Printer Friendly

Indigenous rights in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Inakitia rawatia hei kakano mo apopo: students' encounters with bicultural commitment.

Teacher quality and the preparation of quality teachers have been at the center of debates and discussions related to improving educational outcomes among diverse student populations across the world. In New Zealand, the education system emphasizes high-quality, bicultural practice among teachers through regulations and curriculum that call for adequate teacher preparation on bicultural pedagogical practice. This article sheds light on the gap between the policy goals and the reality of primarily monolingual and monocultural paradigms within the school system; it also brings forth the need to promote culturally inclusive understanding, knowledge, and skills among preservice teachers. The issues discussed in this article address concerns about education structures and processes that deny equity of educational opportunities to linguistically and culturally marginal student populations.

This article reflects our life experiences, positions, and perspectives as Maori women who now teach in early childhood teacher education programmes. We are particularly interested in the attitudes and beliefs in relation to Maori language, culture, values, and world view that students hold on entering tertiary study and how this might influence their ongoing development toward biculturalism. O'Loughlin (2009) discusses how difficult negotiating the confines of a school system can be:

   Schools are the chief ideological instruments
   of governments, totalitarian or otherwise,
   and are therefore likely to be held on a tight
   ideological leash. Teachers are part of the
   establishment, and any subversive leanings
   that they might have are typically disciplined
   through extensive mandated curricular requirements
   and onerous regulation that appears
   to be increasingly global in reach. (p. 5)

We have been challenged by the system that is in place in Aotearoa / New Zealand. We also recognise our own subversive tendencies to provoke change for a more ethical and equitable education system in respect to the historical knowledge and place within the system of the tangata whenua (indigenous peoples).

When student teachers in Aotearoa/New Zealand graduate from their preservice education, they are expected, under Graduating Teacher Standards (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2007) and Registered Teacher Criteria (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2009), to have met particular teaching standards, among which are a nuanced understanding of and a commitment to te ao Maori (the Maori world) in relation to their anticipated teaching practice. More specifically, these criteria require that teachers "work effectively" biculturally, that they practise and develop relevant te reo Maori me nga tikanga-aiwi (principals, protocols, and practices of the iwi [Maori tribes] in the local community), and that they "specifically and effectively" attend to the education aspirations of Maori students and families (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2009, pp. 12-14).

In line with these requirements, a component of the initial teacher education offered at Canterbury University (the first author's institution) and at Rangi Rum Early Childhood College (the second author's institution) requires students to learn about Maori ways of doing and being. Learning outcomes in respective courses include students demonstrating appropriate application of Maori language and tikanga (customs and traditions) in early childhood settings and that they promote inclusive practice. Therefore, each year students are required to pursue credits that will align them with these learning outcomes. Some students achieve highly at these outcomes; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that once students graduate and are working in early childhood centres, they do not maintain, for whatever reason, a commitment to knowledge and practice in relation to te ao Maori. It is important, therefore, to investigate ways in which students can be supported throughout the three years of teaching training with a particular focus on helping them achieve confidence and competency in their bicultural journey.

We have consequently developed a longitudinal research project spanning four years, during which we will track participating students through their three years of training and their first year in a centre after they have graduated. The aim of the study is to gain understanding of what compels students to maintain, or hinders them from maintaining, beyond their training years, high-quality bicultural involvement with all New Zealand children within the early childhood environment. Before focusing on this study, we offer some background information on biculturalism within the context of New Zealand's education system, and we describe how our personal journeys led us to look more closely at how we might facilitate an ongoing commitment to bicultural practice among our students. We also briefly outline some of the educational initiatives we have been associated with that have sought or are still seeking to promote a true spirit of biculturalism as captured in New Zealand's founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi).


