tuia te ako 2012

Tuia Te Ako 2012 1HE TAKOHANGA WHAKAARO Conference Proceedings

HE TAKOHANGA WHAKAARO

Conference Proceedings for Tuia Te Ako 2012

Tuia Te Ako 2012 was hosted byAko Aotearoa – National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence

National OfficePO Box 756Wellington 6140P: 04 801 0808E: [email protected]: www.akoaotearoa.ac.nz

ISSN 2230-4584 (print) ISSN 2230-45 ( )92 online


HE RÄRANGI KÖRERO Contents

NGÄ KAITAUTOKO Conference Sponsors 2

HE KUPU WHAKATAKI Introduction 3

TE WÄTAKA Programme 4

Assessing Hauora Mäori in Clinical Settings 6By R. Jones, P. Poole, M. Barrow, P. Reid, S. Crengle, J. Hosking, B. Shulruf.

Mäori Learners In Workplace Settings By Jenny Conner, Verna Niao and Cain Kerehoma 11

Mätauranga Mäori Evaluative Quality Assurance 14By Daryn Bean

MANAAKITANGA: HE KÄKANO AHAU I RUIA MAI I RANGIATEA 21By Taina Whakaatere Pohatu

MANAAKITANGACare and Support within Private Training Establishments 29By Janeene Panoho

Kaupapa Mäori in Early Childhood Education 33By Ngaroma Williams and Mary-Liz Broadley

Te whenua, te tangata, te aronui, te märamatanga 43By Professor Michael Walker

Arohatia te reo? Me pëhea hoki! 48By Associate Professor Rawinia Higgins

Inakitia rawatia hei käkano mö äpöpöEarly Childhood Student Teachers Encounter with te ao Mäori 55By Diane Gordon Burns and Leeanne Campbell

Ko te reo tonu te mauri o te mana MäoriEnabling Powerful Tertiary Engagement with the Language Journey 62By Glenis Philip-Barbara

KiKia a titikak te e mamahihi whahakak akko o kikiaa whakakamamanattiaia aai te ttanangagataTrTransfsforormimingg TTeaeachchiingg 6666By Dr Catherine Savage

Iwwii anand d UnUniviverersitieses 7373By Dr Maria Bargh

Tuia Te Ako 20122 HE TAKOHANGA WHAKAARO Conference Proceedings

NGÄ KAITAUTOKO Conference Sponsors

POUNAMU

Te Puni Kökiri – the Ministry of Mäori Development – is the Crown’s principal advisor on Crown-Mäori relationships.

The Ministry is the only government department solely focused on Mäori, and leads Mäori public policy by advising the Government on policy affecting Mäori wellbeing and development.

Established in 1992, Te Puni Kökiri has two broad functions:

• To promote increases in levels of achievement by Mäori in education, training and employment, health and economic resource development.

• To monitor and liaise with other government departments and agencies to ensure their services for Mäori are adequate.

Te Puni Kökiri means a group moving forward together. As the name implies, the organisation seeks to harness the collective talents of Mäori to produce a stronger Aotearoa/New Zealand.

PIPI

The Ministry of Education is the Government’s lead advisor on the education system, shaping direction foreducation agencies and providers and contributing to the Government’s goals for education.

‘Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success: The Mäori Education Strategy 2008 – 2012’ is the Ministry’s approach to ’improving the performance of the education system for and with Mäori.

It is a key aspect of having a quality education system where all students are succeeding and achieving.

The strategy aims to change and transform the education system to ensure all learners have the opportunity togain the skills and knowledge they need to realise their potential and succeed.

The Ministry would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Ako Aotearoa to our collective understandingof how we can support better outcomes for Mäori tertiary learners.


HE KUPU WHAKATAKI

Introduction

Hei tïmatanga körero, me mihi ki ö tätau mate. Koira ko te hunga kua moe ö rätau whatu, i tahu ai te ahi i ö rätau nä wä. Nä reira, haere koutou. Moe mai i te rangimärie.

Hoki mai anö ki te ao ora nei, tïhei mauriora – tënä tätau katoa.

E rau rangatira mä, märeikura mai, whatukura mai, kei te mihi tonu te ngäkau o te hunga i whakaara ake i ngä poupou o te whare o Tuia Te Ako i tü ki te marae o Pipitea i te 29 ki te 30 o ngä rä o Poutü-te-rangi 2012.

Kei te pukapuka nei ngä tuhituhinga a ëtahi o ngä kaiwhakatakoto körero i whakaihiihi i te hunga i tae ki te hui. Mai i te rangatira Te Ahorangi Michael Walker tae atu ki ngä whetü hou, he körero kei roto e wero nei i tehinengaro, e tahu ai te ahi o roto i a tätau katoa.

Me whakatika atu ki http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/our-work-mäori-educators-and-learners kia mätakitaki i te ataata o te katoa o ngä whakatakotoranga.

Kei ngä whärangi nei hoki he whakaahua me ngä kanohi koa, whakaaroaro hoki e whakanui ana i te nohotahitanga a ngä taina me ngä tüakana. E kï ana te whakataukï a te Päkehä, “pikitia kotahi, kotahi mano kupu” - he taunaki ngä whakaahua nei i taua körero.

Kei te kömiti whakamahere, Te Manu Mätauranga te kupu whakamutunga. E mihi ana mätau ki a Taranaki Whänui, te röpü Auaha, Te Puni Kökiri tae atu ki Group Mäori i tautoko mai nei i te hui

Ki a koutou katoa, te whänau i haere mai i ngä töpito katoa o te ao mätauranga Mäori, käore e mutu te mihi me te aroha ki a koutou katoa.

Toi te äkonga, toi te whenua, toi te mana.

The whänau involved in the planning and management of Tuia Te Ako 2012 would like to issue our heartfelt gratitude to all who attended.

This booklet contains papers from some of the presenters who challenged and inspired the assembly of industrious and committed Mäori tertiary educators. From Professor Michael Walker to the rising stars of Mäori tertiary education, there is plenty in the assembled literature to challenge and the light the fire within us all.

For video of all of the presentations from Tuia Te Ako 2012, please go to http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/our-work-mäori-educators-and-learners.

ThThee sosomem times joyful, sometitimemess cocontemplative photoggraraphphs ththroughout the booklletet ccomomplp ement the fine wwords ofof oourur presenters s anandd underllininee ththe importanncece ooff comingng ttogogether as oonene.. ThThe sayiingng,, “aa picture ppaiaintntss aththoousaandn worordsds” isis pprorooof pososititiive.e

ThThee plplanannininng comommimittttee oof f TuTuiaia TTee AkAkoo 20201212,, TeTe MMannuu MäMätataururanangaga wououldld llikike toto tthahanknk TTararananakaki WhWhänänuui, AuAuahahaaGrGroup anandd spsponsors Te PuPunini KKökiri anandd MiM nistry of EdEducucatation GrGrououpp MäM ori.

ToTo tthoosese wwhoho cammee fromm aall ppoiointtss oon ttheh commpass ooff tthe e woworlrldd ofof MMäorii eedducaatitioon, ththannkk yoy uu fof r mamakkingg TuTuiaia TTe e AkAkoo 20201212 a sspepeciialal eveventnt aandnd wwee lookok ffororwardrd tto o seseeieingng yyouou allll aat t TuTuiia TTee AkAkoo 20201313 att TeTe WWänänanangag oo RaRaukawwaa 99 –– 11 April 201013.3.

Toi te äkonga, toi te whenua, toi te mana.


TE WÄTAKA Programme

TTTTTTTe RRRRRRRääääääää TTTTTTuattttttaaaaaaahi: Räpare,, tee 229 o Pooutü-te-rrraangi 220112222

DDDDDDDaayyyyyyy 1: TThhhuuursdayyyy 222229999 MMMaarrch 222001222

8.000 aaaammmmm PÖPÖPÖÖPÖÖPÖÖWHWHHHHIRIRIRIRI WWWeWW lclcooomo inng Ceremom nynyyy

999.999 33330303330 aam MMMIMIMMM HIHIMIMIMIMMMM HIHH Hostst WWelcome: Ako Aototeearorooaaaa ––– DrDDrD PPeteter Coolbear, Ngaahiwi AApap nui

POU Theme: Kaitiakitanga – guardianship

9.4555 aaaaaaammmmmm KAKAIKKKKÖRÖRÖRÖÖ ERERRERO OOO MAMAMATUTUTUTUA AA Keyny ottee Speeaker

DDDrDDD Te HuHuHuuH irranannnngiggg E. Waikkkkereee epururuu – ‘HHe Waia ruua: He MäMätaurana ga Mäoriri’

10.30 ammmmmmm KÄÄÄÄÄHUI KÖKÖKÖKKÖREREEROOO Paaaanennnn l SeSeeeeessioionn

‘K‘K‘KKähhhuiuu Waiaiaiiruruua: Impleeememm ntttatata ioon ofof wwaairua withhinin aann educational environment’

TeTeTeT AAAhhuukak ramümümüüü CChahahh rlrleseses Royaalaaa

11.1155 aamama AWAAWWHEHEHEH AWAWHEHEHEE Woorkr shoop: ‘Tee Waairruaua’

121 .00 pmm KAKKK I OO TETE POOUOUO TÜTÜTÜÜTANGA Luunch

POU Theme: Manaakitanga – care and support

12.45 ppm KÄKÄÄÄHUHUHUH II KÖKÖRERERORO DDiscussion GGroroup:: Jacqualene Poutü – ‘Äkongaa Mäori’’

1.330 pmm HUINGA KÖRERO Concurrent Sessions

1. WWHARENUI Meeting Housee

•• Dr Rhys Jones –– ‘Assessinng MMäori healtlth inin clininicacall settingsgs’

• ITF/NZMITO: Jenny Connoror, Cain KKerehomoma,, Veernaa Niaoo – ‘Mäoori learners s inn workplacee ssettttings’

• NZQA: Daryn BeBeana – ‘Mätauuraannga Mäorrii evaluaativve quau lityy assurance’

2. HÖH RO MATUA MaMain Halll

• Masssey Univeversr ittyy/Tee Rauu Whakaara: Franceses WWhitee –– ‘Mä mmätou rätou e mmanaaaki’

• Te Wänanga o Aotteaearoa: Taiainaa Pohattu u –– ‘Manaakikitanga – HHe käkannooo i ruia maii i Rangiätea’

• MITE: Mariaa PaPaenengaa ((((NgNgNgawwwwataa i))) ––– ‘Mäorri Into Tertrtiary EEducacationn – hhelelpingng bridge the ddispaaapapariiririttty gggapapapa for MMMMäoäoäori iiinnn nnn eddee ucationn’

3.3.33 WHWHWHWHWWWHHARAREKEKAIAIAIIA DDDDininininggg Rooom

• ITITITP: TTTe AtAtAtAtA awawa hai Maaaatatatattt iriraa ––– ‘RRRauaukuukurarararaaaa’’

• PTE: Janneeeneee PPPPanoho – ‘‘‘‘BeBeBeBeBeB cococococc mmmimm nggg a sucucccccecececeessfful practitionerer oof mamm naakkkitttititaangaaa’

• OOOpen PPP lol ttytechhhnicicic/T/T/TTe TaTaTaTaariririirir PPununnaaaa a OrOOO aaa oo o o o AAoAoteteararoa: : Professor MiMiikekeke Mararara fffef ll-JJonones, Ngararararromooo aaa WiWWW lliamss, Maary-LLiziz BBroadadley – ‘BBBicultutuurararalll cooommmpetence iiiiinnnnnn eaeaeaaarlrlrlrly y yyyy chchildhdhoooooooooddd ededducucuucattioion’n’

WHAKAREWA I TE PÜRONGO Project Launch

3.3 0000000 ppmmm KAKAKAPUPUPUPUUUUU TÏ Afterrnnooooo nnn TeTT a

3.30300 ppmm KAKAKAIKIKIKÖRÖRÖRERERERRRRO OOOO MAMAM TUTUUAA A KeKeKeynynynyynote e e SpSpSpS eaeaeaeeaakekkk rr

PrPrPrrofoo essor Micchael WaWaWalkerererr – ‘Te Whenua, TeTeTeTT TTTananangagg ta, Te Aronui,i, TeTeTe MMMäräräramaa atananngga’

44.151515 pppmmm WHAKATAKOTORANGA Presentation

DrDrDr EElaana TTaaipapakiii CCCurtis – ‘Täätotototoooouuu TäTäTätou: Succecesss forr alll –– impprovingg Mäori sstutututudedent sssuss ccesesssss in hheaealtlthh profofofesese siiono alll dddegreeee-e-e-level pprprp oogrammmmmmess’

555.0000 pmm WHAKAREWA I TE PÜRONGO Project Launch: ‘Tätou Tätou’

7.00 pppmm HÄÄÄÄKAKAKARI Confnfererrenene ce BBBaannquq et: PPiipipiteeaa Maraaee


Te RRää Tuaarruuaa: Rämmerre ttee 300 oo PPouutüü-tee-ranggi 201122

DDaay 2: FFrriidaayy 30 MMarchh 22001122

7.330 amm Kapu TTïï Tea and d CoCoffffee

8.30 am MIHIMIHI Welcome

POU Theme: Te Reo Mäori – Mäori language

9.00 am KAIKÖRERRO MAATUTUA KeKeyynote SpSpeeakeer

PrP ofessor r Tïmoti Käretu –– ‘Kimihia, ranngahhauaa kei heaea tte koouunga e ngaro nei?’’

9.9 45 am HUINGA KÖRERO Concurrent Sessions

1. WHAARER NUI MeMeete ing HoHouusee • Dr Rawinia HHiggins – ‘ArArohatatia te reo?o? Mee pëp hheaa hhokii!’!’

22. HÖROO MATUA A MaM in Hall• Annii Pahuruu-HHuuriwai – ‘He Könaee Ako:o: e-Näti’

3.. WHAAREKAI DiDiniinng Room• DiDiane Gordon-Burns, Leeanne CaC mmpbell – ‘Inakkitiaa rawatia hei kääkanno

mömö äpöpö: Early childhood sttududenent teachers enccountn er with te ao MäMäoori’’

100.3.30 amam KAK PU TÏ Morning Tea

1111.000 0 am WHAKATAKOTORANGA Presentation

Ruakere Hond – ‘Tahia TeTe MMararae, Tahiaa TeTe Wänangga’

11.45 am WHAKATAKOTORANGA Presentation

Glenis Phhilip-Barbara –– ‘‘KoKo ttee reeo toonu te mauri o te mananaa Mäorori:i Enaablingpowwerfull tertiarary engagement with tht e laangnguaage journneyey’

12.330 0 pmp KAI O TEE POUTÜTANGA Luncchh

POU Theme: Whakamana – empowerment

1.300 ppm m KAIKKÖRERRO MATUA KeKeynynote Speaker

Dr Caatheriine Savage –– ‘Kia tika te mahi whakaakoo kia whhakakamamanna aai te e tatanggatatata: TeTeacaa hhing fforor traransn formmation’

2.1555 pppm WHAKATAKOTORANGA Presentation

Dr SSaarah-Jane Tiakkiwiwai – ‘Kia tupuu, kikia a hua, kkia ppuäwawai: WWhaakakamana, thhe e 4 4 R’R ss ananddMäMäoori success in the tertiary systemm’

3.0000 pm KAKAPPU TÏ AfA ternoon Tea

3.300 pm WHAKATAKOTORANGA Presentation

Dr Maria Bargh -- ‘Iwi and universitties’

4.4.15 pm Whakaräpopotto/WhWhakakapi Hui/Hoki kkii tete Käiäinngaa


IntroductionCultural competence and equity are important goals of medical education (Betancourt, 2006; Sanson-Fisher et al., 2008). It isimportant that health professional education programmes in Aotearoa, New Zealand contribute to improving Hauora Mäori and promote reduction and elimination of health inequities (Bacal et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2010). Assessment of student competence in thisarea is a critical piece of the puzzle; the higher education literature stresses the role that assessment of learning plays in defining what learners should know and be in order to be a successful student(see for example, Brown & Knight, 1994). It follows that assessment processes must be aligned with educational goals relating to culturalcompetence and equity (Betancourt, 2006; Smith et al., 2007).In medical curricula, as in many other professional programmes,educators attempt to prepare students to meet professional expectations by involving students in periods of workplace learning. Assessment of professional attitudes and values in these settingsis problematic. Methods for assessing integrative, relational andi bl ti M th d f i i t ti l ti l daffective competencies are less well-established than those used inknowledge and skills domains (Epstein & Hundert, 2002). It is our andothers’ experience (e.g. Stephenson et al., 2006) that many clinicians avoid assessment in these areas, possibly because they struggle with the attitudinal assessment that it requires.

Identifying effective assessmentThe primary aim of this implementation project was to identifyeffective assessment methods, tools and staff development processesthat can be used to assess Hauora Mäori competencies in clinicalsettings.

The specific objectives of the project were to:

• Develop two new assessment tasks and associated marking schedules.

• Pilot these assessment methods in a clinical learning environment,with associated development and support for clinicians in thepilot areas.

• Modify the assessment methods and tools as appropriate.

• Implement the assessment tasks and associated staff developmentat different clinical teaching sites.

• Evaluate the new methods of assessment.

• Refine the tools and develop recommendations for expansion into other clinical teaching settings.

Assessing Hauora Mäori in Clinical SettingsBy R. Jones, P. Poole, M. Barrow, P. Reid, S. Crengle, J. Hosking, B. Shulruf.


MethodsA four-step process was undertaken to address these research objectives:

1. Developing assessment tools.

2. Developing an evaluation tool.

3. Piloting assessment and evaluation tools.

4. Implementing and evaluating assessment tools.

1. Developing assessment toolsDevelopment of the new assessment tools was informed by three main sources of information: a literature review of assessment methods and tools, a workshop with clinical teachers and student feedback. After weighing up different options, it was decided that the assessment tasks would be administered in the year 4 general medicine clinical attachment. By mapping available assessment options against the desired learning outcomes, and considering the options in light of acceptability and feasibility considerations, it was decided that the two assessment tools piloted and evaluated in this project would be a reflective commentary and a modified case report.

2. Developing an evaluation toolThe new assessment methods were evaluated as ‘interventions’, and we reviewed the literature to identify tools for evaluation of educational interventions in indigenous health and related domains. It was established that a student questionnaire would be employed as the primary means of evaluating the new assessment tools, to be administered before and after the assessment was undertaken. The research team identified three key domains of investigation for the questionnaire: attitudes/beliefs, engagement and satisfaction. The items were then devised, developed and considered within the group, with some items adapted from instruments used in other settings. Attitudes and beliefs were measured in both pre- and post-attachment questionnaires, while engagement in learning and satisfaction were primarily evaluated in the post-attachment questionnaire.

3. Piloting assessment and evaluation toolsPiloting the assessment tools

The assessment tools were piloted with medical students in two rotations of year 4 medical students at three participating clinical teaching sites. The reflective commentary and the modified case report were piloted at separate clinical teaching sites. The pre-existing assessment tool, a case report, was used at a third clinical teaching site in order to provide a control group. Evaluation questionnaires were distributed to students at the beginning and end of their attachment. The questionnaire results from the pilot rotations did not suggest any potential improvements to either the reflective commentary or the modified case report. In addition, those marking the assessments did not identify any necessary improvements.

Piloting the evaluation tool

The two clinical rotations were also used in the intial period to pilot the evaluation tool. For the items measuring student attitudes and beliefs, a series of statistical analyses were conducted, including reliability coefficients and a factor analysis. Based on a conceptual synthesis of the underlying component questions, three factors were identified: ‘cultural competence is important’; ‘ethnic inequalities exist’; and ‘non-deficit analysis’.


4. Implementing and evaluating assessment toolsThe new assessment tasks were implemented during a six-week clinical attachment involving year 4 medical students. Students were allocated to one of four teaching hospitals; three of the four teaching hospitals were involved in this study. Each participating site was allocated one of three assessment tasks. The study design is summarised below.

Eligible population (Year 4 medical

students)

Site 1

Intervention

Site 2

Intervention

Site 3

Control

Reflectivecommentary +

Staff development

Modified case report + Staff development

Existing case report (no staff

development)

Questionnaires were administered to students at the beginning and end of their attachment (before and after completing the assessment). These measured attitudes and beliefs, engagement with learning and satisfaction with the assessment.

Key findingsOf a total of 255 eligible students, 199 (78 per cent) completed pre-attachment questionnaires and 159 (62 per cent) completed post-attachment questionnaires.

Attitudes and beliefsMean scores for factor one (‘cultural competence is important’) ranged between 4.04 and 4.20 pre-attachment and between 3.44 and 4.20 post-attachment. Mean scores for factor two (‘ethnic inequalities exist’) ranged between 2.67 and 3.10 pre-attachment and between 2.43 and 3.10 post-attachment. Mean scores for factor three (‘non-deficit analysis’) ranged between 3.27 and 3.47 pre-attachment and between 2.84 and 3.67 post-attachment. Successive comparisons showed no significant differences between pre- and post-attachment scores for the reflective commentary or modified case report. However, for the control group there was a significant decline in the mean score for factor one (‘cultural competence is important’) between the pre- and post-attachment questionnaires.

Comparison of factor values across the three study groups showed that post-attachment values for all three factors were significantly higher for the reflective commentary than for the control group.

Student engagementWe were interested in whether different assessment tasks would prompt students to engage to a greater or lesser extent in various Mäori health learning activities. Although there were statistically significant differences in a small number of items, this could have been due to multiple comparisons, and the meaning of the differences in individual items is not clear.


SatisfactionThe key items of interest in this domain related to evaluation of the written assessment tasks. These items were rated significantly higher (p < .05) for the reflective commentary group (M = 3.38, SD = .80) than for the control group (M = 2.48, SD = 1.60). They were also rated significantly higher (p < .05) for the modified case report group (M = 3.32, SD = .88) than for the control group (M = 2.48, SD = 1.60). No significant differences were found between the groups doing the reflective commentary group and the modified case report.

Qualitative findingsA number of themes were identified from free-text comments provided by students on the post-attachment questionnaires. These were summarised as ‘appreciated learning about Hauora Mäori’, ‘reflective approach good’, ‘more structured teaching and assessment needed’, ‘lack of contact with Mäori patients’ and ‘need to address other cultures’.

Themes from the focus group interviews were broadly similar to those identified in questionnaire comments. One concerning aspect of the focus group data was that several students reported that they put little effort into their Mäori health assessment, either because of other demands on their time or because they did not consider the assessment to be important.

Implications for teaching and learningThe findings of this study have relevance to other educational contexts where students are expected to develop and demonstrate professional qualities in workplace settings. The importance of explicitly assessing competency areas such as Hauora Mäori, despite the difficulty involved in doing so, cannot be overstated. If curricular domains like these are not formally assessed, they can be seen by students as less important and therefore not emphasised in their learning (see for example, Lypson et al., 2008).

Self-reflection is an important vehicle for changing professional behaviour to encourage more equitable clinical practice (Murray-Garcia et al., 2005). The findings of this project suggest that it would be appropriate to continue using critical reflection in the assessment of competency areas such as Mäori health.

Our data point to some of the limitations of the ‘apprenticeship’ model of learning, or at least of the way this model is operationalised in the educational context under investigation. When clinical supervisors reify the knowledge and clinical domains, while at the same time failing to address the hauora Mäori (Mäori health) domain, it sends a powerful message to students about the relative value of different facets of professional competence.

Considerable work is required to look at how to develop a cadre of clinical supervisors who are better prepared to facilitate learning and undertake assessment in the hauora Mäori domain. Our experience suggests that, without higher level acknowledgement of the importance of Hauora Mäori, competing demands on clinical teachers will continue to inhibit effective participation in staff development activities. It is, therefore, clear that institutional commitment is an important prerequisite for progress in this curricular domain (Jones, 2011).


Key recommendations The five major recommendations from this project are:

1. Develop, implement and evaluate assessment tasks that emphasise demonstration of Hauora Mäori competencies in clinical practice.

2. Address assessment of Hauora Mäori from a programmatic perspective.

3. Ensure that educational domains such as Hauora Mäori are assessed in their own right and that this assessment counts towards summative decisions.

4. Increase capacity among clinical teachers for teaching and assessment of Hauora Mäori.

5. Develop institutional commitment to Hauora Mäori and related areas.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to acknowledge the following people for their contributions: all the students and clinical teachers who participated in the project, research assistants, administration staff, Janet Rhodes, Jeffrey Robinson and Marcus Henning. We would particularly like to thank Ako Aotearoa for funding and supporting this project.

ReferencesBacal, K., Jansen, P., & Smith, K. (2006). Developing cultural competency in accordance with the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. New Zealand Family Physician, 33(5), 305-309.

