Seminar focus: what do we owe each other?
Ākonga argue about what a society must provide before it counts as legitimate, and they must state the strongest version of the position they disagree with.
- Deliberation move: claim → steel-man → challenge → revision.
- Evidence: an initial position, a fair counter-case, and a revised judgement.
Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning intentions
We are learning to make a civic judgement using explicit criteria and to represent an opposing case fairly before disagreeing with it.
- I can distinguish a preference from a civic obligation.
- I can state a reason someone might reasonably reject my position.
- I can revise my judgement when a stronger reason survives challenge.
Preparation
Give each learner seven obligation cards: physical safety, a voice in decisions, access to essentials, freedom to disagree, protection from discrimination, care for shared places, and obligations to future people. These are discussion prompts, not a claim that one list defines every society.
For the Aotearoa source check, make the Māori and English texts of Te Tiriti o Waitangi available from the Waitangi Tribunal. Learners are not asked to invent what Te Tiriti means; they identify where a civic claim requires a Treaty question or further authority.
60-minute runsheet
- Whakaoho — choose your non-negotiables (5 min): learners select three obligation cards and mark one as non-negotiable. No discussion yet.
- Common case — the first council meeting (8 min): introduce a fictional settlement of 240 people rebuilding after a severe storm. The council can secure only three of the seven obligations immediately. Everyone works from the same case.
- Name the criteria (8 min): pairs decide how a civic obligation should be judged. Require at least three criteria, such as protection from serious harm, universality, agency, feasibility, accountability, or impact on people with less power.
- Initial position (9 min): each learner writes: “The first three obligations should be … because …”. Every reason must point to a named criterion.
- Steel-man exchange (10 min): partners swap positions. Before critiquing, each writes the strongest version of the other side and asks, “Is this fair enough that you recognise your argument?” Revise until the answer is yes.
- Four-person deliberation (12 min): groups seek a ranked three-item settlement. They may not vote until every member has named one cost or exclusion created by the group’s current ranking.
- Source boundary (3 min): ask, “If this decision were being made by public institutions in Aotearoa, where would Te Tiriti need to enter the inquiry?” Learners identify a question to check; they do not manufacture a universal answer.
- Exit — revision receipt (5 min): submit the initial position, the steel-manned counter-case, and one sentence beginning “I kept/changed my judgement because …”.
Common case | He take kotahi
The storm settlement
A fictional coastal settlement has lost roads, power and several public buildings. Two hundred and forty people are sharing temporary facilities. The first council can fully secure only three obligations this week; the others will be delayed.
Your task is not to design the settlement. Your task is to decide what people are owed first, explain the criteria behind that judgement, and expose who carries the cost of the delay.
Deliberation protocol
- State: name the claim and the criterion carrying it.
- Steel-man: state the strongest opposing case without sarcasm or weakening it.
- Test: ask what happens to a person with less power under each position.
- Revise: change the claim, narrow it, or explain why it survives the challenge.
A learner can disagree strongly and still meet the seminar standard. The assessable skill is reasoned civic judgement, not consensus.
Te Tiriti and authority boundary
Do not turn Te Tiriti into a decorative “value”. The Māori and English texts are primary sources, and their relationship has a substantial legal and historical interpretive record. This generic lesson does not define tino rangatiratanga, kāwanatanga, or local obligations for iwi and hapū.
When learners say a public decision in Aotearoa is fair or legitimate, require them to identify whether a Te Tiriti question is present and what source or authority would need to be consulted next.
Aromatawai | Evidence to collect
- Secure: criteria appear before the conclusion; the counter-case is recognisably strong; revision responds to a real challenge.
- Needs repair: the learner lists preferences, caricatures the other side, or changes position without naming the reason.
- Extension: identify a criterion that conflicts with another criterion and explain why no ranking removes the trade-off.
Hononga Marautanga | Curriculum
Human rights as protections of dignity, freedom, and equality. Protected through, for example: the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Te Mātaiaho (2025) · Social Sciences · Phase 4 · Civics and Society · mandatory statement 51251. Learners distinguish rights-like protections from preferences, rank competing obligations, and test whose dignity, freedom or equality is weakened when a protection is delayed.
Sources and checking
- Waitangi Tribunal — Māori and English texts of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi.
- The storm settlement is a fictional deliberation case written for this lesson; no real community is being described.