Neoliberalism and Ka Hikitia

Neoliberalism in Aotearoa seeks to commodify the access to education for state profit (Connell, 2013). Whilst education itself cannot be commodified, to exist as a participant in society, a certain degree of assimilation is required before a young person is a) legally able to leave schooling, and b) deemed worthy of entry level, labour-intensive positions in the workforce. By commercialising a human right (the right to education), a free market economy of education emerged, a landscape within which equitable, Māori-centric learning could only occur if it was deemed profitable√. This “predatory entrepreneurship” has created the perfect storm for a gaslighting social commentary on the rights of Māori to learn as Māori (Connell, 2013) . Within this, Ka Hikitia emerged. With sound reasoning; iwi consultation; and implementation of tikanga, Ka Hikitia (if implemented properly) is a valuable and powerful resource for schools attempting to decolonise their learning environment. The accessibility of the theory or framework is a barrier to its successful implementation (Bishop, 2005) . When Ka Hikitia was first released in 2008, it was lost amid 14 other initiatives being implemented at the same time. Can it be argued then, that the Ministry of Education [MOE] had no intention of ensuring the success of Ka Hikitia with full gusto, as the neoliberal framework within which it exists needs to feed off constant reviews and inquiries by various stakeholders and agencies? Is equitable Māoridom on its way to becoming another necessity that is to get lost in bureaucracy within the colonising loop of whitestream education? Who’s interest is being served needs to be at the forefront of policy creation and its engagement with wider implementation . Māori have had theory and frameworks forced upon them since the beginning of colonisation, and yet tauiwi continue to be the driving force behind policy set to raise the inequality in nationalised parameters of achievement (Pihama, 2010). Thus, theory and frameworks need to be ‘libertory’ in their application to education. How does Ka Hikitia centralise a Pākeha led approach to what the masses believe as an equitable implementation of te ao Māori into education? The neoliberal commercialisation of education is designed to further colonise Maori, with the deficit onus of lack of achievement placed back on the individual, the whānau, and Māori as a whole. A transparent window into the effects of neoliberalism on the implementation of Ka Hikitia is essential for identifying why it has been so woefully underused, and why beginning teachers, as well as the more seasoned, are globally ignorant of its concepts in relation to pedagogy√. Through this lens we can accurately and definitively identify neoliberalism as being profoundly harmful to policy development for Māori, whilst Ka Hikitia has a Māori-led approach to teacher-based practice, yet is drastically and tokenistically under implemented in schools.

The Fallacy of Equity in Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is unable to be impartial, equitable, or otherwise non-discriminatory in its existence (Durie, 2003). If indigenous rights and practices were able to be implemented into mainstream education in order to raise not only the achievement of Māori within Eurocentric education, but their autonomical success, then the change would be swift and painless. As the current educational climate is designed to further colonise Māori, changes to tauiwi education and the delivery of knowledge acquisition is not within the economic interests of the neoliberal framework (Boston Martin, Pallot & Walsh, 1996). Māori are currently being shoe boxed in with the “myth of meritocracy”, which seeks to denigrate and impoverish indigeneity, though through an equitable approach to Māori education this is able to be somewhat diminished. Neoliberalism seeks to provide results (dividends, if you will) to stakeholders and ministerial obligation√ (Boston et al, 1996). Throughout a neoliberal framework, little stake is given to the self-actualisation of rangatahi, whānau, hapu and iwi within education, and the lasting impact of continued colonisation on Māori identity (Smith, 2003). Through measuring achievement in an economic model, learners are categorised into the framework within which they exist. If you are tauiwi, your noncompliance and lack of achievement can push you into trades, the arts, or freelancing. If you are Māori, the same self-expression is seen as a besmirching of an opportunity one should be grateful for, and a black mark on your personal character. Whitestream, Eurocentric, tauiwi education is not a place for the creation of āhuru mōwai for rangatahi. The issues surrounding the implementation of equitable Māori education cannot be co-opted, nor imported from surrounding theories (Pihama, 2010). What Pihama is illustrating, is that Kaupapa Māori IS Māori-centred theory, a praxis that places Māori within te ao and Mātauranga Māori, and does not subscribe to the neoliberal pressures of nationalised, tauiwi implemented, standardised results (2010). Liberation from the colonisation of the current paradigm, and a continued push for equity in educational policy relating to Māori are the foundations for which equitable policy needs to be built upon (Pihama, 2010). Pihama identifies Kaupapa Māori as a decolonising theory, which places te ao Māori at the centre of discussions around policy implementation (2010). We must continue to critically investigate the intersection between neoliberalism and colonisation. When will we enter the postcolonial, and, unless this is a Maori-centric de-colonisation, is it even post-colonial? Or is this a fallacy? The economy of education is further povertising Māori for the sake of capital gain. This capital gain can be seen as a direct result of colonisation, with tauiwi government reaping the rewards of an indigenous labour force. Knowledge is an economy in itself, and tino rangatiratanga does not fit into the neoliberal mould of the bestowing of knowledge to the worthy and white. The movement of the fundamental power relationships that govern the neoliberal threads of educational policy is seen as a direct threat to pro-colonising effects of education, and thus the fabrics of identity of Pākeha unable to critically examine their place in the racial, hegemonic, and patriarchal power structures of the current neoliberal framework (Pihama, 2010). As anticipated, change is reluctant and slow coming, and (as evident in te kohanga reo, kura kaupapa Māori, and whare wānanga), the beaurocratic hoops are near insurmountable (Milne, 2017).

