Final Thoughts

Through my research I have found a number of issues for the tangata whenua of Aotearoa. From this I believe now is a time of change and I hope to be a part of it. It is sad to say that this issue will not be resolved easily or quickly and will be ongoing for our nation. Anne Else makes a statement that encapsulates my thoughts and feelings towards this issue well.

“Is the education gap getting wider, or is it getting narrower? It depends how you measure the gap, and which measure you look at. The evidence in this report shows that the gap is getting narrower over time. But this is happening slowly and unevenly. It is not certain that the gap will continue to narrow” (Else, 1997).

I hope you all enjoyed my blog in regards to Maori participation in mainstream early childhood education and that the topics I have discussed has brought some of these issues to light.

Thanks

B.

Reference

Else, A. (1997). Anne Else summary of Māori Participation & Performance in Education. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/5847

Pedagogical Implications

“The Treaty of Waitangi is central to, and symbolic of, our national heritage, identity, and future. Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success acknowledges the Treaty of Waitangi as a document that protects Māori learners’ rights to achieve true citizenship through gaining a range of vital skills and knowledge, as well as protecting te reo Māori as a taonga” (Goren, 2009).

Following the downward spiral of Ngā Huarahi Arataki, it is quintessential to point out the governments influence on any future movements of the early childhood sector in regards to Māori participation. The government have initially instigated some significant projects that have demonstrated a strong movement towards change.

Through some of the government’s strategic plan objectives, Māori participation has to some extent increased; nevertheless due to the ever changing government there is no way to aptly predict the government’s decisions and movements of tomorrow. Goren’s (2009) expresses the same concern when he states how easy it is to see how Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2008b) could get lost as one of the many issues on the agenda for the education sector. New initiatives will continue to be created by the Ministry of Education annually. “The challenge is to prioritise the many strategies in order to get a few, such as Ka Hikitia, (Ministry of Education, 2008b) out in front of all educators, Boards of Trustees, and government agency staff” (Goren, 2009, p. 7).

In regards to the policies and legislations that are already in place, we can only assume growth and development. There is only hope for a better future for the indigenous people of Aotearoa. However it seems to be up to the early childhood education sector itself to ensure these changes take place.

The pedagogical implications for teaching staff and management

It is understandable that early childhood educators will be challenged to deliver a curriculum and programme that requires an inclusive representation of Māori, Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2008b) can assist with this, but to ensure it is practiced to its full potential educators will require training. It is an essential policy lever to accelerate improvements for Māori children, as noted in the Ka Hikitia strategy documents (Ministry of Education, 2008b). Educators need to know what to do in the situations they face and with the variety of children they teach. They need to know how to create cultural connections and relationships with Māori learners to then execute teaching and learning strategies that reflect Māori potential and the importance of language, culture and identity (Education Review Office, 2008; Ministry of Education, 1996). Initial training and on-going professional development has to be focused on these issues so that educators have the capacity to serve Māori children appropriately (Goren, 2009; Ministry of Education, 1996).  

Through this the educators will feel and be more capable of delivering a programme that will help recognise and embrace the importance of Māoritanga. They can also ensure Māori achieve and enjoy educational success as Māori (Ministry of Education, 2010b).

It is also quintessential that educators and management understand what the policy entails. Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer (2002, p. 418) suggest that;

“The sector needs to make sense of the policy. It is not enough to simply communicate the policy. There is a critical need to structure learning opportunities so that stakeholders (the children, whānau and community) can construct an interpretation of the policy and its implications for their own behaviour.”

In a report carried out by the Education Review Office [ERO] it was found that “just over a third of the mainstream early childhood services it visited were focussed on assisting Māori children reach their learning potential” (p. 9). In nearly two-thirds of services, it was not so clear (Erb, 2010). If Ka Hikitia is to be successful in the mainstream early childhood sector, we need to change our attitudes seeing that it is not only Māori that will suffer the consequences. Sure, the lack of Māori attendance has implications for the children’s learning opportunities, but it also has repercussions for the early childhood services sustainability since the Ministry of Education funding is tied to attendance (Mitchell, Royal-Tangaere, Mara & Wylie, 2008). 

The Pedagogical implications for children and ngā whānau

The challenge with a policy framework like Ka Hikitia is to change attitudes, thinking, and behaviours in order to improve outcomes for all Māori learners.