Biculturalism Within Education

Education and how a nation's people are provided for in terms of bicultural matters is a highly political and contested space. Milne (2009) notes, "The purpose of schools [and] whose knowledge counts [is revealed by] who emerges at the end of their compulsory years of schooling" (p. 3). The innovation and leadership evident in Aotearoa/New Zealand's education system in regards to the inclusion of indigenous peoples and the state of their well-being has been applauded internationally (Clark & Grey 2010; MOE, 2008b; Wen-Li, 2010). However, many Maori and other researchers reflect that there is still not a true partnership between the Crown (the State) and Maori stakeholders (Clark & Grey, 2010; Jenkin, 2009; Waitangi Tribunal, 2010) in many spheres of Aotearoa / New Zealand society, including education. (1) Today, the majority of our early childhood education centres still operate within a monocultural monolingual paradigm, in which the language for transmission of ideas and everyday conversation is English, and where the culture within the centres is organised around Western beliefs and practices. (2) While the indigenous language (te reo Maori) of New Zealand is an official language (Maori Language Act 1987), only 1% of our non-Maori population were, according to 2008 data, able to speak te reo Maori (Ritchie, 2008). As Clark and Grey (2010) observe, "just having regulations and a bicultural curriculum does not guarantee a bicultural approach in practice" (p. 31).

Te Whariki (MOE, 1996), New Zealand's early childhood curriculum, was the first bilingual, bicultural policy document in the world (Forsyth & Leaf, 2010; Ritchie, 2002). It requires early childhood centres to consider how they will meet Maori aspirations, partnership, and practice.

Particular care should be given to bicultural issues in relation to empowerment. Adults working with children should understand and be willing to discuss bicultural issues, actively seek Maori contributions to decision making, and ensure that Maori children develop a strong sense of self-worth. (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 40)

However, 18 years after implementation of that curriculum document, which determines to protect te reo Maori and which promotes language of "opportunity, respect and relationships" (Nuttall, 2013, p. 3), many students entering teacher education still have limited skills, knowledge, and/or understanding related to achieving a framework that recognises te ao Maori. In order for these education students to acquire the skills, tolerance, and interest to analyse their critical involvement in the application of biculturally inclusive centre policies and practices, we believe they must first acquire "a disposition of respect for [all] children and their families" (Ritchie, 2010, p. 3) and an understanding about social justice.

The New Zealand Government considers the education system to be world class in respect to bicultural relationships and understanding between Maori and non-Maori (MOE, 2008b). However, the Crown is more than aware that Maori children lag behind their counterparts (see for example Education Review Office [ERO], 2008, 2010, 2012; MOE, 2009, 2011b). While the Ministry of Education has developed a number of guidelines and initiatives over the years that detail the early childhood education sector's commitment to bicultural development, advancing from pedagogy that promotes colonial values is difficult.

But these assumptions are moot points with respect to society in general and education in particular. Since Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840, significant numbers of Maori, and some Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent), have pointed to the fallacy of biculturalism throughout many areas of society and noted the deficit practice in education (ERO, 2008, 2010; MOE, 2009; Skerrett, 2007; Waitangi Tribunal, 2010). These commentators have long expressed concern that educational structures and processes deny many Maori opportunities to succeed, and wide-ranging assessment data collected over a good many years indicate Maori learners in Aotearoa/New Zealand are over-represented at the lowest end of the educational achievement range (Airini, McNaughton, Langley, & Sauni, 2007; Hattie, 2003).

Reviewers also point out that this process has been achieved through the deliberate practice of cultural denial, which has historically undermined the validity of Maori language and culture (Mikaere, 2011; Milne, 2009; Simon, 1998). Past and current practice means that many Maori children have been and still are being disengaged and dislocated from their cultural identity, beginning with their earliest involvement at early childhood centres and schools (ERO, 2008, 2010). As Milne (2009) argues, this is a tradition that serves to actively destroy the self-esteem of Maori students. This is not to say that nothing has been done in an effort to redress this situation. Aotearoa/New Zealand has in place a host of legislation, policies, and documents that are embedded within our educational structures. In the main, however, they appear to be insufficiently acted on or not acted on at all. These materials include the already mentioned Te Whariki, Graduating Teacher Standards, and Registered Teacher Criteria, as well as the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 (MOE, 2008a).