Policy is not neutral in its construction, and so the collaboration between Māori and the MOE is imperative to ensure an as-neutral-as-possible approach is taken, with equitable resources provided for Māori to learn as Māori – not struggle within a tauiwi framework (Levy, 1999). Māori are currently being swept along with a commodified and marketable approach to education that does nothing for te ao Māori, nor for adherence to tino rangatiratanga and equitable, sovereign governance under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The New Zealand Curriculum [NZC] Ka Hikitia website uses deficit language in its description of the disparty in Māori achievement, so how are we to expect colonising policy makers to think differently? The NZC website directly quotes “too many Māori students disengage from education before they reach their full potential” (2009). What this translates to, is a deficit driven blaming of the inequality in the achievement of Māori in education, and their ‘potential’ as seen through a Eurocentric light. The MOE’s 2014-2018 Statement of Intent proclaims:

“implementing Ka Hikitia – Accelerating Success, Tau Mai Te Reo and the Pasifika Education Plan which set the direction for the broader education sector to focus on improving outcomes for Māori and Pasifika children and students; we will help communities, whānau, hapū and iwi to work together to support educational success and ensure high-quality teaching that incorporates identity, language and culture” (MOE, 2014).

What they don’t state, is how. An incredulous amount of lip service is given to Māori concepts in education, however the action seems to get lost somewhere between the shiny pages of proclamation and the front line of implementation. The neoliberal approach to personalisation, agency, individualisation and competition have allowed further disparities in colonial parameters of education to emerge (Boston et al, 1996) . Within a neoliberal framework we must ask ourselves, what is the  purpose of education in relation to Maori – does a neoliberal approach simply further a colonising force by blockading Māori into labour-based roles through continued perceived lack of achievement in whitestream education? (Easton, 1999). Or, is it an ill-fated opportunity for Māori to battle for sovereignty within education? Are we able to produce a better policy? Even if Māori education was given to iwi to govern, the policies that they would be held accountable to are still within, and constrained by, a Eurocentric, neoliberal, foreign framework. Codd States that “New Zealand schools now function like small businesses” (2004, p.27). The erasure of te ao Māori, a Māori identity, and acknowledgement of place as tangata whenua is hidden behind the propulsion of the “global citizen”. A move further from tīpuna and iwi, a move further into the business model of tauiwi education is a move to further colonise Māori through apparent opportunity (Durie, 2003). With a shift to a Board of Trustees as the new managers for education, a removal of teacher’s self-actualisation created an out of date, out of touch lens that equitable education is viewed through. Thus the tail begins to wag the dog, and what is best for the Māori learner is replaced with what is best for the economic model of the small to mid-sized business of state education (Durie, 2003).

