Otras fuentes de información secundaria sobre SI/T

A review of the literature revealed that Māori teachers, nationally, are often faced with prejudice, animosity and negative attitudes from their colleagues, school management teams and Boards of Trustees. An analysis of the data, collected during this research, also recorded incidents in which research participants described being confronted and challenged by colleagues and/or school leaders on matters of cultural difference within the school. A lack of critical awareness of tikanga Māori was the cultural misunderstanding most frequently cited by participants. Some participants responded to these collegial misunderstandings or collegial ‘ignorance’ as some of them put it, by facilitating professional development sessions for their colleagues and school leaders. In each instance, this reflected an attempt, by the participants concerned, to alleviate their colleagues’ levels of cultural misunderstanding. However, in each instance, this extra work was not factored into their workloads.

Such misunderstandings largely contributed to the research participants’ feelings of ‘burn- out’ and professional isolation. Additionally, these misunderstandings were not dissimilar to those described by Mitchell and Mitchell (1993) and research later conducted by the Ministry of Education (1999). This ongoing, nationwide trend of cultural misunderstanding within ‘mainstream’ schools raises questions, again, about the implementation of the New Zealand Teachers Council’s criteria for registered teachers and school leaders. Moreover, the frequency and nature of the cultural misunderstandings encountered during this research raise questions about the implementation of the Ministry’s strategy for Māori education (Ka Hikitia) in the Waitaha region and, possibly, elsewhere in New Zealand.

As stated previously, Ka Hikitia advocates “Māori (students) enjoying educational success as Māori” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 18). It is difficult to see how this goal will be achieved if Māori teachers frequently feel misunderstood and/or undervalued by their non- Māori colleagues because of their differing cultural worldviews. The devaluing of Māori culture in the participating schools raises questions about the implementation of the Crown’s

principles of ‘partnership’, ‘active protection’ and ‘participation’. These principles have been integral to the Crown’s principles for action on the Treaty of Waitangi (Hayward, 2009). Likewise, the apparent failure to successfully apply these principles in the six participating schools has international implications. As a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the New Zealand Government must adhere to the articles of the Declaration (particularly Articles 13 and 15, in this instance). Given the nature of the cultural misunderstandings experienced by the Māori teachers outlined in this research, it was not surprising to find that they felt professionally isolated from their non-Māori colleagues and, in some instances, their schools’ Māori communities.

6.2.4 Professional isolation

Many of the participants highlighted the difficulties they faced when trying to collaborate with non-Māori colleagues, share resources, and maintain strength as the sole Māori teacher in their school. The isolation felt by all of the research participants extended beyond their professional duties. For the majority of the participants there were no other fluent speakers of te reo Māori in their schools. So, the opportunity to speak te reo outside of the classroom, and/or at a higher level of language proficiency, was limited. The participants spoke of what could be described as a form of cultural isolation, whereby the social interactions with many of their non-Māori colleagues were not necessarily antagonistic, but based on fundamental cultural differences. This tendency aligns with prior research. Archie (1993), Livingstone (1994), Marks (1984) and Mitchell and Mitchell (1993) have all documented Māori teachers’ feelings of professional isolation.

The Māori teachers in this study were limited in their ability to collaborate with like-minded Māori colleagues who understood the professional and cultural dilemmas they frequently encountered in their respective schools. However, all of the teachers who participated in this research drew much support from an informal network of fellow Hōaka Pounamu graduands. Therefore, the participating schools, and other stakeholders with an interest in this research, may like to consider the possible establishment of a more formalized support group for all Hōaka Pounamu graduands in the Waitaha region. Ideally this on-going support group could extend support to all Māori teachers in the region. I would propose that this network should receive financial and technical support from the Ministry of Education, Ngāi Tahu and the University of Canterbury.

Given the lack of research exploring the needs of Māori teachers in other regions, it may be possible that Māori teachers elsewhere would also benefit from some form of similar regional partnership, based on the Hōaka Pounamu collegial support model. Similar collaborative models could involve local whānau, hapū, iwi, universities, polytechnics, wānanga and the Ministry of Education. Such groupings would have the potential to provide ongoing pastoral care and support relevant to local and regional needs.

The Crown’s apparent failure to provide adequate in-service professional development opportunities for teachers, in the Waitaha region, appears to have led to large numbers of non-Māori teachers depending on their Māori colleagues. This advice and support is often sought in cultural settings where they, themselves, should be displaying their competency as ‘bicultural practitioners’, as required by the New Zealand Teachers Council criteria for registered teachers and school principals. In addition, Māori teachers who participated in this research did not appear to be receiving adequate professional development opportunities to be able to support their schools to implement the goals and vision of the New Zealand Curriculum or the overarching Ka Hikitia strategy. Moreover, the teachers interviewed felt professionally and culturally isolated and complained of professional ‘burn-out’ as a result of cultural taxation.

The professional isolation of these teachers leaves Māori knowledge in danger of being systematically marginalized and Māori students in danger of seeing their culture ignored or trivialized in the curriculum. This, again, has the potential to significantly undermine the intent of the Crown’s strategic plan for Māori education (Ka Hikitia) in the participating schools. Moreover, it raises questions about how widespread this problem is, on a national basis, given the similar research findings of Mitchell and Mitchell (1993) and the Ministry of Education (1999). This ongoing, and seemingly widespread, trend, also contradicts the Crown’s principles of ‘active protection’, ‘partnership’ and ‘participation’. It brings into question the sincerity of the New Zealand government’s commitment to fulfilling its ethical, moral and legal obligations to assist Māori communities to revitalize, develop and transmit their language. This is, after all, clearly specified in Article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (see section 6.1.1 of this chapter). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, plus elsewhere (see chapter five), the participants were very clear that their greatest sources of support came from other Hōaka Pounamu graduands who had graduated in the same cohort as themselves.