Ka Hikitia & Positive Outcomes for Rangatahi Māori

Introduction

Policies relating to mātauranga Māori have been used as assimilatory tools for forced integration and erasure of te ao Māori (Tooley, 2000). Through what Tooley coins an “illusory representation of Māori by the state”, continued oppression has been able to occur under the guise of academic promotion (2000, p. 41). Initiatives for Māori success within a Eurocentric model have historically been constructed by Pākehā (Penetito, 2010). The fallacy of this is that the definition of success, as well as its control, remains within the hands of Pākehā, not with Māori (Tooley, 2000). With Pākehā-driven institutions as the dominant norm, this results in whiteness being seen as default (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). This default influences the lens through which te ao Māori is viewed, and how any divergence, contrast, or critique is an immediate othering of the non-white self (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). Through education in a mainstream context, the privilege of Pākeha becomes entrenched in society, and perpetuates the use of education as a vehicle for integration policies cementing the status quo, and thereby maintaining the status of Pākehā (Tooley, 2000). Despite changes to the practice of policy creation surrounding Māori achievement, the reality is that the only way to provide an equal and equitable framework for education is through first a decolonisation of the state (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). Ka Hikitia has been introduced as a remedy to the Eurocentric modelling of Māori achievement policies. Through a foundation of cultural competency, Ka Hikitia outlines the bases from where a Māori “friendly” approach to education can stem. First we must address whether “cultural competency” is enough. Ka Hikitia mentions “high-quality” teaching, however there is a lack of identification of what this looks like in relation to Māori learners (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2016, p.1). High-quality teaching can refer to a number of pedagogical practices to Pākeha learners, however these are not specified in relation to Māori learners, and does not identify the diverse views within iwi, hapu and whanau. The positive aspect of Ka Hikitia is the broad way in which schools are able to implement it within their curriculum, meaning a one-size fits all approach is avoidable in regards to whānau, hapū and iwi visions of success.

Background

Initiative such as Tātaiako outline that Māori knowledge, that is, what learners bring as Māori, is an integral part of creating an equitable educational environment (MOE, 2016). Tātaiako is one of the few “mainstream” publications to quickly identify the need for teachers and staff to locate themselves culturally (MOE, 2016). By identifying your position in regards to language, socio-economic status, fiscal security, and education; your relative power in relation to others becomes highlighted, especially as Pākehā (Tooley, 2000). Ka Hikitia’s critics note it’s narrow view of Māori achievement, as well as its poor implementation and integration into mainstream schooling  (Milne, 2017). How do you change the rhetoric and teacher engagement without a change in view and understanding of Māori first as tangata whenua, and then as learners as Māori? With the majority of Pākehā and non-Māori teachers as the norm, Māori-centric practice is a rarity in mainstream schooling. Education is incomplete unless rangatahi emerge with full knowledge, understanding, and comfort with te ao Māori (Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren, 2011).

Berryman, Lawrence & Lamont identify the creation of a culturally responsive space as integral development of cultural relationships for responsive pedagogy (2018, p. 3). They also highlighted the discovery that teachers in practice tend to focus more on aspects of the pedagogy that they found more familiar and accessible (2018. p. 4). What this exemplifies is that if Ka Hikitia is to be successful long term, then it needs to be taught as an integral course of teacher training in order to make it familiar enough for Pākehā teachers to implement it as a normalised aspect of pedagogy, instead of intimidating and difficult to implement. Academic failure of Māori is a failure of the state to Māori. David Omotoso Stovall views this as a debt that Pākehā government has to Māori through the side effects of colonisation that have relegated tangata whenua to poverty and labour intensive employment (2016, p. 105). Education cannot overcome the socio economic effects of colonisation such as housing, poverty, violence, or addiction. Therefore we need to address if Ka Hikitia is able to succeed within a socially disparitive social system that has not been decolonised or addressed?

Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren note how Ka Hikitia “called attention to unlocking Māori potential by challenging the very system that has previously undermined the life chances of Māori children” (2011, p. 28). One of the critiques of Ka Hikitia is that it can be seen as a Māori dimension added onto an existing framework, and can be reduced to a performative band-aid if it is not used to full effect (Hutchings, Barnes, Taupo, Bright, Pihama & Lee, 2012). Penetito calls this the “illusion of transformation”, and Mulholland and Tawhai claim that “policy development for Māori is ideologically irreconcilable with tino rangatiratanga and Pākeha notions of citizenship and governance” (2010, p. 61 & 2016, p. 299).

Teachers need to reflect on the nature of relationships in their classrooms (Berryman et al, 2018, p. 4). Is the student’s cultural identity and physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing also important? How then, would Pākehā recognise these relationships in practice? Through what Berryman, Lawrence & Lamont call the “identification of unconsciousness”, a light is able to be shone on the inherent biases that allow colonialist attitudes to be pervasive throughout education (2018, p. 6). Teachers need to master the practice of “parking” of the self in order to listen to rangatahi and whānau, and to make space for cultural relationships instead of colonialist perpetuation. Responsive pedagogy begins with listening. Dialogue opens the possibility for change. With respect for diversity there is the potential for learning and growth within the exploration of colonisation and its effects on Māori (Berryman et al, 2018, p. 8).  

Through a decolonisation of mainstream curriculum, rangatahi Māori are still able to receive a culturally literate education without having to bankrupt themselves or become further culturally alienated through integratory education (Cleave, 1989).

Criteria for analysis

A policy directly targeting the gap in achievement between Māori and Pākehā needs to be successful in more than an identification of the barriers between Māori and success. Ka Hikitia is likely to achieve success if it:

• Directly targets a competency based practice for teachers of Māori learners.

• Is Māori centric, and not reductory and narrow minded in focus.

• Identifies working with Māori in a mainstream/whitestream setting.

• Has measurable outputs for success.

• Takes a progressive, not deficit view of the reasons behind the gap in achievement.

• Identifies Māori achievement as existing outside of Pākehā measures of success.

• Provides a guideline for implementation and professional development and learning.

Wally Penetito adds his own criteria for policies surrounding Māori education:

• Were there sufficient resources available to enable people to make any implementations?

• Were the policies and practices fully implemented?

• Who was meant to carry out the practices, and were they capable of successfully implementing them?

Using these criteria for success, we are able to analyse the possibility and probability for the success of Ka Hikitia within a mainstream education environment.

Analysis

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has identified that the initial roll out of Ka Hikitia was less than ideal, and disparities remain. This is important as it shows that Ka Hikitia is a working policy, and is able to build on the empirical evidence that schools will feed back to the MOE in regards to successes and shortcomings. What the MOE chooses to do with this information, whether it be approaching iwi for input, providing a higher spec roll out of information for leadership teams, or making Ka Hikitia a part of both teacher training and professional appraisal is, ultimately, up to them.

Ka Hikitia employs aspects of te ao Māori, such as ako, to provide a tikanga-based guide for Pākehā teachers of Māori to understand the location of rangatahi’s cultural experience. Ako highlights the co-construction of a teaching and learning platform, and through this changes the narrative of authoritive teacher and passive, reciprocal student (Freire, 1993). The interwoven connection to whānau, hapū and iwi is reflected in the notion of ako within an education environment, and provides a platform for teachers to understand the social ecosystem through which rangatahi exist.  “When the vision is realised, all Māori students will: have their identity, language, and culture valued and included in teaching and learning in ways that support them to engage and achieve success” (MOE, 2013, p.13). Through an implementation of te ao Māori in the curriculum, the reflection of Māori on Māori will create a more Māori-centric, structurally equitable exposure to both te ao Māori and te ao Pākehā. By engaging with community, iwi, and Māori led models, te reo Māori and tikanga will become more prevalent within whitestream education (MOE, 2013, p. 10). This validation will seep into a wider consciousness, thus changing and amending the social zeitgeist that feeds on isolation and confirmation from its surroundings (Freire, 1993).