We also acknowledge that, over time, more and more Pakeha have come to recognise how important it is for Maori to be active leaders in their own destiny, especially as the right for Maori to do this was guaranteed at the time of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Clark & Grey, 2010; Jenkin, 2009; Ritchie, 2008). There is an increasing appreciation of the need for Maori to be empowered within their own culture, and for Maori to take leadership roles in "matters Maori." Educational and family-oriented organisations, such as Puriri Whakamaru, Women's Refuge, Te Kohanga Reo, Nga Tamatoa, and others, have for some time been at the forefront of revitalising Maori cultural development. However, our experience is that the sovereignty of what is taught and how continues to lie with Pakeha processes.

Our early insights into the reality of biculturalism in Aotearoa / New Zealand wove together to form a kete (basket) of knowledge that impelled us to work within the systems that make the decisions about what is valuable, what is taught, and how it is taught. Our path toward this goal began with family-oriented educational initiatives, such as Playcentre, Puriri Whakamaru, and Te Kohanga Reo. We realised that if we wanted to see changes, we would need to involve ourselves at a political level, not only to help formalise documentation that would instil Maori rights in education but also to work towards ensuring that those rights were implemented in practice by all teachers in Aotearoa/New Zealand. We were informed and encouraged by the initiatives mentioned above, each of which was initiated and grounded in political activism, as well as by others. A brief overview of the development and aims of some of these agencies exemplify our own seekings.

Te Kohanga Reo (Maori language nests) were initiated in 1981 and developed by the Department of Maori Affairs because of Maori concerns about the depletion of te reo Maori. Te Kohanga Reo philosophy is that centres are immersed in the home language. They are also whanau (family and extended family) based, meaning that parents and caregivers learn within the centre environment alongside their children. The first kohanga reo opened in 1982 in Lower Hutt, just outside New Zealand's capital city of Wellington (www. content&id=4&Itemid=10).

Puriri Whakamaru evolved because of endemic "racial imperialism" (hooks, 1982, p. 121) within the Playcentre movement. (Playcentre is an early childhood education service that runs as a parent/whanau cooperative with an emphasis on child-initiated play and parents as first teachers). For Maori whanau within the movement, racial imperialism meant that Maori were destined to be involved in Playcentre on the terms of the white majority. Puriri Whakamaru began in 1989; initially made up of Maori women, it was later extended to Maori men. The group contested for the recognition of a Tiriti-based relationship for Maori families who worked and played in Playcentre. Adamant that Maori whanau knew what was best for Maori children and adults, we and the other members of Puriri Whakamaru wanted Maori to have access to the funding pool so that we could make decisions about issues that affected us. Above all, we wanted Maori to be empowered to lead Maori.

After 10 years of navigating the grounds for recognition and funding, Puriri Whakamaru as it was collapsed nationally because of disagreements (both within the group and outside of it) about what self-determination means for indigenous peoples. It was evident that the managing body was not quite ready to allow Maori to practise true tino rangati-ratanga (Maori making and implementing decisions for Maori). These are some of the experiences that have informed and guided our involvement within preservice teacher education today.

We consider that our nation could be and should be further along in its bicultural journey than it is, as do others (see for example ERO, 2008, 2010, 2012; Jenkin, 2009; Milne, 2009; Ritchie, 2013). We would not have expected that 20 years after our initial foray into the political arena of education and the hard and often alienating work that was done in those formative years, our grandchildren's lack of access to bicultural environments would reveal a country that has barely left the starting line toward true biculturalism.

Our mokopuna (grandchildren) still cannot hear, see, feel, taste, and know that their culture, language, and ways of being are valued and appreciated by all early childhood centres in Aotearoa/New Zealand, a fact evidenced in the research of Clark and Grey (2010), ERO (2008, 2010), and others. We therefore hope that the programme of research we are about to describe will allow greater understanding of the dispositions, knowledges, and development that are needed for us and others to provide quality bicultural education programmes in preservice teacher education that ring true for our children, and their children.


