The experiences of the past shape the present

The draft history curriculum is an incoherent list of unrelated topics and will not support our young people to think critically and understand how the experiences of the past shape the present.

Hello everyone. Hope 2026 is starting well and you all had a good Christmas/New Year break. It has been a while since my last post. Apologies. Lots going on at my end over the last 4 months and as well as the opportunity to spend more time in schools, I have been getting to grips with the history component of the draft social sciences curriculum. This will replace the Aotearoa New Zealand Histories curriculum. There is currently a formal consultation process about these changes (Ministry of Education) which is open until 24 April 2026. These proposed changes will be my focus over the next few months (and my first podcast that I hope to kick off in February).

When it comes to history, I am not a disinterested observer. I have skin in the game here. History has been a major focus for me over the last 45 years. I taught history in secondary schools, worked in museums and wrote my doctoral dissertation on the process of developing a history curriculum. The last 20 years of my working life, I worked with history teachers in the university sector and researched how young people learn to understand past. During this time, I was involved in the development of the 2007 curriculum and the Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum project.

I was initially drawn to history because of the stories but, in my training as an historian, I was taught that history is not just a story. It a well-argued interpretation of the past based on verifiable evidence. This is why it is so valuable for our young people to study history. It not only connects them to the stories of the past (and gives them a sense of belonging) but it also teaches them to examine historical accounts through the lens of evidence. To think critically about the past. To be free make up their own minds about the authenticity of what they are learning and think for themselves.

This is how I learned history in secondary school with a teacher who had been a child of the Great Depression of the 1930s. He told us about the deprivation of ordinary working people, in what were called the ‘sugar bag years’ (the unemployed used sacking to make clothing). He told us of the riots of unemployed workers in Queen Street in Auckland and in Cuba Street in Wellington and, the hope that emerged with the election of the 1935-49 Labour Government that made this country a fairer society (including introducing free secondary schooling). But as well as the stories he told of the blighted childhood of his generation, he taught us to ask questions. To not just accept what we learned uncritically, but to question how those in power, can shape the past to reinforce their status.

History gives us stories to connect us to the past, but we also need to ask hard questions and differentiate between fact and fiction. To be historically literate, we need a healthy skepticism about the historical interpretations we are taught. To ask if these accounts are balanced, based on verifiable evidence and if they tell the whole story. To consider whose history is being told and whose stories are ignored or left out.

So, in the context of thinking critically about the past, how does the new draft curriculum stack up? To be honest, not so great. While there are some strong features (e.g. a broader focus on global developments), the curriculum falls short in providing the historical knowledge and skills that our young people need to understand and make sense of the past. The proposed history curriculum is incoherent, so overloaded with content it is unteachable, and it is far from clear why particular areas have been prioritised (e.g. Ancient Egypt) while others (e.g. Parihaka) have ignored.

This feels like a curriculum of the 1980s. There is much here that is familiar. It is not unlike what I learned at school. But this is not the history curriculum we need today. In supporting our young people to understand the diverse nature of Aotearoa New Zealand, the continuing degradation of our environment and increasing inequality in our communities, it is seriously inadequate.

The draft is massively content heavy. To the extent that it is largely unteachable. The writers appear to have little understanding of the practical constraints of the classroom, the resources that teachers need to make learning happen and the pressure on teachers who are not familiar with history – especially in a primary setting –to deliver this curriculum.

Nor do the writers appear to understand how young people learn history. The different stages of learning and how it progresses. There is little evidence that they have a grasp of the extensive research (both in New Zealand and the international arena) as to how young people develop historical understandings. What is called historical thinking/ historical literacy. This is where young people develop a healthy skepticism about the stories they are told and evaluate claims about the past based on the quality of the historical evidence presented.

There is also no rationale as to why particular areas have been prioritised, while others have ignored. There is lot of New Zealand history, but because there is no framework of big ideas (such as the experience of colonisation) the curriculum is largely incoherent. It is simply a confusing list of unrelated topics and is thus limited in supporting our young people to make sense of what they are learning and understand how the experiences of the past shape the present.

Finally, this curriculum falls short in being ‘knowledge rich’. I am an advocate of a knowledge rich history curriculum. As anyone who knows my work will attest, I have consistently argued history is a discipline informed school subject that teaches young people to think critically. A knowledge rich history curriculum also has a clear rationale as to how it prioritizes what historical knowledge that is essential for our children to learn and that which is optional. The high autonomy model we have had since the 2007 curriculum – where teachers could choose whatever they taught –seriously let our young people down. Especially those who have largely been left behind in our education system. So yes, to essential knowledge and yes to knowledge rich. Totally. But this draft misrepresents ‘knowledge rich’ as being simply about amassing an enormous range of unrelated facts rather than learning to think critically about the past, evaluate historical claims and ask hard questions.

In this I am disappointed in Erica Stanford. She has let herself down. As I have written about in my Substack, Stanford has typically operated as a pragmatic, problem solver. Whether you share her aims or not, her initiatives are reasoned. She has typically based policies on addressing a problem and the practical steps we need to take to address this (e.g. declining literacy and numeracy). But if there was a problem to fix with the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum, I am not aware of it. Aside from misinformed braying from political commentors, who know little about the practical nature of teaching and learning, there was no widespread call from the sector to replace the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum. In addition, given the curriculum was only implemented two years ago, it was very much early days and far too early to make a well-informed call as to its strengths and shortcomings.

The draft is an attempt by small group of ideological advocates to turn teaching and learning history in Aotearoa New Zealand into a prescribed ‘greatest hits of history’ (with a 1980s vibe). Yes, there is plenty to entertain and distract, but it does little to ensure all our young people engage with the questions that matter. I am far from convinced that the ‘slash and burn’ ethos that is driving this change will see any constructive benefit for our young people and at the end of the day, it is their learning that matters.

Thanks for reading my work. I very much appreciate your support. In my next post I’ll look at the question of the overloaded content in the draft and explore why particular areas have been prioritised and others ignored. I will also examine why it is problematic that the curriculum is not built around ‘big ideas’ and why these matter if the curriculum to be more that a confusing array of unrelated topics.

NZeducator: An open conversation about how we educate our young people that goes beyond binary perspectives and explores pragmatic, sustainable approaches to building a more egalitarian schooling system. I have been a teacher in the school/university sector for 45 years and receive no financial/institutional support for my writing or interviews.

If you found this post worthwhile, please share it with those who may be interested and (if you haven’t already) please consider becoming a subscriber. It is free.

Mark Sheehan (PhD, MA, Dip.Tchg)