chapter 3 te whariki as a potential lever for bicultural...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 3
Te Whariki as a Potential Lever for Bicultural Development
Jenny Ritchie
ABSTRACT
Te Whiiriki, the early childhood curriculum of Aotearoa New
Zealand, was developed in partnership with Maori, the
indigenous people of this country. The writers were aware of
the guarantees of self-determination and protection that were
granted to Maori in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi/Tiriti 0
Waitangi. This chapter discusses the meanings and implications of the Treaty document, before considering content within Te
Whiiriki that recognises Treaty commitments. It draws on data
from a study of how a commitment to the Treaty was
implemented within a university education programme for early childhood teachers, in order to explore some of the issues and
dilemmas that teachers face in applying the bicultural
aspirations contained within Te Whiiriki.
79
Introduction
Any understanding of the bicultural context and commitments
of Te Whiiriki (Ministry of Education, 1996b), the early childhood
curriculum document for Aotearoa New Zealand, must be
grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi. It was this treaty that enabled British settlement of the country, which
the British Colonial Office had previously acknowledged to be
under Maori dominion (Orange, 1987, p.21).
Article Two of the Treaty guaranteed to Maori tino
rangatiratanga (self-determination over their lives and resources), which is posited here as fundamental to Maori well
being. The chapter also suggests that the concept of "bicultural development" provides a framework for Pakeha (New
Zealanders of non-Maori ancestry) to fulfil their obligatiqns
under the Treaty. This process entails Pakeha working in
partnership with Maori to support Maori aspirations. The bicultural nature of Te Whiiriki is a recognition of those
Treaty obligations. This chapter will refer to specific aspects of
the document to illustrate the extent to which early childhood
educators are required to attend to these issues. This is followed
by a discussion of the implementation of Te Whiiriki, drawing
on data from a recent study that explored the implications of a
commitment to bicultural development in an education
programme for early childhood teachers (Ritchie, 2001; 2002).
The Treaty of Waitangi as the context for bicultural development
The Treaty of Waitangi provides the foundation for a bicultural
ethos in Aotearoa New Zealand (Grace, 2000, pp.24-5). Despite
its significance as the document that legitimised the British
presence in this country, leading to the colonisation and
marginalisation of the indigenous people, the Treaty has only
80
recently become a focus of attention, as successive governments
have acknowledged the injustice of many serious historical
breaches of the Treaty. Although government agencies are now
required to recognise the Treaty, there are problems in applying
that recognition. Any such application must be grounded in a
thorough understanding of the Treaty's Preamble and Articles.
There are two versions of the Treaty, one in Maori and one in
English. Of the Maori chiefs who were signatories to the Treaty,
over 530 signed the Maori version and only 32 signed the English
version (Orange, 1987, pp.259-60). There are several key
differences between the two versions, which necessitates their parallel treatment.
The Treaty was an agreement between two parties - the
tangata whenua (indigenous people) and the British Crown
about the future political organisation of the country. The
Preamble to the Maori version clearly states the Crown's
intention to preserve to Maori their tino rangatiratanga (absolute
authority) and their land; it also introduces the Articles that
follow as "laws", whereby settlers are invited to coexist with
Maori in this country, under the governance (kawanatanga)
ceded to the Crown in Article One (Way, 2000, p.19).
The Treaty of Waitangi has been described as a "treaty of
allowance", by which an alliance was formalised between Maori
and the Crown (Grace, 2000, p.24). All residents of Aotearoa
New Zealand whose ancestors are not Maori are included on
the Crown side of the agreement. The legitimacy of their
presence here lies in the Article One agreement by Maori to cede
governance over their lands to the British Crown. Article Two
of the Maori version guaranteed to Maori their tino
rangatiratanga, which has been explained as "full authority,
status, and prestige with regard to their (Maori) possessions and
interests" (Waitangi Tribunal, cited in Brookfield, 1989, p.5); it
81
can also be interpreted as self-determination (Irwin, 1993; Smith,
1992, 1997). Tino rangatiratanga included Maori control over
their lands, villages, and homes, and everything else of value
(Kawharu, 1989, p.317; Sharp, 2001, p.38). Article Three reinforced the Crown's intention to protect
Maori interests and give the Maori people the same rights as British citizens (Sharp, 2001, p.38). A fourth article, read out to
the assembled chiefs at Waitangi, affirmed that Maori beliefs
and customs (ritenga) had equal standing with the Christian
faiths represented by the missionaries present (Colenso, 1890,
p.32; Orange, 1987, p.53; Project Waitangi, 1992). The Treaty can be seen to confirm the rights conferred on Maori
by their indigenousness, their status as tangata whenua (people of this land). Yet Maori understandings of the Treaty were
effectively dismissed by their Treaty partner when the Crown
assumed sovereignty, as ceded in Article One of the English
version, rather than exercising governance (kawanatanga)
according to the Maori version. The Crown subsequently ignored
the guarantees contained in Articles Two and Three of both the
Maori and English versions. Moana Jackson (1992a) argued that this dismissal is symbolic of the philosophical colonisation and
military and economic oppression inflicted by the Crown and its
agencies. It is only since 1975 that the New Zealand government has recognised the Treaty, and some tentative moves have been
made to give effect to the guarantees of 1840.
Implementing the Treaty effectively requires all Crown agents
to honour the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (self
determination for Maori) and to protect taonga katoa (all things
of value to Maori). Jackson (1992b) suggested that restoring the
mana (power and status) of the Treaty would provide both a
symbolic and practical framework for positive intervention,
based on three key precepts: lithe tangata whenua status of Maori
82
people; the partnership which the Treaty imposes upon them
and the Crown, and the idea of biculturalism which grows out
of it" (p.41).
