The Tour That Divided

Overview

Students investigate the 1981 Springbok Tour as a significant event in Aotearoa New Zealand. They examine short perspectives from players, protesters and news reports, then organise evidence into a cause-and-consequence chart before making a supported judgement about whether the protest was justified and how the tour affected New Zealand society.

Learning intentions

• Understand why the 1981 Springbok Tour was controversial in Aotearoa New Zealand.
• Examine how protesters, the rugby team and news organisations responded to the tour.
• Use evidence from different sources to explain causes and consequences.
• Make a reasoned judgement about the protest’s relevance and social impact.

Success criteria

• I can explain at least two reasons people opposed or supported the tour.
• I can identify what protesters, the rugby team and news reports communicated or did.
• I can organise evidence into causes and consequences.
• I can write a judgement supported by evidence from at least two sources.

Curriculum links

• Social Sciences: analysing significant events and challenges using evidence from sources.
• Social Sciences: exploring inequality, ethics, power and human rights in complex contexts.
• Social Sciences: understanding how societies function and change, including New Zealand’s place in the wider world.
• Civics and Society: understanding how people participate in civic life and influence democratic debate. The lesson also develops critical thinking, communication, participation and contribution.

Lesson structure (55 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook and prior knowledge. Teacher displays a striking image of a 1981 protest and a rugby match using the hook image and opening question, asking: “When should sport be separated from politics?” Students make an individual choice—agree, disagree or unsure—and briefly explain their first response to a partner.

2. 5–13 min · Establish the context. Teacher uses the context and timeline slides to explain that the Springboks were South Africa’s national rugby team, apartheid was a system of racial separation and discrimination, and the 1981 tour went ahead despite opposition. Clarify that not every New Zealander held the same view, and that Māori and other communities experienced the issues of racism and inequality differently. Students record three key facts: what apartheid was, what the tour involved and why it caused disagreement.

3. 13–20 min · What happened? Teacher briefly outlines the tour: protests occurred in towns and cities, police used different crowd-control methods, matches were disrupted or threatened, and the team continued to play. Use the key events timeline to distinguish between actions and opinions. Students complete the “What did they do?” section of the source investigation and cause-consequence chart, noting actions by protesters, the rugby team and authorities/news organisations.

4. 20–36 min · Source investigation. Teacher gives pairs the source investigation and cause-consequence chart containing six short, clearly labelled extracts: two from protesters, two representing rugby players or tour supporters, and two news reports. Students annotate each source for viewpoint, action, reason and possible consequence, then sort evidence into the chart. They should ask: “Who created this source?”, “What did they want people to think or do?” and “What might be missing?” Teacher circulates, checking that students distinguish a source’s claim from a confirmed fact. For sensitive material, remind students to critique ideas and actions rather than individuals.

5. 36–47 min · Structured discussion and judgement. Teacher displays the discussion prompts and writing model and facilitates a round-table discussion of: “Was protesting the tour justified?” and “How did the tour affect New Zealand society?” Each student must contribute one source-based point or build on another student’s idea. Students then write a brief judgement on the worksheet using the structure: “The protest was [justified/not justified/partly justified] because… Evidence from Source… shows… However… Overall, the tour affected New Zealand society by…”

6. 47–55 min · Share, assess and exit. Students read their judgement to a partner and identify the strongest evidence used. Teacher invites two contrasting responses, then uses the plenary and exit questions. Students complete the worksheet exit response: “What is one important consequence of the tour, and whose perspective helped you understand it?” Collect the worksheets.

Resources

• the 1981 Springbok Tour investigation deck
• the source investigation and cause-consequence chart
• Projector or interactive display
• Pens or highlighters
• Board or whiteboard
• Optional classroom map of Aotearoa New Zealand
• Teacher-selected, age-appropriate archive extracts or adapted quotations, clearly labelled by viewpoint

Assessment

• During context teaching, check students’ three key facts and correct misunderstandings about apartheid, the tour and the protests.
• During source work, question pairs about provenance, viewpoint, evidence and the difference between cause and consequence.
• Assess the written judgement for historical understanding, use of at least two sources, acknowledgement of complexity and a clear explanation of social impact. Use the exit response to identify next steps.

Differentiation

• Provide a source glossary on the worksheet for terms such as apartheid, boycott, protest, police, racism, viewpoint and consequence. Read sources aloud and offer text-to-speech or enlarged copies where needed.
• Use colour coding: one colour for what happened, one for reasons and one for consequences. Provide sentence starters such as “This source suggests…” and “This mattered because…”
• Pair students strategically and allow students to rehearse their judgement orally before writing. Accept typed, dictated or audio-recorded responses where appropriate.
• Extend confident students by asking them to compare the reliability and purpose of two sources, consider whose voices are absent, and explain why the tour remains significant in discussions of sport, human rights and national identity.