Construcción de la parentalidad

Long held Maori dissatisfaction with the status quo in education became part of the argument against the welfare state used by the Treasury in its 1 987 Brief to the Incoming Government. The Hunn Report had drawn attention to discrepancies between Miiori levels of school achievement and those of Piikehii a ful l twenty-seven years earlier and the Hunn Report was not alone. Miiori representations to Government and a raft of investigations into Maori educational progress had resu lted in a series o f reports but little action. John Barri ngton had earlier noted the under representation of Miiori in the sixth forms and in higher education, and foresaw the implications of such a pattern for future race relations ( 1 966: I ). In his view, the social and economic divisions between Maori and Piikehii were the result of the

interaction of a number of factors "affecting the establ ishment of schools and intluencing the major policies and practices govern i ng their operation" (ibid).

A National Advisory Committee on Maori Education (NACME) struggled to get attention for the reports it provided to Government. For example, the main focus of a 1 970 Report was an attempt to press for bil ingual education as an antidote for earlier assimilationist educational pol icies 1 0 . Whereas Hunn had made reference ten years

earlier, to integration as the focus for Government policy, rather than assimilation, NACME had at least seen the purported change from assimilation to be more cosmetic than real and attempted to recognise the existence of Maori cultural and l inguistic differences by suggesting changing teacher attitudes and modifications to the curriculum.

It is essential that the Maori child's self image be enhanced by his knowledge that cultural differences are understood, accepted, and respected by all with whom he associates. The Committee has accordingly emphasised that steps ' should be taken within the education system to ensure a growing understanding of Maoritanga, including the place given by Maoris themselves to the Maori language. It is also important that Pakehas, particularly children and teachers, be made more aware of the cultural values that fonn an essential part of the Maori way of life in a changing society. (NACME, 1 970:3)

While the committee was made up of eight Maori and nine Pakeha, it did establ ish a working party w ith gre�ter numbers of Maori on it.

From a community viewpoint, Governments appeared to view the reports themselves as the desired outcome without commitment to changes recommended within them. A later progress report on the outcomes of the Hunn Report ( 1 968) noted that numbers of pre-school institutions had been set up, possibly directly resulting from conclusion 6 of the Hunn Report, which said that "Kindergartens and Play Centres are needed in Maori areas". The progress report though, did note that "unfortunately the numbers of Maori children participating has not increased as rapidly as one would

1 0

The National Committee on Maori Education (NCME) was set up I n 1 955 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Education, and Included Maori representation. The Advisory Committee (NACME) was set up as an Interdepartmental Interface In 1 96 1 as a

result of recommendations of the Hunn Report. ., '

hope for" ( 1 968 : 1 3). This pattern-of seemingly good in�entions but little real change typified government management of Maori education.

A 1 977 Review of the Depal1ment of Miiori Affairs undertaken by Kara Puketapu, i nc luded a recommendation that Maori opinion should be gauged as part of the ex.ercise (cited in Irwin, K. 1 990: 1 1 3). The first of such Hui, it is stated, was held in Waiwhetu in 1 979, and at that Hui, S ir lames Henare challenged the gathering to prioritise Te Reo Miiori and find ways to support it (ibid). The next year, the idea gained impetus as a resolution was passed "for Miiori Affai rs to take responsibility for the organisation and implementation of Te Kohanga Reo" ( 1 990: t 1 5) . The first Kohanga Reo t t was opened at Pukeatea in Wainuiomata in 1 982, two years before the

fourth Labour Government came to power. J ust three years later, there were 4 t 6 Kohanga attended by more than 6000 children (cited in Waitangi Tribunal, 1 986, Te Reo Nfaori Report, p.12). Parents who chose the Kohanga Reo option not only had to take part in the running of the Kohanga, but there was also a charge on the parents for their children's attendance.

No responsible government could fail to notice that Miiori had taken matters into their own hands in respect to educational provision through the medium of Te Reo Miiori and in ex.actly the area cited by the Hunn Report and by the NACME 1 970 Report, namely Pre-School education, that had proved to be so elusive when policies were about engaging Miiori children in English language, non-Miiori Pre School education. From 1 982, the Kohanga Reo movement had blossomed and by the time the Labour Government was into its second term, the first Kura Kaupapa Miiori were under way .. 1 2

Their impact was such that no report of the time could ignore the initiatives. For Maori, the major problems were the lack of government funding for the initiatives,

1 1

1 2

Kohanga Reo were established as child care centres wherein the language of communication would be Maori only. 'the whanau centres will provide the highest level of child care and In addition will ensure New Zealand has bilingual children at the age of tive year.' (Working paper, "Te Kohanga Reo" July L 982, p.8).