The Treaty and partnership
The notion of "partnership" is thus implicit in the Treaty
(Culpitt, 1994; Durie, 1991), and is considered by many to be
one of its recognised principles (Bishop and Glynn, 1999, p.196;
M. Durie, 1994; Durie, 1998, p.29; Royal Commission on Social
Policy, 1987, p.19). The Waitangi Tribunal (2001, p.xxvi), in a
discussion of health services, stated that partnership in the
Treaty context means:
• enabling the Maori voice to be heard; • allowing Maori perspectives to influence the type of health
services delivered to Maori and the way in which they are delivered;
• empowering Maori to design and provide health services for Maori; and
• presenting a coherent and accountable face in order to sustain a high-quality relationship with its Treaty partner.
These principles apply equally to education and other public
sectors. In addition, implementing the Treaty has other
implications for Pakeha as Treaty partners. According to
sociologist Paul Spoonley (1988), it "relies upon resolving the
grievances which have arisen since 1840" and "requires the
negotiation of an equitable relationship between Maori and
Pakeha", which in turn will require the implementation of anti
racist strategies (p.45).
Rangatiratanga: self-determination as the means for wellbeing
Rangatiratanga can be defined as the right of political authority
that enables Maori to exercise self-determination in relation to
83
people and resources (Jackson, 1992c, p.175). Rangatira were
the chiefly class in traditional Maori society. Chiefly power, although inherited, could be maintained or increased only
through wise judgment that benefited the people of the hapil or
iwi (Walker, 1990, p.65). Rangatiratanga refers to the exercise of
chieftainship in order to sustain the wellbeing of all members
of the group for which the chief or chiefs were responsible. This
wellbeing depended on the necessary resources being protected
and available. The chiefly hierarchy provided the structure and authority for this sustenance to remain viable. Thus
rangatiratanga is not only about the management of resources,
but also about the right and responsibility of chiefs to care for
their people (Jackson, 1997, p.18).
The Waitangi Tribunal (2001) considers "that the active
protection of rangatiratanga over possessions implies that the
ability of Maori leaders to promote the wellbeing of their people, including their care and welfare, will also be protected" (p.xxvi).
This concept of rangatiratanga as the exercise of chiefly authority
to ensure the wellbeing of tribal members is one that has been
consistent over time, despite the obstructions generated by
British colonisation and a settler government that disregarded
its Treaty obligations.
Successive governments have promulgated legislation and
policies that have comprehensively diminished this right and,
in refusing to recognise Maori aspirations for self-determination,
have assumed control over Maori to the detriment of their well
being (Jackson, 1992d). The low status of te reo Maori, the history
of poor Maori achievement in education, and other negative
social statistics throughout the past 163 years have led to new pressures for Maori self-determination: "A theory of tino
rangatiratanga presumes that Maori collectivities and
individuals will be better served by processes and structures
84
which reflect Maori priorities as decided by Maori" (A. Durie,
1994, p.113).
The Maori reassertion of tino rangatiratanga, expressed in terms
of parallel development, can be seen in the Kohanga Reo
movement, which is based on the whanau (extended family) and
aims for the retention of Maori language and culture. Some Maori
see kohanga reo as the only viable option for securing the survival
of Maori language, culture, and identity, and for ensuring justice
for Maori (Awatere, 1984; Jackson, 1992e, 1992f). It is therefore
important that Pakeha New Zealanders accept the viability of
parallel Maori systems and their need for adequate resources. However, the existence of such parallel models does not mean
that change is no longer required within existing mainstream
systems. The obligation to facilitate change within these
institutions in support of Maori aspirations stems from the Article
Three requirement to deliver equity for Maori (Waitangi Tribunal,
2001, p.xxvii). Tino rangatiratanga requires that the nature of the
changes should be determined by Maori (Ramsden, 1994). This
creates a problem for mainstream early childhood settings where
the staff are not Maori. In many situations, teachers may be able
to elicit support from Maori families attending the service or from
professional development agencies.
Bicultural development as a framework for implementing the Treaty
"Bicultural development" may be a more useful term than
"biculturalism" when describing an agenda for educational
settings. "Bicultural development" (Metge, 1990, p.18; Royal
Commission on Social Policy, 1987, p.14) is generated by a
commitment to social justice and the Treaty of Waitangi. The
term" development" implies an ongoing process of social change
toward an equitable bicultural society (Metge, 1990). According
to the Royal Commission on Social Policy (1987):
85
Bicul~ural development has been proffered as an important element of any programme which has as its objective the advancement of the social and economic status of Maori people. It is an option which derives from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. (p.14)
Bicultural pedagogy, as an application of this concept to education, can therefore be seen as a political process (Akinyela,
1991). Its objectives might include the restoration of tino
rangatiratanga and the survival of Maori culture and language.
A primary goal of bicultural development is to increase Pakeha
commitment to supporting Maori aspirations for tino
rangatiratanga. A first step in this process is to acknowledge
and combat a heritage of racist ideology. Only from this position
of awareness and commitment should Pakeha have access to
Maori cultural knowledge, and then only on Maori terms. Since
Pakeha currently dominate and control political and educational
agendas, it is essential that they accept responsibility for the bicultural development process (Culpitt, 1994), while
maintaining accountability to Maori.
