manly courage and the ability to face risk and danger. This is the need of our hour. We need pastors who are willing to be courageous men. They must stand between the lambs and the wild animals out to devour them.

Jesus himself warned of the danger posed to little ones. After calling a child to himself and showing his disciples that they must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven, he gave one of his starkest warnings. He said, with this little child and perhaps others next to him, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

We know, without a shadow of a doubt that the 17-year anti-Christian state discipleship programme is in a large part responsible for many little lambs being torn to pieces. Any Christian leader worth their salt should be aware of this. Teaching a child that God is irrelevant to the world he has made by never mentioning him in 17 years of education is likely to cause him to stumble. Teaching a child that Christ is Lord of his heart, but that he isn’t too interested in the rest of life is causing our children to stumble. Flawed teaching on gender and sexuality is causing our children to sin.

So about that millstone…Does it belong to our secular officials who desire to control the future by discipling our children into their faith? Does it belong to the teachers who abuse their positions to poison the minds of children with depravity? Does it belong to parents who fail to follow God’s law to impress God’s laws on their children day and night (Deuteronomy 6:6-9), or does it belong to the shepherds who see the children in their flock falling away from the faith but say nothing?

What will it take for Christian leaders to wake up, grab their weapons and start protecting the flock? When will we hear a sermon about the importance of training our children in the Christian faith and protecting them from the evil one? When will we hear our pastors calling all families to remove their children from the perils of secular education?

Will the recent news of the proposed Conversion Therapy ban wake our pastors up from their slumber? Will pulpits throughout the land warn parents that they are in danger of losing their children? Kris Faafoi on Newstalk ZB was asked whether it was ‘cool with him’ for parents to tell their children they can’t go on hormone blockers. He said, “No it’s not.” Of this law, Family First writes, “Shockingly, parents would be criminalised and potentially liable up to five years in jail simply for affirming that their sons are boys and their daughters are girls. These bans will lock children into transgenderism.” As a teacher with knowledge of the school system in New Zealand, I can assure my readers that this degeneracy is already being promoted by many schools and teachers. Too many naive parents think secular schools are only there to teach Maths and English. Unfortunately, that is about the only thing they are not getting. These must make way for the all-important secular indoctrination programme you see. A law like this is only going to make things worse. Godless teachers will turn children against parents and make them aware of their ‘rights’. The only protection will be removing our children from these godless pagans. Will pastors protect their sheep by saying this? That remains to be seen. If not, God help us.

Unteach Racism – Module 6 – Exclusion

Exclusion is the title of module 6 of the Unteach Racism app which the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission with typical bureaucratic efficiency has spent a number of years developing. If you wish to review the earlier modules, click the links that follow for module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief, module 3 low expectations and module 4 harmful assumptions and module 5 racist exchanges.

On the brainwashing menu for today is an exploration of how “in Aotearoa New Zealand, the dominant Eurocentric culture means that in some settings, the values and culture of the learning environment can exclude indigenous and minority learners.” Please note, dear reader, that the name of our country is no longer New Zealand. It is evolving. It is now Aotearoa New Zealand, and will become Aotearoa. We are promised that the module will explore the dominant values and culture in New Zealand, identify how these can exclude learners, and help unteach racism by affirming the values and culture of all learners.

As we commence the module we are presented with a quote by Ann Milne who wrote a thesis entitled, Colouring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream Schools. Apparently many of our schools “constitute ‘white spaces’ that deny Māori and Pasifika students this crucial [cultural] identity.” I find this extremely interesting because as a young white chap growing up in Auckland, my experience of high school was quite different. I knew what Maori and Pasifika identity was. It was celebrated. Yet I never knew exactly what ‘my culture’ was. I felt very much a minority, but I do not think this had much of an impact on my achievement. According to the module, however, our identity and sense of self-worth depends on how our values align with wider society. Our sense of belonging can be undermined if our values are undermined. We’ll come back to this point later.