“This means changing hearts and minds rather than solely instituting new compliance requirements. There have been attempts to change Ministry organisational processes to reflect key Ka Hikitia components in areas such as business planning and report writing.  Yet, there is concern that Ka Hikitia will evolve into a compliance tick list rather than a broad commitment to improve education for and with Māori learners” (Goren 2009, p. VI).

Ka Hikitia aims to give “Māori children pride in their identity and their culture” (Erb, 2010, p. 10). However, it is crucial that the government encourage the involvement of ngā whānau. As evidence shows, quality interactions in the home and in education settings lead to effective learning for young children. It also shows that regular, high quality early childhood education has lasting benefits for children well into secondary school (MOE, 2008). But to encourage families and the community to take an interest, the government and early childhood sector need to adapt Smiths 1995 pedagogy of whānau theory.  

The whānau concept of curriculum requires that:

•         the Māori community has some measure of influence over what counts; what is included in curriculum;

•         the curriculum is reorganised to connect with interests, backgrounds of Māori learners;

•         that to be Māori is taken as ‘normal’;

•         the Māori worldview is reflected and reproduced within the school.

In a recent speech by Anne Tolley, welcoming the audience to the Taumata Whanonga behaviour summit, the Minister emphasised the significance of Ka Hikitia: The Government wants to bring in changes that help all students to stay engaged, learn, and achieve success. However, the system is currently underperforming for too many Māori learners, too early in their educational journey. Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success is the plan to see the system step up its performance for Māori to achieve education success. The Government is not seeking a special response for Māori, but a professional one. There is strong evidence that what works for Māori has been shown to work well for everyone. What works for learners is recognition of their language, culture and identity, personalised teaching and learning, the concept of teacher as learner. (Goren, 2009, p. 35).

So I pose the question, how are early childhood educators implementing their understandings of the commitments derived from Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are expressed in the bi-cultural early childhood curriculum document Te Whāriki? Te Whāriki itself suggests that educators consider the following reflective question: “In what ways do the environment and programme reflect the values embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and what impact does this have on adults and children?” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 56).

The message is clear from Ministry and political leadership. Addressing Māori student achievement is a high priority for the sector. The message points to action, yet as noted above some are proceeding while others are in a ‘wait and see’ mode. This raises the question of whether or not the professionals responsible for Ka Hikitia consider this framework to be urgent. (Goren, 2009).

References

Education Review Office. (2008). Māori children in early childhood: Pilot study. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Erb, W. (2010). Māori potential starts early. Tukutuku Kōrero: New Zealand Education Gazette, 89(22), 9-10.

Goren, P. (2009). How Policy Travels: Making Sense of Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy.

Ministry of Education. (2010a). Prior participation in early childhood education: new entrants. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from, http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/student_participation/early_childhood_education/1931

Ministry of Education.  (2010b). Māori potential starts early. Tukutuku Kōrero: New Zealand Education Gazette, 89(20), 3.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Ka hikitia-Managing for success: The Māori education strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki  mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Mitchell, L., Royal-Tangaere, A., Mara, D., & Wylie, C. (2008). Locality-based evaluation of Pathways to the Future :Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/research/index.html

Smith, G. H. (1995). Whakaoho Whānau. He Pūkenga Kōrero, 1(1), 18-36.

Spillane, J., B. Reiser, and T. Reimer (2002), Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72, (3), 387-431. 

What is the government doing about it? Government policies and legislations

 “We should be concerned that historic and current attempts by the state to educate Māori children too often result in failure” (Selby, 1999, p. 14).

In a report that discusses the government’s response to the report of Māori affairs select committee, which carried out an inquiry into Māori participation in ECE.  Researchers provided the necessary means required to break down the barriers to Māori participation (Governments response to the report of Māori affairs select committee, n.d.). So, did the government actually consider some of the recommendations?

I believe that the main issue is that government policy and legislation is tokenistic, yet ticks the box, but does not effectively support the early childhood sector to implement high quality culturally responsive mainstream early childhood education for Māori. Evidence is demonstrated in the first formal policy document of Aotearoa which was signed in 1840, Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Durie, 2001a; Orange, 2004; Selby, 1999). I believe the intention of the three articles of Te Tiriti in regards to ECE symbolise, Māori the right to quality teaching and learning through partnership, protection and tino rangatiratanga. Māori should be entitled to all that the other people of Aotearoa are privy to, a quality education and appreciation of our culture and tikanga and to be able to live as Māori and be Māori (Durie, 2001b; Durie, 1994; Education Review Office, 2008; Ritchie & Rau, 2006; Ritchie, n.d.).