Te Whariki as a guiding document for bicultural development
The development of Te Whtiriki (Ministry of Education, 1996a)
was a deliberate attempt at a Treaty-based model of bicultural
partnership, by means of a collaboration between Helen May and Margaret Carr, from the University of Waikato, and Tamati
and Tilly Reedy, appointed by the Te K6hanga Reo National
Trust (May, 2001, pp.244-5).
The draft version of Te Whtiriki (Ministry of Education, 1993)
contained a section on II domains of appropriateness", an
extension of the concept of II developmentally appropriate
practice". This concept, promulgated by the National
86
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), has
been hugely influential in the United States (Bredekamp, c.1987).
The draft of Te Whiiriki was visionary in recognising multiple
"domains of appropriateness", and in suggesting that the early
childhood curriculum needed to consider learning experiences
that were not only developmentally appropriate but also
nationally, culturally, educationally, and individually so.
The section on nationally appropriate experiences suggested that all children should be enriched in their understanding and
knowledge of the cultural heritage of both partners to the Treaty
of Waitangi. The curriculum was seen as contributing to the
sustenance of te reo and nga tikanga Maori, making them visible and affirming their value for children from all cultural
backgrounds (Ministry of Education, 1993, pp.13-14).
The section on culturally appropriate experiences recognised that:
One of the purposes of the curriculum is to make available to the next generation the knowledge, skills, and attitudes which are regarded as valuable by their culture. Different cultures have different child-rearing patterns, beliefs and traditions ... There may be differences in the way they make sense of their world, communicate with each other, and plan and live their lives.
(Ministry of Education, 1993, p.14)
This concept of culturally appropriate education has
similarities with other approaches, including:
• culturally relevant pedagogy (Bartolome, 1994; Bowman, 1991; Darder, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 1995; O'Loughlin, 1995b;
Troyna, 1993);
• culturally responsive pedagogy (Osborne, 1991); • culturally sensitive approaches (Gonzalez-Mena, 1992;
Mangione, Lally and Singer, 1993);
87
• culturally consistent and inclusive programmes (Booze, Greer and Derman-Sparks, 1996);
• culturally congruent critical pedagogy (Hyun, 1998); and
• educationally effective cultural compatibility (Jordan, 1985). There is a growing overseas literature focusing on issues of
cultural diversity in early childhood education (see, for example,
Clark, 1995; Creasor and Dau, 1996; Derman-Sparks and ABC
Task Force, 1989; Hyun, 1998; Kendall, 1996; King, Chipman
and Cruz-Janzen, 1994; MacNaughton, 1998; Mallory and New, 1994; Stonehouse, 1991). The literature from Australia and the
United States advocates an inclusive approach, but lacks the
emphasis on indigenousness found in the Treaty-based model
of bicultural partnership developed in Aotearoa New Zealand.
When the final version of Te Whiiriki (Ministry of Education,
1996a) was released, the section on culturally appropriate
practice had been deleted. However, the commitment to the
Treaty of Waitangi was still very evident in what was the first
bicultural and bilingual curriculum document for Aotearoa New
Zealand. The introduction states: "In early childhood settings,
all children should be given the opportunity to develop knowledge and understanding of the cultural heritages of both
partners to Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi" (p.9).
Te Whiiriki (Ministry of Education, 1996a) explicitly requires
early childhood staff to support the use of the Maori language:
[Since] New Zealand is the home of Maori language and culture
... the curriculum in early childhood settings should promote te reo and nga tikanga Maori, making them visible and affirming their value for children from all cultural backgrounds. (p.42)
In the "Communication" strand, one learning outcome is that
children develop "an appreciation of te reo as a living and
relevant language" (p.76). More specifically: "The curriculum
should include Maori people, places, and artifacts, and
88
opportunities to learn and use the Maori language through social interaction" (p.43). Teachers are required to ensure that: "Maori
phrases and sentences are included as a natural part of the
programme" (p.77).
Particular Maori content is also suggested:
• Activities, stories, and events that have connections with Maori children's lives are an essential and enriching part of the curriculum for all children in early childhood settings. (p.4l)
• There should be a recognition of Maori ways of knowing and making sense of the world and of respecting and appreciating the natural environment. (p.82)
Educators are expected to be aware of bicultural issues:
• Particular care should be given to bicultural issues in relation to empowerment. Adults working with children should understand and be willing to discuss bicultural issues, actively seek Maori contributions to decision making, and ensure that Maori children develop a strong sense of self-worth. (p.40)
• To address bicultural issues, adults working in early childhood education should have an understanding of Maori views on child development and on the role of the family as well as understanding the views of other cultures in the community. (p.4l)
The document also makes it clear that educators should be
proactive in identifying racism:
• The early childhood curriculum actively contributes towards countering racism and other forms of prejudice. (p.18)
• The expectations of adults are powerful influences on children's lives. If adults are to make informed observations of children, they should recognise their own beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes and the influence these will have on the children. (p.30)
89
In addition, the curriculum invites educators to critique their
own practice and programmes. The "questions for reflection" include:
• In what ways do the environment and programme reflect the values embodied in Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi, and what impact does this have on adults and children? (p.56)
• In what ways is Maori language included in the programme? (p.76)
• What opportunities are there for children to experience Maori creative arts in an appropriate way and at an appropriate level? (p.80)
In line with the Treaty principle of partnership, Te Whariki
recognises that bicultural development in early childhood centres should involve local Maori:
• Decisions about the ways in which bicultural goals and practices are developed within each early childhood education setting should be made in consultation with the appropriate tangata whenua. (p.ll)
• There should be a commitment to, and opportunities for, a Maori contribution to the programme. Adults working in the early childhood setting should recognise the significance of whakapapa, understand and recognise the process of working as a whanau, and demonstrate respect for Maori elders. (p.64)
In 1996 the Ministry of Education announced that, from 1998,
all early childhood centres were to deliver curriculum that was
consistent with Te Whariki. This meant that a bicultural approach was no longer optional. This had huge implications for early
childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand, as Helen May
(2001) recognised:
... the holistic and bicultural approach to curriculum of Te
Whtiriki, inclusive of children from birth, was a challenge to staff who were more familiar with the traditional focus on play areas and activities for children in mainstream centres. (p.248)
90
Implementing the bicultural commitment of Te Whariki
The following sections discuss aspects of a study of the
implications of a commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi for an
early childhood teacher education programme (Ritchie, 2001,
2002). The study, the theoretical and methodological framework
of which was based on the trans formative praxis of critical
pedagogy, drew on a range of sources, primarily interviews with
nine Maori and nine Pakeha participants (including colleagues
in the teacher training institution, professional development facilitators in the early childhood sector, and graduates of the
programme). Other data used here came from student
assignments during the project.
