Report on Whanau Engagement in Education

This report shows just one example of how we can help create and facilitate a positive and culturally relevant change in direction to a more equitable learning environment for rangatahi in Aotearoa. 

"School A" had a change of leadership, meaning a new principal with fresh ideas, and a keen desire to improve literacy school-wide. The stagnant state of Māori achievement needed a revamp, and a step in the right direction. We identified that whānau involvement in the co-construction of a culturally relevant curriculum was essential for improving the holistic wellbeing of Māori learners and their place as tangaga whenua within a mainstream environment. 

Engagement of whānau in education is imperative to ensuring adequate input, voice, and recognition of the unique experience of rangatahi in mainstream secondary schooling. Due to the monocultural environment most Māori learners are present in, tikanga Māori is seldom or sloppily (note - tokenistically) observed, and Māori are inadequately supported to learn as Māori (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2005, Bishop, 2015). Whānau, hapū, and iwi involvement are imperative to locally centric and Māori driven pedagogical practice in mainstream schooling, and the challenge for many schools is to first build relationships, before sitting back and listening. A kaupapa Māori approach to collaborating with whānau ensures a Māori centred voice is able to emerge when discussing what is best for Māori (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2005). School A had a change in senior leadership, which welcomed a subsequent change in direction, and an attempt at emerging from a Eurocentric, latently deficit focussed approach to one of cultural richness - with sufficient collaboration with local iwi. The results enabled Māori learners to be adequately catered for as the norm, and equitable attitudes to measures of success being co-constructed with staff and whānau.

Observation of te ao Māori not just at home, but as a social navigation outside of school life was a concept few staff had considered prior to meeting with whānau. What this highlighted throughout the process was, despite living beside another for several decades, most tauiwi had little concept or understanding of what it was like to be Māori in Aotearoa (Manning, 2012). Kanohi ki te kanohi discussions and collaboration proved invaluable when staff who (perhaps) held dated views of pedagogical practice or social change experienced difficulties in grasping the importance of the project. The immense effort on behalf of the senior leadership team, Kaumātua, and whānau magnifies how mainstream schools are well within their capabilities to ensure Māori learners are equitably catered for, and whānau feel heard, valued, and respected as whānau.

Extensive research has been conducted into the value of whānau involvement in education. This report looks at how whānau are able to shape and preserve education for rangatahi as Māori learners at School A. The rationale for engaging with whānau are exemplified in Penetito’s various publications, where he argues that whilst tikanga is being implemented into curriculum and pedagogy (however sporadically and with varying degrees of enthusiasm), this is still being conducted within a Eurocentric framework laid out by the Ministry of Education (2010). Here Penetito outlines how the barriers to learning remain through the continued other-ing of Māori learners with distinct and separate paradigms, instead of encompassing a kaupapa Māori approach as an educational practice (2009). Russell Bishop mirrors Penetito’s sentiments when noting the neo-liberal fallacy of the education sector, and how the privatisation and commercialisation of education has led to a standardised, credit-harvesting colonial institution (2005). Measured success in education is a precursor for economic success in the future, with the unequitable cultural disparity in education results furthering the generational gap in economic parity between Māori and tauiwi. For Māori learners to achieve Pākeha measures of success in education means having to consistently navigate a duality throughout the day. Not only are rangatahi expected to conform to Eurocentric norms and practices whilst at school, they must apply themselves in a historically hostile socio-political environment whilst attempting to learn as an othered person. For some, this challenge is understandably exceedingly difficult, and the extensive disparity in perceived success and achievement is startling when compared to Pākeha peers (Hutchings et al, 2012). The identifiable gaps in educational achievement between Māori and non-Māori have been caused through a colonial, imperalist apprach to individualised and monocultural education, and can therefore only be remedied with extensive input from a culturally-centric conceptual understanding.