The study that informs this article developed out of our concern over our student teachers' lack of commitment to true biculturalism once they graduate. But we are equally concerned by the large proportion of our students who enter preservice education with insufficient cultural capital to readily apply biculturalism. It takes some time for students to appreciate that the monocultural attitudes they have brought with them to their new learning environment need to be replaced with skill at and commitment to working in a biculturally safe manner. The process of taking these students on a journey to reach new understandings and commitment can be fraught with difficulty and frustration for both students and teachers (Ritchie, 2013). Maori language is not (as yet) compulsory in early childhood education, or in primary or secondary schools (Hill, 2010; MOE, 2011a). It is unsurprising, therefore, that students, in our experience, are entering teacher education programs with a divergent range of abilities, knowledge, and understanding about the place and importance of te reo Maori me nga tikanga. In our opinion, the expectation that a student teacher will attain this learning within their three years of study in order to fulfil the expectations of the Graduating Teacher Criteria is, in many instances, a romantic and naive anticipation.

We invited all the students in our first-year intake for 2011 to answer a questionnaire. We asked those who opted in to recount their past experiences with te reo Maori and te ao Maori. We wanted to know about their attitudes about te ao Maori, and we constructed the questionnaire in a way that we hoped would help us understand why they held particular attitudes (positive or negative) and how these might or might not translate into their ongoing cultural and language learning during their studies and once they had graduated.

Ethical approval for the initial (i.e., pilot) study was applied for and approved through both of the contributing institutions, and has again been sought in relation to the next stage of it. The University of Canterbury is a public tertiary education institution, and Rangi Ruru Early Childhood College is a private tertiary education facility. We followed students from these two institutions in order to compare questionnaire responses from students in the two main communities (i.e., public sector and private sector) providing early childhood teacher education in New Zealand. Some funding for the study has been procured from Ako Aotearoa, a national organisation that is committed to excellence in tertiary teaching.


Of the 133 student teachers we invited to answer the questionnaire, only 16 did so. (3) Their ages ranged from 18-54, the majority were women, and nearly all identified as Pakeha. The main themes to emerge from the questionnaire responses follow.

Students' Understanding of Biculturalism

Questionnaire returns showed that 68% of the respondents understood biculturalism to mean two, not many, cultures. The comments thus demonstrate confusion around biculturalism and multiculturalism, and indicate that some students had no opportunities to learn about biculturalism before entering the preservice program.

While most students in the pilot questionnaire agreed that the New Zealand society should be bicultural, we found a range of understanding about what "bicultural" actually means. Take, for example, the question, "Think about the word 'biculturalism.' What comes to mind? List as many ideas as you can think of." Many students noted correctly that biculturalism could include two cultures being observed and celebrated together side by side, both being accepted but leaving space for people to choose either or possibly both without judgment. We did identify some misconceptions about the word, however. For example, some students thought biculturalism might mean all the different cultures that live within a country.

The students' emotions and values relating to biculturalism also varied. Positive aspects included the perception that biculturalism was accepted in Aotearoa/New Zealand with enjoyment and pride. Others found biculturalism to be challenging, particularly highlighting that it felt too enforced with too much emphasis on ancestry and protocols.

Students' Knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi

In response to Te Tiriti o Waitangi queries, students' knowledge and understandings were diverse. While it was not always clear if their concerns relating to the treaty were written from the perspective of students agreeing or disagreeing with the terms of the treaty and how these had been implemented in practice, it would seem that anything less than a good understanding of the rights and responsibilities that are held within Te Tiriti o Waitangi impacts on students' engagement with and implementation of treaty principles during their study and on into their pedagogical practice. Overall, the responses indicated that the majority of students had experienced some formal education about the Treaty of Waitangi, most likely in their school social studies curriculum. They knew, for example, that it was and is an agreement between Maori and the Crown in regards to land ownership, and that it is New Zealand's founding document signed in 1840.

The words "Tiriti o Waitangi" elicited strong and emotional words and phrases from some students, a number of whom showed an inclusive and positive disposition, such as that it was a good thing because it brought two cultures together, representing harmony and a sense of belonging. Other students thought Te Tiriti o Waitangi resulted in an uneasiness, and they used words such as "violence," "disrespect," and "anger."

