Boycott and Change

Overview

Students investigate how the Montgomery Bus Boycott challenged racial segregation and contributed to the wider Civil Rights Movement. They use a variety of primary sources to explain causation, agency, and the significance of the boycott, while making connections to Aotearoa New Zealand contexts involving protest and social change.

Learning intentions

• WALT describe the historical context of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
• WALT use primary sources as historical evidence.
• WALT explain how different causes and people contributed to change.
• WALT connect an international historical event to a context of significance to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Success criteria

• I can accurately describe key events, people, dates, and laws connected to the boycott.
• I can annotate primary sources by identifying their message, purpose, and usefulness.
• I can explain how several causes and actions contributed to the boycott’s outcome.
• I can support my ideas with specific historical evidence and make a relevant connection to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Curriculum links

• Demonstrate understanding of historical concepts in contexts of significance to Aotearoa New Zealand: historical concepts, evidence, causation, agency, and significance across contexts.
• Engage with a variety of primary sources in a historical context: source selection, annotation, interpretation, and consideration of strengths and limitations.
• Social Sciences curriculum refresh: understand how people, groups, and institutions have responded to social issues and contributed to change.
• Social Sciences curriculum refresh: use disciplinary concepts and evidence to communicate an informed historical explanation.

Lesson structure (70 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Hook and prior knowledge. Teacher opens with the provocative hook slide showing a segregated bus image and asks, “What would make thousands of people stop using a service they needed every day?” Students make an individual prediction, then share one idea with a partner. Teacher introduces the WALT and success criteria.

2. 7–18 min · Historical context. Teacher uses the context and timeline slides to explain Jim Crow segregation, the separate-but-equal doctrine, bus rules in Montgomery, Alabama, and the position of African Americans in 1955. Students complete the first section of the Montgomery Bus Boycott source and causation worksheet, recording key details: Montgomery, Alabama; 1 December 1955; Rosa Parks; the Women’s Political Council; Martin Luther King Jr; and 381 days of organised boycotting.

3. 18–35 min · Primary-source investigation. Teacher distributes the worksheet source set and briefly models annotation using one source, thinking aloud about what it says, who created it, its purpose, and what it can reveal. In pairs, students examine a variety of sources, such as a photograph of a segregated bus, Rosa Parks’ account, a boycott leaflet, a speech extract, and a newspaper report. Students annotate the main message, historical evidence, and one strength or limitation for each source.

4. 35–48 min · Causation and agency sort. Teacher forms six groups of five and displays the source-analysis and causation instructions. Each group sorts the evidence from the worksheet into short-term causes, long-term causes, actions taken, and consequences. Students nominate a reporter and prepare a two-minute explanation using the structure: “This contributed to the boycott because… The evidence shows…”

5. 48–60 min · Share and compare contexts. Teacher facilitates group reports and uses the discussion and comparison prompts to ask: “Which cause was most important?”, “How did ordinary people exercise agency?”, and “What made the boycott effective?” Students then compare the boycott with one Aotearoa New Zealand example of collective action, such as the 1975 Māori Land March, the 1981 Springbok Tour protests, or the 1970s Māori language revitalisation movement. They identify one similarity and one difference in goals, methods, leadership, or outcomes.

6. 60–70 min · Individual historical explanation and exit check. Teacher directs students to complete the final worksheet response: “Explain how the Montgomery Bus Boycott contributed to change. Use at least three specific pieces of evidence and include one connection to Aotearoa New Zealand.” Students complete the response independently, then write a one-sentence exit response: “The boycott was significant because…” Teacher collects the worksheets to assess source use and explanation.

Resources

• the Montgomery Bus Boycott teaching deck
• the Montgomery Bus Boycott source and causation worksheet
• Projector or interactive display
• Printed source set within the worksheet
• Whiteboard and markers
• Highlighters or coloured pens
• Six sets of envelopes or folders for group evidence sorting
• Timer

Assessment

• During source analysis, check whether students identify the source’s message, creator or purpose, and a strength or limitation.
• During group reporting, listen for accurate chronology, clear causal language, and use of specific evidence rather than general claims.
• Assess the individual explanation for accurate historical detail, interpretation of primary sources, explanation of causation and agency, and a meaningful Aotearoa New Zealand comparison.

Differentiation

• Support students with a partially completed timeline, a word bank including segregation, boycott, protest, discrimination, agency, cause, consequence, and significance, and sentence starters such as “This source suggests…” and “This was important because…”
• Pair students strategically and provide selected sources with shortened extracts or enlarged text for students who need reduced reading load.
• Allow students to record an oral explanation before writing, or use speech-to-text where appropriate; read sources aloud without reducing the expectation to use evidence.
• Extension learners rank the causes from most to least significant and justify their ranking, or examine whether the boycott’s success depended more on grassroots participation or recognised leadership. They should use at least four sources and address a limitation in their evidence.