What does “the same” assume?
Two texts, one signing. Ākonga put the phrase “the same document” on trial: line by line, does te Tiriti say what the English text says? The verdict has to cite both texts.
- Word on trial: “the same” — can two texts that differ be one agreement?
- Evidence it produces: A verdict on “the same”, citing a line from each text
🕘 Lesson at a Glance | Te Hōtaka
Lesson Overview | Tirohanga Whānui
Ākonga are not told that the two texts of te Tiriti differ — they find the differences themselves, word by word, in verbatim excerpts from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Then they read the Act’s own preamble and discover that Parliament conceded the difference in statute. The lesson extends the Lesson 1 method: quote exactly, separate the words from the intentions, and write a claim that stops where the evidence stops.
Learning Intentions | Ngā Whāinga Ako
- Read both texts of te Tiriti as separate primary sources.
- Compare the exact words each text uses for the same article.
- Distinguish what the words establish from what only further evidence about 1840 could establish.
⚡ Do Now · What does “the same” assume?
⏱ 5 minPut this claim on the board as a claim to test, not as a fact:
“In 1840, Māori and the Crown signed the same agreement at Waitangi.”
Run it
- Notice (1 min): underline the word carrying the biggest hidden assumption.
- Specify (2 min): write one thing you would need to check before “the same” could be judged.
- Evidence (2 min): name the kind of source that could settle it.
Activity 1 · Build the Lens
⏱ 10 minWhat it is: four working concepts so ākonga can talk precisely about texts and translation before touching the sources.
Run it
- Sort (3 min): pairs decide which two cards describe tools of analysis and which two describe evidence to be analysed.
- Predict (4 min): if two texts of one agreement used different key words, what problems could follow? List two.
- Connect (3 min): link back to Lesson 1 — why did we read provenance before content there, and why will that matter even more today?
🪶 Cultural integrity: the meanings of kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga in 1840 are examined by iwi, scholars, and the Waitangi Tribunal — this lesson does not settle them, and neither should the classroom. Do not ask Māori ākonga to arbitrate what rangatira meant, and do not present any single translation as the answer.
Activity 2 · Provenance Before Content
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga read around all three sources before reading through them — and meet a provenance twist: an 1840 text reproduced inside a 1975 statute.
Run it
- Label (6 min): complete the provenance grid for Sources A–C, recording both creation and reproduction dates where they differ.
- Predict (4 min): before the word-work, predict one strength and one limit each source carries because of its provenance.
- Check (5 min): skim each source card and adjust the predictions. Note the orthography flag on Source A — the 1840 spelling is the document, not an error.
Activity 3 · Same Article, Different Words
⏱ 25 minWhat it is: the core evidence work. Article by article, ākonga copy the exact phrase doing the main work in each text, then name what shifted. No paraphrase, no memory — quotation.
Run it
- Article 1 (8 min): what is given to the Queen? Find the phrase in the te reo text, then in the English text. Copy both into the comparison table exactly.
- Article 2 (8 min): what is protected or guaranteed, and to whom? Same discipline. Notice also what each text says about selling land.
- Article 3 (4 min): what do Māori receive? Copy both phrases.
- Name the shift (5 min): for each row, write one sentence describing what changed between the texts — as an observation about words, not yet a conclusion about intentions.
Board the key finding, in their words: the te reo text gives te Kawanatanga katoa and guarantees te tino rangatiratanga; the English text takes “all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” and guarantees “full exclusive and undisturbed possession”. Ākonga should arrive at this from the table, not from the teacher.
Activity 4 · The 1975 Move
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga read Source C — the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 — and discover their Activity 3 finding written into law: “the text of the Treaty in the English language differs from the text of the Treaty in the Maori language”.
Run it
- Quote (3 min): find and copy the clause that states the relationship between the two texts.
- Infer (5 min): Parliament created a tribunal to determine the Treaty’s “meaning and effect”. What does needing such a body concede about the texts on their own?
