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