We are then told that New Zealand has a dominant Euro-centric culture. What does this even mean? Nowhere is this dominant Euro-centric culture explained or defined, and there is a reason for that. It’s not possible. Are all Pakeha cultures the same? Do we all share the same values? Does every ethnically British person have the same values? And just because they share the same skin tone as Polish Pakeha New Zealanders, does that mean their values are the same? Seriously?

Let’s just take for granted for the moment that there is such a thing as ‘Euro-centric’ culture. We could argue perhaps that Western ideas are common to many of us, despite the fact that Western ideas transcend ethnicity and culture. The irony is, that it is this Western approach that has produced a care and concern for diversity and the representation of other points of view and cultural ideas. That’s what’s great about the West. Because of its Christian moorings, and consequent care for others, it is precisely in places that have been blessed oppressed by Western ideas that allow silly courses like Unteach racism to be produced and then excoriated. So surely the Teaching Council should want Western cultural values to be taught in our classrooms.

We are next presented with a quote from a hand wringing Pakeha teacher. She notes that her identity is “embedded in New Zealand’s colonial societal systems and structures,” and that she can see herself everywhere, “in the language that is spoken; in the faces of those I recognise as the powerful; and in the values that uphold familiar institutions.” Is she correct? Take a look at the current Labour MPs. Are there not a diverse range of cultures and ethnicities, not to mention other minorities there? This is all just very silly. Culture is more than ethnicity. Culture is about what people value and treasure – what our highest goals and goods are. So this is why a Pakeha New Zealander who is a conservative Christian will have far more in common with a man like Elliot Ikilei than a man like Grant Robinson. Cultural values transcend ethnicity.

Homogeneity is the next topic. Apparently, say our benevolent all-wise Teaching Council leaders, a homogeneous perspective focuses on the similarities among individuals within a group and assumes that they all think, behave, or learn in the same way. Yeah, that kinda reminds me a little bit about this whole brainwashing course. Why does the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand assume all teachers think that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between the Crown and Maori and that we must all agree to this when we get registered? Why is this whole Unteach racism business assuming the homogeneous perspective that because white people share the same skin colour they share the same cultural viewpoints and force this on other people through institutions? Why does the Teaching Council itself exhibit a homogeneous perspective when it put together Tataiako a list of cultural competencies for teachers of Maori learners. Does it assume that all Maori learners share the same values and needs just because they share the same ethnicity? It seems to me that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is rather hypocritical here. On the one hand, we are being told to reject a homogeneous perspective, and on the other hand, their very approach to things Maori is a homogeneous perspective.

Next, we move onto a values prioritisation activity. We are told that some of our learners feel their cultural values are overlooked, or undermined. We then are presented with a list of values and asked to pick our top five values. The values listed are: aroha, spirituality, service, individuality, equity, secularism, humarie, tolerance, conformity, excellence, kotahitanga, diversity, equality, honesty, self-reliance, reason, kaitiakitanga, sustainability, reciprocity and innovation. After selecting our top five we are asked to reflect on our prioritised values and think about how these might influence the culture of our learning environments. We are also asked to consider how much we know about our students and their values and how these might differ to our own. No mention at all is made of which are supposedly Euro-centric. I think it would be dangerous for the Teaching Council to do so – what racist fool would suggest that ‘reason’ or ‘excellence’ are Euro-centric?

So this brings us to our critique of this nonsense. The first problem with this module is that it doesn’t at any point explain the dominant values and culture of “Aotearoa New Zealand”. Apparently, according to some of the quotes presented, there is a real problem with whitestream schools. If this is the case, surely we should be told what exactly it is that makes for whitestreaming. What particular values are inimical to non-white students? I don’t believe they exist. I believe there are commonalities in values between cultures, and wide variations within cultures. In my teaching experience which has been in ethnically diverse environments, I have seen this. I have seen Maori families who are far more like me in their approach to education than Pakeha parents. Programmes like Unteach Racism are an attempt to divide us along the lines of race. We don’t need that.

Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, the Teaching Council fails to understand that secular state education necessarily excludes the values and cultures of many of its minority learners. I’ve argued this before in a post about conservative parents and liberal teachers. If their argument does anything, it shows that schools sometimes do not cater for the values of some families. These values, as we have seen transcend ethnicity. So whose values are ignored or relegated in our public school system? Well, for those who are religious, secular state schools remove what we hold to be the centre of life to the periphery. To us this is an intensely aggressively religious action that denigrates our cultural values. In removing God and Christian morality from the classrooms, it alienates the minority group of Christians. So-called ‘secular’ or ‘neutral’ education also alienates other religious groups who no doubt would want their values and faith passed on to their children. We could easily argue in a similar fashion to this module that State-controlled education is an attempt to force the religious (yes I do mean religious!) values of the elite or powerful on the less powerful. Unlike the Teaching Council, I’m willing to suggest some of the values this elite wants to foist on our children: secular atheism or at the very least a God who has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of life, a two-tiered apartheid-like system for New Zealand and sexual confusion and degeneracy in the name of tolerance.

How do we fix this? Not by creating stupid apps at great expense. We get the government out of education. Create an environment where schools are free to compete for students. Give power back to parents and allow them to choose the kind of school that fits with their cultural values and avoid schools that contravene them. Reduce red-tape and control over curriculum content. Stop forcing teachers to accept a politically biased code and standard before they can be registered. Trust that parents in the vast majority of cases care about their children and want them to succeed. Then we might end up with schools that are not alienated from the values of their parent and student body. In the meantime parents, if you want your values passed onto your children, homeschool, or find a school, most likely independent, that will support you and your cultural values.

Unteach Racism – Module 5 – Racist Exchanges

Today we continue our overview of the Unteach Racism app put together by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission – you know that wonderful organisation that so strongly believes in the rights of humans that it gives a $200 koha (gift) to the Mongrel Mob, that other pro-social institution that our beloved leader Prime Minister Ardern considers worthy of near on $3 million of taxpayer money. In essence, for those of you who have missed the first four modules, the Unteach Racism app could be summarised as “Fighting imaginary racism with real racism.” If you wish to review the earlier modules, click the links that follow for module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief, module 3 low expectations and module 4 harmful assumptions.

Today, we are moving on to racist exchanges. What are the objectives? We are told that we will learn to identify interpersonal racism, separate intention from impact, learn how to confront people by ‘calling in’ rather than calling out, and on the off chance we are racist bigots without knowing it (which given the current climate in which almost everything is racist, is entirely likely) we are also promised we will learn how to live with discomfort when we are wrong.

How do we identify interpersonal racism? Here is the definition they give. “When people act on these [implicit bias and stereotypes] and think about or treat individuals negatively because of their race, that is interpersonal racism.” This seems a reasonably fair definition of racism. Few would argue that treating individuals negatively because of their race is a good thing. Yet there is an element missing in this definition. Racism is not just treating individuals negatively because of their race, but it can also be favouring individuals due to their race. This simply follows from the concept of not treating individuals negatively because of their race. If one is favouring some individuals due to their race, then one is obviously treating other people less favourably if they do not share that race. So thus far, we could agree with the sentiments of module 5. Whether I would trust the Teaching Council to appropriately apply this definition of racism is of course an entirely different matter!

We then move on to how to react to interpersonal racism that we see in our workplaces. Once again, to my surprise, there is a lot of sensible wisdom here. We are encouraged to avoid calling out racist behaviour in a way that is likely to cause someone to become defensive. Instead, we are encouraged to ask questions to help people clarify what they are saying. We are also encouraged to use personal “I” language rather than “you” when we address racist language. Finally, we are encouraged to take a person aside to talk to them rather than calling them out in front of a group. All of this seems fairly wise and appropriate. The big question for me is, “How often are we expected to see interpersonal racism amongst our colleagues?” Is this really a big issue? While I have come across patently racist people in previous work environments (albeit rarely), in my years of dealing with teachers, I have not heard teachers use openly racist language. Teachers I have worked with do not treat individuals negatively due to their race. I am not saying it cannot or doesn’t happen, but I wonder if it is such an issue to warrant a module on how to deal with it among colleagues.