The students showed a diversity of understanding about the purposes and scope of the treaty. One student, for example, wrote about the exciting opportunities the Treaty of Waitangi offers all peoples in Aotearoa / New Zealand, while another claimed that the Maori make unrealistic claims (to, for example, their rights) based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

Students' Experiences With and Attitudes About the Maori World

We were keen to know what previous "Maori" experiences the students had before entering teacher education, as we thought this might help us to better understand their responses and align them with what we taught them. Almost half of the respondents had attended a Maori language course: the time allocated to learning the language varied from a brief introduction course of three hours to two-and-a-half years of high school study. Twenty-five percent of the students indicated they had no experience of Maori culture before entering tertiary education. Of those who had experienced Maori culture, half said that this was through a school visit to a marae (Maori meeting house and area). From our knowledge of such visits, these were likely to have been no more than a one-day event or an overnight stay once or twice per year. It seems reasonable to conclude, even though our sample of questionnaire respondents was small, that many new student teachers have had little, if any, experience of Maori language and culture before entering their preservice education.

Most of the questionnaire respondents seemed to understand why there is an expectation to learn te reo Maori. They thought, for example, that children would accept it as normal and an everyday occurrence if language is encouraged at a young age. And they also thought that te reo Maori should be a cherished language, because it is native to our country and because having a second language would be a worthwhile skill.

Students also noted their hopes for their tertiary education and study in terms of acquiring greater cultural and language knowledge, with the majority saying they would like to know the true meaning of biculturalism and what this meant for them as teachers. But they also wanted to have an understanding of "other" cultures, not specifically Maori culture. Most students said they did not fear participating in events about te reo Maori, but they did tend to be concerned about not pronouncing the language correctly. And most students said they would like to be able to converse and understand te reo Maori; some said they would be happy to learn and then maintain a basic level of language competency that included vocabulary about colours, numbers, and shapes.

Twenty-five percent of the students did not think that all lecturers should include te reo Maori in their programmes. Although they thought that children and student teachers should learn te reo Maori, they said that not all teachers should have to use the language.


The Next Steps

Further work is required so that students discover the connection between legislation, policy, and practice. While Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its articles inform what should be occurring in teacher education and student teacher practice, the Maori Language Act 1975, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 also guarantee New Zealanders the right to bicultural and bilingual knowledge and practice. This legislation also aligns with New Zealand's Human Rights Act, which works in the interests of Aotearoa/New Zealand's ethnic minorities and newcomers, as well as, of course, other specific groups within society.

In education terms, students' attitudes to a Maori world view and language is without doubt a product of New Zealand not only having no specification of the level at which teachers should be speaking and teaching te reo, but also what is introduced and implemented in relation to Maori culture and our country's history and how it is introduced. In the United States, hooks (1982) protested the lack of relevancy of her schooling given the issues of racism she witnessed around her. Likewise, the patriarchal and imperialistic education system in New Zealand presented (and in many cases continues to do so) history in terms of Captain Cook discovering New Zealand and Maori as cannibals who did not look after the land and who lived to fight and kill each other. These myths still abound. We suggest that this historically deficit rhetoric and misunderstandings in relation to te ao Maori (including the language) partially explains why one in seven of our respondents stated that learning about Maori culture should be optional. This finding also tallied with the pattern of attitudes that we have encountered over the years amongst our students in the Maori language and culture courses that we teach, especially those offered during our students' first year of study (see also Ritchie, 2013). These long-held beliefs and practices take time to change. Teacher education programs have a wonderful and important opportunity to be influential in the progression of bicultural and bilingual understanding.

The findings in relation to the significance of students knowing, understanding, and using te reo Maori demonstrates, we think, the importance of student teachers learning about second language acquisition and teaching in a way that makes clear to them how what they do can serve to revitalise and maintain the Maori language for all New Zealanders. We also consider, in this regard, that it is vitally important for students to hear and see all tutors and lecturers, other than only Maori, speaking te reo Maori while positively and openly discussing and theorising Maori cultural beliefs and practices.

The students' responses align with our observation that a good number of secondary schools in Aotearoa/New Zealand are not fully informed about their obligations with respect to biculturalism in education. If schools did honour this requirement, we could expect to have students who come from a much stronger starting position in that regard. Because these students will know the expectations required of them prior to applying for positions as student teachers, they would already have a commitment to embrace the principles of biculturalism and thus the aspiration to develop themselves in this way. Therefore, career advisors should realise the expectations and requirements regarding te reo Maori me nga tikanga (bicultural competence) when advising students. Secondary school teaching staff also need to be competent in te reo Maori me nga tikanga, and resources that support high-quality and culturally responsive interactions should be available. The experiences, understandings, and values of all stakeholders in educational provision impact on bicultural development.