Over the decades many policies have been created, apparently for the better of Māori. Below is a timeline that exhibits some of the policies and legislations that have influenced policy makers today. I feel the need to recognise the importance of acknowledging the past, as my belief is that we cannot move forward until the past has been addressed and learned from.

Māori Educational Policy Timeline 

• 1840  Te Tiriti O Waitangi
• 1867  Native Schools Act, By 1947 The term ‘Native’ changed to Māori
• 1877  Education Act
• 19^th Century dominance of assimilation policies
• 1960  The Hunn Report
• 1988 Education to be More: Report of the Early Childhood Care and Education Working Group (green paper)
• 1988 Before Five Early Childhood Care and Education in New Zealand (white paper)

 (Bishop, O’Sullivan & Berryman, 2010; Meade & Podmore, 2002; May, 2009; May, 2003; May, 1999; May, 1997; May, 1985). 

There are many more policies and legislations, but due to the nature of this assignment I am unable to discuss these and the others in depth.

The 19^th century education policies were dominated by assimilation. This was believed to be desirable. Subsequently, the Māori population dwindled from 150,000 in 1840 to 43,143 in 1901 (Selby, 1999). In 1960, the policies of assimilation officially ended, as it was said to be a time of ‘cultural adaptation,’ thanks to the Hunn Report. The report promoted the integration policies, which aimed to combine Māori and Pākeha. The report also called for aspects of Māoritanga to be incorporated into the education system (Selby, 1999). However, according to Selby (1999) it failed miserably. However, apparently no one can distinguish why. The following quote is why I believe the integration policies failed.

“Policies were being developed and instigated by departments which were managed and staffed by Pākeha people, people who theorised about what was best for Māori without having a ‘vision’” (Bunch, 1979 as cited in Selby, 1999, p. 19).

Now policy makers are finally starting to consider Māori as the indigenous culture of Aotearoa. Labour government initiatives have listened to key researchers such as Rau, Ritchie, Bishop and more.  Whose research acknowledges the importance of children, emphasising early childhood education as the foundation for success in the future, along with strong recommendations of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Subsequently a policy that aimed to improve the early childhood education service provision was introduced in 2002 Ngā Huarahi Arataki: Pathways to the future (Ministry of Education, 2002). After extensive research and feedback from the sector a key recommendation of the Strategic plan was that of increasing participation (Mitchell & Hodgen, 2008). The government focussed attention and money into the pilot initiative of ‘Promoting Participation Project’[PPP] to target Māori communities where participation was low (Dixon, Widdowson, Meagher-Lundberg, & McMurchy-Pilkington, 2007; Mitchell, Royal-Tangaere, Mara & Wylie, 2008).  A primary goal of the PPP programme was to ensure that “every child has the opportunity to participate in quality ECE, by assisting communities to address barriers resulting in non-participation” (Ministry of Education, 2005, p. 2 cited in Dixon, Widdowson, Meagher-Lundberg, & McMurchy-Pilkington, 2007, p. 1).  This well-intended project proved successful initially with obstacles to participation being addressed and overcome.  However, the programme faced many barriers such as; 

·         A lack of

o   appreciation of ECE by families

o   understanding of the child-centred approach of Aotearoa

o   responsiveness to the needs of Māori

o   Poverty and related social and economic demands on families and

o   A poor range and quality of ECE services

I believe the failure of the programme was purely down to one factor. The programme did not take into consideration the needs of Māori. In a recent ‘education update’ posted in the Education Gazette in March (2011) it clearly states what Māori needs are, declaring “there are families who experience difficulties which mean ECE is neither an option nor a priority.” I believe there is no way to appropriately and effectively attract and involve the Māori community without first acknowledging their needs. Therefore, I ask did the government really consider whether Māori actually want their children in the Pākeha education system? For the reason that, as history has demonstrated the more integrated Māori are in the Pākeha system, the more they lose.