Betancourt, J. R. (2006). Eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health care: What is the role of academic medicine? Academic Medicine, 81(9), 788-792.

Brown, S. & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Epstein, R. M. & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA, 287(2), 226-235.

Jones, R. (2011). Te Ara: A pathway to excellence in indigenous health teaching and learning. Focus on health professional education: A multi-disciplinary journal, 13(1), 23-34.

Jones, R., Pitama, S., Huria, T., Poole, P., McKimm, J., Pinnock, R., & Reid, P. (2010). Medical education to improve Maori health. New Zealand Medical Journal, 123(1316), 113-122.

Lypson, M. L., Ross, P. T., & Kumagai, A. K. (2008). Medical students’ perspectives on a multicultural curriculum. Journal of the National Medical Association, 100(9), 1078-1083.

Murray-Garcia, J. L., Harrell, S., Garcia, J. A., Gizzi, E., & Simms-Mackey, P. (2005). Self-reflection in multicultural training: Be careful what you ask for. Academic Medicine Featured Topic: End-of-Life Care, 80(7), 694-701.

Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Williams, N., & Outram, S. (2008). Health inequities: The need for action by schools of medicine. Medical Teacher, 30(4), 389-394.

Smith, W. R., Betancourt, J. R., Wynia, M. K., Bussey-Jones, J., Stone, V. E., Phillips, C. O., Bowles, J. (2007). Recommendations for teaching about racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(9), 654-665.

Stephenson, A. E., Adshead, L. E., & Higgs, R. H. (2006). The teaching of professional attitudes within UK medical schools: Reported difficulties and good practice. Medical Education, 40(11), 1072-1080.


Mäori Learners In Workplace Settings By Jenny Conner, Verna Niao and Cain Kerehoma

This paper discusses initial findings from a research study,Mäori Learners in Workplace Settings, undertaken by Kähui Tautoko Consulting Ltd in collaboration with the Industry Training Federation (ITF), the New Zealand Motor Industry TrainingOrganisation Inc (MITO), the Electrotechnology Industry Training Organisation (ETITO) and the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation (BCITO). A core part of the research involveda series of monthly interviews that took place over a period of six months with Mäori apprentices from the three ITOs involved.

BackgroundIndustry training is important for Mäori tertiary learners, with over30,000 trainees each year in this sector identifying themselves as Mäori. However, despite such a large pool of trainees there hasbeen little systematic exploration of the experiences of Mäori in industry training. Moreover, while there is an established body of research around Mäori learners in institutional settings, there is far less research available that documents the experiences of Mäori learners within workplace settings, particularly in trade industries. This means that Industry Training Organisations’ (ITOs) practicesto address the needs of their Mäori trainees have developed in anad hoc manner, with little opportunity to capture and share ‘what works’ as well as identify barriers to success.

There is, therefore, a clear need for research to provide analysis and interpretative comment that can be used to inform policy,learning and achievement strategies and evidence-based tools.

Gaining insights into Mäori workplace learners’ experiences This project seeks to remedy this research gap by exploring theexperiences of Mäori workplace learners in ITOs across three ‘trades’ settings: building & construction, the motor industry and electrotechnology. In particular, the project aims to answer three specific research questions:

1. Whatat iis s didistinnctctivivee about how MäMäororii apprprenentiticec s learn or apapprprooach lleaearnr ing inin wworo kpkplalacece settingngs,s, specicificficalallyly inn trtradades iinduststririeses??

2.2. AAre ththereree asaspepectcts s ofof hhowow MMäoäoriri aapppprerentnticiceses lleaearnrn oor r apapprproaoachch leararniningng that maay y prprovo ide poinintetersrs to how cocompmpletions cacann bebeninccreaseed?d?

3. HoHow w cacann trtraiaininingng aandnd ccareeerr papaththwaysys bbee tstrerengngththenedd fforor MäMäorrii apappprenntiticeces?s?


Given the growing importance of Mäori participation and achievement in workplace settings, the research is intended to be a focused, practically-orientated piece of work that points directly to specific actions and changes that the ITOs involved can make to ensure that they are meeting the needs of Mäori learners. It is intended to build understanding of what is working with current models, what isn’t and what can be done to improve them to better meet the needs of Mäori learners and thereby improve completion rates and pathways to higher-level qualifications.

Initial findings of research - Learner backgrounds. Learners come from a variety of backgrounds which makes it difficult to characterise Mäori apprentices by any single definition. Some participants were from poor families living in rural areas who were whänau-orientated that didn’t do well at school, while others had excelled at school, were from middle class families and urban-based.

- Getting into an apprenticeship. All learners had an interest in their chosen trade. Their motivations for getting into an apprenticeship differed widely. Some entered into it because it was “in the family”. Others just wanted a job. Some were pushed hard by their whänau while others just came in off the street and asked the employer if they had a vacancy.

- Progress with apprenticeship. Most learners enjoyed their apprenticeship and spoke highly of their experiences. Some stated that their personal circumstances had affected the early stages of the apprenticeship, but they were now determined to complete the remaining components of their apprenticeship. Most participants said they had supportive employers who were committed to getting them through and providing them with opportunities to broaden their skills and experience.

- Apprenticeship model. Most participants believed that the apprenticeship model was pretty good. Most said that the expectations they were set were clear from the outset, that their training advisors and tutors were very helpful and that they found the majority of the theory work was related to actual practice.

- The ITO’s role. ITO field staff are considered the face of the organisation and play a highly influential role in the learning outcomes of learners. Apprentices found that their ITO advisors were very helpful and always able to be contacted if required. Most participants saw ITO staff members every two-three months. Such meetings were normally centred on how the apprenticeship was going and the assessment. Some participants believed that more regular visits with the ITO advisor was required to keep things on-track and moving along.

- Personal characteristics. Many learners acknowledged that completing their apprenticeship was ultimately up to them. Most said that this requires a lot of discipline, self-sacrifice and a positive attitude. Apprentices who had completed their apprenticeship spoke of the need to be professional in their approach to work, showing initiative and a willingness to listen and learn.

- Relationships. One topic that cropped up frequently during the research was the influence of relationships on learning outcomes. Relationships between learner and employer, learner and whänau, learner and tutor, and whänau and employer were all highlighted as being important to progressing well through the apprenticeship.

- Whänau. Many learners noted the important influence their whänau has had on their apprenticeship. Many participants stated they had pursued their apprenticeship because it is the “family business”. Many commented that their whänau wanted the best for them and acted as an ongoing reminder of why they are undertaking their apprenticeship.

- Relationship with employer. Many learners spoke about the importance of having an employer who is genuinely committed to seeing them succeed. Many learners found the relationship with their employer/ manager as being very positive, which meant trust and confidence, open communication as well as offering them support and mentoring. Participants spoke about ‘good employers’ who provided them with an opportunity to work on a variety of different projects, which they said was essential to their apprenticeship. Such employers also gave them opportunities to project manage specific jobs.


- Differences for Mäori. When asked whether they thought that being Mäori makes a difference in how they learn or work, participants’ responses varied. All learners were keen to note that they want to be judged “just like everybody else” and that, ultimately, each individual apprentice is responsible for the outcomes they achieve, or don’t achieve.

- Barriers. The biggest barriers identified by participants were time, cost, difficulty in completing the theory component, the self-directed learning model and family or personal circumstances. Many apprentices said that it was difficult to complete all aspects of the apprenticeship because there weren’t always enough hours in the day. Some said that after working a full day, it was hard to go home and then complete all the book work, especially with home responsibilities like children or other members of the wider whänau. In some cases, apprentices talked of employers not really providing many opportunities to complete the workbooks during work time, which meant having to do it after work.

Next steps: implications of findingsAt this stage the research has provided an overview of Mäori learner experiences and the issues they face in workplace settings. The contributions of the learners taking part in the study will assist in testing assumptions, increase understanding and helping to identify where improvements can be made.

As mentioned previously, it is expected that the research will be a focused, practically-orientated piece of work that points directly to specific actions and changes that the ITOs involved can make to ensure that they are meeting the needs of Mäori learners in their industries. It is intended to build an understanding of what is working with current models, what isn’t, and what can be done to improve them to better meet the needs of Mäori learners, and thereby improve completion rates and pathways to higher-level qualifications.

The research team is now working with the participating ITOs and advisory group members to unpack the preliminary findings and discuss the potential implications for the ITOs and wider industry training sector. The project is expected to be completed by mid-2012.


Mätauranga Mäori Evaluative Quality AssuranceBy Daryn Bean, Deputy Chief Executive Mäori, New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Ko te whakaariki ko te whakaarikiTukua mai kia piriTukua mai kia a tataKia eke mai ki runga ki te paepae poto a Te Whanganui-ä-TaraTau tau tau ana e

Abstract

first official Mäori strategy (Te Rautaki Mäori) in 2007. Since thenNZQA has embarked on a major initiative to ensure appropriate recognition and validation of Mätauranga Mäori in thequalifications system. In 2009 the Hui Mana Tohu Mätaurangawas held at Waiwhetu marae where 250 Mäori educationalistsconsidered the question ‘what is quality Mätauranga Mäori?’The idea of the hui was to re-frame the conversation aboutMätauranga Mäori towards achievement, excellence andscholarship. This was a major turning point. Since 2009, NZQAhas engaged with Mäori and the education sector to co-producea values-based framework and authentically Mäori approachto evaluative quality assurance of Mätauranga Mäori. With the guidance of Ngä Kaitühono, the fruits of this initiative weremade available for tertiary education organisations and theirlearners in April 2012. This paper discusses what is Mätauranga Mäori evaluative quality assurance. It will outline its purpose,its authenticity and its value to educators and students ofMätauranga Mäori. NZQA makes a clear statement that it doesnot define Mätauranga Mäori and acknowledges that this bodyof knowledge and its expertise rests within Mäori communities.

Introduction The opportunity to present this paper at Tuia Te Ako in 2012 is away to give thanks to people who have sought recognition andvalidation of Mätauranga Mäori in qualifications. Since the firstNZQA Mäori strategy was launched in 2007, the road travelledhas been one with many twists and turns. Two quite oppositeparadigms, a Crown entity responsible for tertiary education(non-university) quality assurance at one end of the spectrum.Mätauranga Mäori in its dynamic, holistic and evolving state at the other. Somehow, a space was needed where recognition,validation and solutions for te Ao Mäori could be found.Dare I say after two years of particularly intense developmentalwork we are about to arrive at a new beginning.

This paper and presentation is going to start at the future,only a decade ahead, and discuss what a potential future statefor NZQA might look like. Given that future, I will bring thediscussion into the present, to provide an understanding of what Mätauranga Mäori evaluative quality assurance is. This discussion


is pre-empted by a considerable amount of past work that has been undertaken, work that has created space, created windows of opportunity and created insight into what the potential may be in relation to the advancement of Mätauranga Mäori. There are some key learnings to be gained from the process. Also, some harsh lessons and great moments. At the centre of this thinking and sharing are Mäori learners and their whänau. In simple terms, what are the benefits for our learners? What does this opportunity afford them? Many of you reading this will have the answers.

The qualifications system of the futureFirstly let’s imagine for a moment what is over the horizon and what might the future state of New Zealand’s qualifications system in 2021? Taking into account factors such as the young Mäori population, growing Mäori workforce, technological advancements, post treaty settlement iwi developments, outlined below are a set of possible future scenarios:

In 2021:

• The NZ qualifications system has clarity of purpose; robust and credible qualifications nationally and internationally and independent quality assurance is important for maintaining a high standard of education.

• Mäori learners are able to make choices and get the best outcomes. They enjoy an education experience and attainment of qualifications that is totally relevant in all aspects of their lives. This is achievable because understanding a Mäori world view is embedded in the system. High levels of reo fluency and expressing manaakitanga is captured in all the things we do.

• Mäori and indigenous education quality assurance is achieved by recognising the unique excellence in Mätauranga Mäori - language, culture and identity. This high value aspect is at the heart of the NZQA brand. Strong iwi relationships and informing whänau means Mäori learners achieve qualifications recognised at home and abroad.

• With a target of 1400 qualifications on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) in 2014, by 2021 there are only 1000 qualifications listed on the NZQF and there is thriving interaction where specialist programmes of study and training developers share and sell the latest programmes.

• Around a third of those qualifications are eligible to be awarded a Mätauranga Mäori Quality Assurance Mark. A range of programmes have been awarded the Mäori quality mark.

• This quality mark recognises Mätauranga Mäori excellence. The mark indicates the qualifications and programmes that meet the requirements of Mätauranga Mäori Evaluative Quality Assurance (MMEQA). Education performance and capability in self-assessment of MMEQA approved qualifications and programmes continue to be rated ‘highly confident’, i.e. demonstrating they have met the needs and aspirations of Mäori learners with the award carrying the prestige (mana) and acknowledgement of their iwi, hapü and whänau.

• In a metaphorical sense, the qualifications and programmes of study have a rightful place in the whare as they represent an authentic and credible path centred by a Mäori world view.

• In 2021, Mäori graduates are getting ‘excellent’ jobs because they are qualified in their chosen field, for example as scientists, technicians and professionals. They are recognised with unique qualities and skills based on cultural identity, their reo and mätauranga-a-iwi. They excel as planners, teachers, negotiators, hosts, facilitators, communicators, leaders, ambassadors. They are ‘excellent’ in the kitchen, at the marae, in the boardroom, on the sports-fields, in lecture halls, on stage and in business.

• The power of mätauranga–a-iwi can be understood through a familiar story recalled to me by a friend who works in tourism. He was asked by an international visitor about where in New Zealand they should visit. The visitor couldn’t decide as there were so many options. My friend recommended Rotorua. He told him to drive down from Auckland, saying when you go over the Mamaku ranges you will see a great lake, Rotorua-nui-a Kahumatamomoe, and in the middle of that lake sits Te Motutapu-o-Tinirau, Mokoia Island. He told the visitor that was the place where Tutanekai sat and played his pütorino; heard from afar by Hinemoa, and continued to share that beautiful love story. And he told the visitor that he was the descendent of that romance. He says that visitor will never remember the rental car company they used that day, but they will remember that story. Whether it is the whales of Kaikoura or Tane Mahuta at Waipoua we have many relevant knowledge bases that add real value. For my friend’s tourism company that exchange is like gold.


• My point being that Mätauranga is a unique competitive advantage - of value to society, to Aotearoa, to whänau, to learners. Recognition of Mätauranga Mäori , to be able to know it when you see it, feel it, experience it; is unique and is us. We know this now; by 2021 the rest of Aotearoa will know it too.

• In 2021 the linkages between the secondary and tertiary schooling sectors have massively increased, with many innovative models of education and Mätauranga Mäori based contextual learning and assessment contributing to better outcomes.

• The NZQF is a real asset because Mäori qualification pathways for the likes of our 16, 17, 18 year-old rangatahi are easy to see, well organised, clearly understood and are widely regarded as of high value to learners, whänau and employers, who know these options and what they can get and what they can do.

• The NZQF has become a strategic planning tool for iwi and providers. Iwi and tertiary providers can clearly see the qualification pathways; they can use NZQF data to track and measure outcomes and performance. They have the ability to see greater numbers of Mäori graduating and achieving at higher qualifications levels. Iwi are able to plan for iwi economic and workforce developments and they can access online evaluation reports to correlate and assess programme and education provider performance in delivering to iwi.

• The notion of individual learner-centric education versus institution-centric education is now a reality because of the robust and responsive quality assurance and assessment system that is now well-established.

• In 2021 there are vastly improved pathways and information that are easy to understand. This clarity about pathways and options to choose from has helped Mäori and Pasifika learner achievements improve out of sight. Our longstanding poor performing tail has been significantly docked as whänau are empowered with information and greater access to learning.

• Access to support and resources for providers and teachers to create relevant and quality Mätauranga Mäori learning pathways is easier. Faster online access, as well as face to face engagement means fast- tracked services, real-time assessment, achievement recognised in the present and accelerated Mäori learner success. This works because learning is relevant and is engaging learners. Learners are staying, completing and succeeding.

• So in 2021 the sector has become kaupapa and tikanga Mäori attuned, bridging the void for Mäori access to higher learning and qualifications. Innovation, science, technology, humanities, health, environment, international trade law, finance and business become subject areas relevant to the Mäori world and its dealings with the rest of the world.

How NZQA will support Mäori in 2021

In terms of NZQA supporting the sector and supporting Mäori, in 2021 everything is underpinned by Ngä Mätäpono that sit in the whare, Te Hono o te Kahurangi. NZQA’s values and understanding of the Mäori world view is normal, it is just the way we do things.

This level of confidence about the future can only come from recent experience and present developments. Te Rautaki Mäori, 2007-2012 will come to a close in July 2012 and we will move seamlessly into Te Rautaki Mäori 2012-2017 and build on its achievements to date. It is good to remind ourselves of its notable achievements as these provide the quality markers for future developments:

• In 2008 Ngä Kaitühono was established. Ngä Kaitühono was instrumental in reframing the conversation on Mätauranga Mäori and providing the necessary thought leadership and governance support to create the space for Mätauranga Mäori, te reo Mäori, tikanga Mäori and ähuatanga Mäori. This contribution has been massive, as it has stood beside, behind and in front of the team to protect, guide and advise. This has allowed us to engage effectively with Mäori and produce some tangible results:

• The Hui Mana Tohu Mätauranga Mäori held in 2009 at Waiwhetu Marae - a major turning point.

• Release of a book of proceedings from the 2009 Hui Mana Tohu Mätauranga Mäori, Reframing the Conversation around Mätauranga Mäori and the Education Sector (see Sir Hirini Moko Mead’s opening comments).

• The Mätauranga Mäori Symposium acknowledged Dr. Ranginui Walker’s contribution to NZQA and the sector.


• The Nga Pae o te Märamatanga hui was held in October 2011, the first ever hui on quality learning pathways based on Mätauranga Mäori .

• In 2012 Ngä Kaitühono will oversee the completion of TRM 2007 – 2012 and the launch of TRM 2012 – 2017.

• Release of the Mätauranga Mäori publication, a major resource for the sector and hosting of a Toitü te Mätauranga Symposium with the theme, Mä muri ä mua ka tötika, on 18 July 2012, which includes a celebration of the contribution of Whakaruruhau to Mätauranga Mäori.

These events and publications are significant reference points in the journey traversed on Mätauranga Mäori. Continuity and consistency of approach is hugely important for the NZQA board. The role and function of Te Röpü Kaitühono is a substantial and significant part of the next five-year strategy.

A rich repository of knowledge, expression, culture, language and historyIn the latter half of 2011, my team travelled the country to hear the views of iwi and Mäori educationalists and to consider these for NZQA’s Mäori strategy for the next five years. The contexts were slightly different for each of the visits. They ranged from a small rural kura kaupapa, a large urban Mäori authority, an iwi in treaty negotiations with the Crown and a range of education providers, Private Tertiary Education (PTEs), wänanga and polytechnics heavily invested in tertiary education. We engaged with Ngä Kaitühono, NZQA’s Mäori Economic Development Forum and Whakaruruhau to understand their views and concerns. All the perspectives and views we elicited can be distilled into three overarching points:

• Education is key to the advancement of Mäori.

• The urgency required in addressing Mäori learner achievement.

• Mätauranga Mäori exists, use it.

The following key messages we got also resonated for the strategy:

• The importance of Mätauranga Mäori as an avenue to accelerate Mäori learner success across all subject areas.

• The need to work collaboratively together, to advance the educational aspirations and priorities of Mäori and iwi.

• The need for quality learner pathways relevant to Mäori and iwi aspirations being available and clear.

• The idea of a re-framed model was highlighted: Ignite Iwi Inspire whänau Empower individual.

We learnt early on that NZQA was not to define Mätauranga Mäori. NZQA recognises Mätauranga Mäori belongs to iwi and communities of experts. NZQA, however, does have a clear role in education quality assurance of the non-university tertiary sector. The role is of value to New Zealand to ensure qualifications are robust and credible, nationally and internationally. Our role is independent but connected. Independent is our value add, connected is to be responsive (Poutasi, 2012). To strengthen and enhance the quality assurance system, NZQA has developed, in partnership with Mäori, a critical capability to undertake quality assurance functions, with integrity, respect and with an understanding of the Mäori world view. This has been achieved by:

• Helping to build a ‘whare’ that represents an authentic Mäori world view.

• Creating the evaluative tools that give expression to Mätauranga Mäori in qualifications and programmes.

• Helping people find out for themselves what quality looks like and how good is good.

• Creating professional learning opportunities for evaluative quality assurance in Mätauranga Mäori.

These elements combine to provide the opportunity to ‘re-frame, refresh, re-focus’ the Mätauranga Mäori learning pathways and organise them in a way that engages learners and whänau and accelerates achievement and success.


What is Mätauranga Mäori Evaluative Quality Assurance? What is it? It is a means to enabling recognition of Mätauranga Mäori excellence within the qualifications system:

• when a provider/qualification developer lists a qualification.

• seeks programme approval or accreditation to deliver a programme.

• at external evaluation and review to evaluate the performance of the qualification and programme.

Providers can opt in to use MMEQA.

MMEQA is a framework of evaluative quality assurance tools; key evaluative questions, inquiry questions and indicators of quality (rubrics); along with trained evaluators with experience and expertise in Mätauranga Mäori, te reo Mäori, tikanga and ähuatanga Mäori.

It is an approach that allows for engagement, discovery and storytelling that adds richness to the performance outcomes sought by Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs). In contrast to a compliance and audit approach to quality assurance, Mätauranga Mäori evaluative quality assurance is about quality outcomes for learners and how well the needs and aspirations of learners, whänau, hapü and iwi are met.

It is a ground-breaking approach that adds significantly to how NZQA has undertaken quality assurance and, indeed, contemplated indigenous quality assurance. Mätauranga Mäori quality assurance is recognition of Mätauranga Mäori as ‘excellent’.

The approach’s key features are:

• Outcomes are the things that matter most to the people who participate.

• Integrity of evaluative quality assurance.

• Recognition of Mätauranga Mäori, the expressions of Mätauranga Mäori and the way we value those expressions.

• Quality as a dynamic concept that stands the test of time.

• Open relationships, a world of co-discovery and no surprises.

• How well the needs and aspirations of people are identified, responded to and met.

MMEQA is a partnership between Mätauranga Mäori and the evaluation framework. It provides a systematic process for working out and recognising the quality and value of things in a Mätauranga Mäori context.


Recognition and validation of Mätauranga Mäori The outcome of the commitment and aroha for the kaupapa is Te Hono o te Kahurangi depicted as a whare, a values-based framework which underpins the approach, tools and processes used to form judgments about the quality of Mätauranga Mäori qualifications and programmes of study. Te Hono o te Kahurangi is an authentic representation of the Mäori world view.

At its core it is based on a Mäori world view. The framework will be based on a model that incorporates: RANGATIRATANGA, TE REO MÄORI, TIKANGA, TÜRANGAWAEWAE, MANAAKITANGAPÜKENGATANGA, WHANAUNGATANGA.

The kaupapa are the definitions of the whare and expressions of the fundamental tenets and principles of the Mäori world view. The kaupapa describe the philosophical base for Mätauranga Mäori.This major piece of work has not been possible without the working group, chaired by Pakake Winiata (Te Wänanga o Raukawa) and includes:

- Tu Waaka, Tamati Waaka, Angela Malcolm (Te Whare Wänanga o Awanuiärangi)

- Sandre Kruger, Kararaina Ponika (Anamata)

- Puti Nuku, Materoa Haenga (Eastern Institute of Technology)

- Aneta Wineera (Te Wänanga o Raukawa)

- Terry Kapua, Jarred Boon, Wiremu Barrett (Waiariki Institute of Technology)

- Shane Edwards, Kieran Hewitson, Kelly Tauroa (Te Wänanga o Aotearoa)

- Titoki Black, Rocky Swinton (Te Köhanga Reo National Trust)

- Tipa Mahuta (chair, NZQA Mäori Economic Development Forum), Wiremu Doherty, (chair, Ngä Kaitühono), Noeline Mathews (chair, Whakaruruhau Matua)

- Tawhirimatea and Kaa Williams (Te Wänanga o Takuira)

- Joelen Takai (Turanga Ararau)

- David Jones (Victoria University of Wellington)

- Tui Marsh, David More, Syd King, Tim Fowler and my team (NZQA)

- Ngä Kaitühono (Hirini Moko-Mead, Hone Sadler, Taiarahia Black, Donna Grant, the chair Wiremu Doherty, Aneta Wineera, Liz Hunkin, Shane Edwards).