Hoani Waititi ( 1986) at the Hoani Waititi Marae in West Auckland was the first Kura Kaupapa to be established.

and the multiple demands on whiinau who made the commitment to Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Maori. There was a substantial whanau cost in time and money for participation in a non- government funded choice. In the best Kohanga, whanau members were totally committed to the use of Te Reo Maori in their homes to support the progress of the Kohanga and Kura. The commitment was made regardless of the magnitude of the task. For some parents it meant learning Te Reo Maori from their children, for others further development of language skills already present by attending classes after work in their own time. For a minority, it meant the opportunity to educate their children in their first language. The aims of the Kohanga and Kura movement were for cultural survival and revival not economic revival. Because of that emphasis they had a strong community orientation, creating strong communities around the development of each new centre.

Outside of education, economic summits were held in Wellington to examine first the general state of the economy and then specifically, Maori in the economy. It seemed,

appropriate that there be an equivalent for education, and i n 1 984 a Miori Education Development Conference was held in Ngaruawahia to look at the issues and potential solutions.

Maori and Treasury concurred over the need for schools to improve their record in the discharge of responsibilities and this concurrence was used by Treasury to support their agenda for change but not as support for a Maori agenda. Both Treasury and Maori were engaged in what Gerald Grace has referred to as an ideological manoeuvre in policy discourse:

An ideological position makes constant use of a particular form of language which it attempts to naturalise in a commonsense way. If that language is accepted, taken up and used without question, an important· part of that ideological position has already been assimilated. ( 1 990:32)

The ideological position being constructed by Maori was that education should normalise Te Reo Maori me ona Tikanga, Maori language and custom. That Maori could expect to be able to attend school to study through the medium of the Maori language should be commonsense, as taken for granted as it would be for English speaking children to attend English language medium schools. The Government

Reforms with their emphasis on choice could hardly decry the Kohanga and Kura movements when elements of the philosophy so clearly overlapped except to the extent that one was about individualism and personal benefit, the other about Maori community well being and progress through cultural restoration.

For Maori, participation in general schools was guarded; professional staff were seen as experts and therefore due a measure of respect for their positions. Without a large community population, Maori election to school governance positions was sporadic rather than consistent and without representation in the decision-making arenas of the school, Maori concerns could effecti vely be overlooked. Over time, Maori participation i n school life had improved and performance rates were growing but for whanau members there was a cultural cost to school success. Every Maori child i n a general school faces the dilemma of identity retention i n the face of strong assimilative forces inherent in the organ isational and informal cultures of the school.

The neo-liberal reforms may have been more about preparing schools to adapt to workforce development for the needs of a newly deregulated market economy than an alleged desire to maximise community participation, particularly in respect to increasing Maori participation. Whether the reforms made any substantive difference to educational participation for Maori is debatable because Maori needs, although they formed part of the j ustification for the refom1s, were accorded very little place in respect to the solutions reached. Three policy documents emerged as a result of a change i n government emphasis: Before Five, in regard to pre-school children,

Tomorrow 's Schools for the Primary and Secondary sector, and Learning for Life for

the tertiary sector. As previously stated, by the time the reforms were at implementation stage, Kohanga Reo had made i ts presence felt and the policy document took note of that level of demand. For the following two statements however, apart from an option to opt out of unsatisfactory school arrangements if 2 1 disaffected children and their families could be found, whanau needs were not the focus. Two key forums designed to provide for parents and communities to exercise their collective voice, the Parent Advocacy Council and the Community Education Forums, were disestablished, leaving people without a formal avenue for collective debate and action. Few Maori were able to take up the option to gather 2 1 disaffected children and thei r families in order to set up more suitable schooling arrangements. In

part, the choice went against Maori values because it required the designation of existing arrangements as unsatisfactory, no matter how well intended the individual schools may have been. The families did not have the right to opt out because they envisaged something more for their children that existing schools could provide, instead they had to show how existing arrangements were less than satisfactory.

Section 3.2. 1 of Tomorrow's Schools stated that "opportunities be made available to parents who wish to have their children learn, or be educated in the Miiori language" but like Taha Miiori before it, school compliance in respect to this right, was more than uneven. The precursor to Tomorrow 's SchooLs was the controversial Picot Report, Administering for Excellence, the Report of the Taskforce to Review Education Administration ( 1 988). Miiori who participated in the consultations leading up to the Report, had said that they

wanted their children to be bilingual and bicultural, and as well, to have the

\ opportunity to be educated in the Miiori language, in an environment that reflects Miiori values and uses Miiori forms. ( l 988:xiii)

In the view of the authors, "it is clear that the revival of the Maori language is seen not as an end in itself, but as the key to lifting the educational performance of Miiori children". (ibid) These del iberations resulted in the Taskforce concluding that their key deliberation in regard to Miiori aspirations would be the mandatory nature of the school charter, in which schools must operate according to a charter drawn up in consultation with local groups and approved by Government. Tomorrow 's Schools

went on to state that the whanau will be able to have access to and participate in education through individuals within the whiinau being eligible for election to the board of trustees, and through a close partnership established when a charter is negotiated or being reported on to the community.