School A’s Approach:

School A is situated in a semi-rural small town with an increasing number of residents movingg in from outside main centres. The roll has suddenly expanded from a steady ~900 students to over 1,200 students in the past three years. There has been a large shift in teacher movement, with several teachers reaching retirement, moving out of the area, or undertaking a new employment direction. The school has a large Māori cohort, with 45% of learners identifying as Māori, 50% as Pākeha, and 5% as Pacifika, Asian, Indian, or other European. Despite the large proportion of Māori students, the school’s reputation is one of an outdated, agricultral, extensively European and patriarchal framework. Their previous ERO report noted how the gap in Māori achievement and culturally responsive pedagogy was an area of concern for future success of Māori, and that the school provided few opportunities for Māori to learn as Māori.

The senior management team, along with heads of departments, agreed that a robust culturally appropriate curriculum needed to be implement to address the concerns in the ERO report, and to involve whānau in the learning process of rangatahi in the school. Manning’s work, whilst related to Early Childhood Education [ECE], makes a poignant statement about the distinct necessity to ensure that beginning teachers have a supportive platform to implement resources such as Tātaiako into their pedagogy (2012). Without significant whānau, hapū and iwi input, a continuous recycling of dated and essentially limiting practice will continue. School A noted this at an end of year discussion between heads of faculty, deans, and senior staff members regarding the NCEA results of the year. The gap in achievement needed to be addressed, and thus far no input from whānau and iwi had been sought regarding their tamariki’s place and wellbeing at the school. They had few Māori staff members and a high number of beginning teachers starting in the new school year, thus were aware that a radically implemented method of seeking a culturally competent outline within which to apply the curriculum and teaching practice was necessary. What is notable here, is the trickle down effect that having an on-board principal has on the motivation and agreeability of seasoned staff members in rising to the opportunity to accept a change in mindset and to grow as both teachers and members of the community. This strengh of leadership is, as far as consistency and longevity are concerned, essential for ensuring whānau are able to trust in the school and the leadership team as being sincere and committed, and not just tokenising their involvement for points.

The first step for School A was building relationships with local hapū and iwi to begin to bridge the gap and listen to where they believed a good point of reference to start would be. Local Kaumātua had whānau links to one of the Māori members of staff who was able to approach them informally before introducing senior staff. This was fortuitous, as the previous principal was lacking in both tact and opennes, something which marred relationships between iwi and the school before the new principal came in. This built over the holidays, with the senior leadership team collaborating with Kaumātua to draft a rough outline of how the school could work to re-engage whānau with the school, provide ample opportunities for whānau to have significant input into the curriculum, and also implementation of tikanga into daily school life. Penetito’s sentiments were observed with regards to this building of relationships with whānau and iwi in this beginning stages, as merely discussing issues, or gauging a brief overview about hopes and dreams for the future of Māori in mainstream education is woefully insufficient (2010). This essential collaboration with Kāumatua in implementing a kaupapa Māori approach to communicating with whānau ensures that a Eurocentric imposition of acquisition is not being interred, albeit with the best of intentions.

Teaching and administration staff were informed of the intent to involve whānau in the construction of a culturally appropriate curriculum through various hui and iwi collaboration. After initial consultation, staff were asked what clarification on pedagogical changes and praxis whānau could provide more information on for teachers to begin implementing this into their day to day practice. A list of questions for whānau that emerged were:
 

1. How do you locate yourself as Māori within mainstream Pākeha education?

2. What does success for your rangatahi look like as a whānau? As a hapū and iwi?

3. What do whānau need from teachers in order to feel welcomed and heard in day to day interactions, and during teacher/whānau meetings.

4. What do you wish you had at school?

5. What do your tamariki need to exist as Māori within a mainstream setting?

6. Would you like to see more te reo in classes?

7. How often would you like to see school staff at marae gatherings and events? How important is this to you as whānau?
    

What was evident was the willingness of tauiwi teachers to attempt to begin to conceptualise where they fit into the power paradigm within the schooling system, and what they could to in order to reduce the disparity in power-ownership between whānau and School A.