Finally, the activity asks us what we would do if someone accuses us of doing or saying something racist? We are given two options. We can either explain we are a good person and didn’t mean to be racist, or we can “Stay calm, stay in the moment, take responsibility, and actively listen.” Apparently, the latter approach is correct. Our goal, we are told, is to listen and learn. Now, this seems dangerous to me. This sounds suspiciously like some of the critical theory nonsense. You know, the kind that says, white people should just shut up and listen, even when those we are told to listen to are clearly unhinged loonies. The thing is, claims of racism are now a dime a dozen. We know human nature. People will (and have) weaponised claims of racism to take down people they do not like or silence them. Intent does matter. If you are accused of saying or doing something racist, should you just listen and take responsibility? Well yes, if you actually did say or do something racist. But if your accuser has got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood your speech or actions, or, if in fact, they are determinedly doing so in a play for political power, fight back. Intention does matter.

So, does the module deliver? That’s like asking whether the New Zealand education system delivers. Of course it doesn’t. This is a bureaucratic organisation forcibly funded by unwilling teachers. Of course it doesn’t work. Let’s recap on whether it achieved its four goals. Firstly did it help us identify interpersonal racism. Well, we were provided with a reasonable definition of racism, one which most adults given a virtuous upbringing already knew. We don’t need some government bureaucracy taking our money to teach us this any more than grandma needs to be taught how to suck eggs. Well, how did they go on helping us separate intention vs impact? Only one comment was made on this, and it was hardly useful. So what about how to go about ‘calling in’ racism rather than calling out? Yes, this was the best part of the module, but again, we don’t need the Teaching Council to waste our money telling us what we either know from interpersonal experience or could learn from a brief perusal of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Finally, did we learn how to live with discomfort when we’re wrong? No, not really.

If this were a lesson that a colleague had put together and I was being asked to review it, I would be having words with them about the mismatch between the lesson objectives and the lesson content. So in summary, another fail from the Teaching Council.

Excuses for Avoiding the Responsibility of Christian Education #1

It has long been my bitter experience that many Christians are ambivalent to Christian education. Sure it might be good for some children they say, but my children don’t need it. So today we are beginning a series highlighting the excuses Christian parents make for avoiding the responsibility of a Christian education.

Excuse 1: I want my children to be salt and light

This has to be the most virtuous excuse that I have heard. What Christian doesn’t want their children to be salt and light? Yet while the number of Christians who use this excuse is significant, the number of children in government schools who are actually salt and light is far fewer. For many Christians, this is just a pious platitude, an excuse to assuage their guilty consciences that they might just be prioritising material goods or something else over obedience to Christ.

While there are some children from exceptional Christian families who by God’s grace are actually salt and light in their public schools, far more frequently, the witnessing and converting is occurring in the opposite direction. Christian children are being conformed to the pattern of this world. Compare if you will, children who attend decent (as opposed to nominal) Christian schools or are homeschooled to children who are at public schools. The public school children are often ‘cooler’ and far more attuned to what is acceptable to the secular world. Their ‘secular and religiously neutral education’ has done its job well. You can see this often in their dress and demeanour as well as their speech and values. How many children has the church lost to the faith because we have deceived ourselves into thinking this ‘salt and light’ approach to be an effective evangelistic strategy? Spoiler alert; it’s not.