- Interrogate (5 min): “the principles of the Treaty” appears in Source C but in neither text. Whose words are the “principles”, and what problem are they trying to solve?
- Rank (2 min): which is stronger evidence that the difference matters — a historian saying so, or a statute built on it? Defend the answer.
Activity 5 · Bridge Forward: Whose Text Got Enforced?
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga return to the Do Now claim with evidence, then aim the unit’s next question.
Run it
- Rewrite (5 min): revise the Do Now sentence so it says only what today’s three sources can support. Peer-check: evidence underlined, scope boxed, limit starred.
- Read (3 min): read the curriculum statement below — today’s lesson taught its subject matter directly from the primary texts.
- Question forward (7 min): if the texts differ, the next historical question is which text’s terms were acted on — in land dealings, in law, in political representation. Write one researchable question about how that played out. Keep it; it is the brief for the unit’s next inquiry.
Exit · Claim, Limit, Question
⏱ 5 min- Claim: one sentence about the two texts that quotes at least one exact phrase.
- Limit: one sentence saying what today’s sources cannot establish about 1840.
- Question: one question about what happened when the two texts met land, law, or politics.
🎯 Curriculum Links | Te Hononga ki te Marautanga
Prior-learning anchor used at Years 9–10 depth: ākonga meet the main articles in both texts, verbatim, and analyse the differences as historians.
Main articles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi | te Tiriti o Waitangi
📦 Materials & Resources
- Ngā Tuhinga e Rua Source Lab — one per ākonga.
- Highlighters in three colours: exact quotation, shift between texts, limit.
- Board or shared display for the Do Now claim and the Activity 3 key finding.
- Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (Schedule 1 carries both full texts) for teacher preview or connected-device extension.
- Waitangi Tribunal: the Māori and English versions and Te Aka Māori Dictionary for teacher preparation on interpretation.
📊 Assessment Framework
This lesson uses formative evidence only.
- LI 1: Activity 2 provenance grid records creation and reproduction dates separately for Sources A and B.
- LI 2: Activity 3 comparison table quotes exact phrases from both texts for all three articles.
- LI 3: the exit slip separates a quoted claim about the words from a stated limit about 1840 understandings.
🚀 Extension Activity
Two directions, both source-first:
- The preambles: the handout prints only the articles. Open Schedule 1, read both opening sections, and find one further word-level difference worth investigating.
- Across the documents: Lesson 1’s source lab quoted He Whakaputanga (1835): “Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua”. Article 1 of te Tiriti (1840) uses te Kawanatanga katoa. Describe the word difference precisely, then write down what evidence a historian would need before claiming the choice was deliberate.
🔗 Unit Progression | Te Ara o Ngā Akoranga
Lesson 1 established that authority did not begin with Crown institutions, and that claims must carry their scope. Today ākonga hold the exact words of both Tiriti texts and a statutory concession that the texts differ. The next inquiry follows the enforcement question their exit slips have raised: raupatu, land law, the franchise, and which text’s terms were acted on — arriving back at Lesson 1’s anchor about representation. That inquiry is now built: Lesson 3: Te Raupatu ā-Ture reads the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 with today's method. Revisit Lesson 1 if the provenance-first method needs re-grounding.
📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot
Paearu Angitu | Success Criteria
- I can quote the exact phrase each text uses for each article.
- I can record both the creation and the reproduction history of a source.
- I can state what the words establish and what they cannot establish about 1840.
Differentiation for this lesson
Inclusion guidance
- Reading load: split the pairs — one reads the te reo articles aloud, one reads the English; swap for the second pass. Speakers of te reo should not be conscripted as class translators.
- Language support: Article 3 is the shortest row — start there so every ākonga lands one complete comparison early.
- Executive function: release the comparison table one article at a time; the scope test opens only after all three rows hold quotations.
- Extension: require the He Whakaputanga cross-document comparison from the extension panel, with its evidence-needed sentence.
- Cultural safety: some ākonga whakapapa to signatories. Offer the option to work analytically without personal disclosure, and never ask Māori ākonga to resolve what rangatira intended.