Teaching When Culturally Illiterate

All Pākeha teachers should be tauira ō te reo Māori.

“We know Māori students do much better when education reflects and values their identity, language and culture”. (Ministry of Education 2013, p.6).
 

Introduction

Professional standards for teachers do not currently have concrete expectation for cultural relevance for rangatahi Māori (Milne, 2017). Initiatives like Tātaiako provide cultural standards for teachers that prove excellent dust collectors in resource rooms nationwide, or are left strewn across the desk in tertiary teacher training programs. Policies such as Ka Hikitia, as noted by Anne Milne (2017), are helpful in theory, however hold a narrow view of what achievement looks like for Māori (Hutchings, Barnes, Taupo, Bright, Pihama & Lee, 2012). Ka Hikitia has proven to be both poorly implemented and having overarching gaps which under-resourced (among other things) teachers appear to find too burdensome to investigate (Milne, 2017). In studies conducted by the Children’s Commission, rangatahi note the limited ways in which Pākehā report achievement, and how it does not encompass whānau or hauora (2018). There were numerous mentions of feeling love for kura when tikanga Māori was interwoven into the framework; love for other tauira; and love for teachers who went the extra mile to make them feel valued as Māori (Children’s Commission, 2018). What this shows is how inextricably linked te ao Māori is with marutau, waiora, and whanaungatanga, and the barriers which colonising frameworks place upon Māori-centric success. Subsequently, the continued reporting of “underachievement” of Māori highlights the need for embedded practice instead of teacher performative efforts using te ao Māori as a tool to illustrate “cultural competency” (Hutchings et al, 2012). For rangatahi Māori to have āhuru mōwai in current mainstream education seems nigh impossible with the current lack of cultural engagement from tauiwi teachers, and colonial barriers through structural racism in education. What is needed in mainstream education training is a compulsory learning of te reo Māori, long term and interwoven engagement with te ao Māori within coursework, and location-based investigations into hegemonic cultural disparities.
 

History

The National Advisory Committee of Māori Education (NACME) initially did not have any Māori members, and from 1955 into the 1970’s continued to be a Pākehā-led interpretation of what Māori needed in education (Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren, 2011). When Māori became members of the board, the ideals of the collective moved from the deficit, parent based, Māori faulted view that te ao Māori and Māori culture was causing the gap in achievement, but to a lack of relevance and reflection of Māori in mainstream education (Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren, 2011, p.28). Whilst this was a step in the right direction, it did not address Māori learning as Māori, instead Māori learning in a multicultural context that did not recognise the rangatiratanga of tangata whenua and te reo as a taonga. These were ultimately seen as being “up for grabs” and Pākeha led and driven, paving the way for tokenistic expressions of attempting “cultural competency” (Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren, 2011). 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 (p. 28). As discussed, they also note the challenges of its implementation into widespread and commonplace use, such as the belief that equity for Māori means that tauiwi will miss out. The dangers of these race-based one for all approaches is that the needs of Māori are overlooked in favour of the statistical norm (namely Pākehā) (Tomlins-Jahnke & Warren, 2011).

Freire identified the first step of change, awareness of the inequity, as critical consciousness through anarchy (1993). He notes that through a disruption of the status quo (in this instance a lack of cultural relevance, structural racism, and white supremacy in education) as an expression of self-actualisation for Māori (1993, p.10). He names the role of the colonisers (in this case the Pākehā majority) as shifting the framework from an authoritive possession of knowledge, to a co-intentional education where cooperative learning takes place (1993, p.19). Through recreating this knowledge, and the understanding of colonialism within education in mainstream settings, the narrative can change, and thus a power shift can occur (Freire, 1993, p.43). Peter Cleave’s 1989 publication outlines the Picot Report’s suggestion of how there is an imminent need for a “devolution from state to community rangatiratanga in relation to their governance over the education of tamariki and rangatahi” (p.66). Cleave pre-empted the emergence of charter schools and the popularity of Te Kōhanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa by noting that Māori parents and parents of Māori children would be faced with the prospect of sending their children to schools with a majority non-Māori Board of Trustees (BOT) (1989). Educational facilities that based their curriculum and practice around te ao Māori were a far more attractive option, especially for parents who had a less than pleasant experience within the education system (Cleave, 1989, p.67). However, this highlights an issue of inequality in regard to access to Māori-based education, especially for those in rural areas where a large amount of travel would be required to attend a Kaupapa-based school (Cleave, 1989). Cleave notes that this “implies that elite groups with the luxury of choice get the education that they want, while working class and underclass people may receive an education that falls short of what they deserve in cultural terms” (p. 67). This is especially true of middle to upper class Pākeha, who are able to attend local schools with a whitestream curriculum or pay for a private education. By decolonising mainstream curriculum, those who are experiencing the socio-economic side effects of colonisation are still able to receive a culturally literate education without having to bankrupt themselves or become further culturally alienated through education.