The dilemma of a non-prescriptive curriculum
Te Whiiriki attempts to avoid the pitfalls of over-prescription by
providing a framework that each setting can apply in its own
unique way. This lack of prescription, while empowering wellqualified teachers, may be more problematic in centres where
staff are not well equipped to meet the challenge (May, 2001;
May and Carr, 1997). Because centres are inevitably selective
when formulating their programmes, the Maori content in the
curriculum document can easily be marginalised.
This tendency may be greater in centres whose philosophy is
to plan in response to children's interests, as interpreted by staff.
If few Maori children attend the centre, or if staff are ill-equipped
to identify and enhance the children's Maori-based interests,
even well-intentioned teachers may fail to deliver a bicultural
curriculum. Many participants in the study considered that some
early childhood teachers completely ignored the requirements
for Maori content. As one Pakeha graduate commented:
I have seen people use Te Whariki really well, but they are not using the bicultural aspect of it. You know, absolutely excellent
teachers too ...
91
Students made the same observation in written assignments:
During practicum and placements ... I have become aware of a number of early childhood educators who have chosen not to make an effort towards change within the centre in moving from the domination of Pakeha value systems to a bicultural stance ... Change inevitably means that not everyone will agree and some educators may feel unable to cope with this negativity. They may also be unable to really examine their own value systems and put the rights of the child ahead of their own attitudes and beliefs. Even in centres that have Te Whiiriki as their curriculum document, I have seen all aspects of Maoridom ignored.
These comments suggest that the bicultural requirements of
the curriculum are being viewed as optional by some teachers
and management. This places the onus on the monitoring and
support mechanisms offered by the Ministry of Education, the
Education Review Office, and professional development
providers. It is clearly a priority that these bodies identify and
implement strategies to deal with such resistance, which may
stem from a lack of commitment but also from a lack of
confidence or competence.
Lack of models for effective bicultural development
Many participants in the study expressed disappointment with
the lack of progress towards bicultural development in early
childhood centres. One Maori participant commented:
... while we would like to see kindergartens and so forth take on the responsibility of bicultural development ... it's not as good as we hoped it would be.
This poses difficulties for teacher education programmes, in
that students are often placed for their block practicum in centres
that make little use of te reo and tikanga Maori. Students then
find it difficult to meet the practicum requirement to incorporate
92
te reo and tikanga in their planning and teaching, since staff are
unable to support them and the children are initially
unresponsive to this new material.
Bicultural "benchmarks"?
In the training provider's region, which has a large Maori
population, very few early childhood centres were demonstrating
a strong commitment to bicultural development. A Maori
participant wondered: "How far are we asking our centres to go
in this whole area of bicultural development? There are no
benchmarks". There is no blueprint for what the philosophical
commitment might mean, in terms of its application within early
childhood centres, although Carr (1993) has sketched out some
examples. In considering the curriculum strand of Mana Atua
Well-being, for example, Carr writes: "for many Maori, self
esteem, being centred, includes a spiritual dimension; the
individual is not separate from those who have gone before ...
[hence] the importance of whakapapa. A bicultural curriculum
will attend to past, present, and future" (p.110).
Despite the lack of benchmarks for bicultural development,
teacher educators have a responsibility to inspire their students
to develop a vision they might strive towards as teachers. It may
be useful to identify the ways in which some centres have
attempted to implement a commitment to bicultural
development, bearing in mind the emergent and context-specific
nature of the process. However, descriptive examples can take
on a normative character, serving as explicit guides or recipes
(Simon, 1992, p.38). As Olson and Bruner (1996) point out, "mere
descriptions can have ... the effect of creating what they first
merely purported to describe" (pp.23-4).
A further consideration is that the dominant culture may
redefine and appropriate things Maori (Smith, 1986). This is a
93
dilemma that is difficult to resolve. All cultures are constantly changing, shifting, and borrowing from each other, and this process includes the re-assignment of meanings. Ensuring that Maori control their own cultural domain can be problematic in early childhood centres with few or no Maori staff or families.