In consultation with Kaumātua, whānau were invited to a hui at the school wharenui. This was done with a notification sheet in both te reo and English to ensure wider accessibility to the information, and included an overview of the structure of the school, as well as the design of the current curriculum. A description of and an invitation to run for a place on the Board of Trustees [BOT] and the input they have in the school was also included. BOT members were present to provide further illumination on their role, and to discuss how they are a mediating structure between the community and the school. BOT were also there to reflect upon how they could better involve whānau in the governing aspects of the school. The new principal was officially introduced to whānau, who had an opportunity to ask questions about their vision for the school, before the facilitation of discussion was passed back to the Kaumātua. Whānau were invited to air their issues with the design and application of the current curriculum, and how it sat with their views of what a culturally competent practice were. School A and Kaumātua had discussed previously that the school was interested in what locally relevant concepts they could introduce into the curriculum. What is essential here is that School A took the initiative to actively seek collaborative design on their curriculum instead of simply discussing views with whānau before continuing in a pseudo-collaborative, yet sufficiently lacking in applicable practice (Penetito, 2010, Bishop, 2015). Here clarity is essential, as miscommunication and a lack of transparency are the foundations for schools continuing to misinterperet and misrepresent whānau views (Bishop, 2005). At the conclusion of the hui, whānau were given an email for further ideas that they may have thought of upon reflection, which wouid be forwarded to the senior leadership team. The questions posed by teaching staff were also distributed, and their answers recorded at length to be dispersed and discussed at the next staff meeting. The final aspect of the hui was a goal setting exercise, where whānau were able to express the goals for their own children, and secondly for how the school as a whole fit in with whānau and iwi and future collaboration. Ways for the whole staff to begin to build relationships with whānau at the beginning of the year were discussed, and  it was agreed that at the beginning of the school year (and each term) the school would hold whānau evenings during the first or second week. These would be held on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for those who are unable to make it some nights. This ensured that whānau are presented with ways to work around an already busy routine so there are more chances to meet with staff, and there is no pressure to change routine if they are unable to make it on a certain day. This method also allows  whānau who are unable to come together to come separately.

One aspect that arose from the whānau hui, was the need for transparency and communication from the BOT. Whānau felt largely in the dark about the role of BOT and how this related to them and the learning of their rangatahi. A proposed outcome that was later implemented was that BOT and Kaumātua would spend time meeting and discussing the vision and momentum of the school together prior to each BOT meeting to ensure tikanga is implemented from the top down. There was also the introduction of a Māori student representative that compiled reports to be sent to BOT meetings. This would have a collation of the overall feelings of how Māori learners viewed the success of a more dynamic and culturally appropriate curriculum, and the areas that the school needed to improve upon further in order to streamline, and perhaps provide more support to teachers that were finding some concepts difficult to grasp initially. The rationate behind input from whānau, iwi, and rangatahi at BOT meetings (which would then be discussed with school staff), was that a collective voice would become apparent. This means that consistent feedback from each overarching perspective would be able to be taken into account. When you contrast this to the previous arrangement of a tiered heirarchal power structure with almost zero whānau input to discussion, let alone construction of curriculum design, and no rangatahi voice whatsoever; the increase in admin and initial energy output are miniscule in comparison to the opportunity afforded by a kaupapa Māori approach to collaborative work with iwi and whānau.

The extensive historical knowledge and experience of local Kaumātua was previously ignored and unutilised by the exiting principal. The wealth of cultural relevance possessed by iwi elders ensured that local, place-based tikanga was able to be integrated into the curriculum that was directly specific to the Māori learners in the school. Each iwi and hapū will have extensive and rich history linking to various geographical locations and phenomena in the area, providing extensive opportunities for iwi-centric investigation and learning for rangatahi (both Māori and Pākeha) (Penetito, 2010). Local waiata, haka, and kanikani can be shared with rangatahi who whakapapa to local iwi, and the historical relevance aiding in building a conceptual foundation for tauiwi students. By teaching Māori using a placed based framework, their identity as Māori is preserved, valued, and enriched through day to day engagement with their education, as opposed to only outside of school, at home, or at marae events. Valuing Māori-dom without co-opting its essence respects learners identity without capitalising on its acquisition.