As my research has demonstrated, there have been some gains in Māori education and the government believes that the gains can only increase due in part to the launching of Ka Hikitia: Managing for success (Ministry of Education, 2008; Ministry of Education, 2007), the Māori education strategy in 2008.  The strategies key focus is to improve educational outcomes for Māori children (Education Review Office, 2008). and “takes an evidence-based, outcomes-focussed approach” (Ministry of Education, 2009) and “draws on the policy framework from the Māori potential approach which emphasises partnership, working together and sharing power” and “emphasises the importance of Ako: effective ad reciprocal teaching and learning-for and with Māori learners” (Ministry of Education, 2009).  This strategy almost appears flawless, and all hope is that it will work, but… I find it disappointing that although this strategy was launched in 2008, 2011 was the first time I had ever heard of it. I have never been made known of Ka Hikitia through my studies, or in the centres I have worked in. So, where has it been? Was it not important up until now, one year away from its target date? Also, I find myself thinking, will this strategy be dismissed, prolonged and destroyed as Ngā Huarahi Arataki has been?  I believe it interesting, as the following quote states that policies that are created by Māori for Māori are more successful. Why?

“It is no coincidence that the success of Kohanga Reo, Kura Kaupapa and Whare Wananga education has been due in part to policies initiated, developed and implemented by the voluntary services of whānau, hapu and iwi in response to Māori needs and aspirations” (Te Whaiti, McCarthy & Durie, 1997, p. 109).

With all these policies being introduced, what are the prospective consequences, potential outcomes and pedagogical implications for practice in regards to mainstream early childhood education services?

References

Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform: Addressing the politics of disparity. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.  

Dixon, R., Widdowson, D., Meagher-Lundberg, P., & McMurchy-Pilkington, A. (2007). Evaluation of promoting early childhood education participation project. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ece/11760.

Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Durie, M. (2001a). Mana Māori motuhake: The state of the Māori nation. In R. Miller (Ed.), New Zealand government and politics (pp. 464-478). Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Durie, M. (2001b). Māori health: Key determinants for the next twenty-five years. Pacific Health Dialogue, 7(1), 6-11.

Education Gazzette. (March 7, 2011). Education update: Rates of Prior-Participation in early childhood education before school: changes to the statistics and publication of the 2010 rates. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.edgazette.govt.nz/articles/Article.aspx?Articled=8201

Education Review Office. (2008). Māori children in early childhood: Pilot study. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Government Response to Report of Māori Affairs Select Committee. (n.d.). Inquiry into Māori Participation in Early Childhood Education. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/DFB271D5-A491-4ADC-A397-47F70933DCDA/151815/DBHOH_PAP_17742_GovernmentResponsetoReportoftheMao.pdf

May, H. (1985). Mind that child: A social and political history of childcare in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Blackberry Press.

May, H. (1997). The discovery of early childhood. Auckland, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.

May, H. (1999). The price of partnership: The Before Five decade. New Zealand Journal of Education Studies: Special Issue a decade of reform in NZ education: Where to now? 34(1), 18-27.

May, H. (2003). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in post war New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.

May, H. (2009). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in New Zealand. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.

Meade, A., & Podmore, V. (2002). Early childhood education policy co-ordination under the auspices of the department: Ministry of Education: A case study of New Zealand (Early Childhood and family Policy Series n.1). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngā huarahi arataki: A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2007). Ka hikitia-Managing for success: The draft Māori education strategy 2008-2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2008b). Ka hikitia-Managing for success: The Māori education strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka hikitia: Managing for success: Strategy overview. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/KaHikitia/StrategyOverview/Background.aspx

Mitchell, L., & Hodgen, E. (2008). Locality-based evaluation of Pathways to the Future-Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Mitchell, L., Royal-Tangaere, A., Mara, D., & Wylie, C. (2008). Locality-based evaluation of Pathways to the Future :Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/research/index.html

Orange, C. (2004). An illustrated history of the Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.

Ritchie, J. (n.d.). Enacting Tiriti-based practice in early childhood education in Aotearoa. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10652/1485/Enacting%20Tiriti-based%20practice.pdf?sequence=1

Ritchie, J., & Rau, C. (2006). Whakawhanaungatanga: Partnerships in bicultural development in early childhood education: Final Report from the teaching & learning research initiative project. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9207_finalreport.pdf:

Selby, R. (1999). Still being punished. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia Publishers.

Barriers to Māori Participation

Following on from my previous blog entry where I posed many questions prompted by my research, I feel the need to explore the barriers that impact on Māori participation in mainstream (non kaupapa Māori) ECE services.