Māori students in English medium schools are more likely to have lower levels of achievement in literacy, numeracy and science than non-Māori students (MOE, 2013, p. 15). This exemplifies the lack of relevance for rangatahi in whitestream education, and how a continued form of assimilation through education creates a disconnect from education, and thus a perpetuation of socio-economic disparity (Hutchings et al, 2012). Through identifying the distinct role of Eurocentric teaching on the achievement rates of Māori, an impetus is placed back on mainstream settings to narrow the gap through a decolonising practice, and integration of tikanga within the curriculum.

Part of Ka Hikitia’s vision is for all Māori students to have strong literacy, numeracy, and language (unspecified) skills (MOE, 2013, P. 13). The policy aims to do this through an integration of Māori identity, language, and culture into the school’s curriculum and teaching pedagogy. How this will look is not defined, however there is a clear outline of implementing into the curriculum, meaning a deeper involvement than names of the week on the board, or tokenistic shallow displays of te reo. Having a guide for integration for curriculum means that adherence and embrace of tikanga is outwardly measurable by leadership, and also through appraisal. Data collected by schools will identify where extra resources will be directed to ensure they do not fall behind. What this doesn’t highlight is how, where, and what these resources will look like in a Māori-centric way. This data will, however, guide the decisions on who extra resources will be used. Another way that schools will be able to use data, is to gauge their success at implementing tikanga Māori into their curriculum and teaching pedagogy. This can then be built upon for success, reflection, or to identify that current efforts may not be executed to their full potential. Retention, achievement, and qualitative measures will all be reflected in the data collected by schools, and can be collated across regions to identify strengths and weaknesses. Ka Hikitia outwardly identifies their goals of 85% of Māori achieving at or above the median of their peers in both literacy and numeracy (MOE, 2013, p. 58). Ka Hikitia also has the goal of Māori who are leaving school with University Entrance achieving the same, or higher as their Pākehā classmates.

Ka Hikitia acknowledges that teachers and education professionals can hold deficit views regarding expectations of Māori students (MOE, 2013, p. 8). It is also acknowledged the detriment this has on learning and subsequent achievement of Māori. By outlining the need for all (whānau, hapū, iwi and teachers) to share high expectations of Māori students, a culture of “why try” can be avoided. The deep seated beliefs and stereotypes of rangatahi and whānau Māori are incredibly detrimental for self-belief and success for rangatahi, and for teachers to perpetuate this is a discredit to the education sector (Hutchings et al, 2012). The potential of Māori as Māori needs to be recognised through a systematic dismantling of Eurocentric power structures and colonialist attitudes within classrooms and schools.

“Learning needs to connect with students’ existing knowledge” (MOE, 2013, p.45). Identifying Māori-centred learning through the implementation of Ka Hikitia will allow a pedagogy that is relevant and reflective of Māori knowledge to be co-constructed with rangatahi and whānau. If schools do not have the fundamental understanding of te ao Māori required for equitable investigation, then this provides an apt opportunity to involve whānau and iwi into a collaborative creation of a Māori-based curriculum (Hutchings et al, 2012). Success as Māori exists outside of Pākehā measures of success, so the collaboration with whānau Māori will provide another platform for a framework that measures success of rangatahi as Māori, as designed by whānau.