After an extensive collaborative effort, feedback and evidence to whānau was an imperative aspect that required addressing to indicate and evidence positive outcomes of hui and collaboration. Rangatahi were consulted, and their idea to show parents and whānau their learning was conducted in whānau evenings held at the end of the term to showcase learning. This was an opportunity for students to teach groups of whānau about a concept they have learned in regards to local tikanga and how that has fit in with their learning in a wider context. The benefits to this approach included tauiwi parents having a tikanga-based curriculum evidenced with success and (ideally) enthusiasm by their children. As Pākeha parents may have little to no understanding of tikanga and te ao Māori, this provides a platform for their children to take an educational and guiding role in teaching their families about where they fit into the overarching power paradigm. To conclude the trial year of tikanga implementation, School A organised an end of year hui to gauge success by whanau and rangatahi through extensive discussion and evaluation. Non-Māori parents were asked to clarify how their views and understanding of tikanga and te ao Māori have grown, and what impact this has had on the views of their own socio-political position, but their inherent bias as non-Māori.

One example of successful implementation of tikanga Māori as a learning platform is the initiative from Ngāti Kahunguru. Ngāti Kahungunu are an iwi who have taken tikanga-based curriculum in mainstream schooling into a wider national view. Their evidence based approach to the implementation of a Māori-centric learning environment stem from the view that language and identity are essential for self-actualisation and wellbeing of tangata whenua (Jahnke, 2012). By eschewing a deficit viewpoint in regards to Māori achievement, Ngāti Kahungunu provide a strengths-based platform for Māori achievement to be gauged as Māori. Using a kaupapa Māori approach in their proccess, Māori voice remains at the forefront of any research, consultation, and discussion with mainstream schools. A mainstream approach to education provides few opportunities for Māori to succeed and grow unimpeded as Māori outside of performing arts or sport, and the efforts of Ngāti Kahungunu ensure that these disparities are illuminated in mainstream education, and identified as one of the driving forces between the inequity in achievement under national standards of success.

Recommendations:

School A made monumental steps forward in implementing a culturally relevant and ethical curriculum into their school practice. By identifying the unequal power structures between the school and whānau, an equitable approach was able to be constructed through a kaupapa Māori view of collaboration. Still, the work with whānau is still a burgeoning success and will require further review, critique, and evaluation to continue on a forward and upward trajectory. One recommendation would be a Kaumātua led critique and evaluation of the school’s approach to involving whānau in the curriculum design of the school. For example, were all school staff respectful and receptive to whānau? Do whānau feel the school has provided an equitable space for the opportunity to improve the experience for Māori learners in a mainstream school? What could the school do to improve upon for next year? Constant migration to an equitable future is crucial to maintaining momentum for success. Another recommendation would be an opportunity for whānau to reflect on their engagement with the school, and how they view an increase in engagement has aided their rangatahi in feeling more at ease in Pākeha schooling, along with a holistic view at the overall success of the person. Have the success criteria set out by whānau been accessible to rangatahi? What role do whānau see in the future of the collaboration with School A? By coming together to workshop and brainstorm in whānau centric hui, a ‘radical’ approach will be streamlined into normality.

A concerted effort from School A to accommodate whānau was imperative to evidence a strong commitment to integrating whānau into the construction of a culturally relevant environment for Māori learners (Penetito, 2009). The school had made large strides towards creating a collaborative environment where whānau had not only a strong voice, but the power to steer curriculum design towards a kaupapa Māori approach of tikanga-lead learning. The Ministry of Education [MOE] cultural competency guidelines, Tātaiako, identifies the imporatance of the acquisition of Place Based Education (PBE)  for teachers to implement into their curriculum (MOE, 2011). PBE is being actively utlised in collaboration with whānau. Simply asking, “what will benefit this community”, and “what do the community want” is identifying a location within which te ao Māori exists and must be observed and understood within the concept of a teaching practice (Penetito, 2010). This development of cultural literacy will ensure that issues (like the ECE tone-deafness Manning notes in Ōtautahi, 2012) are able to be minimised as or even before they arise due to a concsientious adherence and observation of tikanga. Tauiwi teachers are especially quick to rally a defence or dismissal of critique or clarification surrounding their use (or misuse in Manning’s case) of Māori cultural concepts, however this needs to be robustly addressed through extensive professional development in order to weed these views out (Bishop, 2015). Personal location of onseself first as an individual, then as an educator needs to be conceptualised in order to identify an imbalance in a power dynamic, or to acknowledge and address the socio-political (and economic) differences between various staff, students, and senior management.