Mainstream education services are grounded on monocultural thinking and frameworks or more explicitly…a Pakeha (European) system (Ritchie, 2008).  Māori are a minority group with countless social implications, derived from the assimilation policies of the early 19th century, that have resulted in a loss of Māori identity, culture and language  (May, 2009; Te One 2003; Walker, 2004). The legacy of Aotearoa’s colonialist heritage is obvious in the ongoing educational and socio-economic disparities that exist for Mäori (Ministry of Education, 2007; Ministry of Health, 2006).   I believe the fact that the government repeatedly highlights such Māori disparities is a form of stereotyping as they emphasise the negative aspects of Māori.  This sends shards of preconceptions to communities and those working in ECE that can negatively impact on their approach to Māori whanau who may choose to access their service.

Reputable New Zealand researchers Ritchie and Rau assert that a number of challenges exist for Māori children in early childhood education addressing that “Well-intended government policies to increase the participation of Mäori in early childhood education are unlikely to succeed until quality, culturally validating early childhood services are locally available and affordable to these families” (Ritchie & Rau, 2007, p. 111; Ritchie & Rau, 2008).

From my research I have found additional themes as barriers to Māori participation and engagement in mainstream ECE services. The primary theme being cultural. Māori and Pakeha aspirations differ and Māori interpretations of quality need not be assumed to align with Pakeha ideologies of quality (Colbung, Glover, Rau, & Ritchie, 2007).  The government regularly asserts the need for quality in education with recent research and policy devoted to quality.  But what is quality education? Dahlberg & Moss question (2008) “how can quality be discovered, measured, assured and improved?”  And what does quality look like for Māori?  I wonder... Are Māori interpretations of quality considered and honoured in mainstream ECE services?

I agree with Bevan-Brown, (2003) who argues that mainstream services are often not culturally competent and lack awareness on how to approach, communicate and relate to Māori. Furthermore there is a huge underrepresentation of Māori teachers in mainstream ECE services leaving non-Māori teachers with few skills to be culturally responsive in working effectively with Māori communities (Colbung, Glover, Rau, & Ritchie, 2007; Ritchie, 2003).  These are distinctive barriers to attracting and maintaining the participation and engagement of Māori.

Further factors that hinder participation encompass social issues including geographic and financial barriers (Ritchie, 2008).  Rural Māori do not have the range of child care options that urban Māori have.  “There are geographic gaps in provision where parents have little or no choice in the kind of early childhood education available to make participation for their children possible, or more supportive of their particular cultural identity or family circumstances” (May & Mitchell, 2009, p.12). For me, this highlights the neccessity for policy makers to consider ecological theory and the context of the child as vital to overcoming barriers to participation.

References

Bevan-Brown, J. (2003). The cultural self-review. Providing culturally effective, inclusive, education for Māori learners. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Colbung, M., Glover, A., Rau, C., & Ritchie, J. (2007). Indigenous peoples and perspectives in early childhood education. In L. Keesing-Styles & H. Hedges. (Eds.). Theorising early childhood practice. Emerging dialogues. (pp.137-161). Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2008). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from http://www.teacherswork.ac.nz/journal/volume5_issue1/moss.pdf

May, H. (2009). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in New Zealand. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.

May, H., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand: Report of the quality public early childhood education project. Retrieved March 8, 2001 from, http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/ECE/Report_QPECE_project_web_2+JD.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2007). Ngā haeata mātauranga. Annual report on Māori education 2006/2007. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Health. (2006). Decades of Disparity III. Ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, New Zealand 1988-1999. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health and University of Otago.

Ritchie, J. (2003). Te Whāriki as a potential lever for bicultural development.  In J. Nuttall. (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice. (pp.79-109). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Ritchie, J., & Rau, C. (2007). Mā wai ngā hua? ‘Participation’ in early childhood in Aotearoa/New Zealand. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 8(1), 101-116.

Ritchie, J., & Rau, C. (2008). Te Puawaitanga: Partnerships with tamariki and whānau in bicultural early childhood care and education. Wellington, New Zealand: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative & New Zealand Council for Educational Research. 

Ritchie, J. (2008). Honouring Māori subjectivities within early childhood education in Aotearoa. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9, 3, 202-210. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Eric Database.

Te One, S. (2003). The context for Te Whāriki: Contemporary issues of influence.  In J. Nuttall. (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice. (pp.17-49). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Walker, R. (2004). Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without end. (Rev. ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Books.

Why is Māori participation an issue?

Participation in early childhood education [ECE] is pivotal as a foundation that paves the way for success in children’s overall development and education (Ministry of Education, 2008a; Farquhar, 2003). Therefore the government’s emphasis on participation is well-intended but why is it that Māori participation has been the key focus for policy makers in recent years?

The government regularly highlights disparities in the mainstream education system for Māori, through statistics that address alarming results that pinpoint Māori as low achievers. In 2008, the State of Education document discusses this issue asserting, “…while the government education picture for New Zealand continues to be positive, the system continues to underperform for specific groups of learners” (Ministry of Education, 2008a, p. 5). The report identifies early childhood education services that attract children from low socio-economic communities as having the greatest disadvantage with similarly low student engagement.   “The over representation of Māori in socio-economically disadvantaged communities means that these groups of students are particularly at risk” (Ministry of Education, 2008a, p. 5). 

My research of participation in regards to Māori in mainstream ECE, demonstrates that in 2010 there was approximate ten percent difference between those of non-Māori descent.

Below is a graph that shows this difference:

(Ministry of Education, 2010a).

So does this data identify Māori participation in ECE as an issue with a mere ten percent difference?

Regardless, the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, addresses her concern for Māori in education as she  asserts “the raising of Māori and Pasifika education achievement as a number one priority” (Logan, 2009).  This is discussed in cabinet in the following video:

The educational aspirations of Māori parents are “that our children do well, finish school and go on to tertiary education” (Cunningham, Stevenson & Tassell, 2005 cited in Ngati Kahungunu cultural standards project overview, n.d.). From a Māori perspective, culture and language are very important considerations in the education of Māori children, as it ultimately links to a secure identity.  Dr Wally Penitito agrees, declaring “Why is there a problem with maori students school performance? Because the cultural discontinuity between Māori student home and family and the institution of school are gross. (Penetito, 1998, p. 102 cited in Ngati Kahungunu cultural standards project overview, n.d.). 

Therefore for many Māori their main educational concerns may not put participation at the top of their list. Thus, I ask are Māori really concerned about their participation in early childhood centres? And if so what are the barriers if they choose a mainstream (non Maori kaupapa) service?

References

Early Childhood Services-Funding. (2009). [Video]. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC4WzvHd2JM

Farquhar, S. (2003). Quality teaching Early foundations: Best evidence synthesis Iteration. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from, http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5963

Logan, I. (2009). Learning to achieve. Spasifik, 35, 26-32. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from Index New Zealand database.

Ministry of Education. (2010a). Prior participation in early childhood education: new entrants. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from, http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/student_participation/early_childhood_education/1931

Ministry of Education. (2008a). State of education in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ngati Kahungunu Cultural Standards Project Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2011 from, http://www.kahungunu.iwi.nz/sections/homepage/KahungunuCulturalStandards.htm

Māori in mainstream early childhood education services

As my blog title entails, my chosen social issue is Māori participation in mainstream early childhood education in Aotearoa. I selected this issue because over the past three years of my teaching journey, one issue has always stood out for me. Māori in education.

During the course of my teacher education I have researched the early childhood strategic plan Ngā huarahi arataki (Ministry of Education, 2002), observed early childhood practices, have had experience in Kohanga Reo, Kaupapa Māori and mainstream centre’s and recognised many political changes. The common red flag for me has always been Māori participation in the mainstream early childhood education system.

Therefore, as a key goal of the strategic plan (Ministry of Education, 2002) I am particularly interested in exploring and researching this social issue to identify participation barriers and implications for Māori success in the New Zealand mainstream education system.

What I find particularly fascinating is that the Ministry of Education statistics show Māori participation has in fact increased over the last ten years (Ministry of Education, 2008a). However, the government chooses to focus their attention on the fact that the increase is “marginal” (Annual Census of ECE Services, 2010) and that this “marginal” increase will “hinder New Zealand’s attempts to close the gap with the likes of Australia on an economic level” (Logan, 2009). So I ask, what is the issue? Is it about the economy or is it about the people?

Therefore, I will highlight the areas of concern, examine the pedagogical implications and critically analyze policies that influence the participation of Māori in the early childhood sector to highlight the political issues that affect Māori to fully engage in early childhood education services.

Reference List:

Annual Census of ECE Services. (2010). Annual ece summary report 2010. Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/_data/assests/pdf_file/0008/87263/Annual-ECE-Summary-Report-2010-1.pdf

Logan, I. (2009). Learning to achieve. Spasifik, 35, 26-32. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from Index New Zealand database.

Ministry of Education. (2008a). State of education in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngā huarahi arataki: A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.