The working group developed the whare framework and tools for MMEQA, which included tikanga/kaupapa values, evaluative tools such as the key evaluative questions, inquiry questions and indicators of quality. The kaupapa are the definitions of the whare and expressions of the fundamental tenets and principles of the Mäori world view. These are the jewels. They express principles and values that frame the thoughts, the high level questions and practice within the particular evaluation aspects of mätauranga-based programmes and delivery.

It is a systematic inquiry that creates space for kanohi kitea, mätauranga–a–iwi, use of te reo Mäori, tikanga and aroha. They provide an experience of Mätauranga Mäori expression to occur in an iwi context with few restrictions or unwanted inhibitors. The natural flow of self-reflective körero can occur to relay the visions, aspirations, outcomes, tribal aspects, pedagogy, relevance and the importance of the learner and their whänau. This is truly a dynamic and holistic approach that NZQA and Mäori can be very proud of.

Carefully developed and debated at length, the planners have created a landmark approach to indigenous quality assurance. That is, it has been designed to undergo the rigour of Mätauranga Mäori and the rigour of evaluative quality assurance. It is still early days and it is the responsibility of all of us to look after the whare.


Using Mätauranga Mäori Evaluative Quality Assurance

• It is relevant for listing qualifications, apapapprovingg prpp ograaammees and eextxtxteree nal evallluauauation aaanddd review.

• Self-assessment is the key. What does good llooooook like? How good is gooddd???

• It consists of evaluative tools, processes and people.

• The Mätauranga Mäori Quality Assurance Mark indicates recognition as ‘excellent’.

• The theme of meaningful collaboration is ever-present. Engaging with Mäori is a core competency that requires ongoing development and support. The growth and development of people in areas such as te reo Mäori and tikanga in modern times is an ongoing learning and sustaining process. It requires expressions of manaakitanga and reciprocity.

• The process has been hugely important and it is fair to acknowledge that it has not been without painand anguish. But the mountain that has been climbed has been a huge one. Big jobs require people with big hearts, a willing mind and skills to match. ‘Mahia te mahi’ has been the catch-cry and knowing that thekaupapa is too good the team has been given great opportunity to make a difference.

• We should keep in mind it is not just for now. Around 40,000 Mäori learners every year are doing NCEA and Mäori student achievement levels are improving with more work to do to accelerate success. Mäori learners and their whänau will be making decisions on pathways and the quality of programmes this decade, nextdecade and the one after that.

• g g g q yThe significance of the mahi is that Mätauranga Mäori is recognised and validated in the quality assurancesystem and a learner knows that when they undertake a programme that leads to a qualification with aMätauranga Mäori Quality Mark, they, their whänau, hapü, iwi and a prospective employer know thatperson brings unique qualities; based on their culture, identity and language. Learners are enabled to walkin both worlds with confidence.

• The whare is steadfast and strong; principles and values hold true as they have been handed down. There is no confusion. The dynamism is in their inter-relatedness and the potential for new knowledge creation.

• Manaakitanga is a theme for today. Our expression of manaakitanga has been to take care of this long-standing concern for the recognition of Mätauranga Mäori. It has been a journey and we are about toembark on its next stage. Now is the time for us all to advance Mätauranga Mäori in our programmes forlearners, to ignite the iwi, inspire the whänau and empower learners.


MANAAKITANGA: HE KÄKANO AHAU I RUIA MAI I RANGIATEABy Taina Whakaatere Pohatu

Hai Tïmata/IntroductionIn our daily activities, we enter, engage and exit many worlds. These worlds afford opportunities for much learning where people experience kaupapa and relationships, each with its own pulse andrhythm. When internalised, such experiences can become on-goinghoa-haere1 in peoples’ lives. The whakataukï2 and “he käkano ahau i ruia mai i Rangiatea”3 are examples of how thispattern of cultural knowledge has been reused over generations. It is also an integral part of the framework in this paper about manaakitanga, where deeper understandings of cultural legacy, purpose and obligation are located. Manaakitanga is viewed as ‘käkano’4, bequeathed by Te Ao Mäori5 to actively inform learningeach day. It is encapsulated in action phrases such as, “manaakitiate kaupapa”6, “tiakina te käinga”7 and “kia pai ki te tangata”8. These articulate a cultural way of undertaking responsibilities. Te reo Mäori best expresses the obligations that are required to becarried out, ensuring the mauri/wellbeing of relationships.

The challenge for Mäori today is to consciously be aware ofother worldviews that can exert pressure on our constructions of kaupapa. J. Spring’s words remind us that, “the goal of social lifeis the humanisation of the world...a process by which each person becomes conscious of the social forces working upon him and her, reflects upon those forces and becomes capable of transforming the world”9. For Mäori, this is a timely statement - that our cultural patterns must always anchor the humanising efforts in our activities. Manaakitanga in this paper is contextualised tothe tertiary education field as Mäori endeavour to make our educational journeys more humane, accompanied by the thinking of our ‘old people’10.

1A valued companion2Valued cultural thought and their messages for future generations3Interpreted as timeless relevance of valued cultural knowing and wisdom4Seed 5The Mäori world and its views6Actively take part in the issue7Look after home8Be kind to people9J. Spring, 1975, p 6210A cultural form of endearment for those of older generations, especially those of one’s own whakapapa groupings


Te Tüäpapa/BackgroundManaakitanga is kaipupuri11 of ‘felt’ messages, experienced and interpreted from the activities of Te Tohu Paetahi, Ngä Poutoko Whakarara Oranga, Bachelor Social Work, Biculturalism in Practice (BSW BiP), sited within Te Wänanga o Aotearoa (TWoA), first delivered in 2005. There are a range of worlds that äkonga in the degree are invited into, to learn, manaakitanga being a crucial cultural sentinel to conduct them in their learning. These are encapsulated in the simple phrases, ‘hara-mai’12 and ‘tomo mai’13. They convey an invitation, an order of entry and engagement, quietly-saying ‘come in and consider the possibility of locating ‘knowledge’ for future wellbeing.

Dr. Rongo Wetere was the initiator and prime-mover at TWoA who set the BSW BiP’s first signpost, when he decided that a bachelor degree in social work be established and that it be framed by the intent of biculturalism14. The future social work educational pathway of TWoA was, therefore, set through his determination that it must reflect the reality and challenge of being of this place, Aotearoa New Zealand15. TWoA and its Mäori-informed tertiary educational environment provided ‘ähurutanga’16 for the BSW BiP to be created, activated and for it to evolve in its unique way. In the process, TWoA accepted the place of manaakitanga as fundamental to its way of doing things. It allowed a:

“…deliberate response as Mäori have had very limited opportunities to choose, construct and

implement social work education options, integrating Mäori worldviews and epistemologies into

learning programmes that may be considered by all cultures. Being able “to consciously accord equal space in every aspect of the learning and training process, for Mäori bodies of knowledge to participate actively alongside their non-Mäori counterparts” has been gained and continues to be struggled for”17.

The degree’s parameters By doing so, permission was granted for the degree to construct its preferred parameters and worlds of knowing. These included:

1. That there would be a critical and valid place for principle to inform good social work practice, along with theory. As a result, space was claimed for ‘takepü’18 to contribute to the educating of participants.

2. That there would be a constant invitation for Mäori bodies of knowledge to actively work alongside non- Mäori bodies of knowledge to construct and inform current knowing in the renewing of practice.

3. That there would be a constant place in the learning journeys of äkonga for contextualisation.

4. That embedded in every könae ako is the template of hui wänanga and körero, to encourage working, reflecting and dialoguing together.

The degree with its whakapapa, methodology and patterns of ‘doing’ have created space for manaakitanga to be regularly activated, as the intent of the programme is about, “people in their relationships and kaupapa, in the pursuit of mauri ora (wellbeing)”19. Manaakitanga with its well-trialled processes of connecting components of the programme, propose ways of negotiating and navigating the spaces where learning opportunities sit.

11Responsible holdership12Come in13Welcome14The notions of social justice, the recognition of difference and the valid space for both Mäori and non-Mäori bodies of knowledge to equally contribute to the learning of äkonga is at the core of the degree’s bicultural intent - BSW Report, 2009, p. 25 15Ibid, 2009, p. 1516Safe space17BSW Report, 2009, ibid, p. 1118Takepü was named and introduced in the BSW (BiP) as applied principles, see Pohatu, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2008, 2011, 19BSW Report, 2009, ibid, p. 11 BSW Report, 2009, ibid, p. 11


Manaakitanga positioningsManaakitanga assume consistent positions of purpose and obligation, which have been created by Te Ao Mäori. In this paper four positions have been selected. They are:

1. Te tiaki – to care

2. Te tautoko – to support

3. Te mau – the overall responsibility for caring

4. Kia rangatira ai – the manner of caring.

These are principled manaakitanga positions that indicate clear intent and purpose. Manaakitanga must have a kaupapa, from which its purpose is fashioned. The kaupapa provides focus for what has to be done, with whom, how and why. Connecting manaakitanga with worldviews is a reminder of our humanising purpose. It is also considered a body of knowledge. Tiaki, tautoko, mau and kia rangatira ai too, are bodies of knowledge, being informed in this context by manaakitanga.

The aim is that with regular use of these processes, they will be normalised into the daily practices of äkonga. Therefore, with the tiaki positioning, knowing and reading what is being taken care of, who is being taken care of, how is being taken care of shown; then we have an appreciation of how manaakitanga actually operates. The same pattern can be utilised for tautoko and mau. With kia rangatira ai, the following phrases set out another cultural pattern:

Kia rangatira te mahi Carrying out activities with integrity and respectfulness.

Kia rangatira te haere Responding and engaging in activities with integrity and respectfulness.

Kia rangatira te noho Engaging in kaupapa and relationships with integrity and respectfulness.

Kia rangatira te whakaaro Engaging in robust deliberations with integrity and respectfulness.

Internalising Rangatira‘Rangatira’ is interpreted as a ‘state and manner of being’, a way of behaving and of assessing how to personally give and receive koha. To help internalise this process, simple questions are fashioned like:

1. Have I done a proper job?

2. Is it clear for me?

3. Have I done my best?

If the honest answer to these questions is yes; the quality and standard being achieved will be affirmed. As a consequence, they highlight ways of treating kaupapa and relationships, as mauri ora perceptions and comprehensions can be tracked.

Manaakitanga recognises that relationships are central and complex; that there are obligations with boundaries that are multi-layered, which must be discussed in order to be understood. It also requires a range of qualities to ensure the mauri ora of its delivery. Therefore, the qualities of generosity, dignity, integrity, obligation and expectation are chosen here. Each needs to be discussed in order to understand its significance in carrying out manaakitanga well. That will be for all of us to undertake in our own time, kaupapa and in context. This paper is part of that process.


Biculturalism – Examples of ManaakitangaBiculturalism has assumed a central manaaki-focus for the BSW BiP because it frames the degree. Its intent is the pursuit of social justice, what is considered just, fair, honourable and right20; the integrity in pursuing a ‘good life’ and better opportunities. Claiming space for the potential within Mäori and non-Mäori bodies of knowledge to work together underpins the manaaki-focus framing of biculturalism. Introducing a methodology that enables äkonga to engage with kaupapa, layers of knowledge and ways of applying that knowledge is part of the manaaki framework.

In taking such positions, hoa-haere were sought. The words of Tä Apirana Ngata in 1929, that Mäori wisdom and thinking “may be placed in parallel columns”21 beside those of any other culture, became a key cornerstone in fashioning the bicultural and manaakitanga approach for the degree. His words gave courage and confidence and confirmed that every könae ako will have both Mäori and non-Mäori bodies of knowledge. That was scary at the time, yet on reflection it was a hugely-liberating stance.

“It’s about nationhood; this programme has infinite potentiality to nationhood, to the legacy for

each of us, lessons to the nation. I have not been a part of anything that had that much potential.

I haven’t experienced this before and the positioning that it takes, the biculturalism is really

different”22.

How manaakitanga is placed in the BSW BiPI will now discuss the four key features of the degree, namely:

• Takepü/applied principles

• Mäori and non-Mäori worldviews

• Contextualisation

• The template of hui wänanga and körero.

From the position of manaakitanga these will be discussed, detailing extra layers of insight. Coupled with this is a dialogue on what they bring to äkonga learning.

The BSW (BiP) Research Report23 relates the narrative of one of the initial hui held to discuss the degree while it was being developed. A question was posed at the hui, ‘Does principle go with best practice?’ The immediate response of participants was, ‘Yes!’ Another question asked, ‘What would those principles be?’ The responses we received elicited six principles:

• ähurutanga/safe space

• te whakakoha rangatiratanga/respectful relationships

• mauri ora/wellbeing

• kaitiakitanga/responsible stewardship

• tino rangatiratanga/integrity

• tau-kumekume/tension.

20Durie, 1996 and Rata E. 200321BSW (BiP) Report, 2009 and Sorrenson, 198622BSW (BiP) Report, 2009, p. 6323BSW (BiP), Research Report 2009, p. 15


A place for takepüThe decision was then made to guarantee a place for these takepü/applied principles to guide and inform the parameters and detail of every könae ako26. Eight years later, this template, its patterns and processes are still applying their educational and manaakitanga intent and obligations in the degree’s activities in communities and organisations where graduates live and work.

Deliberately inviting takepü to be hoa-haere to practice and theory in every kaupapa and relationship was a new strategy introduced by the degree. The position taken by the degree is simply that cultures have always used principle to guide, deepen and enrich people’s lives. A subsequent question that was considered was: ‘since principles are fundamental to healthy people relationships, why are they then, not at the heart of social work education?’ The degree saw no reason why principle should not have a vital manaakitanga function, together with theory and practice. Those who have participated in the degree continually see the validity of this strategy.

“Overall I think that the learning opportunities throughout were just phenomenal. I mean every

point of engagement, every dialogue, every session we had, there was always learning coming forth.

I mean the range of application, using takepü, is just phenomenal and I think to a certain degree it

really validated my own practical experience of what I’d done previously. I could see really clearly the

connections from a theoretical framework to a principled practice base.24”

Worldviews as collective platformsSocial work practitioners work with people who have been marginalised and disempowered in their relationships and kaupapa. Consequently, practitioners have to negotiate layers of negativity in an ethical manner and consider how these layers interconnect and work and allow ways of ‘seeing’ boundaries and spaces and pathways to safely traverse them. The degree has proposed that worldviews are collective platforms where ethical options when engaging in relationships are set out. Collectives choose and name the position and how the space is treated. Te Ao Mäori has named the position in this paper, manaakitanga. Manaakitanga then has the opportunity to define, shape and construct its preferred elements. In doing so, it captures the notion of many ‘views’, many ‘truths’ and many ‘realities’. Each worldview advocates for its ‘order’; offers guides to life, ways to move forward and strategies for wellbeing.

Its members will be interested, excited and will have an innate willingness to embrace and engage in ongoing dialogue, discussion and activity. Worldviews and their bodies of knowledge create reference points, tensions and challenges; instilling courage and the pursuit of enlightenment.

24Ibid, ibid, p. 35


“My journey was challenging, exciting, fascinating, enlightening. It fulfilled a need within me that

maybe I had been searching for, for a long time”25.

Äkonga are encouraged to re-imagine their futures, in ways that help them pursue and realise their dreams and aspirations. The above reflection marks a personal recognition of manaakitanga in action by a graduate of the BSW BiP as she visualised her practice in 2009. To be able to talk about her practice, she needed to have regular opportunities to apply her learning in real situations. Contextualisation has a constant place in the learning pattern of the degree. Every könae ako has a kaupapa. Each time the kaupapa is engaged with; the degree mosaic of worldviews, principles, theories, social work contexts and participants’ experiences gain an opportunity to koha27 their knowledge and understandings to their learning.

Monitoring äkonga’s progress Another set of phrases are used to map manaakitanga approaches when inviting äkonga to participate in different activities. ‘Manaakitia te kaupapa’28, ‘manaakitia te körero’29 and ‘manaakitia te whakaaro’30 model the patterns of how äkonga may monitor progress in their learning journeys, such as when:

1. Reading texts

2. Working on group or individual assignment

3. Engaging in dialogue on any kaupapa

4. Critiquing any piece of work.

These phrases offer an orderly yet ‘kind’ pattern of approach and participation. Manaakitanga gently and constantly reminds participants that we are working with the efforts, thinking and experiences of many other people. There is, therefore, an obligation to recognise and respect their contributions. In the process, the potential for making connections, discoveries and understandings become limitless, as shown below.

“What I really appreciated was that it was very fulfilling and my spirit just warmed to it. It was the

bilingual, bicultural practice, the tutors, and being able to listen to your own language and being

able to respond to your own language, and being able to have it explained to you”31.

“I would look at each challenge as a new way of seeing and being in the world, I found the academic

learning became a friend and companion to me. It did not daunt me but created a whole range of

discussions between myself and my whänau”32.

25Ibid, p. 1126The simple yet profoundly transforming act of selecting a name for papers of the BSW (BiP)27A contribution from the heart of the giver, to the kaupapa28Take care of the issue at hand.29Take care of the dialogue/reading30Understand and take care of the thinking and rationales, in the issue, reading and activities.31Ibid, 2009, p. 4532BSW Report, 2009, p. 21


How the BSW BiP journey endsThe template of hui wänanga and körero compliment the practice of contextualisation in the degree. Every könae ako incorporates these strategies and processes, encapsulated in the following phrases:

• Huia te whakaaro - the process and application of collectively sharing thoughts, ideas and reflections in different forums

• Huia te körero - the process and application of collectively allowing full, open and active flow of discussion and dialogue

• Wänangahia te take - the process and application of intense discussion and debate of issues

• Wänangahia te whakaaro - the process and application of thoughtful analysis and debate

• Te manaaki - the process and application of ensuring the ongoing wellbeing of those who have entered into your space

• Te tiaki - the process and application of taking care of33.

These are principled frameworks with processes that were brought in to be used in individual and group activities. They were also located in the hope that they would develop into genuine hoa-haere to communicate with äkonga at multiple levels in their learning. The last könae ako of the degree is a conference with the theme of biculturalism and people in relationships and kaupapa in the pursuit of mauri ora. Äkonga are the conference presenters; they choose and rangahau their kaupapa. Their abstracts are placed into the conference handbook and they present to whänau, colleagues and the industry with a keynote speaker launching the conference. They are ‘insiders’ in the conference experience. The processes and patterns of manaakitanga underpin the conference kaupapa, which marks the conclusion of their BSW BiP journey. At the same time, it displays and validates the processes of hui, wänanga and körero.

“The delivery framework I think it was hugely exciting, hugely exciting...the dialogue that took

place in the classroom, in the lectures, in the small groups, at cup of tea time, kai time, all those sorts

of conversations that took place. Even after the study frameworks and the classroom learning had

stopped and we were in the marae, the discussions that took place, the depth that came out of the

learning and understanding that came from those discussions, just phenomenal”34.

33Year 3 student handbook, 2012 34Ibid, p. 41


Te Rärangi Pukapuka (References)Doherty, W. (2009). Mätauranga Tühoe: The centrality of mätauranga-ä-iwi to Mäori education. (Unpublished PhD thesis.) University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Mead, H.M. (2003). Tikanga Mäori: Living by Mäori values. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Mitchell, J. H. (1944). Takitimu. Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed.

Pohatu, T.W. (2003). Mäori worldviews: Sources of innovative choices for social work practice. Te Komako, XV(3), 16-24.

Pohatu, T.W. (2004). Äta: Growing respectful relationships. He Pukenga Körero, 8(1), 1–8.

Pohatu, T.W. (2008). Takepü: Rethinking research approaches. Toroa-te-Nukuroa, 3, 17-29.

Pohatu, T.W. (2008). Takepü: Principled approaches to healthy relationships. Proceedings of the Traditional Knowledge Conference 2008: Te Tatau Pounamu, The Greenstone Door, 241-247.

Pohatu, T.W. (2011). Mauri: Rethinking human wellbeing. MAI Review: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship, 3, 1-12.

Sorrenson, M.P.K. (1986). Na to hoa aroha. Volume One. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Spring, J. (1975). A primer of libertarian education. New York: Free Life Editions Inc.

Te Wänanga o Aotearoa. (2010). Our stories, their stories, your stories & my story. Rangahau

Te Wänanga o Aotearoa. Report, Te Awamutu.

Hai kapinga/ConclusionThis paper has discussed manaakitanga and the huge possibilities it offers learning journeys in a tertiary education context. It highlights the energy and force that is generated when manaakitanga is given a genuine place to participate in and inform the learning of äkonga. Manaakitanga, whakataukï and the simple everyday phrases placed throughout this work brings the insights and logic of ancestral voices. These point out ways of how the ‘old people’ can always be hoa-haere in the educating of future generations and how we can be freshly guided and informed by the thinking of past generations.

This paper shows that manaakitanga can be introduced into a degree from a variety of angles. It can be viewed as a world with a range of worlds within it, as an applied principle, a strategy, a body of knowledge, a cultural tool, a cultural method, a model of practice and a process, all fashioned by the Mäori mind and heart open to ongoing and deepening rangahau. Manaakitanga is, therefore, seen as a cultural decision; a method that allows and requires Mäori to engage in activities and relationships in particular ways. These remind us that Mäori are principled people and that there are many principles that inform and guide practice, with manaakitanga as an example. Continuing along this pathway awaits potentially deep and enlightened learnings encapsulated in Hirini Mead’s ‘whänuitanga, höhonutanga and märamatanga’ template35 and the traditional karakia lines:

“Tiaho i roto, märama i roto,Tënei te pou, te poutokomanawa, te pou o ënei köreroHui te ora, hui te märama”36

35Taken from W. Doherty, 2009, pp 87-90 & H. Mead, 2005 36Traditional karakia, Mitchell, p 325


MANAAKITANGA Care and Support within Private Training EstablishmentsBy Janeene Panoho

E ngä reo, e ngä mana, rau rangatira mäTënä koutou, tënä koutou, tënä koutou katoa

Many Aotearoa Mäori Providers of Training, Education and Employment (AMPTEE) providers are well-known for the pastoralcare they provide to their learners. This is primarily because AMPTEE providers do not necessarily focus their practices on the quantitative outputs required by funding bodies. Our focus is on the holistic outcomes we wish to achieve for our learners. How can we encourage the goal of long-term employment or advancement into further education, when we are working alongside learners who battle with emotional or spiritual issues or whose physical needs may require special care and attention? How can we encourage learners to be change agents within their whänau, when they are forced to live in environments known for long-term benefit dependency or physical or emotional abuse? For AMPTEE providers, it is the reality of these issues that mustfirst be addressed if we are ever able to successfully achieve long-term sustainable outcomes that are of value to the learner, theirwhänau and society as a whole.

Ninety-five per cent of AMPTEE providers hold funding contracts that require them to place short and long-term unemployed learners into employment or further training opportunities after 13 or 26 weeks of engagement. This is a huge task when you consider that 70 per cent of your learners do not wish to be intraining or employment in the first place, or when other factors such as a global economic recession or rural locations impact on your ability to meet your contracted commitments.

Knowing our learners is the keyBecause of the nature of the sector and the conditions AMPTEEproviders work under, it becomes imperative that whatever care and support practices we create, they must effectively achieve the results we are seeking in the timeframes we work within. For our organisation, when we review or develop these policies and procedurureses wwe take several factors iintntoo consideration. These innclcludude knowowiningg our learner r anandd iinclududiningg them in the deeveveloloppmentatall phphase,e ccreeata ingg aa hoholisticc rresespop nsee toto lleae rnrnerer nneeds anandd staffff seselelectioion.n.

Learnersrs wwhoho aree ddraragggged by theirr hahairir iinto wawaititing cars by jej alalououss ppartnenersrs,, learnenerss wwhoo aaree wworkiingng sstreett cocornrners,s, lleaarrners whwho are e gagangng affiffililiatatede , dedealalining in ddrurugsgs or ststrurungn outut oonn drugugss, learrnenersrs whoho aarere bbeatetenn byby parartntnerers or wwhoho bbeat t ththeieir paartrtnenersr .

hThese araree ththee leararnenersrs whho often cchohoososee an AAMPMPTEE providerr fifirsstt.


Learners who have not been in a formal learning environment for a period ranging from one to 40 years or who bring negative experiences from mainstream education, learners who are the matriarchs of their whänau or who are speakers on our paepae. Such learners are now told, “E matua, e whaea, you must attend this programme to gain some skills to get a job.” These same learners who have managed small and large households, forecasted and budgeted weekly spending limits, met deadlines, handled disputes, negotiated resolutions, raised children and provided catering and housekeeping services. These learners are now labelled as an ‘at-risk’ citizen with little or no qualifications. This is the learner AMPTEE providers accept despite whether or not they fit into the ‘easy to place’ category. It is armed with the knowledge of this reality that AMPTEE providers design and create practices for care and support to their learner.