Now while there are some sincere Christians who use and believe this excuse, it is important for us to see what is often actually going on. This is an attempt to paint a decision that runs counter to God’s commands as a righteous decision. It’s actually quite clever, and man has been doing this sort of thing forever. I’m looking at you Saul. But it will not do. To obey is better than to sacrifice. God holds parents and particularly fathers responsible for the education of children. In Ephesians 6:4, Paul exhorts fathers to bring their children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. He categorically did not suggest bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of Caesar or any other pretender to the throne of the universe.

Yes of course we should announce the news of the kingdom! Yes of course we want our children to be salt and light! We don’t just want the right outcome and let’s face it, our current obsession with public secular education over the last few generations hasn’t achieved this, but is at least partly responsible for the decimation of the church. What we also want is that our process and methods are God-honouring. And we know, that when we honour God in obedience, he blesses us. Look at Psalm 78. As we the covenant people of God honour Him by teaching our children so that the next generation will know His law, then we will see a new generation putting their trust in God, remembering his redemptive deeds and remaining loyal to him. These children will be more salty and far brighter lights for having developed a Christian rather than secular worldview.

Who Do They Belong To?

One of the idols of our age is the state. And education is very important to the state, particularly the leftist state which seeks to control and manipulate every area of life to achieve utopia. They need to produce compliant citizens who will follow their dictates mindlessly. Part of this of course is that much of what they say is arrant nonsense, and it takes a certain type of idiot to listen to them. For example, only someone bereft of sanity – an idiot – can sagely proclaim that a man with a few bits chopped off and given some hormone treatment is a woman. So you see, they believe they must control education, and education is not about developing critical thinking and intelligence as much as they try to tell you that. If it was, they would free it up to different views and approaches.

You don’t believe me? At teacher’s college, I wrote an essay suggesting that teacher registration was a waste of time, because it didn’t protect students, and it didn’t improve teacher standards. Moreover, I argued that independent schools should have the freedom to employ people who have not jumped through the ideological hoops required by registration since to attract students who pay fees when the government holds a monopoly of ‘free’ schools obviously forces those schools to provide a superior service. Predictably, my essay was not looked upon favourably. Written comments from more than one lecturer were recorded on the paper which I had never seen before. One comment in particular stuck with me. “We must have gatekeepers.” Yes, quite. The statists have to control who teaches your children. That is an assumed good.

So statists, and unfortunately most teachers are statists, do not believe that parents are responsible for the education and training of their children. Setting themselves against Christ, they believe that children must be rendered unto Caesar and his bureaucratic minions. They arrogate to themselves what belongs to parents. In New Zealand, we see this in their monopolistic control of education generally, and in their zoning rules (and a host of other rules) specifically. We also see it in the way teachers think they have the right to teach values contrary to the wishes of parents.

Indeed, this evil has saturated the Western world. A couple of recent examples are in order. In Loudoun County, Virginia, the district educational leaders have proposed policies requiring teachers to use a child’s preferred gender pronouns. At a public meeting on this issue, parents were so opposed to this, that the board closed public comments at the meeting, and the police declared an unlawful assembly. Two parents were apparently arrested for refusing to leave the meeting. There is nothing so frustrating to these control freaks than to have parents arrogantly assume they have a say in what their children are being taught.

In other parts of the US, teachers, are complaining about the crackdown by conservatives on critical race theory being taught in schools. Here’s one example of the kind of ill-educated brainwashing robots government schools tend to attract.

So what should you do? Get your children out of government schools. Seriously. What are you waiting for? Do not render to Caesar what belongs to God. Give your children an actual education. “Free compulsory education” gets a one out of three. Yes, there is compulsion. It’s not free and it’s not education. It costs the souls of our children and stifles their ability to think and challenge the idolatrous State.

Unteach Racism – Module 4 – Harmful Assumptions

Once again, after a break of a few weeks, we are set to continue our ascent of Mt Lunacy, otherwise known as the Unteach Racism app put out by the education-focused Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. For those of you determined to assault your own intelligence and sanity, you can find the website here. But worthy readers, I..ahem…humbly suggest you would be better off perusing my reviews of module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief and module 3 low expectations. Additionally, I would recommend checking out Maga-hat teacher Ethan Aloiai’s helpful video on the topic. So on to module 4 and the perils of harmful assumptions.

What are harmful assumptions? Apparently, this module will explore ‘how racial stereotyping impacts learners, their sense of self-worth and their achievement, and what steps can be taken to resist and unteach them.” If this sounds vaguely familiar, that’s because we have been here before. I think this app is a little bit like the minister with one sermon. The titles might be different, but the message is the same. Every week.

We begin the module with a quote from a paper on unconscious bias, and then wade into stereotyping. No, not the stereotyping of teachers and white people as racists. Of course, it’s the racist stereotypes teachers and schools have. It is argued that these can impact our ability to treat others fairly.

We are then presented with a list of statements which we are asked to complete in our heads. Here are a sample:

  • Men are better at..?
  • Girls like to play with..?
  • Attractive people are often..?
  • Overweight people are..?
  • Maori can be..?
  • Asians are..?

Noticeably absent from the list was the sentence “White people are..?” But I guess our stereotypes about them aren’t likely to impact whether we treat them fairly.

Then we had the obligatory poor-me-teenage-angst quotes from Maori and Pacific Island children about how teachers assume they are no good because of their ethnicity. Really? How would they know? Contrary to leftist opinion, we do not know what is inside other people’s heads. We often assume we know, but we have no access to the mind of another person except through their speech and actions. And even these require interpretation.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the quotes.

“I feel like most teachers don’t particularly think that we islanders are good enough really, from the way they convey to teach.”

and

“At other schools we’re judged like ‘typical Māori girl’. We were labelled at other schools. “

See? Nebulous woe-is-me crap. Teachers in general are a group of people excited to see students succeed. We do not think particular ethnicities are dumb. Then we have this young Tuvaluan/Samoan/Rarotongan chap.

I used to have goals but not now because my teachers were [!@*!] and then I got angry and then in trouble at school and with the law. I don’t have goals. They said things like if you want to leave…leave!

Maybe it wasn’t that this young chap’s teachers were !@*!. Perhaps this kid is just a pill. Sounds like he wants to blame someone or something else for his problems with the law, which is typical of human nature and a big issue in the criminal class.

So maybe stereotyping isn’t the big problem it’s made out to be. When I saw the “Men are better at…” statement, I immediately thought soccer! Stereotypes exist because we are able to see trends and patterns. We see that often Asian parents are very focused on the academic success of their children. We do see that Pakeha parents often complain about schools and teachers when their children aren’t happy. We do see these things. But we are not robots. We are able to account for children and individuals who do not fit the norms of these patterns we see. We are able to treat children as individuals. As a teacher, I have taught some lazy and disinterested children. It’s frustrating, and occasionally that frustration is going to be visible to those children. Yet I can assure my dear readers that the frustration is never at ethnicity, but at laziness and disinterest.

In the wrap up of this module, we are directed to a resource that will enable us to reflect on the biases, stereotypes and assumptions we and our learners have. One point they make is that “frequently stereotypical representations of self and others foster and maintain racism”. Is this true? Are stereotypes (which by their very nature are some reflection of general realities) something that foster racism? Is it racist to note that many Pakeha parents march up to the school office when their precious teen daughter is upset? Is it racist to note that many Asian parents are very determined for their progeny to succeed academically? No. Racism is treating a person in an unjust manner because of his race. Can a person have his eyes open to the world and the general realities of life and at the same time treat people fairly. Without a doubt.