Professional development in regards to equitable implementation of Ka Hikitia and a commitment to bridging the gap in achievement caused by the continuing effects of colonisation and structural racism present in education. A productive partnership is one that is collaborative, empathetic, and open to critical review. In order for teachers and senior leadership to play a pivotal role in the implementation of an equitable policy for Māori, self-reflection, location, and investigation are essential (Tomlins-Jahnke & Walker, 2011). A solution based approach, with an integrated and collaborative approach, will enable whānau and iwi space to have a voice, a role, and ownership over the measures of success of rangatahi. Schools are in a position where they can choose to perpetuate or delineate the progression of structural racism within their institution. It is not on the shoulders of rangatahi to be the vehicles for their own success; this must be facilitated and supported through teachers and staff. Ongoing learning for teaching staff and support workers is essential to promote a collaborative effort, co-constructed learning space, and a continued education for everyone involved in the success-initiative (Hutchings et al, 2012). Ka Hikitia outlines clearly that whānau and iwi are inextricably linked with rangatahi, and for them to be seen as an individual and separate will be detrimental to their learning experience. The MOE outlines that “education professionals need to know the best ways to support, teach and engage with Māori students, building on students’ inherent capability, cultural assets and existing knowledge” (2013, p. 62). Ka Hikitia outlines the promise for improvements in teacher education, professional learning, and development. It also claims improvement to appraisals and the overall effects this will have on a positive impact on Māori learners (MOE, 2013).

The second connection that allows Māori achievement to overlap as Māori, is a commitment to whānau and student engagement, with the provisioning for support to allow these relationships to flourish (MOE, 2013). These two overlapping foundations are encompassed by values that need to underpin the pedagogical approaches of teachers of Māori students.

Barriers to success

Ka Hikitia is not a complete solution, nor is it without its downsides. As many critics have already noted, the policy can be viewed as vague and not concrete for implementation (Milne, 2017). For Pākehā teachers who are resistant to change, and unwilling to identify their location in a cultural landscape, Ka Hikitia is likely to “fall on deaf ears”, be tokenistically glossed over in practice, and ignored. To mitigate this, the MOE will need to provide clear outlines, exemplars for practice, and a compulsory addition to professional learning and appraisal. A clearer guide for extracting valuable and usable information relating to rangatahi will ensure the success of Ka Hikitia in classrooms where Pākehā teachers have adopted the well-known martyrhood of “I don’t get it therefore I cannot do it”, as seen throughout my time teaching. Through simply identifying the structural issues and Pākehā perpetuation of continued colonisation through education, the pushback from those unwilling to identify themselves within this framework can be immense. Ka Hikitia and the MOE would need to adapt appraisal efforts in order to provide an idea of just how many Pākehā were holding onto assimilatory practices, and what professional learning can be tailored to them in order for them to work through their racism and deficit practices. These attitudes, of course, are allowed and trickle down from senior leadership. These issues need to be addressed at the top level of the school, which is another area for Ka Hikitia to focus on.

For white, rural and “blue” schools, how will Ka Hikitia be enforced? What strategies for Māori development to schools need to implement? If things have reached fever pitch by this point, then leaving schools to implement their own structures to improve the issues seems to be like asking an alcoholic to run a bar. An overused and overdone sentiment then, is “how”. How are the MOE going to embed the values outlined in Ka Hikitia into mainstream schooling? What does this look like? How is this accessible for culturally illiterate Pākeha teachers, and teachers who have arrived from overseas. How do they know what ethical engagement is? There is a high risk that further Pākehā demands on Māori emotional and cognitive labour will create large amounts of friction as opposed to collaboration. A solution for a Māori-led curriculum for schools struggling to find ways to implement te ao Māori is for schools to have information evenings to ascribe how te ao Māori will be used within the curriculum, and any gaps that whānau Māori feel should be filled.

Why is Ka Hikitia only aiming for Māori to achieve a minimum of NCEA Level 2? Why not Level 3? If Pākehā were expected to achieve only 2 out of 3 of the offered levels of high school qualification, then what is the point of offering Level 3 instead of Level 2? Why, then, is Level 3 not reserved for gifted and high achieving students? This can be seen as a further deficit view of Māori ability, as high expectations need to also match the expectations of Pākehā, albeit with measures to enable an equitable environment to match the privileges that allow Pākehā to succeed.

I find research surrounding colonisation and its effects hard going. Often I need to take time and space away as it is upsetting. What this exemplifies (in almost perfect fashion) is me using my privilege as Pākehā. I am able to escape a traumatic (and unlived) experience, without any detriment to my identification. I can continue to exist as Pākehā within te ao Tauiwi and park my burden, should I choose. My privilege as white remains untouched, outside of whatever other suppressions I may experience.

Conclusion

Structural racism and culture of colonisation is a perfect storm for a continued production line of culturally illiterate teachers being pumped into mainstream schools (Price, 2018). Amundsen’s studies of Pākehā identity within Aotearoa identify the white privilege that allow Pākehā trainee teachers the ability to step away from te ao Māori without having their cultural identity stripped, or the location of their ‘self’ questioned (2018, p.146). The lack of adequate reflection of rangatahi Māori in their learning environment when attending a mainstream school is a stark reality of Māori experience in whitestream schooling (Children’s Commission, 2018). What this shows is a need for tikanga to be firmly embedded within the schooling framework through the use of policies such as Ka Hikitia, instead of being tokenistically performative for guests or outside appraisal (Children’s Commission, 2018).

Pākehā teachers are failing rangatahi Māori through continued disengagement with te ao Māori (and thus rangatahi as Māori), which is continually facilitated by teacher training programs (Hutchings et al, 2012). Without having learning of tikanga and te ao Māori compulsory in training programs (such as Massey University and Victoria University do, and the optional classes are often with less that 25% attendance), the universities are perpetuating the belief that cultural responsiveness to rangatahi Māori is optional as well (Price, 2018). Education facilitates the replacement of te ao Māori with te ao Pākehā (Tooley, 2000). Penetito calls this “pacification through assimilation” (2010). He notes that there needs to be a creation of a system for Māori, by Māori – otherwise it is a further perpetuation of neoliberal assimilation and integration but through a Māori sanctioned pathway (Penetito, 2010). Ka Hikitia allows a Māori led, Māori driven curriculum to be implemented into schools, and provides the basis for a positive educational outcome for rangatahi Māori. By tightening the policy to include clear, concrete outlines of what this looks like in practice, as well as the MOE making its use evidently compulsory for whitestream schools, the trickle-down effect will result in a more equitable learning environment for rangatahi Māori.

References
 

Amundsen, D. (2018). Decolonisation through reconciliation: The role of Pākeha identity. MAI Journal: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship, 7(2), 139-154.

Berryman, M., Lawrence, D., & Lamont, R. (2018). Cultural relationships for responsive pedagogy: A bicultural mana ōrite perspective. He Whakaaro Anō, 1, 3-10.

Child’s Commissioner (2018). He manu kai Mātauranga: He tirohanga Māori. Education Matters to Me Series (Report 1 of 6). Wellington: Author.

Cleave, P. (1989). The sovereignty game: Power, knowledge and reading the Treaty. Wellington: VUP.

Fleras, A. & Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos). New York: Continuum.

Hutchings, J., Barnes, A., Taupo, K., Bright, N., Pihama, L., & Lee, J. (2012). Kia Puāwaitia Ngā Tūmanako: Critical Issues for Whānau in Māori Education. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wellington: NCER.

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

Ministry of Education. (2013). Ka Hikitia: Accelerating success 2013–2017. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education (2016). Tātaiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners. Wellington: Author.

Mulholland, M. & Tawhai, V. (2010). Weeping Waters: The Treaty of Waitangi and constitutional change. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Omotoso Stovall, D. (2016). Born Out of Struggle: Critical race theory, school creation, and the policy of interruption. New York: State University of New York Press.

Pine, R.S. (2018). Teacher trainees’ attitudes and motivations towards learning te reo Māori. MAI Journal: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship, 7(2), 155-169.

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

Tomlins-Jahnke, H. & Warren, K. T. R (2011). Full, Exclusive, and Undisturbed Possession: Māori Education and the Treaty. In V. M. Tawhai & K. A. Gray-Sharp (Eds.), ‘Always speaking : the Treaty of Waitangi and public policy. Wellington, N.Z. : Huia Publishers.