Wally Penetito notes that the education sector has always operated in a mode of colonisation (2010). Through assimilation and integration, tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori were relegated to “brown Pākehā” through a removal of their cultural identity as Māori (2010, p.237). The Pākehā norm of structural and institutionalised racism has perpetuated a “common consciousness” that masks the history of colonisation from mainstream discussion, which in itself is a refusal to acknowledge the impact colonisation has had on Māori (Penetito, 2010). A divergence from the cultural norm of Pākehā centrality will make space for te ao Māori to be seen as a norm, and provide room for Māori to have their culture reflected to them in representation away from tokenistic performance.

Discussion

Russell Pine identifies how teachers can “provide significant opportunities within the classroom to promote learning of te reo Māori and understand their perspectives on learning the language to inform future revitalisation efforts” (2018, p.154). Pine’s research into Pākehā trainee teachers’ attitudes towards te reo as a taonga highlighted how, as adult learners of te reo Māori, that the students were unwilling in most instances to continue learning te reo due to it being too hard, difficult to access, and being time poor (2018. p.163). As university students, it is obvious that they have spent a lot of time, effort, and cognition on achieving their qualification. How then, are they able to attribute negative attitudes and excuses towards learning te reo (in order to apply a somewhat culturally responsive practice to their teaching) when they have spent a minimum of three years making time for something they have deemed important? The attitudes here exemplify how te ao Māori is only prioritised by Pākehā during te wiki ō te reo Māori, before an All Black’s game, or when they are being appraised (Milne, 2017). Whilst these participants are not outwardly racist, the perpetuation of the structural racism that allows colonisation to continue to denigrate Māori is the responsibility of Pākehā to disassemble (Penetito, 2010). Being complicit to this infiltration of colonisation is to allow it to continue unimpeded. What education needs is “active anti-racism”, i.e. moving against the current strong enough that you change the direction (Freire, 1993, Milne, 2017). Many of the participants in Price’s study wrote about their beliefs in the benefits of learning te reo, and its importance for Māori, however their follow through in focus groups and their “real” commitment to te reo was that of “it’s important but I won’t be continuing” (2018, p.164). This is a passing of the hot potato and lip service to pass cultural competency assignments without contributing anything of value to the acquisition of te reo Māori, as well as a glaring insight into the attitudes of those who will be teaching rangatahi Māori.  One participant noted how there was so much in the curriculum already that they would not be teaching te reo in their classrooms because it would be “too hard” to fit anything else in (Pine, 2018, p.164). What is poignant here is how te reo Māori is not valued by student teachers. What this translates to for tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori is that they are not valued (Children’s Commission, 2018). Without te reo Māori being a compulsory component of teacher training (in one-year graduate diplomas as well as three-year Bachelor programs), it will continue to be seen as a less than important part of application to an apparently culturally responsive practice.

Contrastingly, Diana Amundsen (in the same journal publication) immediately notes that Pākehā educators are tasked with “decolonising through reconciliation” (2018, p.139). Amundsen identifies the white privilege that allows 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). One can argue then, that in order to be a culturally responsive teacher, and reconcile a decolonisation of education, that first location, then reflection is an integral part of teacher training. Without critical self-review, Pākehā will remain entrenched in a bubble of colonialism that they will continue to perpetuate whilst believing they remain squeaky clean. Until this identification as Pākehā occurs that dismantles the hegemonic racial disparities between Māori and Pākehā, a shift into post-colonialism is impossible, and institutional colonialism will prevail. The discomfort of Pākehā is synonymous with the “white fragility” of colonisers worldwide that facilitate the lack of decolonisation and maintains the Eurocentric status quo (DiAngelo, 2018). By skirting around the magnification of existing as part of the colonising norm, attitudes will not change, colonisation will continue to be interwoven into the fabrics of society, and racist sentiments will remain unthreatened, placing the onus of change back on Māori (Amundsen, 2018). Positioning any form of racism within the framework of colonisation allows this to first be highlighted and then erased through its view under a microscope (Penetito, 2010 & Milne, 2017). Tall poppy syndrome and race-traitorship is a perceived barrier to Pākehā teachers afraid to challenge the status quo or are otherwise ignorant of its necessity (Hutchings et al, 2012). This lack of consistency from Pākehā educators then belittles trust that rangatahi Māori can have in a Pākehā teacher, as from class to class (and day to day) their experience within a mainstream setting will differ markedly (Children’s Commission, 2018).