References:

Anaru, N. A. (2011). A Critical Analysis of the Impact of Colonisation on the Māori Language through an Examination of Political Theory (Masters Thesis, Auckland University, 2011) (pp. 1-97). Auckland University.

Bishop, R. (1999). Kaupapa Māori research: An indigenous approach to creating knowledge. In N. Robertson, Maori and psychology: Research and practice. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Maori & Psychology Research Unit, Department of Psychology (pp. 1-6). Hamilton: Māori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato.

Bishop, R. (2005). Freeing ourselves from neo-Colonial domination in research: A kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 109–138.

Hutchings, J., Barnes, A., Taupō, K., Bright, N., Pihama, L., & Lee, J. (2012). Kia Puāwaitia, Ngā Tūmanaki: Critical issues for Whānau in Māori Education. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Te Rūnanga O Aotearoa Mõ Te Rangahau I Te Mātauranga Wellington.

Jahnke, H. (2012). Beyond Legitimation: A Tribal Response to Māori education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education. Vol41:2: pp1-10

Janke, T. (2009). Writing Up Indigenous Research: Authorship, copyright, and Indigenous knowledge systems.  NSW: Rosebery.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Mahuika, R. (2015). Kaupapa Māori theory is critical and anticolonial. In L. Pihama, & K. Southey, Kaupapa rangahau: A reader. A collection of readings from the kaupapa Māori research workshops series. (pp. 35-45). Hamilton: Te Kotahi Research Institute.

Manning, R. (2012). Place-based education: Helping early childhood teachers give meaningful effect to the tangata whenuatanga competency of Tātaiako and the principles of Te Whāriki. In Gordon-Burns, D., Gunn, A., Purdue, K., and N. Surtees (Eds.). Te Aotūroa Tātaki. Inclusive Early Childhood Education: Perspectives on inclusion, social justice and equity from Aotearoa New Zealand. NZCER press. Pp57-73.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Learning Media Ltd. Wellington.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia. Learning Media Ltd. Wellington.

Ministry of Education (2011) Tātaiako : cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners. Wellington [N.Z.] 

Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/required/Tataiako.pdf

Ngaha, A. (2011). Te Reo, a language for Māori alone?: An investigation into the relationship between the Māori language and Māori identify (Doctoral thesis, 2011). Auckland University.

Penetito, W. (2009). Place-based Education: Catering for Curriculum, Culture and Community.New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 18, 5-29.

Penetito, W. (2010). What's Māori About Māori education? : the struggle for a meaningful context. Wellington, N.Z. : Victoria University Press, 2010.

Pihama, L. (2015). Kaupapa Māori theory: transforming theory in Aotearoa. In L. Pihama, & K. Southey, Kaupapa rangahau: A reader. A collection of readings from the kaupapa Māori research workshops series. (pp. 8-16). Hamilton: Te Kotahi Research Institute.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodology: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books & Dunedin: Otago University Press

Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 85–107.

Smith, L. T. (2015). Kaupapa Māori Research- Some Kaupapa Māori principles. In L. Pihama, & K. Southey, Kaupapa rangahau: A reader. A collection of readings from the kaupapa Māori research workshops series. (pp. 47-52). Hamilton: Te Kotahi Research Institute.

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: indigenous research methods. Black Point, N.S., Fernwood Publishing.