Placing power back in the hands of learnersYes we have heard the statements, “We treat everyone the same in our organisation”, but as is evident in my discussion so far we are not all the same. Learners have differing issues and require different levels of care and support. These may range from constant support to minimal assistance.

If you enrolled into a programme and were told to attend a drug and alcohol workshop or a positive parenting seminar would you be offended? Has the organisation made assumptions about your character, has it stereotyped who you are? Would you stay in this learning environment?

We have learnt that rather than making assumptions about learner needs, we should ask them what they would like to see, what they would benefit from most. Who would they like to invite as a guest speaker or guest organisation? By knowing your learner and asking for their input, you not only recognise their individuality, you respect their mana and their rangatiratanga. You return the power to them, allowing them to affect change within their own lives. We simply provide them with the support they need to take back control. For the organisation, with learners participating in the developmental phase of a support plan or practices, we increase the chances of the final outcome being more effective.

Addressing root causes of issues facing learnersUltimately, we ask ourselves, what is it that we want to achieve for our learner. Is it the quick band-aid repair job that will see them back in our classrooms within a year or two or back on the benefit struggling to make ends meet? Or do we want to look deeper to see whether the cause of the problem can be addressed? Although difficult when working within the funding constraints we have, the overwhelming response to that question from many AMPTEE providers is to address the issue and attempt to improve the long-term outcome for the learner. If the base is solid, the structure that is built upon it will stand firm.

Once learner needs have been identified, we face the task of preparing our response. The approach often taken by AMPTEE providers when developing our practices includes considering what will happen if we don’t address these issues? Can the learner achieve a sustainable outcome in their current state? Will the eventual outcome have any real value to the learner? Are they ready to engage in training? If not, why? What can we do to prepare the learner for training? We also consider whether the practice or support plan we intend to design fits with the kaupapa of the organisation and the values we operate under.

For many AMPTEE organisations, opportunities to learn about our learners and begin to prepare our response to their needs begins at the initial interview period where a learner and staff member can discuss the learner, the organisation and the programme’s expectations before enrolment begins. From this early point in the process, negotiations and agreements can be made between the learner and staff member. The staff member can also use this time to collect data to begin creating a learner profile. This process allows the learner to take ownership and responsibility for their journey with the organisation. Additional support is offered to the learner by way of a trial period that allows both parties to confirm whether the enrolment should proceed.

The all-important learner engagement phaseOther examples of care and support practices include the engagement phase once the learner has decided to enrol. During this phase, the learner profile continues to develop as the staff member is able to identify further learning issues or barriers to engagement. Our curriculum during this period focuses more on generic skills as opposed to industry specific skills.


Care and support practices at this early stage may include negotiated start and finish times, self-directed study during school holidays, release for part-time work opportunities and wearing comfortable attire. Once the level of engagement between the learner and the tutor improves, we gradually introduce more industry specific standards that generally have stricter requirements as the learner is now ready and more likely to accept these conditions. If timed right, the success rate of learner achievement greatly improves.

How many times have we heard, “But that’s what industry expects of its employees”. I say take a look around. Are you the employer or an educational institute? As an educationalist, isn’t it your first priority to re-engage the learner in the learning process? Will you stand rigidly behind industry requirements and become yet another barrier in this learner’s learning journey? Or will you make the effort to re-engage them in the learning process? I know this is a particularly difficult question to answer, especially when industry and funding dictates a certain outcome within a certain timeframe. However, as an organisation providing education it must be considered.

Balancing funding conditions with learners’ needsUnfortunately, there is a great mismatch between funding conditions and education needs within the tertiary sector. Funding available to AMPTEE members has a greater emphasis on achieving employment outcomes as opposed to educational achievement rates. Funding conditions do not recognise the issues learners bring to a programme, let alone care and support practices providers develop to meet these needs. An organisation can be highly confident in its ability to provide quality education, but if you fail to achieve an employment outcome your funding is reduced or potentially withdrawn.

Because of this a provider is forced to re-prioritise the needs and perspectives of their learners in favour of the needs and perspectives of their funding agencies. Unfortunately, many AMPTEE providers, both past and present, elect to prioritise the learner’s perspective when creating their practices, in the hope that they will be able to better work with learners to achieve the funder’s requirements. This has been to their financial detriment and would explain the dwindling number of members still present in today’s sector.

We must find workable solutions and balances that allow us to meet the needs of our learner while maintaining our conditions for funding with the government agencies.


Recruiting caring staff members Finally, people play a huge role in the success of any business. Without the right people, your organisation would not succeed. This starts with our governance body right through to our operational staff. How can your operational staff reflect the values and kaupapa of your organisation if your own leaders do not? It is quite natural for the leaders and governance of an organisation to focus on the financial viability and contract compliancy requirements of its business. However, it is as equally important that they support the organisation’s educational needs.

In our attempt to provide care and support practices within our organisation, our values (te tapu o te tangata, te kotahitanga, rangatiratanga, whakawhanaungatanga and so on) and our tikanga underpin how our practices for learner care and support will be implemented. For example, learners who have breached agreed codes of conduct in the classroom will be taken aside and spoken to, as opposed to being reprimanded in the presence of other learners or staff members. This practice allows the organisation to demonstrate te tapu o te tangata, respect for each other, while dealing with potential breaches of conduct.

These values and practices are quite common amongst AMPTEE providers and because they are inherent in whom we are as Mäori, they are often practiced by our learners outside of the learning environment. It becomes important, therefore, that the organisation and its staff recognise and implement these values when working with our learners.

Values outweigh teaching skillsAs a vocational organisation, when interviewing potential tutorial staff, I look for industry qualified people who display qualities that are similar to our organisational values before I consider what teaching qualifications they hold. I have found that technical teaching skills can be learnt but a person’s natural qualities must already be present if that person is to succeed in this sector. The role is often pressurised and stressful with learners bringing a myriad of issues to the table, funders bringing difficult targets and accrediting bodies adding quality measures to adhere to.

My staff members often hear me say, “After two to three years in the role you need to change something”. This may be the role they perform, the organisation they work for or their career choice. How many of us learn from the tired, washed out tutor who no longer sees any joy or challenge in their job; people who reproduce the same tired lesson plans, using the same tired teaching method, year after year, time after time. People who simply show up to collect a pay cheque?

How many times have you heard, “That’s not in my job description” or “I’m here to teach my skill, not to teach someone how to read or write?” Such statements are unacceptable in a caring and supportive learning environment. How do these comments display care and support to learners? These comments should immediately trigger alarm bells for organisations and managers would do well to play close attention to such staff members. Their opinions and attitude could end up costing the organisation more in the long run.

Treating learners as individualsIn summary, a ‘one-shoe-fits-all’ approach is not an effective method for providing care and support to learners. Learners have individual needs and issues that they bring to the organisation and while some issues may be similar, all learners should be treated individually.

As I mentioned earlier, it is imperative that whatever care and support practices we create, they must effectively achieve the results we intend to seek within the timeframes we are given. For us, success is achieved through knowing our learner, including them in the developmental phase, creating holistic responses to their needs and employing the right staff to provide this service.


Kaupapa Mäori in Early Childhood EducationBy Ngaroma Williams1 and Mary-Liz Broadley2

1Te Tari Puna o Aotearoa 2Open Polytechnic

Abstract

the provision of quality early childhood education in AotearoaNew Zealand. Currently only 14 per cent of early childhoodeducation services in Aotearoa New Zealand report they are either bicultural or include some (unspecified) Mäori language in theirservices and programmes. Therefore, it was decided to conducta comprehensive literature review of the use of kaupapa todevelop bicultural competency in early childhood education and,subsequently canvass the perceptions of a range of early childhood practitioners, both Mäori and non-Mäori, of bicultural competencyin early childhood education.

The project was predicated on the use of two kaupapa Mäoriframeworks: a fundamental ethical commitment to engaging in kaupapa Mäori research and applying kaupapa methodology; anda tikanga framework for engaging with research participants thatclearly identified the tikanga in practice during the research.A literature review was undertaken to position the study, including an environmental scan to identify existing models of mainstream and kaupapa Mäori practice and bicultural teachingand learning programmes. The review confirmed the gap betweenthe cultural content of early childhood programmes and theoutcome of culturally-competent practitioners working in earlychildhood services.

We then canvassed the views of a cross-section of stakeholdersin early childhood education. This was achieved via face-to-facehui, focus groups, online surveys and interviews with a numberof participants, both Mäori and non-Mäori student teachers,graduates, early childhood teachers and ITE-training providers,and marae-based tangata whenua involving whänau, hapü andiwi at five sites.


The study found that the early childhood curriculum goal of integrating Mäori ways of knowing and being within early childhood settings has far from been attained universally in mainstream services. Despite good intentions, it is difficult for teacher education programmes and lecturers to achieve a consistent bicultural approach in their courses as there are significant challenges to bicultural commitment. There was substantial concern among research participants that many graduate and registered teachers were not fully equipped to meet Graduating Teacher Standards and significant perceptual differences toward te Tiriti o Waitangi were identified. Many research participants strongly indicated the need for bicultural learning and bicultural resources with a kaupapa Mäori base to support their development of bicultural teaching. As a result, the project developed a set of resources and these will be made available to all practitioners who request them. It was concluded that the majority of early childhood educators needed to acquire further knowledge of kaupapa Mäori theory and a greater knowledge of their own culture before bicultural understanding can be truly embedded in early childhood education contexts.

He körero whakataki/IntroductionThree key Ministry of Education documents establish the bicultural requirements for teaching and learning en-vironments in the education sector. These three documents have frequently been endorsed in official govern-ment statements:

1. Te Whäriki – He Whäriki Mätauranga mö ngä mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early Childhood Curriculum. (Ministry of Education, 1996).

2. Ka Hikitia – Managing For Success: the Mäori Education Strategy 2008-2012 (Ministry of Education, 2008).

3. Pathways to the Future – Ngä Huarahi Arataki: A 10-year strategic plan for Early Childhood Education 2002 – 2012 (Ministry of Education, 2002).

Moreover, three strands of the Graduating Teacher Standards (NZ Teachers Council, 2008), Standard 3 (b), “have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Mäori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand”; Standard 4 (e), “use te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga-ä-iwi appropriately in their daily practice” and Standard 6 (e), “demonstrate respect for te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga-ä-iwi in their practice”, require teachers to have knowledge of te reo me öna tikanga in order to practice effectively as teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is clear, therefore, that the development of bicultural competency by teachers is fundamental to the provision of quality early childhood education in Aotearoa.

However, two detailed evaluation reports from the Education Review Office (ERO), Mäori Children in Early Childhood Pilot Study (2008) and Success for Mäori in Early Childhood Services (2010), conclude that, in general, teachers lack the confidence and competence to integrate te reo and tikanga Mäori into their practice. This is despite the New Zealand Teachers Council’s requirement for graduating teachers to demonstrate they have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Mäori to work effectively in bicultural contexts in Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ Teachers Council, 2008).

There are clear distinctions between the level of knowledge about Te Whäriki and the structural arrangements and professional competencies by which Te Whäriki may be enacted within early childhood education centres (Ritchie, 2008). According to Bevan-Brown (2003:12), every centre should have a set of bicultural goals that moves it along the continuum to a more comprehensive expression and application of biculturalism.


Failure to meet bicultural requirementsThe perceived failure to meet bicultural requirements in teaching provided the ideas and impetus for this research. The extent of the issue was highlighted in Ministry of Education statistics (2009).

Table 1. Incidence of bilingual or immersion provision in early childhood centres in Aotearoa (Source: Ministry of Education, 2008).

Date Bilingual Number

Immersion Number

Some Mäori language Number

Total EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Services

Bilingual % Immersion %

Some Mäori

Language %

2005 492 512 1002 3598 14 14 28

2006 483 497 980 3665 13 14 27

2007 483 480 997 3750 13 13 26

2008 575 480 1055 3881 15 12 27

Table 1 shows that a approximately a third of early childhood education services offer some Mäori language (though the level of language competency is not identified), frequency of use and related questions that afford some detail about the quality and extent of Mäori language usage. Around 15 per cent identify themselves as a bilingual service and 12 per cent identify as total immersion.

Further, in 2008, the ERO carried out a pilot review of Mäori educational priorities in early childhood education services. It revealed that the availability of culturally-appropriate services is the key factor in whether parents of Mäori children decide to participate in early childhood education. The review also identified what biculturally-appropriate practice looks like in order to enhance the knowledge and practice of culturally-relevant early childhood education services.

It also commented that a pan-Mäori approach does not work. Whänau, hapü and iwi have their own identity, language and culture and it is important to establish and maintain reciprocal relationships with mana whenua (Mäori who identify with particular geographical locations) and Mäori tangata whenua, to ensure responses are appropriate to their needs. There are, however, generic kaupapa Mäori principles that were identified and used as a basis for this research project.

Bridging the gap between theory and practiceInclusive as the above reports were of te reo Mäori in early childhood education, none focused on the use of kaupapa Mäori to build bicultural competency. Further, while there has been extensive theory and pedagogical development, there seemed to be a gulf between theory and practice in the implementation of biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Therefore, the researchers determined to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive literature review of the use of kaupapa Mäori to develop bicultural competency in early childhood education.

2. Canvass the perceptions of a range of early childhood practitioners, both Mäori and non-Mäori, about the:

(a) Current status of bicultural practices within early childhood education

(b) Critical factors that hinder or support the understanding and delivery of a bicultural curriculum

(c) Requirements needed in early childhood programmes to build strong bicultural foundations

(d) Tools required for early childhood teachers to be effective bicultural advocates

(e) Professional development and support needed.


The research was conducted by three researchers: Ngaroma Williams (Te Arawa, Tainui, Ngäti Awa, Senior Pouako Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association), Mary-Elizabeth Broadley (Senior Lecturer Te Kuratini Tüwhera/Open Polytechnic of NZ) and Keri Lawson-Te Aho (Ngäti Kahungunu ki Te Wairoa, Käi Tahu, Ngäi Tühoe, Rangitäne, Kaitakawaenga Rangahau Mäori Te Kuratini Tüwhera/Open Polytechnic of NZ).

Ngä Tikanga Rangahau/Research methodologyTe hökai, or the scope, of the research investigation was regional. It incorporated the following groups of participants associated with the early childhood sector: ITE student teachers; graduate teachers from three separate ITE programmes; teacher educators from four contributing ITE providers and tangata whenua from Ötepoti (Dunedin), Te Whanganui-ä-Tara (Wellington), Tämaki Makaurau (Auckland), Rotorua and Ötautahi (Christchurch). A kaupapa Mäori methodological perspective was used that supported the notion that ‘kaupapa Mäori’ means the underlying and fundamental principles, beliefs, knowledge and values held by Mäori. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Open Polytechnic Ethics Committee and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Te Köhanga Reo Framework, of te reo Mäori, tikanga Mäori and ähuatanga Mäori, was used to explore the support needed for student teachers and the early childhood sector to implement te reo Mäori me öna tikanga, and key Mäori cultural constructs such as tikanga, te reo Mäori, ako, whanaungatanga and whakapapa were used to better understand the delivery of early childhood education in bicultural contexts in Aotearoa.

Two kaupapa Mäori frameworks were adapted from Williams (2009), based on the conceptual framework (Winiata, 2005) used at Te Wänanga o Raukawa, as a fundamental ethical commitment when engaging in kaupapa Mäori research. These were Matakaea Te Kimi Oranga – the call: the search for enduring knowledge and Te Atahaea – the breaking of a new dawn. Both frameworks encapsulate the specific kaupapa Mäori principles of whakapapa, te reo Mäori, manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, wairuatanga, ükaipötanga and pükengatanga, as they relate to understanding the myriad of contexts from which a person’s tikanga practices emerge. Throughout the research process, the researchers endeavoured to uphold and honour the mana or integrity of research participants at all times and the inclusion of the two distinct kaupapa Mäori frameworks served as guides.

Gathering participants’ voices, views, opinions and storiesThe research team focused on literature of the past 25 years that had identified gaps within early childhood education in relation to bicultural curricula and Mäori education developments. The range of research and literature was known to the researchers through their roles as current early childhood education practitioners for the past 20 years. The research team also utilised current government legislation, policies and documents that made explicit references to early childhood education, education in New Zealand, Mäori education priorities and bicultural curricula. These were supplemented by selected relevant readings and articles from two current ITE programmes. Relevant research, models and articles were also sourced from New Zealand’s health sector with priority given to literature about the developments for Mäori health care from the 1980s to 2011. The team also carried out a wide range of literature searches via the Open Polytechnic library database on the following key words: identity, culture and language, culture competence, biculturalism/bilingualism, Mäori pedagogies and kaupapa Mäori methodologies.

Data collection utilised purposive sampling to ensure that the right participants were involved in the research and the voices, views, opinions and stories of the research participants were enabled to be heard and facilitated through a range of qualitative processes such as interviews, focus groups and narratives that are fundamentally incorporated in the notions of körero, hui and püräkau.

Questionnaires were developed for seven groups of research participants and classified as: AKO SG1 online survey ITE year 3 student teachers (n=24; 4 Mäori participants: 16%); AKO SG2 online survey ITE teacher educators (n=13; 2 Mäori participants: 15%); AKO SG3 marae-based focus group ITE year 2 student teachers (n=96; 7 Mäori participants: 7%); AKO SG4 marae-based focus group tangata whenua (n=15; 15 Mäori participants: 100%); AKO SG5 email survey ITE providers (n=3; 1 Mäori participant: 33.3%); AKO SG6 phone survey ITE graduate students (n=21; 3 Mäori participants: 14%); AKO SG7 interview group ITE year 3


professional practice student teachers (n=42; 4 Mäori participants: 9.5 %). The number of research participants totaled 214 and comprised: student teachers (ST) 162 (SG 1, 2 & 7); ITE teacher educators (TE) 16 (SG 2 & 5); graduate teachers (GT) 21 (SG 6); and tangata whenua (TW) 15 (SG 4); 36 of the 214 participants were Mäori: (16.8%). The questionnaires were based around three distinct areas: current bicultural knowledge and practices, understanding of theory behind tikanga and te reo Mäori, and professional development and resources that could assist enhanced understanding and implementation within individual professional practice.

Marae-based interviews with participantsMarae-based ‘kanohi ki te kanohi’ focus group interviews with tangata whenua occurred at five marae in Tamaki Makaurau (Auckland), Rotorua, Te Whanganui-ä-Tara (Wellington), Ötautahi (Christchurch) and Ötepoti (Dunedin). The lead researcher conducted interviews with the key informants to gather a wealth of historical accounts relating to whänau, hapü and iwi te reo rangatira me öna tikanga. These key informants were research team mentors, kaumätua and Mäori experts. Questions asked related to content knowledge of te reo Mäori, me öna tikanga and what was needed to support early childhood education student teachers and teachers in becoming more confident and competent in learning te reo Mäori me öna tikanga. Data collection tools used included online surveys, audio taping and transcription, videoing and telephone interviews. The teacher educator draft survey was piloted at a northern regional hui. Data was collected nationwide over a four-month period and analysed to identify key themes.

Ngä hua/FindingsSome research participants were critical of elements of policy and practice stating, for example, that “Institutions play a big role in this…but some pay lip service to this bicultural commitment”. Graduate teachers felt that bicultural content should be integrated across a programme of teacher education: “ITE programmes: bicultural content should be in all courses not just chunking it into separate courses within a whole diploma or degree programme”. They also called on providers to demonstrate a genuine commitment to bicultural equality: “ITE programmes: yes, we are experiencing bicultural content, but, no, we are not equipped with enough te reo, tikanga, and overall tools to sustain ourselves as biculturally competent teachers”. Among participants there was a variety of comments around the importance of a bicultural framework, ranging from strong affirmation to being optional and decided by managers.

Some sector representatives called for a review and revamp of early childhood teacher education programmes: “ITE programmes need to follow through with the intentions of their kaupapa Mäori components of their programmes”. “Being made more accountable and providing the training around te reo Mäori me öna tikanga so that confident teachers graduate”.


The role of the ERO, the official agency for monitoring quality standards in the early childhood education sector was criticised by several participants: “I believe ERO is not realistic about the competency levels of English based early childhood education services in delivering te reo me öna tikanga Mäori”. And: “to me it means honest, equitable opportunities, which are real and not turned on for ERO”. Students also commented that Te Whäriki states that there should be reference to both English and Mäori culture.

The way Te Whäriki is used was questioned by tangata whenua: “If students and teachers knew about the contents of Te Whäriki then they would become tika and do the right thing and become bicultural”.

Should Mäori be made compulsory?Three groups (teacher educators, year 3 student teachers, tangata whenua) had the opportunity to discuss whether the learning of te reo Mäori should be compulsory within ITE programmes for the early childhood sector. Tangata whenua expressed a range of views. Some were categorical: “It is essential to have te reo me öna tikanga, in terms of dealing with whänau Mäori”. However, only a third of tangata whenua strongly supported the compulsory learning of te reo Mäori in the ITE context and most believed that knowledge of the language and culture was crucial once the teacher was working in Mäori communities. Understanding of local tikanga and kupu (words) was strongly expressed among tangata whenua groups.

Tangata whenua responses followed three sub-themes:

1. Some te reo Mäori is important and teachers can be supported by those around them to communicate with tangata whenua.

2. Te reo Mäori is not necessarily as important as knowledge and understanding of tikanga, the ability to work effectively with local Mäori and respect their customs and kawa.

3. Respect, opening of pathways, support for the aspirations of local communities, support of children and being a good teacher are also important. Such teachers are able to seek learning of te reo Mäori on the pä during weekends, rather than learning te reo in an academic setting.

In most participant groups, there was reasonable support for early childhood teachers to understand te reo and tikanga Mäori. Other issues raised included the need to foster biculturalism and maintain te reo Mäori for future generations, the ability to speak to children in their first language, and the official and equal status of te reo Mäori in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

One group of third-year students was asked about the level of competence they thought was required in te reo me öna tikanga Mäori in the early childhood sector. Only one student said there was a need for a high level of fluency; the majority supported a moderate level of competency; and a small group believed only a low level was necessary. On the other hand, over 80 per cent of the same students supported professional development programmes in te reo Mäori. That said, no consensus was found as to whether te reo Mäori should be a compulsory part of the ITE curriculum, or the level of expertise required.

Strong support for biculturalismOverall, there was strong support for biculturalism among the participants with varying reasons for that support. Approximately three-quarters agreed that early childhood educators should have at least moderate levels of te reo Mäori me öna tikanga to provide a bicultural context within early childhood centres. A smaller number noted that, in practice, a bicultural context was dependent on those running the centres and the wishes of parents. It can, therefore, be assumed that the application of bicultural approaches may remain uneven across the sector.

A notion supported by all cohorts was the importance of cultural identity, perhaps best expressed by one lecturer: “Both Mäori and Päkehä should know and be able to express and live their own cultures”. The issue of cultural identity raised some interesting issues. While all participants were able to discuss their understanding of tikanga Mäori, many found it more difficult to express their comprehension of the broader question of culture and values and had difficulty in applying cultural identity to everyday experiences. The tangata whenua group was assertive about the need for a bicultural early childhood sector to have


strong understanding of tikanga Mäori: “Students need to know our country’s history and the differences between tangata whenua and mana whenua. Once this is known then they can learn the histories of the iwi, hapü within the region and are better able to learn te reo and tikanga practices of their local iwi, hapü. This knowledge will allow students to incorporate te reo and tikanga into their professional practices”. However, students, graduate teachers and teacher educators described a more basic view of what constitutes cultural engagement: “Teachers within early childhood education should be fluent with both languages and also have an understanding of cultural practices … so children can grow up understanding and having knowledge of their heritage because both cultures are woven together”.

Students and teacher educators had similar views on what biculturalism meant within the context of early childhood education. Tangata whenua and graduate teachers were aware that a sense of cultural self was required in order to become biculturally competent, including an appreciation of, and the ability to incorporate, te reo, tikanga, kawa,wairua and relationship-building skills.

Views about cultural competenceThere was a wide range of responses from students and graduate teachers relating to cultural competence. Two-thirds of student survey respondents felt competent in meeting and greeting in Mäori while a third felt they were competent to conduct a mihi. A majority expressed moderate levels of comfort in applying aspects of tikanga Mäori, with some concerns and reservations about correct protocols, knowledge of local kawa and general competence within a Mäori framework.While there was strong expression from most research participants for a bicultural society and most teachers and students were able to articulate what was required to achieve bicultural competence, there was a high level of uncertainty about how to do this effectively.