The main part of the resource encourages teachers to think critically about resources they use and create for classroom learning. Specifically, it challenges teachers to think about how different ethnicities are represented. It’s a pity our educational elites don’t apply some of this thinking to their own representation of Maori and Pacific learners, which as I’ve noted elsewhere, always tends to present them in cultural garb dancing. While there is nothing wrong with thinking about the different ethnic groups you have in your classroom and trying to ensure the resources you use, and posters you have on classroom walls reflect some of that diversity, there is a problem with this kind of thinking. We end up encouraging our children to believe that their core identity is tied to something that is skin deep. It amounts to saying that a white child is not going to be interested in learning about Ancient Egyptian culture because it doesn’t reflect him. Or that a Pacific Island child cannot be interested in classical music or opera, because these reflect other ethnicities. Can an Asian child identify with a positive portrayal of a white child? Can a white child identify with the positive portrayal of a black child? Of course, because they are all children. That commonality is more important than the small difference that skin tone makes.

The Enemy Gets It. Do You?

..the battle for mankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizer of a new faith; a religion of humanity…utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach.

The Humanist Magazine – Jan/Feb 1983 Issue

That was 1983. Have Christian leaders and pastors caught up yet? Do they get the power of educating the next generation? They have the pulpit once a week, and even then they send the children out to help the adults enjoy the service more provide ‘age-appropriate’ learning. The humanists are preaching to their children every day in school, and the mentally unstable and degenerates are preaching to them in their spare time on social media. What chance do you think they have? We need to develop a Christian counter-culture. That’s more than just church on Sunday. It means starting our own schools and training institutes and choosing for our children to engage in more useful activities that build up their faith. Get your kids out of government schools. Get them off social media. Get them into theologically robust study and train them up in worldview. Spend time with them developing the relationship you will need to steer them through this chaos and get them to adulthood unscathed and ready for taking back this culture for Christ.

Education and Fathers

Education is not simply a means of data transfer. It is not reducible to state-certified techniques. Education, when it succeeds, is the result of a child wanting to be like someone else. If you take away the drive train, can you really be surprised that the car won’t go? Fathers are essential to any successful school system, and no system of education can successfully compensate for the abdication of fathers.

Douglas Wilson in Father Hunger

Look who has the Low Expectations!

Recently the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, that illustrious bastion of excellence in education and line of defense against ignorance and bigotry in education has put together an app called Unteach Racism. I’ve referred to and critiqued some of the modules in this app already, as have others. The most recent module I explored was entitled ‘low expectations’.

In chatting about this module with others, a friend noted the irony of the situation. It’s the Teaching Council that have low expectations. They are the ones who see Maori children as helpless victims. As I reflected on this, I was impressed by her insight. They are the ones running around accusing teachers of implicit bias and racism as if Maori educational aspirations are at the mercy of much stronger and more powerful people. It’s the Teaching Council and their ilk who imply that Maori learners are weak and unable to grasp success without others going into bat for them.

Take a look for example at the Teaching Council’s code. Section 2 of the code for teachers states, I will work in the best interests of learners by: 5. affirming Māori learners as tangata whenua and supporting their educational aspirations. This is not said of any other particular cultural or ethnic group. What is the Teaching Council saying? Are Maori learners uniquely unable to meet their educational aspirations unless teachers specifically work in their best interests? Do they need to be treated as special because they arrived in these islands a little before some of the rest of us in order to achieve excellence? I don’t think so, but the Teaching Council of Aotearoa and their code seems to. So who has low expectations?

And if we move over to the teaching standards which every teacher in New Zealand is supposed to adhere to we see similarly low expectations. We are required to, “Specifically support the educational aspirations for Māori learners, taking shared responsibility for these learners to achieve educational success as Māori.” Once again, we are not told to specifically support Chinese learners, or Dutch learners and their aspirations. Why are we specifically told that we must take shared responsibility for Maori learners to achieve educational success as Maori? The implication of this patronizing standard is that Maori need to be catered to and helped because they can’t get there without us pandering to their special needs. I don’t believe that for a minute. I happen to believe Maori learners are capable. So who has the low expectations? Not me or fellow conservative teachers…but the Teaching Council does.