Ka Hikitia or Utopian Ideal?

Ka Hikitia is a well-researched, Māori centric, equitable approach to making space for Māori to learn as Māori within a mainstream educational setting (Milne, 2017). Its successful implementation into schools will begin to open safe spaces for Māori learners, where tikanga and te ao Māori are interwoven with their education. Unfortunately this was made more difficult than it needed to be (on top of the Eurocentric resistance), due to the MOE releasing it en masse amid a raft of other initiatives. Ka Hikitia was lost among numeracy and literacy documents, and did not have the respectful integration into the curriculum it needed in order to flourish successfully (Milne, 2017). The government speaks of “accelerating success” so that Māori learners are able to achieve as Māori, however, as Ann Milne notes, there is no point on having a quality document that has all of the promises, if you do not first define and then identify what this means, and what it looks like in practice (2017). That is, how do senior staff implement this within the framework and ethos of the school? How do teachers weave Ka Hikitia through their pedagogical practice? 2008 was a time of economic privatisation, and further commodification of state-run education, and not an ideal time for a poorly resourced initiative for Māori learners to emerge (Connell, 2013). Further forward in the 2013 – 2017 vision, teachers are evidently not held to accountability with how they use tikanga in a non-tokenistic way in their classrooms, and this is non-enforced by management and the senior leadership team (Milne, 2017). Though engaging a tikanga-led framework into the curriculum was not going to be seamless in a tauiwi, neoliberal setting, a degree of success has been withheld due to the continued need for the MOE to create and fund initiatives, but not implement them properly.

Ka Hikitia is not a compulsory initiative, and the Education Review Office can do little more than suggest it be further implemented in their reports. The usefulness of Ka Hikitia in developing policy, as well as the analysis of current policy is extremely high. If a ready to go, tikanga-based framework is unable to be adequately implemented into practice and curriculum, then already there are indicators that Ka Hikitia has the potential to provide very real and up to date feedback on the cultural responsiveness of whitestream schools. The lack of professional development, poor resources, and implementation plan has been seen as a barrier to those finding the document difficult to engage with within their current teaching environment (Milne, 2017). Whilst this is an excuse due to the fear of many tauiwi to engage with tikanga due to its divergence from their lived norm, if the MOE is to see Ka Hikitia succeed in mainstream schools then this needs to be achieved through a wide ranging, highly supported, ministry led initiative. Simply leaving it in the hands of those who need it the most renders it a dust collector in resource rooms nationwide.  

The MOE begins its Ka Hikitia strategy focus on the acquisition of te reo Māori in education (MOE, 2009). Whilst it correctly identifies te reo as a cornerstone of Māori identify, and the wellbeing of Māori learners through the acquisition of taonga, it doesn’t identify what resources, or how it will go about implementing this as achievable outcomes throughout Aotearoa. How will the ministry ensure that schools are providing accessible and widespread opportunities for rangatahi to learn te reo throughout their education? What is apparent throughout ministry initiatives, is that key words and statements referencing Te Tiriti and te ao Māori are peppered throughout suggestive guidelines, but never placed into sustainable, enforceable legislation and policy (MOE, 2009). For example, the MOE asserts “the goals, priorities and actions for Māori language in education are integrated into each of the other focus areas to ensure it has a clear presence in all aspects of a Māori student’s education” (2009). The MOE retains its deficit view by stating that the acquisition of te reo will provide Māori with the “opportunity they need to realise their unique potential and to succeed as Māori” (2009). What it seems to be saying, is that by learning te reo, that generations of colonisation and neoliberal capitalism will be removed for Māori to finally decide to succeed, Māori-ly. The ministry that is supposed to be a guiding principle for the teaching of knowledge in a post-Tiriti Aotearoa seems to be placing the onus partly on the board, but more fully in the hands of Māori learners themselves. The clear presence of te reo in Māori students’ education relates to what, is the question. Is that the sticky magnets with the transliterated days of the week for the board? Or the school values being performatively Māori on the front of the school gates, with no indication of how these are intertwined with tikanga within the school? What the MOE appears to be doing is placing a bowl of water where a lake needs to be and saying it is enough.