David Omotoso Stovall makes the important distinction between a deficit view of “achievement” versus “effects of colonisation” (2016). He claims we need to view the issue of Māori being left behind as an “educational debt as opposed to an achievement gap” (2016, p.105). He views this instead as a debt that is owed to Māori in light of the historical disparities and side effects of colonisation that have denigrated tangata whenua and impoverished generations (2016, p.105). Through this change of lens, pedagogy and application of the curriculum can then be “collectively imagined and executed”, and the onus and responsibility for change placed back on colonising structures (Omotoso Stovall, 2016, p.110). This builds on the rhetoric that there is a need for a place-based curriculum that co-constructs an identity-based structure with the school and rangatahi (Hutchings et al, 2012). An understanding of te ao Māori and cultural literacy is essential to understanding and facilitating this successfully. 

The lack of reflection of rangatahi Māori in their environment when attending a mainstream school is a stark reality of Māori experience in mainstream schooling (Children’s Commission, 2018). What this shows is a need for tikanga to be embedded within the schooling framework, instead of being tokenistically performative for guests or the Education Review Office (Children’s Commissioner, 2018). The need for Pākehā teachers to ensure that they have built integral and strong relationships with rangatahi, and also allowed equal relationship building in the class means that whanaungatanga and a sense of belonging and trust will be able to develop within the classroom (Children’s Commissioner, 2018). Rangatahi have noted how they feel disempowered and find it embarrassing to be expected to speak and perform on behalf of Māori, when their cultural identify and connection to te ao Māori is not facilitated in mainstream schooling. (Children’s Commissioner, 2018). Rangatahi also identified how they felt undervalued, and thus undervalued themselves because they were Māori in a Eurocentric setting (Children’s Commissioner, 2018). Statistics reflected failure instead of a debt that Pākehā needed to repay. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy of teacher deficit thinking, rangatahi feeling disengaged and unmotivated, and thus a continued gap in measurable achievement (Children’s Commissioner, 2018).

Ann Milne asks If we can create the conditions that empower a student to follow their cultural norms throughout the day (2017). Critical consciousness is again mentioned throughout her work, and, like Freire, she identifies an anarchy that is crucial to the disestablishment of the colonising norm, and the movement towards equity (2017, p.8). The implicit expression of neoliberalism that seeks to further colonise and conquer through a process of assimilation is pervasive throughout the mainstream curriculum and pedagogical practice (Milne, 2017, p.9). Though many policies exist to minimise the gap between Māori and Pākeha students, Milne states that these are often unsuccessful due to the focus on achievement, rather than cultural understanding of Māori (2017, p.10). To “fix” the underachievement, the focus then becomes on the student, the home life, and their community, when in reality it should first come from the structural makeup of the governing body. This also presupposes that Māori are able to be quantified academically in the same manner as Pākeha. Participation of Māori in education is markedly different to participation as Māori, and the politics of knowledge have compartmentalised tikanga into a high school subject and removed the opportunity for Māori to lean as Māori in a culturally facilitating environment (Milne, 2017, p.33).

Hutchings et al found that Māori foundations for learning include notions of whakapapa and cultural identity (2012). They highlighted the importance of tikanga in classrooms to enable tamariki to feel cared for and to have positive experiences of manaaki, aroha, and nurturing (2012). The authors found that whānau Māori desire high quality schooling and high-quality outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi, and very few whānau felt like their aspirations were being realised in Pākehā education (2012). The disparities between whānau views and Pākehā structures were through measures of success as holistic instead of mono-dimensional views of linear achievement (Hutchings et al, 2012). Whānau identified the expression of structural racism in Pākehā schooling through:

• A lack of commitment to te reo and tikanga Māori

• A view of Māori as deficient

• Mispronunciation of Māori names

• Construction of Māori children as “problem” children

• Lack of inclusion of Māori knowledge and history within the curriculum

• Lack of commitment to engage fully with whānau Māori

• Limited or lack of engagement with hapū and iwi of the area

• Lack of knowledge or training of non-Māori teachers in relation to Māori understandings and practices
   

(Hutchings et al, 2012, p.25).