Most students acknowledged the importance of honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. However, few participants viewed the Treaty of Waitangi as an active partnership contract in which both parties need to contribute and negotiate the conditions. For most participants, including tangata whenua, it was the quality of relationships formed at the hapü and whänau level that provided the driving impetus for bicultural relationships. While the Treaty of Waitangi may underpin the partnership between Mäori and tauiwi in the early childhood sector and across society, at the local community level it was the relationships forged between people that counted.The research participants also articulated a range of barriers they perceived to effective implementation of te reo Mäori and tikanga within early childhood settings. These barriers included a lack of bicultural values, lack of skill and expertise, lack of focus in the sector and inadequate professional development. Despite the Te Whäriki curriculum, tangata whenua groups believed there was a lack of bicultural values within the sector. Several tangata whenua comments reflected an overall lack of trust and faith in the sector’s ability to meet the needs of their children: “This can be a difficult task when the majority of early childhood education teachers are Päkehä and work and teach from their own world view”. “This can inhibit the use of the Mäori language within the early childhood education environment and lower its status”.

The role of early childhood centresTangata whenua reported their perceptions of a reluctance of early childhood teachers to speak te reo and how this may translate into a lack of support for student teachers too. Their view was that centre management needed to be educated in te reo and tikanga in order to guide teachers with the implementation processes in order to mitigate their monocultural and monolingual ways of thinking and acting. Of major concern, was the lack of expertise in te reo Mäori coupled with the lack of practice and of confidence. In addition, tangata whenua highlighted the issue of teachers not being able to pronounce Mäori words. Overall, the problem was one of inadequate education, a lack of professional development and lack of opportunity to practise and engage in te reo.

Many participants in this investigation clearly identified the need for supportive solutions to enhance their competence and confidence to implement te reo Mäori in their professional role. They suggested the establishment of culturally-sensitive relationships with tamariki/whänau and local iwi, provision of mentor support for effective implementation of te reo and development of resources to guide teachers in the implementation of te reo me öna tikanga.


A recurring theme was the superficial, rather than deep, understanding of kaupapa Mäori that is embedded in tikanga Mäori. For example, the sector was aware about not touching children’s heads, but was open about a lack of knowledge and understanding of the tikanga principle behind this. The majority of participants across the six groups expressed a desire to learn about the theories that underpin the application of tikanga Mäori.

Need identified for te reo Mäori resourcesThe request for resources and supportive professional development to enable the early childhood sector to become biculturally competent was a constant theme referred to by all research participants. All participants requested a range of bicultural resources to be made available: “More te reo Mäori resources with hands-on resources not just theory of what to do but tools to do”. Curriculum phrases, waiata compact discs and waiata books were the tools that ranked the highest among the research participants. Te reo Mäori classes were also proposed by a significant number of participants. Te reo Mäori books were perceived by many participants as a good means of learning the language, as was the need for experiential learning through noho marae opportunities.

The recurring request for hands-on bicultural development learning was expressed by students, graduate teachers and teacher educators, as was the need for mentoring via Mäori mentors with expertise in te ao Mäori and early childhood education; Mäori mentors in the community with whom a centre or service could network; and proficient teacher educators to support the implementation of kaupapa Mäori theories in daily practice.So clear was the call for ready reference bicultural resources that the researchers determined at that stage of the project to develop a set of bicultural tools for early childhood settings. A maramataka (calendar) was the first tool to be developed. It provides definitions of kaupapa underpinning the theoretical principles referred to as kaupapa in the maramataka, and monthly whakataukï (proverbs) to support the learning of each kaupapa. Following the development of a maramataka, six further sets of bicultural tools were created as exemplar bicultural practice resources. These bicultural tools were progressively designed to support the three knowledge bases for student teachers, teachers and teacher educators. The tools, which were critiqued by the Kähui Kaumätua group prior to formal presentation, will be made readily available for sector use. It is envisaged that the tikanga framework and exemplar practice resources will provide a foundation for understanding kaupapa Mäori concepts and became relevant in ITE and early childhood education contexts.

Ngä körerorero/DiscussionFrom this research investigation, it has become evident that many Mäori and Päkehä have different standards and expectations about what biculturalism means, particularly the implementation of te reo me öna tikanga. Bicultural requirements must be embedded in all tertiary provider ITE programmes to meet the following New Zealand Teachers Council Graduating Teacher Standards:

• For graduate teachers to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Mäori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand, and

• For graduate teachers to use te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga-ä-iwi appropriately in their practice.

The investigation identified a range of barriers to the implementation of bicultural competency in the early childhood sector despite a bicultural curriculum being in place for 15 years. Insufficient content and study time in ITE programmes appears to be a major barrier to the implementation of te reo me öna tikanga Mäori and may result in a lack of confidence and competence to teach and learn, or take responsibility for teaching and learning te reo me öna tikanga.

The results also suggest that the early childhood sector has not progressed far towards transformative bicultural pedagogy, despite Te Whäriki being a bicultural document.

As it seems clear that the majority of early childhood education settings in New Zealand portray the language of the dominant culture, i.e. English, it is not surprising that the sector is struggling to attain bicultural competence. If bicultural and bilingual development is a priority for the early childhood education sector and the sector is truly to reflect the bicultural objectives of its own curriculum, professional development in this area is pivotal to making this a reality.


It is also evident from the research findings that the majority of participants desire mentoring to guide their bicultural development with student teachers, teachers and teacher educators requiring different levels of mentoring and a range of tools to support them.

He körero whakakapi/ConclusionThe research results are clear about the need for teachers to acquire further knowledge of kaupapa Mäori theory and highlight the need to ‘know your own culture’ before bicultural understanding can be embedded in early childhood contexts. If cultural unmasking does not occur, the researchers argue that it will be extremely hard for early childhood teachers to develop bicultural relationships with tamariki and whänau. Teacher education courses should focus on general issues of tikanga and the value that Mäori place on cultural context within an historical framework, as well as teaching that local tikanga and kawa need to be learned and taken into account by teachers working in different iwi and hapü areas. This implies not just general knowledge, but also the development and maintenance of specific connections with tangata whenua within the area through professional development and resources.

There needs to be support to understand and implement kaupapa Mäori principles, protocols and practices in order to assist the early childhood education sector and shift from a focus on biculturalism to bicultural development. Effective and tailored mentoring of early childhood teachers is needed to implement te reo Mäori me öna tikanga and build their confidence and competence to offer a bicultural learning environment.All early childhood education professionals need complementary bicultural tools to support them to build and integrate kaupapa Mäori into early childhood education and bicultural mentoring – ako and tuakana/teina delivery modes will be required to effectively and efficiently implement the use of bicultural resources in early childhood settings.To achieve cultural competence worthy of the teaching profession, significant learning is required and bicultural understanding and practice has to be implemented during the four stages of a teacher’s career. The recent publication of cultural competencies for teachers of Mäori learners for the education sector by the Ministry of Education (2011) and the linking of these competencies to the New Zealand Teachers Council’s Graduating Teacher Standards and Registered Teacher Criteria are a start.

Ngä tütohutanga/RecommendationsThe researchers make the following three recommendations to support the journey of building kaupapa Mäori into early childhood education and creating effective learning relationships:

1. That Ngä Taonga Whakaako, bicultural teaching and learning tools, are made readily available to the early childhood sector.

2. That two best-practice research frameworks are promoted among researchers.

3. That further research is undertaken to explore Forsyth and Leaf’s (2010) idea that the early childhood education sector may need to move from using the term biculturalism to that of bicultural development.


Acknowledgement

authors acknowledge this key support and wish to ttthank AAAko AAotearoooaa a fofofor itss s foreeesisisighghght innn botototh apprrovovovinining annndddfully supporting this project throughout itss duration.

He kohinga körero/ReferencesBevan-Brown, J. (2003). The cultural self-review: Providing culturally effective, inclusive education for

Mäori learners. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Education Review Office. (2008). Mäori children in early childhood education: Pilot study.Wellington: Author.

Education Review Office. (2010). Success for Mäori in early childhood services. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te whäriki: He whäriki mätauranga mo ngä mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood education curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngä huarahi arataki; a 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education 2002-2010. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Ka Hikitia: Managing for success. The Mäori education strategy 2008–2012.Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Annual early childhood education child and staff return.Customised dataset. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2011). Tätaiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Mäori learners.Wellington: Author.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2008). Graduating teacher standards: Aotearoa New Zealand.Wellington: Author.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2011). Tätaiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Mäori learners: A resource for use with the graduating teacher standards and registered teacher criteria.Wellington: Author.

Ritchie, J. (2008). Honouring Mäori subjectivities within early childhood education in Aotearoa.Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(3), 202-210.

Williams, N. (2009). Rotorua Girls’ High School charter. Tikanga Mäori section.Rotorua: Rotorua Girls’ High School.

Winiata, W. (2005). The reconciliation of kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga. The Rua RautauLecture 2005, Rangiatea Church, Otaki. Retrieved from First Foundation website:www.firstfound.org/wrrt2005/rua_rautau_Winiata W 2005


Te whenua, te tangata, te aronui, te märamatangaBy Professor Michael Walker

Let me begin by arguing that education transmits culture and values, and what is taught is derived from that culture and thosevalues. And what is learned depends on the relationship between the teacher and the learner. And the teacher also models the culture and values. I think we need to bring the following values relating to the concept of whenua into the learning journeys of Mäori people everywhere.

The whenua is the placenta that nurtures the baby or foetus inside the womb. The whenua, when planted or placed, symbolically nurturing the young, growing child, The whenua is also the land; the whenua is the nation, the iwi.

For a start, because we must understand this, I want to show how culture and values determine the outcomes of education.

Let’s look at the likelihood of someone going to university based on the decile rating of the school they go to (with decile one at thebottom and decile 10 at the top). Figures show that if you have ahundred students coming into year nine at a decile one school, the chance of them going onto university is almost zero. And if you go to a decile 10 school, your chance of going to university is roughly 75 per cent.

Now this did not happen by accident. In fact it was set up that way. Henry Taylor, who was appointed to establish the governmentschool system wrote in 1862:

“I do not advocate for the natives under present circumstances a refined education of high mental culture.”

He wrote this during a time when a war was being waged over thecontrol of New Zealand’s land and its resources.

The ‘browning’ of New ZealandForty years later,, aa professor of biology whoo hah d the same role as MrTaylor, expresesseedd aa sisimimilar viewpoint:

“M“Mäoäoriri shoululd d nonott bebe maddee a a scschoholar,, iit’t’ss nonott ththata we e cacannnnoot mam ke aa sschchololarar ooutut ooff hihim,m, we caann bubutt wewe sshohoululdndn’t’t.”.

AnA otheerr fofortrty yeyearars lateter,r, tthehere wwereree ststiill noo aacadeemimic c sus bjecctsts, nono susurvr eyeyss of ppupupilil pprorogrgresess andd nono eexternanal l exexamamininatationss. MyMy ffaatherrwaw s in tthehe fifirsrstt cocohohortrt ttoo sisit t schooll ccerertitificficatatee asas iitt wawass knownn ththenen inin tthehe MMäoäoriri sschchoooolsls. HeHe aandnd RRalalphph HHototere ee wewerere tthehe fifirsrstt twtwoo pupupipilsls frf om tthahat t scschhooll ttoo passss schchooo l ceertrtifiificacate.


In 1983, students studying Mäori were scaled down by about 30 per cent so that they would fit into the expectations of the system. I was told at school that I wouldn’t become anything more than a checkout operator. Now I have a PhD and am a member of the academic staff at the University of Auckland.

So it’s clear that culture and values determine the outcomes of education. I want to, however, make the point that nothing is to be gained by getting mad about this anymore. Getting mad isn’t going to do any good. Let’s instead treat this as a challenge; because it is a challenge that our past has delivered to us. We must remember that Mäori now make up 20 per cent of all people aged under 25. This figure came out in the last year and also showed that Mäori constitute 21 per cent of people aged under 14 and another 18 per cent of people aged under 24 - that’s 20 per cent of the population of young people in the country. And if we include Pacific Islanders in the mix, the figure grows to 30 per cent.

So we are increasingly becoming ‘brown’ as a nation. I welcome this trend because in it lies the nation’s single biggest opportunity. To understand this let’s look at the figures showing the percentages of Mäori and Pacific Island students by decile rating for schools located in the area from south Auckland to the North Cape. Decile one schools in this area cater to a 93 per cent ‘brown’ student population while decile 10 schools have 5.7 per cent.

A need for exponential change – the birth of the Tuäkana programmeThe ‘take home’ message from these figures is that if we are going to change the education system, we need exponential change - not incremental change. How do we get exponential change? We have to multiply, not add. What we have to do is multiply off success. And everyone must contribute. Looking now at what happens as a consequence of our history. In the Auckland area, 65 schools send students to our department each year. Each year these schools send us 40 to 50 Asian students a year and 30 to 40 Päkehä students. When we look at the numbers for Pacific Island and Mäori candidates we are talking respectively about 3 and 1.5 students per year.

Now these figures immediately reveal something important about the experience of those Mäori and Pacific students when they arrive at the university. They come in individually to their discipline, which means they are completely socially isolated. They have come to a place where they know nobody. Funnily enough, we used to lose two-thirds of these students within the first month of their enrolment because they were so socially isolated. Other students tended to stick together during their first few weeks at the university and follow each other around. They may not like each other; at least they know each other. And they were socially attached.

The Mäori and Pacific students we get in the sciences are very often completely socially isolated. This sets them up with a whole set of behaviours. They sit at the back of the lecture room trying to hide, trying to be invisible and trying not to attract attention.

I would like to reiterate that Mäori and Pacific students comprise 30 and 40 per cent of our secondary and primary school population in the north. We are going to have to engage with them. And if we don’t, the economy is going to suffer. Our society is going to suffer as a consequence.

Getting back to social isolation, we found this was what was causing our students to just disappear in a month. You are not ready to learn unless you are socially connected, unless you are part of a group - a social unit. Along with food and shelter and other physiological needs you need a constructive social unit and you need to feel as if you are valued. And then and only then are you ready to live. Only then we can progress to the need to know and understand.

So we shouldn’t have been surprised that we were losing two-thirds of our students. Because the place was so hostile for them, just by the act of actually walking into it without being socially attached to it.


Programme sets out to engage biology students So that’s what set us off 20-odd years ago on the path of trying to do something about this problem. I had just arrived back at the university and I was in a marginal job anyway and I noticed that though there were three times as many students at the university than when I was a student there no more Mäori or Pacific Island students at upper levels of biology, where I was based. So I went and asked the department, is there something wrong here? And I was told yes and they were embarrassed about it. They asked whether I could do something to help. I said I don’t know, telling them that I’ve never taught. In the end we put our heads together. We called the students together, placed ourselves in their hands and said, we don’t know why this is happening but perhaps you can help us work it out. We told them that we want to make sure they succeeded because it’s not a good use of public money to have people failing in such numbers.

So we called them together at the beginning of 1991 and what we did was get them to make new friends, students with similar backgrounds who were having the same experiences at the same time. We just brought them together and we enlisted a couple of students who had passed the first year to act as their mentors, role models and tutors.

These actions began showing results within six weeks, when our students sat their first test. It was already having an effect because the students were still there and they were passing the test. One of the laboratory teachers told me it was making a difference because the students were engaged and “they are still here”. So at that point we knew we had something happening. By the end of the year the pass rate had doubled for those who participated and took advantage of what we offered. And progressively over the years we saw more improvements as we worked on things. Today, the Mäori students’ pass rates are equal to or better than the rest of the students.

We are not surprised by these results because of the assumption we made from the outset; that these students were the best and brightest from their school and also the most resilient because of all the challenges they had to face to get here. So these students made new friends and they started to learn. It is one of my favourite recreational drugs to watch the lights go on in a student’s eyes.

By the end of the second year of the programme, I realised that I could be part of the solution here, but I was also a part of the problem because I was so much older than these students and I came to university under a different regime and, therefore, my experience of being a student at the university was too far distant to know what they were experiencing. Whereas, other students would know what they were experiencing. So progressively I backed out of it and morphed myself into the role of being the school’s administrator and academic champion. This became my primary role during the past 15 years. There have been times I’ve had to go out and fight for it but it has never been a great struggle because our track record provided the confidence we needed; when we hit a rock on the road we would overcome it. So students then started inventing ways to teach themselves. We wanted them to focus on understanding, what they came up with was clever and a lot of fun. Learning is fun; that is why it is one of my favourite drugs.


Evolution of the programmeThe outcomes are very important; it’s about success. We assumed that the students are the best and brightest from the schools and, therefore, they should be succeeding. And if they are not succeeding, it is very unlikely to be their fault unless they are not working at it.

Summarising the outcomes of the Tuäkana programme during its first year: our pass rates doubled. This was purely a function of student retention and the development of student engagement. Our students complete their courses now; if we take in 7 per cent Mäori students, we graduate 7 per cent Mäori students in biology.

The problem then becomes one of insufficient recruitment and we’ve addressed that as well. We’ve got some results with that. We have lots of people coming in wanting to get into medicine and other related professions and they are increasingly doing post-graduate study and getting scholarship to do this. Our number of post-graduate students has tripled in the last three years, from four to 12.

Now Tuäkana has been rolled out across the university and we have also put it in schools. This is important because it relates to multiplying, which I mentioned earlier. We found a couple of south Auckland schools that were desperate to improve the success of their students, one was decile one and the other decile two. For the previous 15 years these schools had sent us less than one student per year. They decided for themselves that they would do something about this. We were able to provide them with a little help. What we did was that we took previous successful students from those communities who had had a good first semester at the university and we put them back in those schools. Those students who performed well in their first semester and were starting to enjoy themselves at university would go back and the schools would develop programmes around them. And we had the schools involving students from all years, from year nine and up. And over a five-year period we went from an intake of less than one student per year to 10, 15 or 20 students per year from those two schools. It was exponential growth.

Unfortunately, at one school the principal was headhunted and it trailed again. The other school is continuing to deliver lots of students to us. So schools, if they choose, can do magic and if they don’t they can do a hell of a lot of damage. So these were the outcomes of the programme after one year.

Teaching academic and professional skillsThen we had this quite remarkable young woman named Melanie Cheung who had an interesting undergraduate career; she came to do medicine but had lost her way a bit. Then she came back and I recruited her into the Tuäkana programme as a tutor. I felt that when students come back to university like that, they know why they are there and they know what they are after. And she really gave the programme a shake-up. I got her back into it another time and she gave it another shake and out of that came Pükenga Pütaiao. This project is an investment in our upper level undergraduate students and provides them with some important academic and professional skills so that they can start to catch-up on some of the large investments that students from high decile schools have had, both from their parents and from their schools.

We’ve got four PhD scholars now. One is now on the academic staff of the School of Biological Studies, Melanie is a post-doctoral fellow down in Waikato, another is finishing his PhD in cancer research, one is an ecologist and another student is completing a masters’ degree with a Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FoRST) science scholarship. So as a result of Pükenga Pütaiao activities, we have academic skills, both undergraduate and postgraduate students and modules that we can add or replace. So reading, writing and presentation are important skills for our students. So is getting them to feel confident about learning mathematics and statistics because they need to be familiar with these subjects to study science. We teach postgraduates research design, planning and thesis publication and we are starting to think about offering them training in giving and receiving critical feedback and an understanding about the levels of intellectual


development they have gained at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Then there are transferable professional skills for individuals working in teams; we teach them how to make employment and scholarship applications and also provide a ‘speed-dating’ service for interviews. Using the speed-dating technique, we get older people from both private and public sectors to sit and interview individual students for five minutes and ask three potential interview questions. And in the course of an hour the students take part in four or five interviews and their answers to those questions evolve over that time. The students also gain exposure to potential employers, to graduate enrolment and so on. So these are the skills we are looking to develop to bolt on top of the standard teaching and training they receive within the sciences at the University of Auckland.

So exponential change is possible. We’ve seen it repeatedly, starting with the retention of students. I started off in a marginal position at the university on soft money for two years. By the end of the second year of the Tuäkana programme, sufficient extra growth had occurred through the retention of students to pay for half my salary. So, in fact, Tuäkana has been a good little number for the School of Biological Science because of the extra income it brings as a result of the students succeeding. So everybody is actually winning.

Other projects sharing the same goalsStill, it’s only one programme that is working at improving outcomes. There are other very important projects as well that I feel I must mention because we cannot solve the problem by ourselves and do not pretend to claim that we can. There is Russell Bishop at the University of Waikato, who is working on a very important long-term project that systematically addresses attitudes towards Mäori and Pacific students at school. It is really important that these issues are addressed because if teachers don’t believe in their students, how can the students believe in themselves. Project StarPath is another one. This project is based at the University of Auckland and I have been involved with it at a governance level ever since it started 10 years ago. It was a research project initially, that identified that there is no longitudinal tracking of students in secondary schools, in other words there is no record of progress and achievement. It found that there were no student data management systems, and parental/family engagement with schools was very poor. Setting up data management systems and longitudinal tracking of the students had a massive effect on performance. The project actually set out to deliberately increase academic advising, which ended up having a large impact on parental and student engagement. This is being rolled out to 40 schools over the next two years in various parts of the North Island, and my message to you all - if anything- is to focus on the potential of the students rather than the challenges they face, because those challenges are overwhelmingly not of their making. You can’t blame the students for the location of their birth in society.

Now let’s look forward, to prospects. You must treat our history not as something to get mad about. We face two challenges, there is the challenge of the history itself and the challenge of what it is gives those of us working in tertiary institutions today as our starting material. But our future is our opportunity and we have to prepare for the fact that Mäori, along with Pacific Island people, are going to be significant contributors to our future success as a nation, if indeed we succeed as a nation.

We have to prepare all of our young people and this is why I say we must not get mad, or point fingers. We must prepare all of our young people to achieve their full potential. It doesn’t really matter where their abilities lie. We must prepare them to be all they can be because they will become better people as a consequence. They will contribute more to society. And that doesn’t mean just money; it means making a contribution to society, which you can’t measure by money.

I will finish by returning to the Tuäkana programme. It should be noted that some of my University of Auckland colleagues who were sceptical when we started the programme have now become our cheerleaders and supporters. They are very proud that the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award for Tertiary Teaching Excellence that I received in 2011 can be shared with them.

On a final note, let us remember that if we solve the problems in education for Mäori, we solve problems for everybody. Let’s all go after this goal, because it’s going to be the most efficient way to solve many of the problems that confront us in the future.


Arohatia te reo? Me pëhea hoki!Associate Professor Rawinia Higgins

Te Kawa a Mäui

Victoria University of Wellington

AbstractThe Te Reo Mauriora (2011: 7) report has recommended that the Mäori language should be re-established in homes and that iwi should lead the new revitalisation strategy. With this in mind, it is timely to look at the role mainstream institutions such as universities should play in supporting this development? If the language is to be re-established in homes, will there still be a need for universities to teach beginners, intermediate and advanced language courses or should they be left to teach literature as Dr Tïmoti Käretu mooted over 30 years ago?

This paper will reflect on the role our universities have played in supporting Mäori language revitalisation over the past 30 years and what they can do in the future. If universities do not make a considered effort to contribute to any future Mäori language revitalisation and work in a coordinated and constructive manner, the struggle for such revitalisation will continue. Universities need to be responsive to the needs of communities but they should also assist in increasing critical awareness of the value of the language to society. We herald the language as being a taonga but do we really care enough to make changes to our systems, practices and institutions?

When I wrote the abstract for this paper I had literally just returned from Te Kaha after taking my Aunty Pae Ruha back toTe Whänau-ä-Apanui to be buried with her whänau. I was filledwith emotion because she was so special to our whänau. For thisreason, I would like to pay tribute to her and the passion she hadfor te reo. I arohatia e ia te reo.

I am also humbled to follow on from my koroua, Dr Timoti Käretü,as I am speaking English and I am sure he is rolling his eyesbecause he knows that I could have equally delivered this paperin te reo Mäori. The richness of the Mäori language he used is atestament to his passion for the language. Kei te arohatia e ia tereo.


Is aroha for the language enough?So by speaking English here does that mean I don’t care? Perhaps. Arohatia te reo? Me pëhea hoki! The reason I chose this title is that often our hearts may love the language, care for the language, desire the language and feel pity for the language. We could use all the myriad of definitions for aroha here but that doesn’t always equate to people using the language. Research shows that the value placed on the language often attributes and influences the use, or lack thereof, of the language. So while philosophically we might care, often the reality of the situation is that we don’t always show it. Well not enough to use the language in all the contexts in which we find ourselves. But why is that?