The MOE identifies four ways to accelerate change. These include prioritising resources, supporting whānau voice, maintaining momentum, and development of measures of success and progress (2009). Whilst these are necessary and crucial to the success of Ka Hikitia in whitestream education, what does this look like in front like implementation? If the MOE is to develop policy to apparently prioritise Māori learners and te reo, then where do these key factors become a reality for the lived experience of rangatahi? The main question surrounding this framework is what does this look like? Who are the MOE engaging with? When and where? Who are the stakeholders, and what is their role in the design and development of policy for Māori? What are the measures of progress that they seek to research, for what reason, and how will this benefit Māori? The statements outlined above seek to further the neoliberal framework of education under the guise of equity (Connell, 2013). If we approach the change strategy by the MOE with Durie’s Māori Development Framework for policy, the earlier stages show a promising adherence to Māori consultation, and an overall Māori-centric construction of Ka Hikitia (2003). What it lacks, however, is integrated development, the opportunity for monitoring by Māori, a positive focus, and alternate options for the achievement of the same goal. What this means for the implementation of Ka Hikitia, is that, in line with current MOE practice, the policy will be left in the hands of an under-resourced and culturally bewildered few, whilst the collected results will leave policy makers shaking their heads at the continued disparity between tauiwi and Māori (Durie, 2003).

To conclude, the neoliberal framework within which Ka Hikitia has attempted to make ground means that the full actualisation of an equitable practice will be lost in tauiwi economic rhetoric. Through neoliberalism, a continued progression of colonisation is enforced through state education, with lingering deficit ascertations of Māori inadequacy at their own self-actualisation (Durie, 2003). There is an imminent need for the MOE to identify a transparent application of Ka Hikitia into whitestream education, lest it is lost to yet another round of re-initiatives, think-tanks, and the ‘too hard’ basket of tauiwi educators. As Leonie Pihama and Mason Durie have articulated, a Kaupapa Māori theory framework is not simply lip service to Māori, but an overarching implementation of tikanga into the fabric of mainstream curriculum (2003, 2010). A neoliberal platform is a hostile one for tikanga to flourish in schools. Despite its initial cool reception, Ka Hikitia is a powerful resource if implemented adequately into schools, and with proper resourcing, professional development, and a commitment to its success, the MOE is able to ensure at least a slightly greater degree of te ao Māori in schools for tangata whenua. Phase 3 (2018 – 2022) is an opportunity for successful implementation by the MOE.

References:

Boston, J, Martin, J, Pallot, J, & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The ideas and theories underpinning the New Zealand model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Codd, J. (2004). Export Education and the Commercialisation of Public Education in New Zealand. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 13, 21-41.

Connell. R. (2013) The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences, Critical Studies in Education, 54:2, 99-112

Durie, M. (2003). A framework for considering Maori educational advancement. In Mason Durie, Nga kahui pou: Launching Maori futures. Wellington: Huia Publishers pp 345- 371.

Easton, B. (1999). Whimpering of the state: Core education. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Levy, M. (1999). Policy for Maori: values, assumptions and closing the gap. In Robertson, N. (Ed.). (1999). Maori and psychology: research and practice - The proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Maori and Psychology Research Unit. Hamilton: Maori & Psychology Research Unit.

Milne, A. (2017). Coloring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream Schools (Counterpoints). New York, USA: Peter Lang Publishing.

Ministry of Education (2009). Ka Hikitia – Accelerating Success 2013 – 2017. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2014). Ministry of Education Statement of Intent 2014-2018. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Pihama, L. (2010). Kaupapa Māori Theory: Transforming Theory in Aotearoa. He Pukenga Kōrero Raumati 9(2).

Smith, G. H. (2003, October). Indigenous Struggle for the Transformation of Education and Schooling. Lecture presented at N.Z. Keynote Address to the Alaskan Federation of Natives (AFN) Convention. in Alaska, Anchorage.