What this shows, quite glaringly, is that Pākehā teachers are failing rangatahi Māori through continued disengagement with te ao Māori (and thus rangatahi as Māori), and how this is facilitated by teacher training programs (Hutchings et al, 2012). By making learning of tikanga and te ao Māori optional in training programs (such as Massey University and Victoria University do), the universities are perpetuating the belief that cultural responsiveness too, is optional (Price, 2018). The reinforcement of colonising beliefs through our highest academic training institutions outlines the height that structural racism and institutional racism comes from, even in areas that are outwardly promoting an equitable view. Through first-hand experience of a Graduate Diploma teaching program, racism is demonstrably and overtly expressed throughout a number of trainees, which is unchecked despite confrontation and complaint to heads of school. The results of this will be a continued denigration of te ao Māori, a push into a labour based, lower-working class career (if finishing school at all), and a markedly deficit view of rangatahi Māori by Pākehā teachers. Whilst initiatives such as Tātaiako provide a baseline for cultural competency, and is unlike Ka Hikitia in the way that Ka Hikitia’s critics note it’s narrow view of Māori achievement (as well as its poor implementation) more needs to be done to ensure this reaches front-line pedagogy (Milne, 2017).

In an online submission to Education Central, Catherine Kelsey believes that teachers should “focus on the needs of their students and communities, rather than those of the workforce” (2018). What is imperative to note here, is how education in Aotearoa has historically been used to belabour Māori, and to relegate them to an impoverished working class through colonising education (Penetito, 2010). By focusing entirely on a workforce-based, achievement-centric educational ideal, tikanga Māori and the needs of a culturally responsive practice will continue to be swallowed by a neoliberal production line.

An analysis of structural barriers to whānau educational wellbeing, and how to support these through everyday experiences is what needs to change in educational policy. Through clarity of aspirations, which learning systems work best, and information used by Māori and what is useful them in practical terms will engage a cooperative construction of an equitable approach (Hutchings et al, 2012). Success and achievement will look different to each iwi, hapū and whānau, and blanketing “Māori achievement” under a Eurocentric framework that does not address structural issues only perpetuates the disparity. Policy development for Māori are ideologically irreconcilable with tino rangatiratanga and Pākeha notions of citizenship and governance (Mulholland & Tawhai 2016, p.299).

Conclusion

Teachers who are unable to “park” their feelings regarding constructive criticism of their adherence to tikanga Māori, and the ways in which they need to improve, are furthering a colonistic view that they (as Pākehā) are trying their best and thus they are correct. If the intention is not altruistic, then it is a further form of Pākehā perpetuation of colonising behaviour, and results in a lack of growth and understanding. Pākeha as the dominant norm results in whiteness being seen as default (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). Structural racism and culture of colonisation is a feeding point for culturally illiterate teachers being pumped into mainstream schools. Colonisation is a cultural process that exists to disempower, disenfranchise, and alienate the people to whom the land belongs, and is alive and well (Hutchings et al, 2012).

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? There is nothing specifically Māori about current curriculum or mainstream pedagogy (Milne, 2017). An overwhelming majority of Pākeha and non-Māori teachers in mainstream settings mean that Māori-centric practice is a rarity in mainstream schooling. This presents barriers to understanding and working with whānau, hapū and iwi, and the need to encourage trust in the community as difficult within a Eurocentric individualistic framework Milne, 2017). The fragmented identity politics that surround how non-Māori identify themselves (or are identified), whether it be Pākeha, tauiwi or tangata Tiriti, influence the lens through which te ao Māori is viewed.  The only way to enter into a postcolonial society is through a voracious decolonisation of the state.

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.

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.

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Boston: Beacon Press.  

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.

Kelsey, C. (2018, April 09). 21st Century Skills Debate Unhelpful. Retrieved from https://educationcentral.co.nz/response-catherine-kelsey-21st-century-skills-debate-unhelpful/

May, S. & Aikman, S. (2003). ‘Indigenous education: addressing current issues and developments’. Comparative Education, 39(2), 139-145.

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.

Tawhai, V.M. & Gray-Sharp, K.A. (Eds) (2010). ‘Always speaking’. The Treaty of Waitangi and Public policy. Wellington: Huia Publishers.
 

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