Yet if Maori families perceive that a centre offers something Maori, they are more likely to attend in increasing numbers. Even when Maori are fully involved in the bicultural development process in a mainstream centre, the outcomes are likely to be unique to that context, and not transferable to other settings. The role of mainstream teachers in bicultural
development should not be as gate-keepers, predetermining
Maori content within the programme, but rather as "keyholders" (O'Loughlin, 1995a). They become the facilitators of a process whereby Maori participants ultimately define what and how tikanga and matauranga Maori are used.
Te Whariki as validation for Maori content
Pakeha and Maori participants in the study all valued Te Whariki for its mandating of bicultural development. Fifty-two percent of the early childhood practitioners who provided feedback on the draft curriculum had commented on "the usefulness of the reminders of bicultural issues" (Murrow, 1995, p.20).
It is important that teacher education programmes cover, as a central knowledge base, the delivery of Maori content to the depth and extent required by Te Whariki (Ministry of Education,
1996a). One Maori teacher educator felt that Te Whiiriki provided
an important validation of Maori knowledge, in that her students were more likely to take Maori aspects of the course seriously when they were required by Te Whtiriki:
The other thing for Pakeha students is Te Whiiriki makes what you do, or the Maori things you do, real. Whatever you're doing
94
in class, and when you do link it to Te Whiiriki, [they say:] "Oh,
okay, it's real then."
A Maori professional development facilitator highlighted
the Maori content within Te Whiiriki as a fundamental part of
her work:
For me the crunch stuff, in terms of utilising Te Whiiriki as a support, [a] total support system for themselves, is to weave through Te Whiiriki and to identify [that] the whole document
tautokos [supports] Maori curriculum. To actually look at those specific comments that highlight marautanga [curriculum] Maori. "All our children shall have access to the heritage of both partners of Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi". To go right through the document and pullout every principle, you know, kaupapa whakahaere [principles of Te Whiiriki] ...
Te Whiiriki had so permeated the discourse of this participant
that she described her facilitation of bicultural development in
early childhood centres as supporting whanau to "weave their
own whariki". One of the Pakeha graduates described her two
key planning tools as Te Whiiriki and her Maori dictionary. For
one kindergarten team, Te Whiiriki served as their guiding
principles and the basis for all their programme planning. In contrast, a report by the Education Review Office (1998)
criticised Te Whiiriki for failing "to give clear direction or
guidance about what early childhood providers need to do to
ensure that they are contributing positively to young children's
educational development" (p.3). It also reported that only 40
percent of the centres surveyed were delivering programmes
that were consistent with Te Whiiriki, as required by the Ministry
of Education in the Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives
and Practices (1996b). (This level of compliance is not so
disappointing, given that the requirement had not taken effect
until August 1998.)
95
Interestingly, kindergartens had the highest percentage (58
percent) of effective implementation of Te Whiiriki. The kindergarten associations' requirement for all staff to have a minimum diploma-level qualification is a likely factor in this result (Education Review Office, 1998, p.9). Helen May (2001) has stated
that the philosophy of Te Whiiriki was one that "resisted telling staff what to do, by 'forcing' each programme to 'weave' its own curriculum pattern" (p.246). The challenges inherent in the holistic and bicultural approach of Te Whiiriki are compounded by the fact that the government does not currently require all early childhood teachers to be qualified: a minimum of one supervising person (the "person in charge") in an early childhood centre is required to be qualified, while the remainder of the staff can be untrained. There are implications here not only for minimum qualifications in the early childhood sector, but also for the levels
of bicultural and bilingual competency that teacher education programmes require of students.
Whanaungatanga as a process for bicultural development
The study identified some of the dilemmas of bicultural development. It highlighted the essential inequity that exists for Maori within mainstream Pakeha institutions, whereby tino
rangatiratanga can be exercised only at the discretion of Pakeha in positions of authority, thus making it a concession of the power-holders. Delivering on a Treaty-based commitment to bicultural development with a social justice agenda requires more than rhetoric. In teacher education programmes, delivering on this commitment is highly dependent on Maori educators,
who hold the key to supplying authentic Maori content.
There are not enough Maori educators in mainstream early childhood services for them to be available on a daily basis in each setting. One particularly exciting finding of the study was
96
the suggestion of a "whanaungatanga approach" to involving
Maori in early childhood centres. Enlisting Maori support in
planning and delivering early childhood programmes is consistent with Article Two of the Treaty, in that it supports
Maori self-determination in regard to their children's education
and the protection of te reo and tikanga Maori.
Whanaungatanga (building partnerships with whanau)
recognises the centrality of whanau in Maori early childhood
care and education. It is a tangible representation of Treaty
based partnership, between teachers as Crown agents and Maori families as tangata whenua. It is also consistent with
the Te Whiiriki principle of Family and Community /Whanau
Tangata (Ministry of Education, 1996b), with Pere's "Wheke"
model of Maori values (Pere, 1991), and with research that
indicates the central importance of whanau involvement in
kaupapa Maori education (Smith, 1995; Smith, 1997).
A whanaungatanga approach can be seen to operate on three
broad levels within an early childhood setting: the interpersonal,
the programme, and the structural. At the interpersonal level,
staff need to pay attention to how they initiate and model interactions with children and with whanau. Obvious examples
are the language and body language they use. The aim should be to build trusting relationships with whanau by
communicating respect, warmth, caring, and understanding.
This would include researching, respecting, and applying tikanga, including appropriate waiata, whakatauki, and
piirakau. It might mean ensuring that a teacher is available to
welcome whanau and spend time getting to know them, and
being responsive to their approaches; and that this is seen as a
priority by the staff and management. In the area of programme planning, implementation, and
evaluation, a whanaungatanga approach begins with a strong
97
commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and to bicultural
development, clearly stated in the centre's philosophy and other documents. This would require specific statements supporting the authentic use of tikanga and te reo Maori throughout the programme. Written planning could include specific Maori
phrases to be introduced; tikanga to be focused on, such as respect for tipuna, the collection of kaimoana, and kawa regarding powhiri; relevant waiata and local legends; particular books and other resources; visits to Maori settings; and appropriate references to Papatuanuku, Ranginui, and Atua Maori. Hui could be arranged, with whanau being invited to participate in planning, implementing, and evaluating the
centre's programme, to ensure that bicultural approaches are
relevant and appropriate. At the structural level, centres can provide a welcoming and
inclusive environment by giving visibility and positive status to taonga Maori. This might include having welcome signs in te reo; having a whanau area with cups of tea and comfortable seating; encouraging children to produce kowhaiwhai and other
Maori art forms; having the Treaty of Waitangi prominently displayed; showing respect for tikanga by not using food as an art or craft resource; and prominently displaying a wide range of books, posters, puzzles, and song-charts using te reo Maori and Maori themes.
When these elements are in place, Maori whanau will begin to feel comfortable about contributing to the centre's
programme. This was apparent in the study, for example in the following comments by a Pakeha teacher, who explained that she and her colleagues had been focusing on Te Whtiriki's
expectations for Maori content:
Teacher: I think [we've been] looking at their families as individuals. And looking at who they are now and where they
98
have come from, and the people that are relevant to them ... Our big focus is trying to find information about people in the area from the past and important figures in Maori history.
JR: You are talking about very local [information], specific to your ha pii [subtribe]?
Teacher: Yes, very local, and we have approached one of our grandparents, and she is sort of our kuia [woman elder] ... And yeah, she is sort of helping us ... to find out about relevant people, relevant events which we can incorporate into stories, books, pictures, whatever we want to do so that it is part of our programme.
A whanaungatanga approach is one that is inclusive and
benefits all children and families. Several participants in the
study commented that Pakeha children were becoming
fascinated with aspects of their learning to do with tikanga
and te reo, to the point where they were frequently asking teachers to supply them with Maori words and phrases. One
Maori participant described her pleasure at observing some
Pakeha children role-playing a Maori legend, and added: "It's
becoming part of their knowing". At one centre, parents made so many enquiries about a Maori legend the children had
focused on that the teachers photocopied the next legend they
were going to use and sent it home to all families, as part of
their planning. "Responsiveness", "respect", and "reciprocity" are words
used in the early childhood literature to describe the
characteristics of effective interactions between teachers and
children (Podmore and May,' cited in Brown et al., 1998, p.9).
These words could equally be applied to the building of relationships with whanau Maori and other adults in early
childhood centres. Tilly Reedy (1995) considered respect to be a
central quality for Te Whariki, which she described as:
99
A whariki woven by loving hands that can cross cultures with respect, that can weave people and nations together. Te Whiiriki
is about providing a base that teaches one to respect oneself and
ultimately others. (p.17)
A whanaungatanga approach also requires us to rethink the concept of the teacher as "expert", since we cannot be experts in
a culture that is not our own. Teachers from the dominant Pakeha
culture require humility and sensitivity if they are to avoid
misrepresenting Maori cultural symbols and meanings, and be
aware of their limitations in facilitating bicultural development.
For example, they need to be sensitive to the feelings of Maori
parents and grandparents who may have been denied
opportunities to learn their own language (Henry, 1995, p.16).
The devolution of "expertise" requires Pakeha teachers to
give respectful validation to te ao Maori and its expression in
the ways of knowing and habits of being of whanau Maori.
This involves creating opportunities for Maori to voice their
perceptions, and listening and responding to them.
Furthermore, it should be recognised that non-Maori cannot
speak for Maori. Respect can foster a climate of collaboration
and genuine power-sharing, with the goal of whanau
involvement in all aspects of the programme, including
resourcing, planning, implementation, and evaluation.
Conclusion
Te Whiiriki has heralded a new era for early childhood education
in Aotearoa New Zealand. It signals a generational shift, from a
mainstream curriculum that treated biculturalism as mere
window-dressing, to a model that validates Maori as experts,
affirms their contributions, and supports their aspirations. The
Treaty of Waitangi provides the foundation (te ruapapa) on which
the whariki of our curriculum can be woven and rewoven, as
100
early childhood educators lead future generations of New
Zealanders forward, modelling partnership and respect in an
ongoing process of bicultural development. However, there is work to be done, and teacher educators and professional
development providers have a huge responsibility to provide the
momentum and sustenance that will make this vision a reality.
References
AGB /McNair (1992). Survey of demand for bilingual and immersion education in Maori: A report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: AGB/McNair.
Akinyela, M. (1991). Bicultural development specialization: A vision toward the future. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks College.
Awatere, D. (1984). Maori sovereignty. Auckland: Broadsheet.
Bartolome, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a
humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173-194.
Bishop, R. & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Booze, R., Greer, C. & Derman-Sparks, L. (1996). Creating
culturally consistent and inclusive early childhood programs
for all children and families. Child Care Information Exchange, 1, 60-62.
Bowman, B. (1991). Educating language minority children:
Challenges and opportunities. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The care and education of America's young children: Obstacles and opportunities (pp.17-29). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bredekamp, S. (c.1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate
101
practice in early childhood programs (revised edn.). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Brookfield, F. (1989). The New Zealand constitution: The search
for legitimacy. In I. Kawharu (Ed.), Waitangi: Maori and Pakeha perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, R., May, H., Meade, A., Podmore, V. & Te One, S. (1998).
Draft options paper: Early childhood qualifications and regulations. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Carr, M. (1993). Biculturalism position paper. In M. Carr &
H. May (Eds.), Te Whariki: Curriculum papers (pp.107-116).
Hamilton: University of Waikato, Early Childhood Curriculum
Project.
Carr, M. & May, H. (1993). Choosing a model: Reflecting on the
development process of Te Whariki: National early childhood
curriculum guidelines in New Zealand. International Journal of Early Years Education, 1(3), 7-21.
Clark, P. (1995). Culturally appropriate practices in early
childhood education: Families as the resource. Contemporary Education, 66(3), 154-157.
Colenso, W. (1890). The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand February 5 and 6, 1840. Wellington: George Didsbury, Government Printer.
Creasor, B. & Dau, E. (1996). The anti-bias approach in early childhood. Pymble: Harper Educational.
Cross, T. (1995). The early childhood curriculum debate. In M.
Fleer (Ed.), DAPcentrism: Challenging developmentally appropriate practice (pp.87-108). Watson, ACT: Australian Early
Childhood Association.
Culpitt, I. (1994). Bicultural fragments: A Pakeha perspective.
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 2, 48-62.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical
102
foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey. Derman-Sparks, L. & ABC Task Force (1989). Anti-bias
curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Durie, A. (1994). The Treaty ofWaitangi in the life of the nation.
In P. F. Green (Ed.), Studies in New Zealand social policy (2nd
edn.) (pp.103-124). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Durie, E. T. J. (1991). The Treaty in Maori history. In W. Renwick
(Ed.), Sovereignty and indigenous rights: The Treaty of Waitangi in international contexts. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: Maori health development. Auckland:
Oxford University Press.
Durie, M. (1998). Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Durie, M. (2001). A framework for considering Maori
educational advancement. Paper presented at the Hui
Taumata Matauranga, Turangi/Taupo. Education Review Office (1998). Use ofTe Whariki. Wellington:
Education Review Office.
Else, A. (1997). Maori participation & performance in education: A literature review and research programme. Wellington: Ministry
of Education.
Gonzalez-Mena, J. (1992). Taking a culturally sensitive approach
to infant-toddler programs. Young Children, 47(2),4-18.
Grace, P. (2000). The Treaty of Waitangi and the expression of
culture in Aotearoa. Paper presented at the Treaty Conference
2000, Tamaki Makauraul Auckland. Henry, E. (1995). Ella Henry - executive director of Greenpeace
New Zealand. In H. Melbourne (Ed.), Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective (pp.13-22). Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett.
103
Hyun, E. (1998). Making sense of developmentally and culturally appropriate practice (DCAP) in early childhood education. New
York: Peter Lang.
Ingleby, D. (1986). Development in social context. In M. Richards
& P. Light (Eds.), Children of social worlds (pp.297-317).
Cambridge: Polity Press. Irwin, K. (1993). Maori education in 1993: A review and
discussion. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 3, 129-
160.
Jackson, M. (1992a). The Treaty and the word: The colonisation
of Maori philosophy. In G. Oddie & R. Perrett (Eds.), Justice, ethics, and New Zealand society (pp.1-10). Auckland: Oxford
University Press.
Jackson, M. (1992b). The Treaty ofWaitangi. In Project Waitangi
Tamaki Makaurau & The Mental Health Foundation of New
Zealand (Eds.), Why the Treaty ofWaitangi is important (pp.40-
42). Auckland: Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.
Jackson, M. (1992c). Justice: Unitary or separate. In D. Novitz &
B. Willmott (Eds.), New Zealand in crisis: A debate about today's critical issues (pp.171-183). Wellington: GP Publishers.
Jackson, M. (1992d). The Crown, the Treaty, and the usurpation
of Maori rights. In Project Waitangi Tamaki Makaurau & The
Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand (Eds.), Why the Treaty of Waitangi is important (pp.44-48). Auckland: Mental
Health Foundation of New Zealand.
Jackson, M. (1992e). Justice for Maori: More than one option.
Race, Gender, Class, 14, 44-50.
Jackson, M. (1992f). Maori access to justice. Race, Gender, Class, 11/12, 36-41.
Jackson, M. (1997). Maori Law Commission. Kia Hiwa Ra: National Maori Newspaper, 18, October.
Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Culture,
104
curriculum, connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 120-136.
Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic
information to educational program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16(2),105-123.
Kawharu, I. (Ed.) (1989). Waitangi: Maori and Pakeha perspectives of the Treaty ofWaitangi. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Kendall, F. (1996). Diversity in the classroom: New approaches to the education of young children. New York: Teachers College
Press.
King, E., Chipman, M. & Cruz-Janzen, M. (1994). Educating young children in a diverse society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching!: The
case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice: Exploring issues of culture, class, and curriculum.
In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp.17-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
MacNaughton, G. (1998). Respecting difference or recycling racism?: A case for reconceptualising curriculum discourses
of multiculturalism and gender equity. Paper presented at the Reconceptualising the Early Years of School Conference,
Canberra. Mallory, B. L. &New,R. S. (Eds.) (1994). Diversity & developmentally
appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education. New
York: Teachers College Press. Mangione, P. L., Lally, J. R. & Singer, S. (1993). Essential
connections: Ten keys to culturally sensitive child care. Sacramento, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development.