The data collected thus far will be just some of the information that will drive our four-year project. The pilot study has given us an early appreciation of the different thoughts and experiences that first-year student teachers hold about biculturalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand immediately prior to commencing their preservice study. The findings confirm our experience that many students are entering study and teacher training without a strong knowledge or understanding to support their progression in te reo Maori, tikanga, and culture. However, we need to complete our anticipated longitudinal study to give greater certitude to this thought.

In the first instance, we recommend that the initial findings from our project be a focus for discussions at our institutions' academic board meetings. An analysis of current practice and how Maori content and knowledge will be instituted across our respective campuses, so that all staff reflect positive dispositions and personal commitment to bicultural inclusion, should be undertaken. We envisage all staff who teach preservice education will be developing themselves to operate from a position of mindful and practical bicultural engagement, with the final outcome being biculturally and bilingually inclusive early childhood teachers.

We believe that associate teachers and their attitudes are highly influential to a successful bicultural curriculum. Associate teachers support students while they are on placement in centres, putting their newly learned skills into practice. At times, the lack of cultural capital and knowledge can allow for students to think that their commitment to bicultural matters can be optional.


The New Zealand Government has taken many positive steps to improving the bicultural sensibility in the country. There is, for example, much more emphasis on students learning te reo Maori me nga tikanga each year of their three-year degree. Advocates who have promoted adherence to the intention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi have helped formalise policies and processes that will strengthen this area, including such documents as The Graduating Teacher Standards (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2007).

Students' hearts could be warmed to biculturalism if all of their classes engage with and promote bicultural programmes. Williams, Broadley, and Lawson Te-Aho (2012) contend (and we agree) that "teachers need to acquire further knowledge of kaupapa (Maori ideology); and they need to know their own culture before bicultural understanding can be embedded in early childhood contexts" (p. 4). We agree that while some students continue to view work and instruction in te reo Maori as an issue of compliance, the implementation and acceptance of it remains a challenge that can be navigated.

As teacher educators and researchers, we are driven by the fact that, although Maori are fewer in number than Pakeha in the country, Maori are tangata whenua (the indigenous inhabitants of Aotearoa / New Zealand). Effective methods and strategies to biculturally develop each sector of society, especially in terms of education, should be incorporated into our systems. This will not happen by wishful thinking. It will need careful attention at the grassroots level. Jenny Ritchie's articles (2002, 2003, 2008, 2010, and 2013) focus attention on this premise. By creating equitable opportunities that support the conscientisation and focus of students, teachers, and colleagues to the benefit of cultural competency, it will become more likely that our children, both Maori and Pakeha, will reach their full potential in an education system that could be seen to be fair and truly progressive.

Of particular interest to us as researchers will be the final survey of the students who have now been in their teacher training programme for three years. We hope that we will learn from them the types of interventions and strategies that have supported their development and strengthened their belief systems and commitment towards cultural competency and literacy.


Airini, C., MacNaughton, S., Langley, J., & Sauni, P. (2007). What educational reform means: Lessons from teachers, research and policy working together for student success. Journal of Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6, 31-54.

Clark, B., & Grey, A. (2010). Ata Kitea te Pae: Scanning the horizon. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Ltd.

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

Education Review Office. (2010). Success for Maori children in early childhood services. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Education Review Office. (2012). Partnership with whanau Maori in early childhood services. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Forsyth, H., & Leaf, G. (2010). Te Tiriti o Waitangi and biculturalism in early childhood education. In B. Clark & A. Grey (Eds.), Ata kitea te pae: Scanning the horizon (pp. 30-35). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson.

Hattie, J. F. (2003). New Zealand education snapshot: With specific reference to the Years 1-13. Paper presented at the Knowledge Wave Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Hill R. S. (2010). Teaching te reo Maori as a second language in primary schools: Two case studies. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(3), 35-49.

hooks, b. (1982). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. London, England: Pluto Press.