Since Sir George Grey introduced the 1847 Education Ordinance Act there has been a proliferation of legislation and education policy that has had a colossal impact on the Mäori language. Furthermore, the civilising mission of schooling in New Zealand has openly promoted the devaluing of the Mäori language. In the appendices of the Journal of the House of Representatives in 1862 they wrote:

The Native language itself is also another obstacle in the way of civilization, so long as it exists there is a barrier to the free and unrestrained intercourse which ought to exist between the two races, it shuts out the less civilized portion of the population from the benefits which intercourse with the more enlightened would confer. The School-room alone has power to break down this wall of partition between the two races. Too much attention cannot be devoted to this branch of Mäori education. The Natives themselves are most anxious on this point (AJHR, 1862, E-04, pp 35).

Furthermore, these sentiments were included in speeches made by officials on the value of Mäori people learning English as a means of “breaking down the barriers between the two races” and to also allow Mäori to participate in governance roles (see Browne 1860:10-11, McLean 1860: 40).

Te reo’s educational valueHowever, there were difficulties for Mäori around acquiring English in schools (Taratoa, 1860: 12; Parr, 1973: 217-218). Henare Taratoa from an Ötaki native school wrote in Te Karere Mäori in 1860 (see also AJHR, 1858, E-01, pp 56, where his name is spelt Honare):

Kotahi tonu te wähi pakeke o te kura, ko te reo Päkehä anake. E hohoro te möhio [ki te reo Mäori] i roto i ngä tau e rua, ko tënei, e kore pea e taea… [“The only great difficulty in schools is the acquisition of the English language. Were it as easy as the Mäori language we might learn it in two years, but as it is, no determination could master it in that period…” – author’s translation (Taratoa, 1860: 12)].

Such statements must be treated with caution. What can be said, however, is that the educational value of te reo Mäori was changing and significant emphasis was being placed on acquiring English. There was clearly enough Mäori language being heard and spoken in other domains so there appeared to be no need to use Mäori within the Päkehä education system. Evidently, Mäori were creating a sort of bilingualism at the time where Mäori was the language of the home and English was to be the language used at school.

Successive educationalists and their policies set about deliberately to break down this diglossia. On commenting on a 1890 policy, Ani Mikaere (2011: 81) states that: “[t]he aim … was to ensure that Mäori schoolchildren who began school speaking Mäori as their first language would leave school with that language having been replaced by English”. The subsequent adoption of the “direct method” in the early 1900s (Simon & Smith, 2001: 165) signalled a means to an English-speaking end1. This is referred to as subtractive bilingualism.

1Language replacement is today known as “subtractive bilingualism” (Skerrett White, 2003: 56-57).


Up until this time it seems that although both Mäori and Päkehä devalued the Mäori language within the education system - which meant it was no longer spoken in schools – it would take considerably longer for Mäori to give up on bilingualism. Benton (1991: 14-15 in Chrisp, 2005: 152) noted that a relatively stable diglossia existed amongst Mäori up until the 1930s, at which time bilingualism became ever-more widely debated. There were, of course, those that held the purist view of the British settler, such as the director of the education sector at the time, T. B. Strong, who commented in 1930 that “... the natural abandonment of the native tongue inflicts no loss on the Mäori...” (Strong, 1931: 193). A comment such as this can be quite true, if such abandonment indeed occurs naturally and a language community no longer wishes to use that language. Assimilation, however, is decidedly unnatural and the continuing existence of bilingual Mäori served to underline the fact that “the assimilation policy, as it had been implemented [up to the 1930s], had failed” (Simon & Smith et. al., 2001: 193).

Ranginui Walker described such schooling as demanding cultural surrender, or at the very least suppression of one’s language and identity. Instead of education being embraced as a process of growth and development, it became an arena of cultural conflict’ (in Arohia Durie 1998:301).

The period between 1930 to 1970 remains interesting for Mäori and during that time a number of factors (apart from the education system) contributed to the decline in Mäori language use. Participation in the two world wars and urban migration are some of the most significant factors that led to changes in Mäori society. However, they also stirred an awakening of Mäori consciousness.

The genesis for Mäori studiesIt is during this period that the genesis for Mäori studies at universities occurred. Although the first Mäori studies subject was introduced at Auckland University College in 1952, the University of New Zealand senate agreed to permit the Mäori language to be examined for the Bachelor of Arts in 1929. Despite “this early recognition of te reo Mäori [it] fail[ed] to prosper” during this period (Reilly 2008: 2). From 1967 Mäori studies was taught as a BA subject at Victoria University of Wellington. In 1978 the first MA programmes in Mäori studies were introduced at the University of Waikato and Victoria. In 1981 Mäori language study was introduced at the University of Otago but was not offered as a major until 1990 (Reilly 2008: 3).

Professor Hirini Moko Mead described Mäori studies as the “uncomfortable science” (Mead 1997:32). As a disciplinary subject located within a mainstream framework, Mäori studies has continually had to defend its legitimacy within the academy, and more recently outside of the academy, even amongst our own people. Professor Michael Reilly noted that opposition to the inclusion of Mäori studies was met with the question: “Where is your literature?” (Reilly 2008: 3).

This ‘literature’ was then put forward by Professors Ralph Piddington and Bruce Biggs and included texts by the late Pei Te Hurinui Jones and Sir Äpirana Ngata. We know that the corpus of literature produced in the 19th century by Mäori in their newspapers alone provide a rich repository of cultural epistemologies in the Mäori language and, therefore, we can assume that the corpus produced by Piddington and Biggs was significant enough to silence the critics of the academy (Reilly 2008: 7).

The course texts of Victoria University’s Mäori Studies department, and particularly those collated by the late Dr Te Kapunga Koro Dewes, highlight the scholarship of our ancestors in the Mäori language. These authors had clearly used their literacy skills to record their memoirs, philosophies, genealogies, knowledge, and political, economic and cultural ideologies.

Negative attitudes penetrate education systemIn modern discourse there is an over-emphasis on Mäori being an oral culture, which dismisses the language’s literary history as a means to excuse Mäori from producing Mäori language scholarship. The significant literature of the 19th and 20th centuries is still under-utilised by scholars, despite the rich corpus of language and cultural knowledge contained within it.

Negative societal values and attitudes towards the language continued to penetrate the education system and spilled over into the home environment. Subsequently, English eventually became the dominant language in Mäori homes because a perception was formed that English was the language of success, achievement and advancement. Therefore, to encourage this, Mäori themselves believed that there was no value in their language.


It was not long into the development of Mäori studies departments that an increasing number of monolingual English-speaking Mäori students began enrolling at universities. For many of these students, the academy became their solace for learning their language, culture and connecting them with their identity. Mäori studies needed to accommodate the increasing roll of Mäori who had no previous access to this knowledge and so university courses were developed to address this issue.

Universities also became the launching pad for a Mäori political conscience movement. Ngä Tamatoa and the Te Reo Mäori Society are testament to this growing political awareness. Dr Aroha Harris states that:

Ngä Tamatoa developed a reputation for radicalism and aggression. Members experienced ridicule, personal harassment and rejection. They were scorned by many Mäori, who felt they were somehow bringing Mäoridom into disrepute. They were criticised for adopting Päkehä protest methods, and chastised for being out of touch with their people and being unable to speak the language themselves. But they were mostly young and urban, and therefore belonged to the section of Mäori society that felt most distanced from their culture. It now seems appropriate that those who felt most deprived of te reo should be the ones who sought support to ensure its survival (Harris 2004: 48).

The much-heralded Mäori renaissance period of the 1970s and 80s saw these university graduates fighting to reverse the language shift and change attitudes towards the language and political issues including land and Treaty of Waitangi rights.

Turning the tide of language lossMäori studies departments continued to develop, despite constantly having to prove their legitimacy within the academy, and also had to cater to a more diverse range of students. Despite some Mäori language study being offered in the secondary schooling system, this did not lead to an increase in society’s Mäori language capacity. Ruatoki Bilingual School opened in 1978 (Harris 2004) but this was located in a community that still predominantly spoke Mäori in the home. Monolingual English idealism still prevailed in New Zealand society. The small efforts to change this, coupled with university students’ efforts to raise awareness, eventually led some facets of Mäori society to respond. Te Ataarangi and Te Köhanga Reo movements are the realisation of this raised community awareness to turn the tide of language loss.

Another evolutionary development affecting Mäori studies was the advent of wänanga. Where Mäori studies acted as a ‘wänanga within a wänanga’ that taught Mäori language and culture as a disciplinary subject within the university environment, the wänanga expanded upon the development of Mäori knowledge across multiple disciplinary fields. Led by Te Wänanga o Raukawa in 1981 (Harris 2004: 50) Awanuiärangi and Aotearoa followed.

Despite the philosophical degree of autonomy attained by wänanga, they are subjected to essentially the same funding policies as the rest of the tertiary sector. Therefore, the measures and funding pressures that Mäori studies departments face within mainstream institutions are being fought for by wänanga independently. However, creating these new, culturally legitimate spaces for Mäori language and knowledge transfer has often left our own people wondering if Mäori studies departments in universities are still qualified or authentic enough to provide this knowledge any more.

The reality is that Mäori people are still enrolling in universities. Mainstream society still values university qualifications over those of wänanga. Therefore, Mäori studies departments shouldn’t bear the brunt of this inequity. There are still Mäori who connect with their heritage, language and identity through mainstream institutions such as universities because they come from families who have long been integrated into mainstream beliefs. As Paulo Freire (1996) warned, the oppressed should be cautious that they do not become the oppressor. In an effort to find legitimacy are we in turn demeaning others in our Mäori community in order to validate our own work and knowledge systems?


The language continues to be at riskDespite the efforts of numerous language initiatives across the country, the Mäori language continues to be at risk. Furthermore, those initiatives that have been heralded in supporting language reversal continually come under attack from policy changes that impact on funding. This only serves to undermine the efforts of these organisations. In recent times we have seen Te Köhanga Reo take an urgent claim to the Waitangi Tribunal not only to fight against its assimilation into the mainstream education framework but also to acknowledge the validity of the Mäori language.

Even though the Waitangi Tribunal has already heard WAI 11 Te Reo Mäori and WAI 262, and even though the Crown has acknowledged that the language is a ‘taonga’, the value of the language is still being fought over. Who will be next to face the tribunal to fight for the language? What would our society be like if there were no Köhanga Reo, Kura Kaupapa Mäori or Wänanga? How would our unique identity be maintained if we have no language or culture?

Tertiary funding models have relied on the number of enrolments through EFTs, and as a result many Mäori studies departments have focused on ‘service papers’ which support their financial existence in universities. During my time at the University of Otago these 100-level introductory service papers subsidised the major, which attracted far smaller student numbers. These service papers averaged enrolments of between 300 and 400 students in any semester for both the language and culture papers. At its peak there were over 700 students enrolled in one semester. However, the vast majority of these students were international students who enrolled in these courses as part of the exchange experience. Interestingly, they saw the value in learning the Mäori language and culture. The same, however, couldn’t be said of domestic students and even more disturbingly, the Mäori students. Could this be indicative of the societal attitudes this country has towards the Mäori language?

Language providers not coordinating effortsI started the abstract for this talk with a recommendation and prediction from Te Reo Mauriora (2011: 7): that the language needs to be re-established in homes and that any new revitalisation strategy will be led by iwi. The 2003 Mäori language strategy also promoted intergenerational language learning with a focus on increasing domains where the language is embraced. The reality is that Mäori language providers are not fully coordinated in working towards a specific strategy to increase language use in wider society. On an aspirational level we may agree, but we don’t always communicate with each other to deliver our programmes and work in a coordinated manner. We are often forced into conflict through contestable funding models we find ourselves depending on as a result of our respective sector policies.

However, if the language was part of the home, as desired by the Te Reo Mauriora report, and if language initiatives were more coordinated in achieving this, the question then arises: would Mäori studies departments become like English departments and teach literature, as proposed many years ago by Professor Bruce Biggs?


Using this disciplinary model, is there a place now for the introduction of an equivalent Mäori language programme modelled on the English as a second language programme; to service those students who don’t know how to speak the Mäori language. This way, graduates of Kura Kaupapa Mäori or bilingual students wouldn’t have to be accelerated through the Mäori studies major in recognition of their prior learning. They would instead enrol in the Mäori studies major to study, for example, Mäori language literature and scholarship of the past as well as create an extension of this discourse through their own research. Could this be the future role of universities? I know that my koroua, Tïmoti Käretu, has always advocated this position but it’s not always seen as a viable option, due to the demand for language acquisition. But what about students who are already bilingual? How do we extend them? If language is concentrated on acquisition alone, then where does literary critique, philosophy and ideology get addressed?

Advancing Maori language scholarshipSomehow many of our attitudes towards scholarship in te reo are still reflective of societal values. As fewer scholars engage in this discourse and carve out their niche in other disciplines, the language is not being used to advance the scholarship. The development of He Kötihitihi – Ngä Tuhinga Reo Mäori journal at The University of Waikato is a welcome relief to those academics who want to write in the language and engage in this form of scholarship. But we end up in a paradox of wondering who is reading, and therefore citing, our research if the audience is limited to a few? The tertiary sector’s Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) funding regime puts an enormous pressure on academics to perform at their optimum in order to gain funding – it’s a ‘publish or perish’ mentality. Furthermore, even though the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) has allocated more funding towards PhD theses written in the Mäori language, the production of these theses remains minimal.

Such incentives haven’t significantly increased the production of Mäori language scholarship. Why? Because scholarship relies on readership and when this is limited how can the work be taken seriously, if only a few can engage with it? The overwhelming tidal wave of the monolingual ideology continues to subversively subjugate our people. Furthermore, this compounds the lack of value attributed to the language, or only relegates it to a realm of some appreciation but not quite enough to promote normalisation or reverse language shift.

The latest edition of the Mäori Studies Journal He Pukenga Körero is a special Mäori language edition. In this issue a colleague and I wrote an article drawing from research we conducted on pedagogy and the value of the language and knowledge systems. In that article I wrote about the irony of a Mäori studies journal having a special Mäori language edition, particularly as the Mäori language is supposedly the foundation of the discipline. I knew that I could make this point without an overwhelming backlash from my colleagues. Why? Because I know that the majority of them won’t read the article because the majority can’t or don’t engage in Mäori language scholarship. Furthermore, I suspect those people who have or do read the article may have a tendency to agree with me because it is ironic, it is a criticism to us as Mäori studies scholars, but it is very much a reality.

The double-edged sword of language reversal in universities is the overwhelming tidal wave of monolingualism coupled with changing tertiary policy that promotes internationally peer-reviewed articles over Mäori language scholarship. How can I love my language when it continues to be devalued, by our institutions, our society and by ourselves?

Arohatia te reo? Me pëhea hoki?


BibliographyAppendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives. (1862). E-04, Reports on Native Schools.

Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives. (1858). E-01, Reports on Native Schools.

Browne, T. (1860). The Kohimarama conference. Te Karere Mäori, 7(13), 1-12.

Chrisp, T. (2005). Mäori intergenerational language transmission. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 172, 149-181.

Durie, A. (1998). Emancipatory Mäori education: Speaking from the heart. Language Culture and Curriculum, 11(3), 297-308.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Harris, A. (2004). Hïkoi: Forty years of Mäori protest. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

McClean, D. (1860). The Kohimarama conference. Te Karere Mäori, 7(13), 37-40.

Mead, S. M. (1997). Mäori studies tomorrow: Te wänanga i te mätauranga Mäori. In Landmarks, bridges and visions: Aspects of Mäori culture. Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 21-38.

Mikaere, A. (2011). Colonising myths, Mäori realities: He rukuruku whakaaro. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Parr, C. J. (1973). Mäori literacy 1843-1867. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 72(3), 211-234.

Reilly, M. (2008). What is Mäori studies? Lecture presented as part of the appointment process for Chair in Mäori Studies at the University of Otago. Retrieved from http://eprintstetumu.otago.ac.nz

Simon, J., Smith, L.T., Cram, F., Hohepa, M., McNaughton, S., & Stephenson, M. (Eds.). (2001). A civilising mission? Perceptions and representations of the native schools system. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Strong, T. B. (1931). The Education of South Sea Island Natives. In Patrick Jackson (Ed.) Maori and Education or the Education of Natives in New Zealand and its Dependencies. Wellington: Ferguson and Osborne Limited, pp 188-194. Taratoa, H. (1860). Untitled letter to the editor, in Te Karere Maori, 7, pp 12. Te Paepae Motuhake (2011). Te Reo Mauriora: Review of the Mäori Language Sector and the Mäori Language Strategy. Wellington: Government Press.


Inakitia rawatia hei käkano mö äpöpö Early Childhood Student Teachers Encounter with te ao MäoriBy Diane Gordon Burns and Leeanne Campbell

AbstractAotearoa New Zealand’s education system is touted as being world renowned for showing innovation and leadership in the inclusion of Mäori and their wellbeing. Yet in 2012 many early childhood education centres still operate monoculturally and monolingually. Te reo Mäori is an official language yet only 1 per cent of our non-Mäori population are able to speak it. In this paper, we present the findings of a pilot study about the experiences and understandings that a group of student-teachers reported in their bicultural development before they entered the tertiary education system. We also give an account of the experiences that prompted us to develop this study, which foregrounds a broader programme of longitudinal research that commenced early in 2012. This study will track a cohort of student-teachers, garnering data about their attitudes to biculturalism and biliteracy during their three years of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and their first year of teaching in anearly childhood centre. It is intended that the findings will add to the knowledge about what it is that will make a positive contribution to the ongoing development and enthusiasm for bicultural and bilingual proficiency within the ranks of our teaching profession.

An Overview of the Project: Its Impetus and AimsThis paper is underpinned by our positions and perspectivesas Mäori women who teach ITE programmes (early childhood education). It is also based on our practical experiences andcollaborative research in ITE. In particular, for this presentation,we look at challenges that our students face when they are confronted with the demands and expectations of biliteracy and bicultural obligations which, for some of them, will be the first time that there hahas been such a requiremenntt ofo them.

OuO r intetereestst in coondn uctitingng bboth thhisis rreesearcchh and ththeeafafororemementiononeded eeararlilierer studydy comomes froomm ouourr exexpeperiennceces ——ene compmpasassisingng ssomomee 5454 yyeaearsr betweweenen uuss — wiwiththinin tthehe field ofof eeararlyly cchihildldhohoodod eeduducacatitionon. BoBothth ooff usus hhavavee bebeenen ppraractctisisininggtet acheersrs aandnd teaachcher eduducacatot rs inn eaearlrlyy childhdhoodd mamaininstreamm, bibililingnguual anndd fufullll llananguguage-imimmemerrsion ededucucatatioionanal settttiningsgs ssuuchasa Köhanangaga RReoeo,, plplayaycecentntrere,, primarary y anandd sesecocondndarary y scschoh ols anandd tetertrtiaiaryry iinsnstititututitionons.s. OOurur eexpxpererieiencnceses lleded uuss toto ccononclclududee ththatat whw ile ththereree hhavee bbeen mamanyny posittivive e bibicultururala ly iincnclulusisive gaiainns inin AAototeearoa a NeNeww ZeZealalana d, wwe e araree a longng wwayay ffroromm sayiyingng tthahatt wee ara e regigiononalallyly aandnd nnatatioionanalllly y engaagegedd inin ssucuccecessssfufull anandd sustaiinenedd bibicucultltururalal aandnd bbililiningugualal eeduducacatitionon.


When we use the expression ‘engaged in bicultural education’, we mean working earnestly and genuinely toward revitalising te reo Mäori and including tikanga Mäori (Mäori customs and traditions), practices and protocols in our country’s educational settings.

Our project is titled, Inakitia rawatia hei käkano mö äpöpö.1 This saying reflects students’ encounter with biculturalism and biliteracy and their understanding of te ao Mäori (the Mäori worlds) from their past experiences. A metaphor, the whakataukï describes students who bring with them many layers of knowledge, skills, attitudes and experiences that they will build upon during their tertiary education.

The project has developed from the findings of a smaller recent study, which indicated the need to expand the research into a longitudinal research project that will span four years. Our aim in the larger study is to track a cohort of ITE (early childhood) students at two separate institutions through three years of training and into their first year in an early childhood centre after they have graduated. We particularly want to gain understanding of what compels students to maintain or hinders them from maintaining beyond their training years, high-quality bicultural involvement with all Aotearoa, New Zealand tamariki within the early childhood environment.

The pilot study was sponsored by Ako Aotearoa and is supported by The School of Mäori Social and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury, and Rangi Ruru Early Childhood College, Christchurch.

We made a decision to follow students from Rangi Ruru Early Childhood College, a private training establishment (PTE) and the University of Canterbury. One of the objectives of our study was to compare questionnaire responses from students in the two main educational communities in this country, the public and private sectors, providing early childhood teacher education in New Zealand.

A focus for our project is on how our current education system and teaching and learning environments contribute to students’ forming positive or negative attitudes and commitment to Mäori education.

The pilot study rationaleThe pilot study gave us an understanding of the different thoughts and experiences that year 1 students had about biculturalism immediately prior to commencing study as a student teacher. Looking ahead to the future, our main objective is to seek attitudinal change amongst graduating students so that they feel enthusiastic about maintaining a high level of commitment and respect for te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga. Our rationale therefore was in response to the following:

• We noticed the limited number of graduates from our institutions (and others), who continued to uphold and develop their learning in relation to te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga once they were employed in the communities’ centres.

• We have a desire to see enriching and relevant bilingual programmes in operation throughout early childhood centres in Christchurch and beyond.

• We were concerned that there should be equitable opportunities for all children to access programmes rich with the use of te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga.

• We saw the need to analyse tertiary and college programmes and content so as to ensure access to material that will build confidence and competency in graduates.

• We noticed that a very high proportion of the early childhood centres we have been associated with are still practising and teaching from a monolingual and monocultural paradigm.

• We think it is critical that the gaps and barriers that we believe hinder the achievement of Mäori students and the bicultural/bilingual development of Aotearoa as a community are investigated, discussed and strategies for change identified and reported on.

• We also consider it relevant to identify the knowledge, skills and attitudes that students have that might either support or hinder their development in this area.

• We want to gain a deeper understanding of which aspects of learning might best facilitate ongoing development and progress for graduating students, that is advance their bicultural development during and beyond the tertiary education classroom.

1Thatch and cover with overlapping layers [of knowledge] so the seed can sprout and thus offer opportunity for those who follow.


In our work we are mindful of the political achievements of past Mäori educational activists and wish to not only support their efforts but also to promote and expand on the advances they have made and continue to make. Although not an exhaustive list, the work of people such as Apirana Ngata, Whina Cooper, Ranginui Walker, Huirangi Waikerepuru, Rose Pere, Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, Wally Penetito, Kuni Jenkins, Kathie Irwin, Ani Mikaere, Mere Skerrett, Tilly Reedy, Rita Walker, Annette Sykes, Cheryl Rau, Mike Smith, Kaa Daniels and Whatarangi Winiata have influenced our thinking in many ways. We also acknowledge here the work that Jenny Ritchie has undertaken in progressing and maintaining the profile for bicultural curriculum, spaces and places. Tënei te mihi atu ki a rätou i tënei te ao mätauranga.

MethodologyEarly in 2011, we decided to invite all students in our first-year intake for the year to answer a questionnaire. We told them that we wanted them to recount their past experiences with te reo Mäori and te ao Mäori. We wanted to know about their attitudes to te ao Mäori and we constructed the questionnaire in a way that we hoped would help us understand why they held particular attitudes (positive or negative) and how these might or might not translate into their ongoing cultural and language learning once they had graduated. The questionnaires were to be given out at the beginning of the academic year (typically late February), so that we could ‘capture’ student opinion and attitudes very early during their study. We wanted to gauge their knowledge and attitudes on entry to the programme with a view to revisiting this after completion. The students attending one of our institutions completed and returned their questionnaires. However, the students at our other institution had little opportunity to complete the questionnaire because on the day (22 February 2011) they were to be given out to them, Christchurch experienced a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, the effects of which disrupted tuition for several weeks. February 22 marked the beginning of the new academic year. Because of this, the questionnaire was put online which impacted on student engagement, such that participation was very limited. Fourteen students had completed the paper questionnaire from Rangi Ruru while only one University of Canterbury student completed the online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 48 questions asking for students’ understandings, emotions or attitudes and experiences with bicultural issues, te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principles of language acquisition.

Realising that we would have to rely almost entirely on responses from students at Rangi Ruru, we decided to extend our project by a year. This delay would allow us to stay true to our original intention of accessing new incoming students, and it would also ensure we have the student numbers required to give greater credibility to our research. The questionnaires we did receive back in February 2011 gave us sufficient information from which to further develop the 2012 questionnaire, particularly with regard to areas we most want to focus on. This process has also clarified how we want to conduct the study and analyse the data it produces. We have accordingly positioned our work so far as a pilot study and it is the findings of this study that we report on in this paper.

Relevant documents: Te Whäriki: The early childhood curriculum documentAotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum policy statement, Te Whäriki (Ministry of Education, 1996) is a framework for providing children’s early learning and development within a sociocultural context. Te Whäriki emphasises a learning partnership between teachers, parents, families and their communities. It is also the first curriculum document in New Zealand where Mäori were consulted from the inception (Ministry of Education, 1996; Pakai, 2004). The document is therefore considered to be a bicultural one, with the hope and aspirations that its use in early childhood would see enhanced bicultural environments develop in Aotearoa New Zealand. Here it was imagined that teachers would weave an holistic curriculum in response to each child’s learning and development in the early childhood setting and the wider context of their world, while also taking into account the unique position of our country’s heritage. Statements such as the following give examples of the intent:

“New Zealand is the home of Mäori language and culture . . . curriculum in early childhood settings should promote te reo me ngä tikanga Mäori, making them visible and affirming their value for children from all cultural backgrounds” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 42).

Clearly the intention of the writers was to lay a foundation to include Mäori language, history, values and beliefs in early childhood education environments.


The purpose of Te Whäriki is to encourage the transmission of Mäori cultural values, beliefs and language. It fosters active participation and consultation with parents and whänau and it does this by promoting partnership and the inclusion of Mäori parents and families especially through their contribution to a centre’s programme. By working in this way, centres are upholding the paramount objective of the curriculum document by ensuring a sense of belonging for all within the early childhood education environment. The curriculum document not only gives examples of how this can be achieved, but it also makes practical suggestions such as participating in the “activities, stories and events that have connections with Mäori children’s lives [which] are an essential and enriching part of the curriculum for all children in early childhood settings” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 41).

Other relevant policy and legislationOver the past decade, the Ministry of Education has launched a number of guidelines detailing the government’s expectations for early childhood education. These ‘encourage’ centres to commit themselves to bicultural development (see in particular, Ministry of Education, 1996, 2002a, 2002b, 2007; 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). In addition to such policy for centres, the New Zealand Teachers Council has developed guidelines that assign responsibilities to those in the teaching profession. These include:

• Graduating Teacher Standards. These are standards that were developed so that there is consistency in the quality of all graduating teachers from the different sectors. Mention is given to the responsibility of learning and teaching Mäori language and culture (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2007).

• Registered Teacher Criteria. With similar expectations to Graduating Teacher Standards, these criteria require teachers to “work effectively” biculturally, to practise and develop relevant “te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga-ä-iwi” (principals, protocols and practices of the iwi of the local community), and to “specifically and effectively” attend to the educational aspirations of Mäori students and their whänau (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2009).

• The Tertiary Education Strategy (2010-2015, Ministry of Education, 2009d). The strategy accepts and has an expectation that all tertiary educational organisations will take responsibility for strengthening the delivery of high quality te reo Mäori in their teaching programmes. In particular, the document states, “Improving the quality of te reo Mäori in initial teacher education programmes will be important in helping Mäori to achieve success throughout the education system” (p. 12). This government document acknowledges that evidence confirms that Mäori language, culture and identity is important in providing a basis for Mäori success in all forms of education (see for example p. 7 of the document).

What we have found so farWhen Year 1 students enter ITE, they are taught at Level 5 of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) framework (NZQA, 2010). This means that by the end of their three-year programme they should have reached Level 7 of the framework. However, according to the curriculum guidelines published in 2009 in relation to teaching and learning te reo Mäori in English medium schools, Te Aho Arataki Marau mö te Ako i Te Reo Mäori: Kura Auraki, many students in their first year of teacher education, while achieving some aspects of te reo proficiency such as word recognition, do not meet all of the objectives of NZQA Level 1 Mäori assessments. Our experience is that many of our students are not able, for example, to communicate about their location (Achievement Objective 1.5) or understand and use simple conventions around polite interaction such as complimenting people (Achievement Objective 1.6). We wonder how we can expect ITE students to be speakers of te reo Mäori and have knowledge and understanding of what a bicultural curriculum might look and feel like when our school systems are not preparing them for this. Furthermore, based on our experiences we believe students are entering study and teacher training with insufficient knowledge, understanding and commitment in order to successfully learn about te reo Mäori, tikanga and culture. We take this information from the accounts that students have given, via the questionnaire responses, in relation to their experiences and understandings of bicultural development before entering the tertiary education system.


We have found, for example, that there is confusion around the words, biculturalism and multiculturalism. While most students in the study agreed that our society should be bicultural, there was a tendency to identify many cultures when using the term bicultural. An example of this is that students in the study made statements such as, “New Zealand is Bicultural. It means we have many different cultures living in one country”. The results of the pilot study appeared to show also that students could not articulate what biculturalism might look like in practice. Whilst the findings show that there may be some growth in understanding and awareness about biculturalism amongst some students, there is still much more work that needs to be undertaken in relation to what bicultural practice means at centre level.

Almost half the participants in our pilot project attended a Mäori language course. However, the time allocated to this varied from a brief introduction of three hours in total to two and a half years of high school study. The general response from a majority of students was that learning te reo Mäori is important for teachers and they agreed that te reo Mäori is a part of this country and needs to be passed on to others so that the language and culture does not die. However, one in seven respondents believe that learning about Mäori culture should be optional and that teachers should be able to decide if they learn and use te reo Mäori or not. There seems to be some uncertainty or confusion about this, students appear to not connect the importance of learning the language with teacher responsibilities and accountability. They go on to say, for example, that children will accept it as normal and an everyday occurrence if language is encouraged at a young age. They also said a second language is a great skill to have as a New Zealander and that te reo Mäori should be a cherished language as it is native to our country.

Twenty five percent of students in our pilot study said that before entering tertiary education they had no experience with Mäori culture. Half the people who say they have had experience indicate that it was through a school marae visit (this can be and is likely to have been a one-day visit or an overnight stay once or twice during their formal education). There was some awareness of te Tiriti o Waitangi. A selection of responses include, “it was an agreement between Mäori and British in regards to land ownership”, “Putting right the grievances that were done in the past” and “MISREPRESENTATION” (student emphasis). The subject did, however, bring up emotional reactions from most students, for example when asked what feelings came to mind when they heard the words te Tiriti o Waitangi, they said “injustice”, “conflict”, “racism” and “different opinions”.

When asked about what they imagined or hoped to achieve from their tertiary education in terms of bicultural education, most students said their hope was to have access to language and culture. They said they want to have an understanding of ‘other’ cultures, not specifically about Mäori culture. The majority said they would like to know the true meaning of biculturalism. In response to a query about whether they hold fears or concerns about participating in experiences within te ao Mäori in ITE studies most students stated they do not. Where there were concerns it was about incorrect pronunciation on their part. Most students would like to be able to converse and understand te reo Mäori but some would be happy to maintain a basic level of knowledge that includes colours, numbers and shapes.

Twenty five percent of respondents did not think that all lecturers should include te reo Mäori in their programmes. And they thought that while children and student teachers should learn te reo Mäori, not all teachers should have to use te reo Mäori (20 per cent of the students thought that all teachers should speak and use some te reo Mäori as practicing teachers).


Further thoughtsIt is unsurprising to us that students are entering ITE with a wide range of abilities, knowledge, understanding and attitudes about the place and importance of te reo Mäori me ngä tikanga. This is partly because in Aotearoa, learning Mäori language is not compulsory in primary and secondary schools (Hill, 2010; Ministry of Education, n. d).

The Education Workforce Advisory Group was convened to provide government with advice on how to raise the quality of teaching across the schooling system (Ministry of Education, 2011). In its report to the Minister of Education, the group recommended that much more importance needs to be placed on ITE programmes to ensure solid grounding and proficiency and ongoing recognition of the importance of effective teaching of te reo Mäori (p. 3). In our role as teacher educators, we wholeheartedly agree with this thought as it seems to us that the educational continuum needs to have clearer standards and stronger expectations about te reo Mäori proficiency and its importance throughout the school years. We believe that further study needs to focus on strategies to develop student teacher and teacher educator ability and understanding about biculturalism and biliteracy revitalisation and implementation. We also believe that strategies will work best in consultation and with consideration to the community the graduates will serve amongst.

Discussions, suggestions, thoughts and ideas about and around biculturalism and bilingual development, what it means in an Aotearoa New Zealand context and how to advance these positions continue to be ongoing conversations (see for example Mikaere (2011), Penetito (2010), Ritchie (2003, 2007, 2008) and Skerrett (2007).

We believe that the next phase of our project (i.e., the study that was put on hold following the February 2011 earthquake) will not only further identify the strengths and discontinuities of incoming students’ bicultural/bilingual experiences and knowledge, but it will also offer an opportunity to see where course content can be realigned to take into account those factors.

ReferencesHill, R. S. (2010). Fitting multiculturalism into biculturalism: Mäori-Pasifika relations in New Zealand from the 1960s. Ethnohistory, 57(2), 291–319.

Mikaere, A. (2011). Colonising myths, Mäori realities: He rukuruku whakaaro. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Ministry of Education (n.d.). Te Kete Ipurangi. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from http://tereomaori.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/Te-Reo-Maori-in-Schools-Strategy/ Frequently-asked-questions#ism

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te whäriki. He whäriki mätauranga mä ngä mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2002a). Pathways to the future: Ngä huarahi arataki. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2002b). Pathways to the future: Ngä huarahi aratiki: A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Licensing criteria for home-based education and care services. Wellington: Author. Retrieved from www.lead.ece.govt.nz/ leadHome/ServiceTypes/CentreBased ECEServices.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2009a). Ka hikitia: Managing for success. The Mäori education strategy 2008–2012. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2009b). Licensing criteria for home-based education and care services. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2009c). Te aho arataki marau mö te ako i te reo Mäori: Kura auraki. Wellington: Learning Media.


Ministry of Education. (2009d). The tertiary education strategy 2010− 2015. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2011a). Tätaiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Mäori learners. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2011b). Education Workforce Advisory Group: A vision for the teaching profession. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2011c). New Zealand education policies/schools/policy and strategy. Wellington: Learning Media.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2010). New Zealand qualifications framework. Wellington: NZQA.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2007). Graduating teacher standards. Wellington: Author. Retrieved from www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/te/gts/

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2009). Registered teacher criteria. Wellington: Author. Retrieved from www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/rtc/index.stm

Pakai, E. (2004, June). Te whäriki: The curriculum for early childhood education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Paper presented to Reach. Victoria, Canada: University of Victoria.

Penetito, W. (2010). What’s Mäori about Mäori education? Wellington: Victoria University Press.

Ritchie, J. (2003). Bicultural development within an early childhood teacher education programme. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 43-56.

Ritchie, J. (2007). Bicultural journeying: A researcher’s view. Playcentre Journal, 129, 24-27.

Ritchie, J. (2008). Honouring Mäori subjectivities within early childhood education in Aotearoa. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(3), 202-210.

Skerrett, M. (2007). Kia Tu Heipu: Languages frame, focus and colour our worlds. Childrenz Issues, 11(1), 6-14.


Ko te reo tonu te mauri o te mana Mäori Enabling Powerful Tertiary Engagement with the Language JourneyBy Glenis Philip-Barbara

He mihiKoto ake a waikamo i te aroha köingo ki ö tätau tini aituä, ki ngä tipua o te iwi Mäori i hinga atu i roto i ngä wiki, i ngä marama, i ngä tau. Tae mai tö rongo e te Päpä, e Hone, ïnäpö. Aue, taukuri e. Hoki atu rä ki a rätau mä, ki te Matua, ki tö kainga tüturu. E kore mätau e wareware äu nei mahi ki te mata o te whënua. Haere, haere, haere atu rä.

Hoki ora mai ki a tätau ngä waihotanga a kui, a koro mä. Ka tautoko i ngä mihi ki ënei whare ätaahua, ki nga kaitiaki o te whenua, arä ki ngä ringa rehe i whakarite tä tätau hui. Tëna tätau i te kaupapa nui kei mua i te aroaro. Ko te tümanako, mä te mahi ngätahi ka eke panuku ä tätau wawata katoa, tö tätau reo hoki, ki ngä taumata.

Nö reira huri noa i tö tätau whare, tëna rä tätau.

I wish to achieve two things with this paper. Firstly, I want toconsider Tä Hëmi Henare’s observations about te reo and itsrelationship to us as Mäori and extend these thoughts to thekinds of action I believe are critical for the Mäori language.Secondly, I want to speak directly to you as tertiary providers and share some of the practical ways in which I think you canpowerfully support the language movement.

Language is a complex social phenomenon that is simultaneouslydeeply personal and visibly public. It signifies cultural currency,social standing and evokes powerful emotion. In New Zealand,the Mäori language remains something of an enigma to the greatbulk of our population, who are becoming increasingly fascinated by it. While the increased visibility of the language in the mediaprovides some people with a sense of security about its future youneed to know that we are not out of the woods yet. The future of our beloved ‘reo’ is far from secure; there is still much work to do.Tä Hemi’s prophetic words uttered during the hearings atWaiwhetu Marae for the Te Reo Claim in 1986 capture succinctlythe inherent value of the language to us as Mäori. “Ko te reo temauri o te mana Mäori,” he said. The very essence of our manaas Mäori is our language. Our unique, exceptional, beautifullanguage that faithfully transmits our world view, our tikanga,our history, our quirky sense of humour, our expressions of love,loss, pain and joy. It captures our human experience, our past andour future. Our language quite simply carries our cultural essence.


Language keeps pace with modern lifeOur language is also quite capable of expressing the myriad of transactions that we engage in on any given day. “E hia te utu?” (“How much is that?”), “He aha tö pïrangi?” (“What would you like?”), Kei te wätea tënä türanga waka?” (“Is that car park available?”). Wherever we have grown and developed, our language has kept pace with new words and expressions emerging almost daily. For example, new words such as, “Mea rawa ake”, “Nek minnit”, “I-papa”,” I-Pad”, “Pätuhi” or “Text”.

Despite its modern capability, our language struggles against a tide of English language dominance for space on the tongues of our people, on the Facebook status updates of our whänau, in the headlines and stories of the daily news, in the cup of tea conversations around our tables and in gatherings such as these where we as Mäori come together. We have no security yet as Mäori that when we speak Mäori, the majority of us understand what we are talking about. Our language struggles simply because we have not yet managed to achieve a critical mass of proficient speakers who are confident enough to use the language wherever they are.

Many people tell me that their lack of proficiency is a source of whakamä and that the expectation that they can speak Mäori creates a palpable tension for them in a range of settings. Unfortunately, the only rongoä for this sense of unease is the acquisition of the language, which paradoxically becomes more difficult for people who are uncomfortable in language settings. If what I say describes you, please, grab the proverbial bull by the horns and find a mode of learning that suits you. The language movement needs you to acquire and speak our language.

Achieving a critical mass of Mäori language speakersIn fact, our language needs as many of us to be speaking the language as possible, particularly to our children. Achieving a critical mass of speakers will quite literally transform the language experience for generations to come. As a speaker of the language, you will be more likely to have peers in your workplace and in your community who speak Mäori, and as with all social phenomena the more you speak the stronger your language becomes.

According to socio-linguists who debate just how many people constitute a ‘critical mass’ for language regeneration purposes, amongst a population the generally accepted percentage is 70 per cent or more. For the entire population of New Zealand that equates to a massive 2.8 million speakers.

However, to first achieve critical mass among Mäori that means approximately 350,000 or more of us taking up the role of speakers and lovers of te reo Mäori in our homes, communities and workplaces. According to the 2006 national census, there were approximately 157,000 people able to have a conversation about everyday things in te reo Mäori (Statistics NZ: 2006). So the good news is that we are almost half way towards achieving the kind of numbers we need to make our language a more everyday mode of communication.


Need for sustained effort and focusThe not so good news is that for many of us who are counted as part of the 157,000 Mäori language-speaking population, a large number do not speak Mäori as much as possible on a daily basis to a standard of proficiency that wouldn’t make Tïmoti Karetü roll his eyes heavenward. Growing our language capability takes sustained effort and focus and a constant ear on the utterances of highly competent speakers. It means that as lovers of the language we must always be vigilant and constantly striving. But wait, there’s more. Consider this. If every person counted in that group of 157,000 was to go out and engage just one or two other Mäori people in the language journey we could well reach critical mass amongst the Mäori population in short order. Such a move would help set a platform for our mokopuna that would help secure our language and our culture into the future. So as well as looking after our language, we need to encourage at least one or two others while we are at it.

This leads me to the tertiary sector and the important role that you all play in the future of the language.

The important role of tertiary institutionsFor many of our people, their language learning journey starts in earnest at a tertiary institution. For some, it is the only place where they can get access to a structured learning environment that can take them from knowing nothing to having some command over the basics and beyond. Some of these learners are looking to reclaim their identity. Others come looking for a way to capture a language lost often through no fault of their own. Tertiary institutions have been and remain important sites of cultural and language reclamation for some students. They have an important role to play.

One of the biggest challenges for any student of the language is growing the competence and confidence necessary to shift their language learning paradigm from the realm of the personal to the public. While shuffling our kupu hou in private at home is a comfort, actually using the language in community settings, while incredibly scary at first, is one of the many important steps that a learner will take on their way to fluency.

It is important that tertiary providers understand that when it comes to enabling the growth and development of te reo Mäori, that the learner has mastered the basics to engage with Mäori language speaker communities. Learners need somewhere to use and apply their language in ways that are culturally relevant and meaningful. A tertiary institution that recognises this and enables such interaction as part of its pedagogical approach becomes a critical cog in the language learning journey of its student.


Helping students speak Mäori in the communityFrom what I have observed, smart tertiary providers with overflowing language classes often have employed the language movers and shakers within their respective rohe. Such people are highly sought after professionals in their own right and generally have a hand on everything ‘te reo’ that is going. Their classes are highly sought after because they are adept at creating opportunities for their language students to apply their language in a range of community settings. Haka groups emerge from such places, as do punua koroua and kaikaranga. In such places, möteatea are revived and put to work. The connection between these students of the language and Mäori language speaker communities are powerfully enabled by these language movers and shakers.

Such experiences and learning has a powerful ripple effect on the learner, their whänau and community. But we can do even more by proposing a simple question and encouraging students of the language and ourselves to think it through. The question is this; is my home a Mäori language speaking home? If the answer is yes, then the student needs to be encouraged to think critically about how they can actively build language capacity within their home. If the answer is no, then the student may need to workshop with others who answered yes and come up with a practical plan to help them create that reality for themselves in the future. So few places that teach the language actively encourage the learner to think about their own households or whänau and how they might be engaged in the language journey together.

Three solutions to engaging language students There may be some important gains made for the language should all of you as tertiary providers collectively exercise your influence to ensure that the following three things can be said about the ‘reo’ at your place. Firstly, that your students (having mastered basic proficiency) have the opportunity to apply their language in a range of Mäori language speaker communities. Secondly, that your place is where all the language movers and shakers hang out. And most critically, that students who learn the language with you are encouraged to actively engage their whänau and household in their journey.

Powerful tertiary engagement in the language learning journey requires a purposeful approach that sustains a student long after class is over. Your students are quite literally the people who are most likely to positively influence the way in which our language develops in the future and the decisions they make after their classes are over will impact us all. While we all have a role to play, as education professionals you hold within your hands the power to support the transformation of our world. Critical and purposeful engagement with your language students will certainly support a more positive future for our language, thus continuing the work of restoring the essence of our mana as Mäori to ourselves, our tamariki and our mokopuna.

Manawa mai ai te putanga o tënei kura kï, tënei kura körero, tënei kura reo MäoriNö mua, nö te wä i a Tä Hëmi Henare, näna te kï, ‘ko te reo te mauri o te mana Mäori e i.Te hau o taku reo, puritia kia mau, kia ü, kia whena, tinatoka te manawa ora, o taku reoHe hikinga, he häpainga, hei oranga, ki ngä whakatipuranga ko te reo kia rere, kia Mäori ki te äo e i.

Nä Awanuiarangi Black ngä kupu, nä Juanita Teepa raua ko Erena Richards te rangi o te pao nei.


Kia tika te mahi whakaako kia whakamanatia ai te tangata Transforming TeachingBy Dr Catherine Savage, Te Tapuae o Rehua

AbstractA tertiary education in 2012 is fundamentally ideological,political and packaged as an economic good. Through forces ofcompetition and a concentration on economic advantage, ourtertiary institutions have privileged certain kinds of knowledgeand research. As a result we are experiencing a narrowingmanagerialist agenda across the education sector, which inturn has a significant impact on education for Mäori, Mäorias educators and the resulting social capital. The focus on the acquisition of certain kinds of knowledge rather than deep,universal learning means that students are often unable to situateand localise knowledge within subsequent manifestations of theirpractice. This paper examines the impact of neo-liberalism ontertiary teaching and learning, the embodiment of knowledge orthat art of becoming and implications for tertiary teaching.

IntroductionAs educators, although our contexts may vary significantlywe all have one thing in common, we teach. How we definewhat we each do within our institutions will vary considerably.Our understanding of what teaching is and what it means toeducate will be deeply grounded in our own personal pedagogy.We might believe amongst other things that our purpose is toprovide a more educated society, be the critical conscience ofsociety, create innovation and reproduce our cultural legacy orto essentially make life better. Most people who teach are drivenby a passion to educate, to make a difference and to pass on the privilege that being educated brings. The reality for manyof us, however, is that what we believe we do and what we areactually doing is quite different. Regardless of what we believeour purpose is within our current system, we have inherited aneducation system that has evolved from an industrial colonialmodel. It is based on fundamental assumptions about teachingand learning that while challenged has remained constant. Theseassumptions being:

• That learning is linear.

• That ability can be measured.

• That certain people are fit for certain things.

• That acquisition and recall of knowledge takes precedence over experience.

• That certain kinds of knowledge are more valuable than others.


In New Zealand the higher education system was used as a vehicle of colonisation, through both the production of thought, new knowledge and outcomes. Despite being offered to Mäori by Päkehä as a civilising and politically neutral enterprise, education was and still is inherently ideological and political (Walker, 2005; Simon & Smith 2001). Institutions selected whose knowledge was included, described what constituted knowledge and in most cases disqualified Mäori knowledge as inadequate and naïve (Smith, 1999). When Mäori knowledge was adopted by tertiary institutions in New Zealand it was positioned down the hierarchy of knowledge, beneath the sciences, technology, business, and law. The consequence of this disqualification was the erosion of Mäori language and culture to the point of imminent Mäori language death (Walker, 2005).

While we have experienced a significant revitalisation of Mäori language, culture and identity within the tertiary system, this paper argues that the current overemphasis of neo-liberal thought on higher education has the potential to transform our institutions into mere markets of knowledge. Smith (1997) believes that this culturally captured form of economics with an emphasis on processes of individualism, competition and privatisation can be interpreted as ‘new formations of colonisation’ (p9).

The impact of neo-liberalism on higher educationSince the late 1990s we have seen more government involvement in tertiary education than ever before. The introduction of the Tertiary Education Committee in 2003 brought about policy documents, strategic plans and monitoring resulting in a strategically driven tertiary education system. Tertiary Institutions appoint councils which have come to resemble corporate governance structures. They have become businesses that are expected to be self-sustaining and in so doing have come to operate within a neo-liberal mind-set that has meant that education has become a commodity to be bought, sold and traded in the same manner as other goods and services.

“Neo-liberalism has come to define universities as “just supermarkets for a variety of public and private goods that are currently in demand, and whose value is defined by their perceived aggregate financial value” (Boulton and Lucas, 2008, p.17).

Education has shifted from being good for the public to being a public good. Education has acquired a cost- benefit value. When students spend money on gaining papers they have some expectation of service, an expectation that they will pass and an expectation of a return on their total investment. This expectation in turn is translated into future financial gain, the more expensive the degree the higher the expectation of return. Similarly, when the government invests in a business it expects a return; in the case of tertiary institutions the government expects outcomes. Over the past two decades this has been quantified and described as qualification or graduate outcomes. Government investment in higher education has become justified to the public largely in terms of economic growth through research and development and preparing students for the labour market. Tertiary institutions in a neo-liberal system are answerable to the government and the government expects maximum impact for investment. This has a far-reaching and quite significant impact on what we believe our work as educators is. Smith (1997) has commented that he believes neo-liberal reform has made Mäori even more vulnerable to the colonising imperatives within the education system, he argues that economic priorities have enhanced the intersection of economic exploitation and culturally oppression. This is evident in the system through a pervasive emphasis on measuring outcomes, a focus on vocational training and the erosion of critical agency.

Measuring outcomes rather than solving problemsThe Ministry of Education measures the impact of education in two ways, the impact on human and social capital. Human capital is viewed as those marketable skill-sets that we need to be productive, the actual knowledge and skills we need to work in a particular vocation. Social capital refers to those features of social organisation that exist in relationships among members of community, the idea that people require social networks based on goodwill, cooperation and reciprocity to function effectively. Social capital is fundamental to the effectiveness of democracy at both local and national levels, not to mention the reproduction of


language, culture and identity and the sustenance of family. While the two forms of capital are interwoven and are considered to be mutually supportive, the impact of measuring this capital has collateral damage. When we look at what is easily measurable it shifts the emphasis of our teaching to measuring human capital; the knowledge and skills, as opposed to the social capital; relationships, cooperation and reciprocity. Social capital is arguably more difficult to teach, more time intensive and more difficult to measure, if measurable at all.

“Academic knowledge has been stripped of its value as a social good - to be relevant, and there-fore adequately funded, knowledge has to justify itself in market terms” (Giroux, 2011 p.2).

In accordance with this, courses have shifted in emphasis to become more about knowledge acquisition of content as opposed to the development of the whole person. Along with a growing need to deliver an education that consumers believe meets their needs and a requirement by funding agencies to quantify that measurement in graduate outcomes, we have moved away from educating to training.

“…to define the university enterprise by these specific outputs, and to fund it only through metrics that measure them, is to misunderstand the nature of the enterprise and its potential to deliver social benefit” (Boulton and Lucas, 2008:17).

We cannot, nor should we, measure all the impacts of education. If we take a broader view of education as the development of our being, of who we are not just what we know, we cannot measure the intangible changes that come as a result of being, knowing and experiencing more. By seeking to value only those aspects of education which we can measure or quantify we move towards a training focus, merely pouring knowledge into an unprepared soul as Heidegger suggests.

“...merely pouring knowledge into the unprepared soul [or mind] as if it were some container held out empty and waiting. On the contrary, real education lays hold of the soul itself and transforms it in its entirety by first of all leading us to the place of our essential being and accustoming us to it” (Heidegger, 1972, p. 167).

By further pursuing to measure the contribution that tertiary institutions make to the knowledge economy the government, like those in Australia and the United Kingdom, has moved to measure the outcomes and gauges value for money through mechanisms like the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). Like anything, when you seek to measure something it can be distorted, we begin to teach to the test, now we publish to the PBRF. Invariably this has distorted the type of research we do, it has increased individualism and competition amongst researchers and made research a measurable outcome rather than an exercise in seeking to investigate or solve a problem or phenomenon. As lecturers we are motivated to consider, “How publishable is this piece of research?” Inherent in this is the question, “What type of evidence do I have and can I make a top- tier journal?” rather than asking, ‘This is something that is worthwhile for communities? “Is this what whänau, hapü or iwi want to know”, or as in this paper’s case, “Does this seek to critique new forms of colonisation?” Fundamentally, if you chose to spend your time in such activities you will inadvertently compromise your opportunities as a career academic.

The impact of a PBRF system has created an audit culture in our tertiary institutions, which is seeping its way through the system. The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) recently analysed the number of Marsden grants with the title ‘New Zealand’ and noted a sharp decline (Campbell, 2012). While there may be several reasons for this it is likely that the emphasis and value of large empirical studies that are relevant internationally, as a measure of PBRF performance, has impacted the type of research we are engaging in. The idea that we can measure activity against an ideal of serving the economy both as an educator and as a researcher is a ‘new formation of colonisation’.


We are now operating in a tertiary sector that is primarily skills-based and focused more on measuring human capital than developing society and community within the more traditional enlightenment view of higher education. Tertiary institutions now operate under a neo-liberal assumption that what is good for the economy is good for social and community development.

Increased focus on vocational trainingThe focus of education in New Zealand is predominantly about the generation of wealth and the progression of our economy. Education, both in terms of what is taught and what is researched, has shifted both student interests and tertiary institutions offerings. We have moved away from broader academic studies towards narrower vocational programmes. Expectations about the role of tertiary institutions have undergone significant shifts in the past two decades. In recent years the expectation has shifted to a more vocational mass educational focus with universities playing a central role in the formation of professional white collar employees (Marginson, 2000). Professionalism is now directly linked to higher education, creating the knowledge economy and an information society where greater pressures are placed on professionals and workers in general to both manage and master particular kinds of knowledge.

“Many students who come to university do so for reasons of employability, rather than a burning desire for knowledge or even the drive to excel in a particular profession” (Biggs 2003, p. 3-5).

An increased vocational focus from both employers and students has meant that courses have evolved to become training modules, with fewer electives and more compulsory content-based courses. Courses within institutions that transfer into high-paying jobs are more valued by students, the government and for research and innovation. Subjects that have less certainty in employment and pay less are less valued. Students are less likely to take te reo, the arts, drama and history and as a result many arts and humanities faculties are shrinking under the pressure. However, it is the arts and humanities faculties where due to the nature of the knowledge, students are most likely to learn social capital, to understand diversity, culture and become critical consumers of knowledge rather than receptacles of content.

“It is an obligation to provide a supportive education environment, which educates students to live in society rather than simply equipping them to become pliable peons in the global market place” (Tomlinson, 2006, p. 57).

Tomlinson (2006) argues that the continued focus on graduate skills and other indicators of employability increasingly reflect a narrow managerialist agenda. Many approach higher education solely as a vehicle by which students are prepared for employment. Unfortunately for Mäori, even those who are educated are less likely to be employed. Gaining qualifications does not necessarily guarantee jobs for certain groups in our society; a degree is not the solution to social justice.


“Credentials can only make you employable but they can’t guarantee employment, there is a need to diversify our interests in schooling beyond these narrow vocation promises”. (Smith, 1997).

A need for developing critical literacyThe ability to be critical consumers of knowledge in today’s society is paramount. Our children are growing up in a society where information is available on a click of a mouse or the touch of an iPhone. Learning to disseminate the type of knowledge available to them, particularly when most of that information is coming from a dominant world view, is essential if we are to at least retain, if not advance, our own culture, language and identity. In order to develop critical literacy students need to learn to develop their critical awareness and voice, at best beginning at school, at the very least in higher education.

“Higher education has the responsibility to serve not just as a source of economic growth, but as society’s critic and conscience” (Giroux, 2011).

“The powers conferred by academic freedom go hand in hand with substantive duties to deracialise and decolonise intellectual spaces” (Bentley et al, 2006).

Developing a critical literacy is a necessary pre-requisite for an effective democracy. As tertiary teachers we need to be critically engaged in the system within which we work, we need to question the structure and systems and the imposition of neo-liberal thought on development of the institution, on knowledge and self. Giroux (2011) suggests that critical thinking in a neo-liberal context can be seen as challenging to the activities of the market and is therefore discouraged.

“Under this pervasive economic model there is no talk of advancing social justice, addressing social problems, promoting critical thinking, cultivating social responsibility or engaging in activities that might challenge the neo-liberal value” (Giroux, 2011).

For Mäori, Smith (1997) states that critical literacy begins with understanding colonisation and new formations of colonisation. He argues that by looking through old critical lenses we may fail to see the new formation of colonisation and subsequently how the new blockages are formed in the face of indigenous aspirations. We can get caught up in colonisation as a ‘historical’ deed but contemporary colonisation; in this case, taking the form of neo-liberalism has the potential to undermine educational success for Mäori as Mäori.

Engaging students in deeper learningNeo-liberalism presents us with a challenging set of conditions within which to respond. Society needs employment to be an outcome of education, but we don’t necessarily want an education consumed by vocational training. We need to measure the quality of our graduates, yet we don’t want to be consumed by only teaching what is measurable. Bottrell, Freebody and Goodwin (2011) propose that we need to work the spaces within the neo-liberalist context. The space for teachers in higher education is the classroom.

“What is involved here is more than simple transmission of some established body of knowledge to users in the wider society but a matter of the involvement of scholars in reflexive communication, an argumentative, critical and thoughtful engagement that shapes the very constitution of knowledge” (Delanty, 2001, pg 154).


We need to examine the way in which we teach, prepare lectures, set assessments and establish learning relationships with students. In order to develop the kind of social capital required to work the neo-liberal space, teaching needs not only to include language, culture and identity but also an investigation of concepts of power, privilege and transformation. We need to consider how we ensure students are engaged in deep learning, the kind of learning that develops political agency rather than rewards apathy. This is a challenge for teachers in higher education as our education system is producing students who want answers, who want to know but do not always seek to understand. In teaching for understanding there is a strangeness, a not knowing that is essential for inquiry and investigation. Both teachers and students need to be comfortable with the not knowing, the emerging answers and the intangible aspects of teaching and learning that cannot be measured in a skills-based learning outcome.

“If a university is to fulfil its responsibilities as a ‘university’ to the world by offering a space for strangeness, it needs also to accommodate strangeness in its own midst, especially a continuing strangeness about itself” (Barnett, 2005, p. 795).

For Mäori this strangeness is essential to challenging the hegemony that can infiltrate education at every turn. The ‘taken for granted’ we often default to within our institutions can be the very thing that perpetuates and embeds indigenous inferiority (Smith, 1997). Smith argues that as educators we need ‘to educate ourselves out of false consciousness and to free our minds from hegemony’ (p.12). He sees that an ‘important de-colonizing act therefore is to struggle over the meaning and intention of education and schooling’ (p.12).

The world is changing to such an extent that skills-based teaching becomes redundant very quickly; we need to teach to learn. Being part of a tertiary institution means that there is a responsibility to ensure that the ever-changing world is subject to the kind of social critique that can only happen in higher education. The perpetuation of wealth, power and privilege in the modern world is something that all students should be cognisant of, but particularly Mäori as it is this wealth, power and privilege that can perpetuate new forms of colonisation in all aspects of society by privileging neo-liberal values and discourse.


ReferencesEEEducatiioi nal Phhhilii osssoophy aaand Theheheory,y,y,

27(6), 785-797.

Bottrell, D., Freebody, K., & Goodwin, S. (200000 1). Schoololl-c-c-comomommunnin ty engggagagagemenennt:t Shiiiftf ing bouuundarieseses of policy and practice. Paper presented at Aarerere. . Retrieved frommm wwwwwwwww.aare.edededu.auauau/11papapap//p/ apperererss_s pdf/ /aarefinal00502.pdf

Boulton, G. & Lucas, C. (2008). What are universities for? LLeueueuvevev n:n:n LLLeeae gue of European Research Universities.?

Bentley, K., Habib, A., & Morrow, S. (2006). Academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and thecorporatised university in contemporary South Africa. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: The Society forResearch into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Campbell, G. (2012). Marketing the mind: How the tertiary sector in New Zealand is being hi-jacked into the service of commerce. Werewolf, 5 September 2012, 34. Retrieved from http://werewolf.co.nz/2012/03/marketing-the-mind

Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Giroux, H. (2011). Beyond the limits of neo-liberal higher education: Global youth resistance and the American/British divide. 27 November 2011. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/index. php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4646:beyond-the-limits-of-neoliberal-higher-education-global-youth-resistance-and-the-americanbritish-divide

Heidegger, M. (1972). On time and being. New York: Harper & Row.

Marginson, S. (2000). The enterprise university in Australia. Leading and Managing, 6(2), 98-112.

Simon, J. A. & Smith, L. T. (Eds.) (2001). A civilising mission: Perceptions and representations of the native schools system. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Smith, G. (1997). Transforming education and schooling: Re-centering language cultural and identity. Presentation to the 2011 Pacific Education Conference, Cultivating and Preserving PacificIdentities in and through Education.

Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.Dunedin: University of Otago Press.

Tomlinson, J. (2006). It’s time to meet our obligations: Education for what? Journal of theAustralian and New Zealand Student Services Association, 27, 56-73.

Walker, R. (2005). Quality assurance in tertiary education from a Mäori (indigenous) perspective.Auckland: University of Auckland. Retrieved from www.win-hec.org/?q=node/34


Iwi and UniversitiesBy Dr Maria Bargh, Victoria University of Wellington

I teach Mäori resource management and Mäori politics. I have related this paper’s topic to my teaching subjects in a theoretical sense, because I think there are parallels between the crucial issues facing Mäori resource management, Mäori politics and how to foster an environment of transformative education.

When we’re talking about environments that encourage transformative education, I see teachers, learners and researchers as being part of the same environment. Teachers inspiring students with their fresh research, encouraging students to engage in conversations based on their own research and linking the student to their passion in a transformative education environment.

In this presentation, I will make the following three key points:

1. Aiming to empower the sector is a huge challenge. ‘Empowering’ does not mean the same thing for all people. There are entrenched and institutionalised attitudes held by many about iwi Mäori.

2. I suggest that in building transformative educationalenvironments, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. In order to move things forward we need to highlight projects and practices that are already happening and celebrate the ways Mäori already operate creatively.

3. My third point is that we need to keep being creative and critical. Kaupapa Mäori theorising has encouraged and enabledall kinds of educational and intellectual avenues for people,both Mäori and non-Mäori, but we need to keep thinking ‘outside the box’.

1. Empowering the sectorAiming to empower the sector is a huge challenge. There areentrenched and institutionalised attitudes when it comes to iwi.

The term empowerment came into common parlance alongside the neo-liberaall pop licies from 1984 onwardsds. It is difficult now to extract thhee tetermrm ffroromm meaning strippppiningg ththe e ststata e of its service funcctitiononss and ene coururagaginingg ‘freededomom of chhoio ce’’. WWee ara e at lleaeastst ththrereee decacadedess inintoto tthe mmaiainsnstrtreeamingng ooff neneo-o-liliberall popolliciciees. It is diffficficulultt, tthehererefoforere, toto wweed ‘eempmpowowerermementnt’, mmeaeaning MMäoäoriri dodoiningg ththiningsgs fforor tthehemsmselelvevess anandd bebeiningg seselflf-d-deteterermimininingng, frfromom aa proccesess ofof stripippip ng bbacackk social sserervivicces anndd tax cucutsts..

The coconcncepeptt ofof eempmpowowererment hhasas bbeeeenn soso hhijijacackekedd it is perhrhapapss inin dedespspereratatee neneeded ooff rereclclaiaimimingng.


The term has, of course, been often deliberately snatched up and reconfigured by many Mäori groups to mean by and for Mäori. And it is perhaps in some of these ‘openings’ that Mäori have wedged open, that glimmers of another kind of world with very different values have peeped out, in health and education.

On the other side, students have now come through several decades of being told they are consumers. Sadly, many of them find the notion of education as part of a conscientising and transformative experience as being foreign and sometimes annoying. Reinspiring students that hope and ideas are worth believing in and that being involved in groups, hapü and iwi all supports their learning remains challenging. But there are still students with fire and spark, and the embers to warm an environment for transformative education.

But as numerous cases suggest, the tactics of the Crown continue to impede Mäori in the sector. Cast your minds back to Te Wänanga o Aotearoa which, when it began to adeptly exploit the market mechanisms initially encouraged by the Crown, was pulled roughly back into line with Crown managers. More recently, Te Köhanga Reo Trust has put forward an urgent Waitangi Tribunal claim about being forced by the Ministry of Education to conform to stipulations established for all early childcare centres, which they argue undermines the Mäori language and the specific way Mäori may want it transmitted.

Assessing empowerment levelsWhen we consider treaty settlements, which some have suggested would lead to greater Mäori empowerment, we can wonder if treaty settlements have strengthened the mana of Mäori (whakamana) or produced ‘empowerment’. One measure we can look at is voting turnout. Across all 21 deeds of settlement, the average voter turnout rate is 45 per cent of votes cast by people registered with iwi organisations.1 In some places, this rate is as low as 19.6 per cent.2 Not exactly an overwhelming rate.

And within tertiary institutions in my area of politics and international relations, there are other observations to make which impact on assessing levels of empowerment. There is just one Mäori person employed as tenured academic staff in a politics department in the country, Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald at the University of Canterbury. And that is not because there are no Mäori with PhDs in the discipline.

To get transformative education we need changes to attitudes held by potential funders and partners:

• The government should actually value Mäori research by putting greater levels of funding into it.

• Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) are now bulk funded. What enticements are required to encourage CRIs to assist small communities and research projects? The Mäori managers in CRIs are generally excellent to deal with and are keen to engage. But some of them are still from organisations that consider themselves to be doing ‘hard science’, which doesn’t always lend itself to community projects or research they might consider ‘weak’, ‘soft’ or not being seen as science.

• Universities often say they like the idea of working with iwi but the reality highlights a number of institutional and broader race relations issues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that discriminatory attitudes are still commonplace. In some institutions, academics do not want to support funding for Mäori academics to work with their own hapü or iwi because the hapü or iwi are perceived as somehow receiving ‘free’ research by one of their own. This line of argument suggests that if hapü and iwi want that research they should be contracting and paying someone to do it.

1Office of Treaty Settlements, 2011. ‘Overall Ratification Rates: Ratification Rates of Deed of Settlement, Ngäti Porou Claims Settlement Bill: Initial Briefing Prepared by the Office of Treaty Settlements for the Mäori Affairs Committee. URL:<http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/F6132574-EEC9-4BF9-B520-4805EBF84D13/200445/49SCMA_ADV_00DBHOH_BILL10537_1_A193651_Initialbrie.pdf> Consulted 11 February, 2012, p. 15.2Ibid.


• Connected with this, is the suggestion of nepotism. If you are doing research with your own hapü or iwi it is quite difficult for people you are working with not to be related to you. And sometimes it does just work out that if the kaupapa of your project is say, transforming research and education in your hapü, the best community researchers, for instance, are likely to be your whanaunga.

• On the iwi side, many hapü and iwi support their own members through their education. This can be in terms of scholarships, but I’d also suggest that there are intangible aspects of support, such as providing strength to people’s identity, and it’s all about relationships and reciprocity, giving back, sitting on marae committees, and so on.

Empowering the sector would be a huge challenge in terms of ‘getting it right’ for Mäori learners and teachers. The sector has entrenched discrimination. What we can do instead of continuing to focus on it, is to focus on building movements and communities around what the sector tries to foreclose. We can celebrate and create our own openings by highlighting alternatives and the ways Mäori already circumvent established hierarchies.

3http://www.kaitiakitanga.net/biorestoration/BioremediationHuiPanui091.doc. 4G. Tipa, “Cultural Opportunity Assessments” in R. Selby et.al (eds) Mäori and the Environment: Kaitiaki, Wellington: Huia, 2010.

2. No need to reinvent the wheelI suggest that in building transformative educational environments, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Rather we can focus on movements and communities that celebrate the ways Mäori already circumvent the negative aspects of the sector. This focus would highlight the exciting projects that are evolving, combining iwi and universities and making research and teaching inextricable.

In my teaching area of Mäori resource management, there are innovative and practical models which can be highlighted. Most, if not all of these projects include postgraduate students or academics who share their research and learning in the teaching environment. They include:

• Garth Harmsworth (Landcare Research) and other research partners who have pioneered research on the North Island’s east coast, looking at how to mitigate the effects of climate change on Mäori land through afforestation and reforestation. The concerns of landowners, Mäori land trusts and incorporations were central to the research process.

• Darren King (NIWA) and others in his team have documented traditional environmental knowledge, particularly pertaining to weather patterns and climate in the north east of the North Island. They have also been working with marae, hapü and Mäori land trusts to look at options for using wind turbines, or mini hydro where appropriate.

• Philip Wilcox (Scion) has worked on the Te Aro Turuki framework, which sets out an engagement process for western-trained scientists and tangata whenua.3

• Gail Tipa has been at the forefront of creating a cultural health index for assessing stream health as well as a ‘cultural opportunity assessment’ tool for enhancing Mäori participation in freshwater management.4 As demands for water increase these kinds of opportunities are essential.


• Kepa Morgan has developed a mauri model, and with Dan Hikuroa has linked it with the concept of kaitiakitanga to assist in thinking about Mäori resources and Mäori land development.

• Hapü and iwi environmental management plans (which are pretty widespread) are a good place to begin looking at the kinds of research ethics needed when dealing with Mäori in specific areas.

• Linda Smith is leading a project called Te Hau Mihi Ata, aiming to develop a new interface between Mäori trained in western science and those trained in mätauranga Mäori.

• Jessica Hutchings has for many years had her Mäori resource management masters classes engage with hapü; to provide them with feasibility studies and other written pieces of work in return for visiting them and traversing their whenua.

• In Te Kawa a Maui, we have an iwi internship course that aims to link iwi or Mäori organisations with top Mäori students to provide a written piece of work, nurturing the values and practices of utu and mana, reciprocity and respect.

• These are just a handful of available examples. Many other projects are happening and many of you in this room are likely to be involved in them.

Why work with your own iwi? Giving back• Lots of Mäori academics are working with Mäori in a pan-Mäori sense, and for their own hapü, iwi, Mäori land trusts and incorporations including as researchers and educationalists.

• Iwi are usually keen to foster its own people initially and build capacity from there.

• Working with your own hapü and iwi supports relationships and connections and fosters reciprocity. Such work will not be a ‘one off’ and won’t be paid. But it will be valuable.

Iwi have settlements but not necessarily the money to contribute towards research. They could use their money as leverage for development projects. Some iwi, such as Te Arawa, are developing research strategies, and utilising their people based in universities.

Hapü are perhaps in the best position for collaborations for transformative education. They aren’t necessarily entangled with much of the politics that often troubles iwi Rünanga. Being smaller entities they can make faster decisions. They are also often more needy, offering to commit a class of students to producing feasibility studies for sustainable energy use in return for a trip to their marae is likely to be met with enthusiasm.

3. Keep thinking outside the boxMy third point is that kaupapa Mäori theorising has encouraged and enabled all kinds of educational and intellectual avenues for people (both Mäori and non-Mäori), but we need to keep thinking ‘outside the box’.

In the last ten years, we have seen a significant shift in the way Mäori are thinking about partnerships, research and education. Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s book, Decolonising Methodologies, in many ways marked the beginnings of this shift. It was at the tail-end of the ‘writing back’ that emerged from post-colonial studies and also asserted a new direction for Mäori research. Since Smith’s book, and subsequent articles on kaupapa Mäori theorising, people engaging in Mäori research have been pointed towards searching for positives - to shift from describing or lamenting the Mäori situation to actively problem-solving and putting forward new scenarios.


5Edward W. Said, Representations of the Intellectual, New York: Vintage, 1994.6Alice Te Punga Somerville, “Netiher Qualitative Nor Quantitative: Kaupapa Mäori, Methodology and the Humanities” in Kei Tua o te Pae Hui Proceedings, 5-6 May, 2011. P. 62-66.

However, we need to keep our critical consciousness and scepticism alive. Many indigenous scholars have pointed out the unique methodologies and pedagogies of indigenous peoples. When we complement these insights with those borne out of feminist and subaltern studies and from other peoples who have been marginalised by dominant theories, theorising and teaching practices, there is an unmistakable reminder that comes across them: be ever reflective. As Edward Said pointed out, be wary of becoming too comfortable with one theory.5 And while some people may dismiss the idea of being the critic and conscience of society as simply being a role for non-indigenous thinkers and intellectuals, surely it would be important, before discarding it, to be certain that role presented no benefits? Alice Te Punga Somerville has argued that she has at times found the ‘kaupapa Mäori’ positioning to be a more “diminishing rather than space-opening thing”6, often because as someone who specialises in English literature she feels her contribution is not valued for the critical insights it can bring Mäori teachers and learners. She also tells the story of a smart young Mäori woman doing her PhD, who said because she’s using kaupapa Mäori methodologies she will only read Mäori writers.

Like Te Punga Somerville and others, I suggest we need to remain wary of new power dynamics and hierarchies wherever we find them. I argue that maintaining a critical awareness, which includes the ability to keep thinking ‘outside the box’, is vital for creating an environment that encourages transformative education.

Accessing a different set of valuesMany hapü and iwi are preoccupied with development. And fair enough, but as we go down this path and keep our critical consciousness alive, I’d suggest it is important to think outside the box and ask: might we have different questions and, therefore, different answers if we include an ensemble of Mäori researchers, students and academics?

In the area of Mäori resource management, we can ask: are we privileging particular kinds of development to the detriment of other aspects of our lives and identities? I’d suggest that often there is a privileging of particular kinds of economic development. And the question remains, what is at stake if only one avenue is pursued and alternatives are not given adequate attention?

Privileging the development of our spirituality or language rather than economic development, for instance, would inculcate us with different kinds of values. This would lead us to think very differently about how we would want to live our lives, how we might want to develop or be developed and educate and be educated.

Building transformative educational environments by bringing people together and disseminating information and inspiring hapü and iwi, can use ensembles of learners and teachers to analyse, critique, design and disseminate.

tuia te ako 2012

Documents