105
May, H. (2001). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in postwar New Zealand. Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books/New Zealand Council for Educational Research. May, H. & Carr, M. (1997). Making a difference for the under
fives?: The early implementation of Te Whariki, the New
Zealand national early childhood curriculum. International Journal of Early Years Education, 5(3), 225-232.
Metge, J. (1990). Te Kohao 0 Te Ngira: Culture and learning. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1993). Te Whariki: Draft guidelines for developmentally appropriate programmes in early childhood services. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1996a). Te Whariki: He whariki matauranga ma nga mokopuna 0 Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1996b). Revised statement of desirable
objectives and practices (DOPs) for chartered early childhood
services in New Zealand. Supplement to the Education Gazette. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Murrow, K. (1995). Early childhood workers' opinions on the draft document Te Whariki. Research Report Series No.5. Wellington:
Ministry of Education.
O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Appropriate for whom?: A critique of the culture and class bias underlying developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood education. Paper
presented at the Conference on Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education: Research, Theory, and Practice,
Chicago, Illinois.
O'Loughlin, M. (1995a). Daring the imagination: Unlocking
voices of dissent and possibility in teaching. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 107-116.
O'Loughlin, M. (1995b). If not 1/ child development", then what?:
106
Six propositions concerning children, their worlds, and the
language we use to describe them. Paper presented at
Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education: Research,
Theory, and Practice: Fifth Interdisciplinary Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.
Olson, D. & Bruner, J. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp.9-27). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Orange, C. (1987). The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Allen &
Unwin/Port Nicholson Press. Osborne, B. (1991). Towards an ethnology of culturally
responsive pedagogy in small-scale remote communities: Native American and Torres Strait Islander. Qualitative Studies in Education, 4(1),1-17.
Pere, R. (1991). Te Wheke. Gisborne: Ao Ake.
Project Waitangi (1992). Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi. In Project Waitangi
Tamaki Makaurau & The Mental Health Foundation of New
Zealand (Eds.), Why the Treaty of Waitangi is important. Auckland: Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.
Ramsden, I. (1994). A challenge to education. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 3, 18-25.
Reedy, T. (1995). Toku Rangatiratanga na te Mana-Matauranga: 'Knowledge and power set me free ... '. Paper presented at the
Sixth Early Childhood Convention, Tamaki Makaurau
Auckland.
Ritchie, J. (2001). Implementing a bicultural curriculum: Some considerations. Early Childhood Folio,S, 23-26.
Ritchie, J. (2002). Bicultural development: Innovation in
implementation of Te Whariki. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 32-37.
Royal Commission on Social Policy (1987). The Treaty ofWaitangi
107
and social policy: Discussion booklet no. 1. Wellington: Royal
Commission on Social Policy.
Sharp, A. (2001). Recent juridical and constitutional histories of
Maori. In A. Sharp & P. McHugh (Eds.), Histories, power and loss: Uses of the past - A New Zealand commentary (pp.31-60).
Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Simon, R. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Smith, G. H. (1986). Taha Maori: A Pakeha privilege. delta, 37, 11-23.
Smith, G. H. (1992). Education: Biculturalism or separatism. In
D. Novitz & B. Willmott (Eds.), New Zealand in crisis: A debate about today's critical issues. Wellington: GP Publications.
Smith, G. H. (1995). Whakaoho whanau: New formations of
whanau as an innovative intervention into Maori cultural and
educational crises. He Pukenga Korero, 1(1), 8-36.
Smith, G. H. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Maori: Theory
and praxis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland.
Smith, M. (1995). Mike Smith: A community organiser who
caught the headlines by taking a chainsaw to the pine tree on
One Tree Hill. In H. Melbourne (Ed.), Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective (pp.97-107). Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Spoonley, P. (1988). Are you racist? You'd be much nicer if you
weren't. In W. Hirsh & R. Scott (Eds.), Getting it right: Aspects of ethnicity and equity in New Zealand education (pp.42-48).
Wellington: Office of the Race Relations Conciliator.
Stonehouse, A. (1991). Opening the doors: Childcare in a multicultural society. Watson, ACT: Australian Early
Childhood Association.
Tau, T. M. (2001). Matauranga Maori as an epistemology. In A.
Sharp & P. McHugh (Eds.), Histories, power and loss: Uses of
108
the past - A New Zealand commentary (pp.61-73). Wellington:
Bridget Williams Books.
Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Maori Development (1998a). Making education work for Maori: Report on consultation. Wellington:
Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Maori Development.
Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Maori Development (1998b). The national Maori language survey: Te Mahi Rangahau Reo Maori. Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Maori Development.
Troyna, B. (1993). Racism and education: Research perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Waitangi Tribunal (2001). The Napier hospital and health services report. Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal.
Walker, R. (1990). Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle without end. Auckland: Penguin.
Way, K. (2000). Directions for Pakeha Tauiwi in strengthening
the Treaty. Paper presented at the Treaty Conference 2000,
Tamaki Makaurau/ Auckland.
Williams, J. (2000). The Treaty of Waitangi and Western
democracy in practice. Paper presented at the Treaty
Conference 2000, Tamaki Makaurau/ Auckland.
Author profile
JENNY RITCHIE is a senior lecturer in the Department of
Professional Studies in Education at the University of Waikato.
Her current research interests involve Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi
implementation within education and elsewhere in Aotearoa,
bicultural curriculum, socio-cultural perspectives in early
education and childrearing, and issues of racism within
education and society more generally.
109