Jenkin, C. (2009). Bicultural meanings: What do practitioners say? NZ Research in ECE Journal, 12, 95-104.

Mikaere, A. (2011). Colonising myths, Maori realities. Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand: Huia Publishers and Te Takapu, Te Wananga o Raukawa

Milne, A. (2009). Colouring in the white spaces: Cultural identity and learning in school. Auckland, New Zealand: ASB/ APPA Travelling Fellowship Trust.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whariki: He Whariki matauranga ma nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2008a). Education (early childhood services) regulations 2008. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from /public/2008/0204/latest/DLM1412501

Ministry of Education. (2008b). Pasifika education plan: 2008-2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka hikitia--Managing for success: The Maori education strategy 2008-2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2011a). Charter checklist. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from www.minedu. /CharterChecklist.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2011b). Tataiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Maori learners. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2007). Graduating teacher standards: Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2009). Registered teacher criteria. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from

Nuttall, J. (Ed.). (2013). Weaving Te Whariki (2nd ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.

O'Loughlin, M. (2009). The subject of childhood. New York NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Ritchie, J. (2002). Bicultural development: Innovation in implementation of Te Whariki. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(2), 32-37.

Ritchie, J. (2003). Bicultural development within an early childhood teacher education programme. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11 (1), 43-56.

Ritchie, J. (2008). Honouring Maori subjectivities within early childhood education in Aotearoa. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(3), 202-210.

Ritchie, J. (2010). Being "sociocultural" in early childhood education practice in Aotearoa. Early Childhood Folio, 14(2), 2-7.

Ritchie, J. (2013). Te Whariki and the promise of early childhood care and education grounded in a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whariki (2nd ed., pp. 141-156). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.

Simon, J. (Ed.). (1998). Nga Kura Maori: The Native Schools system 1867-1969. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

Skerrett, M. (2007). Kia Tu Heipu: Languages frame, focus and colour our worlds. Childrenz Issues, 11(1), 6-14.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2010). Te Reo Maori: Pre-publication Waitangi Tribunal Report 262. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from scripts/reports/reports/262/056831F7-3388-45B5-B553-A37B8084D018.pdf

Wen-Li, K. E. (2010). A new juncture in indigenous--The impact of the experience of Maori education. US-China Education Review, 7(9), (serial No. 70).

Williams, N., Broadley, M.-E., & Lawson Te-Aho, K. (2012). Nga Taonga Whakaako: Bicultural competence in early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.


(1) A partnership model "is a true expression of Crown-Maori partnership" (Waitangi Tribunal, 2010, p. 53), with shared and valued relationships between peoples.

(2) A total of 1,182 early childhood services are considered to be Maori language immersion or bilingual services. Staff in 710 of these services speak te reo Maori between 12-80% of their teaching time. The other 472 services are considered immersion, which means that Maori language is spoken over 81% of the time during the programme (www.educationcounts.govt. nz/statistics/ece/55282). To look at the figures another way, 27% of staff in services speak over 12% of the time in te reo Maori, 18% speak between 12 to 80% of the time, and 72% speak under 12% of the time. These services could be operating monolingually (no Maori is spoken) or they could be using single words, such as those relating to numbers, colours, and directives. But what is particularly concerning is the position of our mainstream services, where only 18% of services achieve a bilingual status.

(3) Christchurch experienced a 6.3 earthquake the day questionaires were to be delivered to students at one of our institutions (22 February 2011). Despite numerous efforts to engage students in the study, we were unsuccessful.

Hence, the first round of responses have been used to inform a pilot project; the responses have aided in further developing the questionnnaire for the project proper.

by Diane Gordon-Burns, and Leeanne Campbell

Diane Gordon-Burns is Lecturer, College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Leeanne Campbell is Bicultural Adviser and Tutor, Rangi Ruru Early Childhood College, Christchurch, New Zealand.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Association for Childhood Education International
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gordon-Burns, Diane; Campbell, Leeanne
Publication:Childhood Education
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:8NEWZ
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Previous Article:Beyond pinatas, fortune cookies, and wooden shoes: using the world wide web to help children explore the whole wide world.
Next Article:"P" soup: creating healthy school environments through culture audits.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters