What have we learnt about racism in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Dr Angel Chan (University of Auckland) and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie (Victoria University of Wellington)

Originally posted on NZARE |

In our recent publications, we have used Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Indigenous pedagogies of place, and the superdiversity approach to analyse and critique teacher education and early childhood education in Aotearoa and inform pedagogies. These articles aim to promote diversity, inclusion, social justice and cohesion. They also examine the complex relations between Tangata Whenua and migrants, and between biculturalism and multiculturalism. While we have critiqued the assumption of white superiority and the privileges Pākehā have been enjoying, knowingly or unknowingly, the word “racism” does not often appear in our work. This is because 1) ‘race’ is a construct with no basis in science; 2) the various forms of discrimination are interlinked. Someone racist is also likely to be sexist, classist, ableist, anti-Muslim, anti-semitic, and so on – someone who harbours prejudices against anyone different in the way s/he looks (e.g. skin colour), speaks (e.g. accent), acts (e.g. headscarf, turban). These discriminatory attitudes serve to protect one’s self-interest, sense of superiority, power, and privileges.

We write in response to hate crimes/incidents such as the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, recognition of racism in our health and policing systems, and the recent Human Rights Commission report on COVID-19-driven racism and xenophobia experiences in Aotearoa. We also highlight some implications for practices. 

Histories of discrimination

Discrimination against Māori and Chinese people in Aotearoa is nothing new. Māori have endured ongoing breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi resulting in the widespread loss of lands and language, exclusion from educational opportunities, and socioeconomic marginalisation. A recent analysis found that the impacts of this historical oppression are ongoing:

The findings support the lived reality of Māori that racial and other forms of discrimination are pervasive, and experienced in multiple domains across the life course, representing a persistent breach of rights. It is critical that other forms of discrimination are measured alongside racism in order to understand and address the realities of multiple discrimination for Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand (Cormack, Harris & Stanley, 2019, p. 106).

The Chinese community in Aotearoa have also faced longstanding racism, as seen in the poll tax (1881-1944) on Chinese migrants and other anti-Chinese policies. Chinese were considered the unwelcome ‘aliens’. The arrival of thirteen Chinese females in New Zealand in 1907 sparked discriminatory public concerns - that there would now be New Zealand-born Chinese children and that these children would be raised in the Chinese way (Ip, 2002).  It was not until 2002 that the New Zealand government officially apologised to the Chinese community for the discriminatory poll tax.

The recent resurgence of racism

The 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks is the biggest hate crime in recent history in Aotearoa. One year after the attacks, sociologist Distinguish Professor Paul Spoonley wrote, “Far-right extremists still threaten New Zealand”; and two years after, Law Professor Alexander Gillespie asked, “How much has really changed?” Ironically in 2021, on the same day of the mosque killings, Newshub reported that a Pākehā man told a family to “go back to China” and referenced the Moriori in an attempt to give the family a sadly misguided New Zealand history lesson.

The recent report published by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Te Kaikiri me te Whakatoihara i Aotearoa i te Urutā COVID-19: He Aro Ki Ngā Hapori Haina, Āhia Hoki | Racism and Xenophobia Experience in Aotearoa New Zealand during COVID-19: A Focus on Chinese and Asian Communities, reveals an emergence of COVID-specific racism, targeted mainly at Asians, particularly Chinese communities. Tangata Whenua and Pacific Islands respondents also reported COVID-19-related discrimination experiences. 

Some racist attacks are perpetrated by non-Pākehā since anyone can be biased and discriminatory. Still, there is a pattern – people targeted and blamed a specific collective group. The late Cultural Studies scholar Stuart Hall argued that identity is socially and culturally constructed to create boundaries to support inclusion and exclusion. His chapter 'Who Needs Identity?' is particularly relevant for cultural workers such as teachers. As early childhood teacher-educators, we ask: ‘What is the role of teacher education and early childhood education in embracing differences, promoting respect, social justice and cohesion, and preventing further hate crimes in the future, similar to those recently occurring in the United States?’

Translating policies into pedagogies for social justice

All registered New Zealand teachers are now required to demonstrate their engagement with the Teaching Council’s Code and Standards, which call us to attend to human rights and social justice. Furthermore, one of the four core values for the profession is PONO: showing integrity by acting in ways that are fair, honest, ethical and just. The Council’s Code of Professional Responsibility requires teachers to promote and protect the principles of human rights, sustainability and social justice, demonstrate commitment to Tiriti o Waitangi, and foster learners engagement in issues important to the wellbeing of society. Actively countering racism and fostering anti-racist attitudes fall within this purview.

Two recent policies from the Ministry of Education, Ka Hikitia-Ka Hāpaitia and Te Hurihanganui contain a strong focus on the need for teachers to address racism. For example, one of the five key outcomes of Ka Hikitia-Ka Hāpaitia is Te Tangata: Māori are free from racism, discrimination and stigma in education. We believe these anti-discriminatory expectations should be applied to supporting all those social and cultural groups that are often marginalised and subordinated. It is not sufficient that teachers be merely non-discriminatory. They need to be pro-active role models in challenging any forms of negative stereotyping, injustice and bullying, and in encouraging children to do the same. Teachers should create an environment where differences are normalised and celebrated for the richness that they contribute to our learning communities.   

Dr Angel Chan is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland. Her teaching and research aim at promoting social justice and cohesion by supporting teachers to develop equitable and inclusive pedagogies to work with diverse families. Her research areas include: early childhood education, culture and identity, sociology of childhood, transnational parenting, critical multicultural education, and superdiversity in education settings.

Dr Jenny Ritchie is an Associate Professor in Te Puna Akopai, the School of Education, at Te Herenga Waka, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her research and teaching focus on social, cultural, and ecological justice in early childhood care and education.

Exploring a Future World with Students

Dr Simon Taylor, University of Waikato

Originally posted on NZARE |

School curriculum has been criticised for lacking authenticity in terms of a future focus and having little to do with issues relating to living in a future world. James Dator, a Hawaiian futurist argues that future-oriented thinking should be incorporated into all subjects, and that learning programmes ought to provide opportunities for students to discuss and design their own future. I too, have pondered the question, Do we give students the time, resources, opportunity to identify and pursue their own vision for the future? I believe it is critical that as educators we ensure that every student develops the steps and strategies to not only achieve their dreams but to envision their own future. The following are some examples of how to explore a future world with students.

Learning outside the classroom

Many schools in New Zealand provide education outside the classroom (EOTC) programmes, for example through field trips to museums, industries, shopping centres, and other places in the local community. These environments are used to develop student’s understanding of the past and present world, but I see this as a wonderful opening to envisage a future as well.  There is evidence to show that opportunities to understand a community provide a springboard for effective student interaction, dialogue, and agency to design and create future ideas. We know that students come to school with pre-existing conceptions and misconceptions of what a future could look like, however, new understandings can be developed when students share their views and knowledge about outside-of-school environments. This opportunity is sometimes missed and could easily be incorporated into an outside classroom experience.

Making models

An inquiry process designing and building a diorama model of a future house and community can emphasise communication and argumentation, and this moves students’ thinking forward through specific forms of talk. Diorama modelling can locate the learner in an imaginary habitat, where personal perceptions of scale and role-play are employed as sensory experiences. A key strategy to modelling is to encourage student autonomy and agency, through physical co-construction of a diorama, envisioning homes and a community in which students and their families would want to live in the future. This can probe students’ knowledge in a unique way, using talk and composition as a window into their developing knowledge about their future. The photo below depicts a diorama model designed and built by a group of Year 9 students of how people could live in the year 2100.

Why modelling?

Learning to model a future involves making meaning of representations, and engaging with symbolic depictions of real issues set in real contexts. Modelling is a competency for students to manipulate illusionary spaces where they can develop new solutions through the process. This can open conversations with teachers about the notion of students being future citizens, where they have the opportunity to develop innovative solutions and initiate their own questions.  These strategies provide students with increased opportunities to interact with teachers, peers, experts and scientists, and hence contribute to a shift in power relationships between teachers and students.

Taking action is empowering for young people

Taking personal action to envision a future is to acknowledge that action begins with personal reflection, and where there is awareness of alternative viewpoints through dialogue.  A criticism of some school programmes is that the topics can be heavily focussed on content knowledge and specific skills, rather than giving students an opportunity to explore a range of perspectives involving a real issue or context.  At times, traditional subjects in schools can tend to focus on the content behind the issue, without properly equipping students with the ability to create meaningful action or change in their learning. More in-depth knowledge of an issue does not necessarily create motivation to change a problem. This could create a sense of hopelessness in students. I believe one way for learners to develop competencies to create meaningful change is for them to identify the problem or issue for example: Petrol fuelled cars are to be phased out for the future. Students next steps are to develop an understanding of the root cause of the issue. This often includes societal/cultural/economic factors, or car use behaviour/ public transport perceptions. Students then develop strategies for change involving community/collaborative input. Teachers can explore with students opportunities to encourage cooperation, analyse power relations, and link to political/sociological studies. Finally, students are enabled to develop an alternative vision of the future. Investigating how other cultures/places address issues, can motivate students to enact change close to home.

Developing a preferred future

Rather than ‘doom and gloom’ outlooks, students could develop knowledge from all curriculum areas, and consider a wide range of future scenarios to emphasise that the future is not “fixed” or inevitable. One issue for teachers to address with students is the fact that contemporary and national economic systems are premised on the idea of continued economic growth, in order to keep the cogs of the economy operational.  However, the planet’s resources are limited, and the true environmental costs of current human economic activities, including the costs to future generations and to other species, are not accounted for. Ultimately our current behaviour is not sustainable. This suggests that students and indeed all people, need support to collaborate, create, and envision their preferred futures, and develop their thinking around alternative models for humanity to adapt and thrive in any scenario they are faced with in the future.

Dr Simon Taylor is a Lecturer at the Tauranga campus of the University of Waikato, and he teaches in the secondary initial teacher programme. His research interest lies in the areas of science education, student perspectives in secondary and tertiary environments, futurist learning, youth empowerment and education design.

Exploring Collaboration in Action: Kahukura Community of Practice

In the End "The Hope of Decolonization"

Moana Jackson

Context counts: Using culture as a lever for equity in mathematics

Article posted on Ipu Kererū

Bronwyn Gibbs, Massey University

New Zealand’s education system is ranked as one of the worst in the world for equitable outcomes. Deficit theories, systemic bias, and assumptions that mathematics is culture free are all detrimental to Māori and Pāsifika learners. Interventions typically focus on “closing the achievement gaps”, and students, their families, and communities are framed as the problem to be fixed. Instead of expecting Māori and Pāsifika students to perform within a system designed to perpetuate the status quo, what happens when we draw on students’ cultural capital in the mathematics classroom?

My Masters research

The aim of my Masters research was to explore the ways Māori and Pāsifika students represent and generalise culturally located algebraic patterns. I chose algebra because it functions as a gatekeeper subject. Without opportunities to succeed in algebra (for example, due to being streamed into low-expectation classes), Māori and Pāsifika students have fewer avenues to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. In the United States, equitable access to algebra has been demanded as a civil right due to the doors it opens to higher education, economic, and citizenship opportunities.

In the New Zealand context, Māori and Pāsifika peoples have a rich history of algebra in geometric growing patterns. However, in mathematics classrooms, students are much more likely to be presented with algebraic problems involving decontextualised visual growing patterns rather than tasks drawing on the mathematics embedded in cultural contexts.  

Above: Māori tukutuku panel

Above: Samoan ngatu pattern

A group of Year 7 and 8 Māori and Pāsifika students from a low socio-economic, urban primary school took part in this design-based research. The students participated in a series of eight algebra lessons, using problems involving growing patterns from familiar cultural contexts.

For example:

This is the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position of a growing ngatu pattern.

How many stems and leaves will there be for the 7th position?
What about the 13th  position?
What about the 47th position?

Can you show how the pattern grows in different ways?
Can you find a rule so we know how many stems and leaves there are for any position number?

What I found

I found that when Māori and Pāsifika students were given opportunities to draw on their cultures to make sense of challenging mathematical tasks, three things happened.

(1) The students developed increasingly sophisticated and abstract representations and generalisations.
Students initially thought about the growing patterns in concrete, factual ways. They represented them by counting or drawing the variables:

By the end of the series of lessons, these Māori and Pāsifika students were thinking abstractly, using letters as variables to express generalisations symbolically:

(2) The students showed significant growth in the ways they represented and generalised both culturally contextual and decontextualised growing patterns

The pre and post-assessment data indicated that the culturally contextual tasks scaffolded students to sense-make from familiar to abstract ideas.

(3) The students strengthened their cultural and mathematical identities 

When cultural contexts were known and meaningful in the problems, students felt empowered as learners and doers of mathematics. These Māori and Pāsifika students shared their cultural expertise, and learnt about the cultures and traditions of each other through the tasks. For example one student reflected:

“It’s challenging as. It’s exciting. It made my brain twist. We were solving a problem about a Samoan fala and my parents are Samoan and so it made me feel like an expert. When people try and solve a problem about my culture I feel comfortable and strong about my culture in maths. I think when people understand what my culture is about it makes me strong too. And you learn some things about other cultures. I learned that some of them they have some of the same names as our things. When Maia was talking about the ili, the fan, that’s what we call it too. And the titi. We call it that too.”

Why these findings are important

New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse, and Māori and Pāsifika peoples are two of the fastest growing population groups. For our education system to enable every student to meet their potential, we must challenge deficit perspectives of Māori and Pāsifika students and build on the cultural knowledge and strengths students bring to mathematics. Recognising the inherently cultural nature of mathematics is a key lever for equity.

Bronwyn Gibbs is a mentor with the Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities (DMIC) team, providing professional development to teachers involved in the DMIC project. Prior to becoming a mentor, Bronwyn was a classroom teacher in an urban Wellington school.

Te Tai Treaty Settlement Stories

A programme aimed at increasing understanding of the past by exploring Treaty settlements and their enduring impact.

Te Tai is presented by iwi and Manatū Taonga

Ka whānau mai te reo

By Nicola Bright, Alex Barnes and Jessica Hutchings

• Cultural Capability
• Cultural Responsiveness
• Decolonization
• Education in Aotearoa
• Educational Leadership
• Equity
• ERO
• MAC Media
• MAC Research & Evaluation
• MOE
• NZ Government Agencies
• Racism in Aotearoa
• Te reo Māori
• Te Tiriti o Waitangi
• Unconscious Bias
• White Privilege

MACs Evaluation Snapshot

Prepared by Dr Melinda Webber, University of Auckland 

TED TALK Peggy McIntosh: Ho to use your white privilege - and use it to fight inequality

Many of us believe that we're living in a meritocracy, deserving of what we have and compassionate toward those with less. But that's not true: white people have been given a headstart and ongoing advantages due to the color of their skin, while people of color suffer from equally arbitrary disadvantages, says scholar and activist Peggy McIntosh. She explains what led her to recognize her privilege — and how it can be used by those with power to ensure a fairer life for others.

This talk was presented to a local audience at TEDxTimberlaneSchools, an independent event.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Peggy McIntosh · Anti-racism activist, scholar

Peggy McIntosh is an anti-racism activist, scholar, and Senior Research Scientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women. She is the founder of the National SEED Project (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity).

Pakeha And The Treaty - Why It's Our Treaty Too

Published on SCOOP Monday, 10 May 2004, 1:27 pm
Opinion: Pat Snedden

The following paper in response to Don Brash's Orewa speech was presented last Friday night at a public meeting at St Columbas Church Hall in Ponsonby, Auckland and about 200 people turned up, a mix of Pakeha, Pacific, Maori and for the first time, a significant number of Asian New Zealanders in the audience.

Pakeha And The Treaty - Why It's Our Treaty Too.

A Pakeha reflects on 30 years work with Maori Communities
A talk at St Columba's on Friday 7 May 2004
By Pat Snedden

I had not thought in this talk tonight that I would say much about the foreshore and seabed. Positions for and against the legislation are so polarised at present that it is difficult to see what could be added that might suggest a different way this issue may be tackled. But some of you may feel justifiably short-changed if I didn't at least give you my view of some of the principles on which this matter might be advanced even though the Bill has now had its first reading.

So let me do so briefly. I would take you back to a talk I gave to the seabed and foreshore hui at Waipapa in February this year. The hosts wished for a Pakeha perspective and I obliged. My view has not changed since.

To deal with this issue we must return to the spirit and principled approach of our founding charter. Most importantly, the time must be taken to reach a result that leads to the enhancement of mana (honour, dignity and respect) of all participants. If either Treaty partner wins at the expense of the other then the issue will not be solved. If we have learnt anything in this last thirty years, it is that the past for Maori, is never forgotten.

What is more, all New Zealanders must be able to understand the substance of the resolution and a broad consensus will need to be gained in support. It will need popular sign-off by the people. It is a moment for the cultural and historical education about our nationhood, not a return to active denial of our history.

So how might the parties act in this matter? The Crown could acknowledge that it has not extinguished aboriginal title and could explicitly recognise Maori rangatiratanga in this matter and confirm support for the 1840 manawhenua position of tangata whenua in respect to foreshore and seabed

- Tangata whenua could acknowledge the unfettered sovereign right of the Crown to govern and the unfettered right of navigation and the non-commercial access to the seabed and foreshore for all New Zealanders.

- The Crown could invite Tangata whenua with manawhenua in a region to jointly manage the seabed and foreshore exercising their obligation jointly with the Crown of kaitiakitanga (guardianship).

- Tangata whenua could clearly agree that where there exists possible commercial development of the seabed and foreshore, those with manawhenua who have an explicit and beneficial interest would have to submit to conflict of interest provisions, and not vote in such matters.

- Tangata whenua would acknowledge that in the matter of commercial development of the seabed and foreshore they have no more or less than the same rights provided to all New Zealander citizens..

- Finally any solution must confirm the basic founding principle of our collective security as a people. That we can all expect to be treated the same way under the law and that we all have access to the law in the in a fair and transparent manner.

And what might such a resolution achieve?

. The Crown will have confirmed with absolute clarity its sovereign right to govern in all matters without qualification and all New Zealanders will have regained certainty about their unfettered access to the foreshore and seabed.

. Tangata whenua will have experienced their rangatiratanga as confirmed by the Crown, manawhenua recognised and aboriginal title retained. In addition their joint management of the resource is confirmed with the Crown in all matters of a non-commercial nature thus ensuring the appropriate exercise of kaitiakitanga.

. For all new Zealanders, the commercial opportunities are exactly the same.

. And all parties will have the same rights of access and protection under the law.

Ask yourself the questions. Do the current proposals in the bill before the house enhance the mana of all parties? Do they operate within a win/win paradigm? Can most New Zealanders understand them? Do they derive from recognition that we are all the same under the law? Will they in their current form lead to a durable solution?

If your answer is 'no' to any of these questions, then we might have a problem. The hikoi turnout on Tuesday suggests that one party at least to this process is naming that problem. It need not be so. We have the ability to constructively resolve this issue.

My challenge to New Zealanders, most particularly my fellow Pakeha, is simple. Let us commit to a fair and equitable resolution. We have it in our power to do so.

What does this say about us all belonging within Aotearoa/New Zealand? The conduct of this debate does bear on our knowledge of our cultural selves, our history and our Treaty. It goes right to the heart of our sense of belonging, particularly as Pakeha. A recent experience of mine will illustrate what I mean.

A couple of months ago I called a cab to go to town. The driver made to head off in a direction that I didn't expect. E te alu ifea? (Where are you going?) I said in my best and only Samoan. He nearly leapt out of his seat hearing this from a palagi and we both fell about laughing. How had been his morning, I asked. Busy, he replied, taking people to the cricket test at Eden Park.

Oh, the Pakeha hui, I said. What do you mean, he responded with eyes raised. Well, it goes on for five days, everybody gets fed at least twice a day, there's lots of controversy, for long periods nothing seems to happen and then suddenly people seem to be at each other's throat. In the end they shake hands and mostly it ends in a draw. Sounds like a hui to me, I said. He had the grace to chuckle.

There's only one place in the world where that conversation could have taken place and be understood inclusive of all its cultural nuance. That place is here.

That therefore does it say about belonging?

Let me talk more of Eden Park. My great grandfather, Alexander Snedden was one of six Auckland businessmen who in 1903 purchased the swamp, drained it and turned it into a sports ground. Such has been our continuous connection over four succeeding generations that when members of our family played at Eden Park at either rugby or cricket, it was hard to escape the feeling that with this sporting whakapapa we had home advantage!

Now not all Pakeha have this same sense of ownership about our country. I read a commentator recently suggest Don Brash's speech at Orewa tapped at a very emotional level the sense of Pakeha feeling "strangers in our own land". In short we need to reclaim our sense of belonging.

Brian Turner wrote recently in the Listener asserting a deep and intimate Pakeha connection with the land, a connection denied he believed by many Maori, including Ranganui Walker, to whom he was responding. When Walker says, "I have been here a thousand years. You arrived only yesterday" Turner objects. This view, he says, very clearly denies a similar depth of feeling to almost everyone else. He fundamentally disagrees with a presumption about the way in which non-Maori feelings for land and water are dismissed as less heartfelt, less sensitive, less spiritual.

So am I, as a Pakeha, indigenous? Well, emotionally yes and technically no. For me to claim my 140 years of direct ancestry here is a source of pride and this is my home. But can I fairly claim to be indigenous in the same way as Maori who have been here from around 1300 AD? To do so would be to sideline 500 plus years of Maori experience prior to my forebear's arrival. What's more my forbears were not the first people to settle here, an important element of the definition. So to claim to be indigenous in the same way as tangata whenua is unfair and technically it is not factual. And if there is one matter that we need to do today is to stick to the facts.

But nor do I wish to tug my forelock in this matter. As Pakeha we claim our belonging through being descended from the settlers who agreed the Treaty. The same Treaty that by joint agreement of tangata whenua and tauiwi, gives all subsequent migrants and their communities the right to call this place their own. The importance of this cannot be understated. It was the Maori Land Court Chief Judge Durie in 1990 who first described Pakeha as tangata Tiriti, those who belong to the land by right of the Treaty. It is our unimpeachable security, our right to belong passed from generation to generation.

On one side of my family my migrant ancestors arrived at Port Albert near Wellsford in the 1860s. They became farmers. At the Port Albertland wharf there is a plaque thanking Ngati Whatua for their assistance in settlement and acknowledging that without that they would not have survived.

Today we are shaped by a set of cultural reflexes toward the land, our environment and as my taxi driver conversation shows, the interaction between Maori, Pakeha and Pacific peoples that exists nowhere outside of this place. And increasingly, especially in Auckland, our population is playing host to many new communities and will continue to do so. For the vast majority of us tauiwi, most especially Pakeha, we no longer have a bolt-hole to escape to anywhere else in the world that accepts us as their own. I have visited the heart of my Irish and Scottish roots and except for the most surface of acknowledgement they did not see anything of themselves in me nor me in them.

I am here in Aotearoa New Zealand for good because I have nowhere else to go. And I am content with that.

My view is that it is this concept that so many of us post-Treaty migrants have emotional difficulty with. We passionately and intuitively know we are not strangers in our own land, but we are unresolved as to how to describe ourselves.

Resolving this will help us deal with this current debate. Denying the distinct and different world-view of our Treaty counter-party will not satisfy this need. At present my observation is that Pakeha (and for that matter many new migrants) look at the Treaty as being not our Treaty but their Treaty, a method of leverage for resolving Maori claims. So once we finalise their grievances the relevance of the Treaty will be no more.

How much more satisfying would it be if we all claimed and acknowledged our own sense of belonging, different but authentic to its core, Treaty-based in its origins? Then this discussion would be quite different. The Treaty would become our Treaty and our behaviour in relation to the principles of that Treaty would be inclusive not exclusive.

How can we deal then with different worldviews or indeed a dual worldview? We need this confidence in 'belonging' if ever we are going to relax about the different world-views that sometimes separate tangata whenua and tauiwi. The foreshore and seabed debate is the current point of tension. Why is this the case?

In the last week two examples may help us point to an answer.

The Sunday Star times carried a report of a poll that found Pakeha believed themselves more likely to experience racism in this country than Maori, but less likely than Asian migrants. This result, I suspect, would have been news to most Maori.

As a working definition, one might describe racism as prejudice plus power. In short it connects the dislike of a person or group because of their ethnicity with the ability to exploit that prejudice to the disadvantage of that person or group.

************

I don't in my experience remember any anecdotal experience of Pakeha friends or family who couldn't get a rental property because of their ethnicity. I have never heard of Pakeha not being able to get a bank loan because their ethnicity comes into the higher risk category relative to other borrowers. Nor have I read a news report of a Pakeha not being allowed to speak in court in the English language or say prayers in their own language at the hospital bedside. I don't remember hearing about a situation when members of my own ethnicity have been prevented from applying our cultural manners or standards of politeness in the welcome of strangers or colleagues into our business meetings or public gatherings.

By now you will got my general point. So what perceptions might this poll on racism be about? On a common sense basis it is hard to match its conclusions with the available evidence. So is it talking about something else then going on within the perception of Pakeha?

Is this indeed reflecting a view that some individual Pakeha are missing out versus some individual Maori? In cheaper primary health care perhaps, or in scholarships to medical school? Do we think Maori are getting preferential treatment from WINZ or Housing NZ? Is the idea of 'closing the gaps' a litmus test of this sort of racial preference?

Before I attempt to answer this let me go to my second example.

On the same day as the poll report I attended the opening of a new wharekai at Pukaki marae in Mangere attended by Dame Te Atairangikahu. There were perhaps 500 people present, 10 of whom were Pakeha. This was an occasion for the affirmation of manawhenua (tribal authority within a region) by the collective represented by affinal based kin groups known as tribes (iwi) or sub-tribes (hapu). This form of collective activity is happening every day in the Maori world, but as I had cause to reflect, it is only tangential to the world of those who are not Maori.

Here we have some of the clues to the puzzle.

There is a Maori world in existence that operates within collective structures (iwi/hapu) and has at its core expressions of rangatiratanga (chiefly authority/trusteeship) and manawhenua (tribal authority within a region). These collectives relate to other Maori and to the Crown and all its agencies in a way not paralleled with any comparable Pakeha cultural institutions and they have done so since 1840. What's is more these collective structures exist in perpetuity.

They are recognised by Article Two of the Treaty which explicitly affirms and acknowledges this leadership of the collective (rangatiratanga).

Pause to consider the impact of this for a moment. If those opposed to the Treaty deny rangatiratanga, it is an inescapable extension of that same logic that they are denying their own legitimacy to be here. For it was precisely by exercise of this collective rangatiratanga on behalf of their tribal groups that the chiefs consented to being a party to the Treaty with the British sovereign. Without explicit recognition of this rangatiratanga, so obvious both to their own kin groups but also to the British Government representatives, a Treaty could not have been agreed in the way that occurred.

As tauiwi we have an obligation to recognise rangatiratanga, because it provided us with the corresponding right of citizenship of this country. Clearly a subsequent denial of this legitimacy is not what any of us want. Nor should we be afraid of the implications of such recognition, which requires first and foremost acceptance and understanding, not the wholesale transfer of resources.

However our previous practice in this matter has not always been exemplary. Most Maori collective structures have for over a century prior to 1975 been largely ignored by the Crown, or dealt with remotely, through the Courts. Their presence has not therefore resided in the hearts and minds of our received Pakeha historical consciousness with anywhere the same force as they reside for Maori.

So therefore as a nation, when we come to pass judgement on the nuances of an issue like the foreshore and seabed debate the Pakeha mind goes to the rights, privileges and obligations of individuals and assumes this include Maori as well. Conversely the Maori mind goes to goes to the rights, privileges and obligations of collectives, and for Pakeha this counts as an extra, a benefit not available to themselves, a second bite of the cherry.

Perhaps it is not surprising therefore, that Pakeha start to feel Maori are getting one over them. But are Maori to blame for this sense of imbalance?

How does rangatiratanga work?

I suspect at the heart of this Pakeha sense of imbalance is this fear of rangatiratanga or tino rangatiratanga as it is often most commonly expressed. What could this mean if it is not a direct attack on the Crown's right to rule, the subtle undermining of the 'one law for all' concept?

In recent times it has been usual to juxtapose Maori sovereignty with Crown sovereignty, both in direct competition for precedence. It does not have to be so. There is evidence that the original intent of the parties to the Treaty allowed for joint protection under the law but separate sovereignty over assets and taonga. If this was the case are there contemporary examples of this working today? The answer is yes.

The story I wish to share with you tonight turns on the examination of rangatiratanga exercised, lost and then recovered. My experience at Orakei with Ngati Whatua suggests such an idea is not beyond us. Some of you may have heard or read of my summary of the Orakei experience and the founding of Auckland previously. I will not repeat it here.

Suffice to record that Ngati Whatua o Orakei, the once proud people of the Tamaki isthmus, at 1840 holding sway over the whole of Auckland; the people who invited and induced Hobson to Auckland to form the seat of government; were reduced in precisely 112 years to a landless few living off the state. By 1951 they were without a marae on which to fulfil their customary obligations and were left with a quarter acre cemetery being the last piece of land they could tribally claim as their own.

In his second claim before the Waitangi Tribunal Joe Hawke outlined the case relating to the disposal of the Orakei Block, the land ordered by the court in 1869 to be forever inalienable. The outcome was unequivocally in their favour and Bastion Point in 1991 was finally transferred back into Ngati Whatua's hand by Act of Parliament. The area vested included the whenua rangatira now known as Takaparawhau park and the smaller Okahu Park comprising the original papakainga and the foreshore.

(How ironic. This vesting of the title to the foreshore at Okahu Bay was completed under a National Government!)

The first thing it did was to give a huge chunk of Bastion Point back to Aucklanders. That's right, they gave it back to you and me for our unimpeded use. I refer to the most expensive land with the best views in all of Auckland. The land where Michael Joseph Savage rests. Ngati Whatua agreed to manage this jointly with the Auckland City Council for the benefit of all the people of Tamaki Makaurau.

What therefore is it that enables a people who sought for 150 years to get some form of justice that recognised their cultural destitution, to react in their moment of triumph with such generosity to those who had dispossessed them?

What underpins such an act of munificence? To put it simply; the recovery of the hapu rangatiratanga. What therefore has changed since 1991?

In practical and contemporary terms the Ngati Whatua hapu at Orakei is now once more in control of their own affairs as defined and expressed through their own:

. socio-cultural activities (related to housing, education, health and marae based activities)

. economic development (especially joint ventures where external finance and development expertise would be joined to hapu land), and

.political relations (such as agreements with central and local government and regional institutions and organisations)

The 1991 Act meant the full and unfettered return of their marae. The hapu had the chance to rebuild their wharenui and improve their facility to offer manaakitanga (appropriate hospitality) to honour their obligations to others within their rohe (tribal area), both Maori and tauiwi. It also provided the cultural locus for the tangihanga (ritual farewell of the dead) for those who have passed on, an absolutely fundamental reflection on hapu mana.

The Act also foreshadowed potential for a comprehensive Treaty and currently Orakei is in direct negotiations with the Crown.

Its social development extended to reaching agreement with Housing New Zealand as the Crown agent on the transfer of ownership of 100 state houses in the early 1990s along with the attendant deferred maintenance and mortgage. A focus on educational achievement now sees the hapu claim tertiary educated graduates to Masters and PhD level across many disciplines whereas pre-1987 such numbers with first level degrees were in single figures. On another front health services have grown to the extent that Orakei is today the most extensive Maori primary health provider in the Auckland region.

The economic development potential unleashed by this statutory recognition of manawhenua has transformed the quarter-acre hapu of 1951 to a significant land-holder, including significant parcels of downtown Auckland. The Crown in this time has provided two separate allocations of funds. One of these, $3 million, came as an endowment with the 1991 Orakei Settlement. On a second occasion the Trust received financial consideration for lifting the moratoriums on surplus rail land when the railways were privatised for Crown profit in the mid-1990s. The Ngati Whatua commercial presence in the marketplace is now recognised as substantial and saavy.

Recognition of manawhenua re-introduced Ngati Whatua into the political and cultural life of Auckland via a structural relationship with the Crown and its agents. Such a reintegration is evidenced by Orakei now playing host to every significant dignitary visiting Auckland including the presidents of China, Russia and the United States. This kind of public recognition had been almost entirely absent in their experience from the late 1870s. Successive generations of the hapu had seen their land and taonga disappear and with it their tribal manawhenua, so critical to the practical exercise of rangatiratanga. Today the restoration of mana is plan for all to see.

It is therefore precisely the process of this recovery that has re-ignited the capacity for the exercise of rangatiratanga. An essential feature of this rangatiratanga is that it relates to the group, not to the individual. In this respect the coherence of the group is evidenced by its size, its leadership, its marae base, its facility for manaaki and its relevance to other Maori groupings of similar kind along with its political relations with the Crown (and/or its agents). This has determined its capacity to exercise rangatiratanga. It has reached a kind of cultural 'critical mass'.

All this has been achieved without threat to the Crown's right of sovereignty. If this is possible with Orakei, why is it not possible elsewhere? I believe it is.

Now what are the substantial and usually 'silent' achievements under a Treaty-based process that new Zealanders can be proud of but usually no nothing about?

Over my years of work with Maori groups and communities I have come to a critical awareness of a central proposition. When the Treaty is working well the nation is prospering, full of confidence. When it is a matter of fundamental strain between Maori and Pakeha we lose vital momentum as a nation. We are in one of these troughs right now. We have been there before and emerged. But it need not be the case.

There are plenty of examples where observing the mutual respect for mana inherent in Treaty lifts the performance and outcome for all New Zealanders. Let me take you through three examples.

In the last five years I have been involved in two of New Zealand's most capital intensive building programmes; the rebuilding of the waste water treatment plant at Mangere in South Auckland and the rebuilding of the Auckland City Hospital. These projects have budgets amounting together to just under a billion dollars. Both projects represented opportunities for the sponsors and tangata whenua to engage in constructive discussions to enhance the project outcomes for all New Zealanders. The outcomes have been stunningly successful.

In the 1960s when the Mangere oxidation ponds were built, consultation with Maori was perfunctory. As a result the outcome was awful. Foreshore disappeared, shellfish were poisoned by toxic outflow into the Manukau harbour, the birdlife went away and the hapu with the marae on the foreshore saw their access to seafood disappear.

Today, the result could not be more transformative. The rebuilding of the plant has seen as part of the whole package the restoration of the foreshore and the enhancement of the environment for all recreational users. The birds and the fish have returned. It is safe to harvest and swim again. And the Tainui hapu (Te Ahi Waru) at Makaurau marae has been intensively involved in the reconstitution of this wonderful piece of foreshore.

Why has this occurred? Because the Resource Management Act required it in the first place and secondly, Watercare Services recognised having local Maori with manawhenua in this area involved from the beginning could only be advantageous for everyone. No big cheques, no scandals, just respectful understanding that the Maori insight to be incorporated into restoration of the environment adds a dimension that enhances the outcome for all New Zealanders.

Auckland City Hospital has experienced something similar. The rebuilding of the hospital provided an opportunity to think about how a Maori worldview on health might enhance outcomes for all users of the hospital facilities. So Ngati Whatua were involved at the early planning stages. They made a dramatic difference to the design of the mortuary by introducing a place for families to gather with the deceased. They made simple suggestions about hospital design that provided for a 'tupapaku route', a method of allowing families to remove their deceased relative from their place in the hospital down to the mortuary out of the public eye. This has been a great relief for all users of the hospital. The Maori perspective on respect for the dead has been embraced by all because it adds a dimension from which all can benefit. The hospital has clear and dignified signage in English and Maori showing how to find services you are after. Small but important symbols that show by their presence that living with dual worldviews can be celebrated. It need not be feared.

A third experience relates to the work of Health Care Aotearoa. It is a primary care health network with 55 providers nationwide, over half of whom are Maori owned services. The other services are Pacific owned and trade union or community clinics. I have worked as their business consultant since 1994, the year of its founding. This is a bi-cultural, not-for-profit network that provides first level primary care for 150,000 patients, the majority of whom are on low incomes.

There are over 300 staff employed throughout the independent providers and they are all sign on aware of the Treaty thrust of this network. For many of them this is a new experience. It is very clear that most Pakeha do not have the on-the-ground experience of working and living in circumstances where a Maori view of the world is just as important and as relevant as their own, and where what's more, that view counts.

In the Health Care Aotearoa environment the experience, however messy, is the reverse. Maori views do count and do shape decision making along with Pakeha and the health outcomes for patients are steadily improving.

This teaches me at least three things. Firstly, a Treaty-based approach to managing our lives is possible and practical. Secondly, that it can produce for the most part better results. And thirdly, therefore, it need not be feared. What we have worked at in this last ten years to make ordinary and normal within Health Care Aotearoa is not replicated in the general community experience of Pakeha. And people without this experience fear it or expect the worse.

Yet the reverse is my constant experience. So often the right thing to do in respect to Treaty processes is manifestly the right thing to do for all people. Time and again.

So where does this all leave us, Pakeha in particular? Don Brash's Orewa speech and this government's foreshore and seabed bill have ensured that the health of our race relations are now being talked about at the dinner table. This is similar to the way the 1981 tour got into everybody's entrees complete with the on the street activism. While the resultant climate has managed to relieve many people of the need to suppress their prejudices and this has had some ugly consequences, not least in the parliamentary debate, another debate is opening up that is more potentially constructive.

One of the characteristics of this debate is that it is less a matter between bigots and liberals, but more between those who are actively trying to understand our history and those who don't think it makes a jot of difference. It's is not a debate the historians are winning at present.

Overwhelmingly those opposed to the practical and intellectual grappling with the Treaty and its consequences characterise themselves as 'forward looking'. The subtle pull of this appeal is that it allows for settlement of Treaty grievances and then closure. So they can claim to be retrospectively just, but constitutionally pragmatic. Now the grievances have been settled contemporary NZ does not need a Treaty.

What's more, the parliamentary political process in attempting to silence a part of the Maori contribution to this debate risks trying to marginalise it as fundamentally self-interested. Pakeha must take therefore responsibility for righting the balance in this discussion and resetting the tone.

Many Pakeha, even those who have been sympathetic to the Treaty and the supporters of Treaty application in public life, initially shrank from the blowtorch effect of the Orewa speech. In fact many supporters discovered that they didn't know enough to defend the positions that we had been silently advocating, especially when the conversational and political environment around the race discussion became toxic. This retreat from instinct occurred politically and well as personally.

Michael King provided many of us with a morale boost with his recently published history, now having sold over 70,000 copies. But his deeply sad passing has been an acute reminder that we all need to be confident in our grasp of our own nationhood and how it has developed, and not be so reliant on others. The need to know has become paramount for without the knowledge and the perspective offered by understanding of the Maori and Pakeha interface over the years, issues like the foreshore legislation are truly unfathomable, (no pun intended!).

This is a seriously challenging issue being handled at constitutionally breakneck speed. One hopes that the time for the mature reflection it needs will not be elusive. The opportunity for submission via the select committee needs to be taken. Getting this wrong will continue to be bad for all of us.

The difficult progress of this debate is a significant alert to those of us who feel intuitive empathy for a pathway to nationhood that has the Treaty as a clear and present sign-post. Maybe many of us have been intellectually lazy supporters of these Treaty processes because we saw them as right and just in themselves. We assumed they would just go on, mostly unchallenged. Well that is no longer the case. Informing ourselves to a greater degree is one way of meeting these new challenges.

On the way it is important to deal with some of the dross. The side issues that inevitably hamper debate about the substance, whist the form is endlessly discussed in the minor detail. Again consider the foreshore. Ask yourself which has received the most illuminating attention; the content of the bill or Tariana Turia's 'will she or won't she' stand on crossing the floor or creating a bi-election.

Most New Zealanders will have made their own judgements about Tariana's move but hardly any will have been well served with the kind of information that might inform their judgement on what motivated her to move or indeed what galvanised 20000 to join the end of the hikoi. Thus time and again irritation inevitably takes precedence over explanation.

So what can we say of the constant irritations that get under the Pakeha skin? A reasonable observer in touch with a range of our national media could be forgiven for thinking that it is open season on Maori. If it isn't alleged corruption with the setting up of a new prison, it's naked self-interest in parliamentary voting. If it is not Maori holding up developers over resource consents relating to waahi tapu sites, it's the distraught medical student's mother who has complained that a less talented Maori student has taken her child's place in medical school. If it's not the school that allows for the wearing of pounamu but not Christian crosses as jewellery then it's the primary health organisation that has 50% of its governance as Maori representatives even though the population of Maori is much smaller than that in the area.

The sub-text of this message is clear and simple. Being Maori in New Zealand gives you no special standing either individually or collectively. And if you don't believe it just stick up your head and see who waiting to lop it off for you.

Just what is going on here and how can it be dealt with?

Perceptions change governments. The Orewa speech altered the popular view of Dr Brash. The hikoi has tilted the political axis for both Labour and National. The political calculus of gaining and losing office is moving. There is a simple message here.

New Zealanders need exposure to new ways of seeing how the Treaty practically works in everyday life and how it adds value to our daily experience. They need to see and hear that this works and can work for all of us.

Further, Pakeha in particular need to actively encourage resistance to the everyday invitation in the media to demonise Maori because what they are portrayed as doing is aggravating us. Treat this for what it so transparently is: a one-sided portrayal of the people and the issues designed to present and elaborate on the conflict without insight as to the resolution.

I need to also say that part of our Pakeha apprehension and irritation relates to language. The Treaty language has been the codified text of the power elites on both sides of the equation. Brash's Orewa speech disposed of that codified level by (mis)representing many issues in plain unambiguous English. This struck a chord. Treaty supporters need to strike a similar chord in response. These matters are explicable. Let's explain them.

Finally, why not consider the simple strategy I have adopted which has been to use evidence, example and enthusiasm?

For instance, the PHO (primary health organisation) preference funding argument for Maori criticised by Dr Brash is evidentially wrong. More and more people when examining the detail of the policy and practice now know this to be true.

Conversely the contribution of Tainui hapu input to the wastewater treatment plant in Mangere results in stellar environmental and recreational outcomes for everybody. We need to celebrate this.

************

The example of the hospital 'tupapaku route' is another illustration, so respectful to all cultures. Just like the genuine treaty commitment within a network such as HCA which takes dual world views seriously and achieves better health results for all patients.

So too with the Orakei example of rangatiratanga. Ngati Whatua are beginning to flourish and so yet we build closer to an inclusive society where the benefits are more evenly shared, a sharp contrast to our recent past.

These are all practical down-to-earth responses that people can understand. It is then much easier to talk of Treaty principles and applications against the background of this common sense experience.

New Zealanders are in my view fair and reasonable in the long run. The current risks are higher than they have been for some years. But so are the opportunities for genuine breakthrough in our cultural appreciation of ourselves.

It is plain that as Pakeha we simply do not know enough about Maori and our own joint history. Ten years ago we could claim genuine ignorance. We cannot do that now.

I believe we must create a new more sophisticated paradigm if we are not to return to the tactical belligerence of the recent past. Such a test is ahead of us with this foreshore and seabed bill. Let's do our best to pass that test with creativity and genuine dialogue. Near enough will not nearly be good enough.

ENDS

*****************

Pat Snedden Email: sned.pub@ihug.co.nz PO Box 47-086, Ponsonby, Auckland

************

Glossary (how terms have been used in this paper)

. Pakeha - descendants of settlers from Britain and Europe

. Maori - descendants of tangata whenua (first people)

. Mana - honour, dignity, respect deriving from authority and control

. Aboriginal title - underlying title existing prior to extinguishment post-1840

. Rangatiratanga - chiefly authority exercising trusteeship

. Manawhenua - tribal authority within a rohe (tribal region)

. Tangata whenua - Maori, first people of the land (modern)

. Tangata Tiriti - non-Maori who belong to the land by right of the Treaty

. Kaitiakitanga - guardianship over resources

. Hikoi - step, deputation in support of an issue or for a defined purpose

. Whakapapa - genealogy by ancestral connection

. Tauiwi - descendants of all non-Maori, includes Pakeha and immigrants

. Hapu - sub-tribe of an iwi (tribal grouping)

. Marae - meeting place, locus of tribal mana

. Whenua rangatira - noble/chiefly land, undisputed ownership & control

. Manaakitanga - manawhenua obligation to offer appropriate hospitality

. Tangihanga - ritual farewell of the dead, funeral wake

. Taonga - tribal treasures

. Tupapaku - deceased person

ENDS

Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed Change in Stance, Terminology, and Practice

Educational Researcher, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 93–97

Author | Django Paris

The Enduring Effect of Exemplary Teachers of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Most Disengaged Secondary School Students: An Ideology of Hope

Rachel Maitland (Ngāi te Ruahikihiki, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāi Tūāhuriri) is Assistant Principal at a school that caters to learners sentenced or remanded by the New Zealand Youth Court to a Youth Justice residence.  

— This article was originally posted on NZARE

I watched the 2019 Rugby World Cup semi-final between the All Blacks and England from a pub in Australia. It was a rare and shocking defeat for the All Blacks, and following this, I observed New Zealand’s reaction to our boys bringing back bronze. For the next few days, my phone screen was flooded with notifications about the “devastating loss”. Third place. New Zealand was not happy.

At that stage, I was midway through writing my MEd thesis and, although I shared in New Zealand’s nationwide disappointment, the rugby result played on my mind for another reason. I had just come across a report looking at educational inequalities across 41 of the world’s high and middle-income countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and/or the European Union (EU). The report presented a glaring illustration of the dire gap between New Zealand’s highest and lowest achieving students with New Zealand ranked 33rd overall in educational inequality. That’s a whole lot worse than third place in a rugby competition. Despite a myriad of policies, initiatives, and strategies dedicated to the issue of New Zealand’s much-lamented tail of educational underachievement, this blight continues to thrive.

Risks of Disengaging from Education

Disengagement from education is strongly linked to poor physical and mental health, increased involvement in high risk activities including substance abuse and unsafe sexual practices, and is also one of the key predictors of youth offending. For the last 19 years, I have worked as a teacher and Head of Department in alternative education (AE), and as a teacher and Assistant Principal in a decile 1 state school delivering education to learners sentenced or remanded by the New Zealand Youth Court to a Youth Justice (YJ) residence. AE is a provision funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Education with a goal of catering to the educational needs of 14 to 16 year olds who meet specific criteria indicating disengagement from mainstream schooling. AE and YJ learners sit at the very end of New Zealand’s tail of underachievement, and represent New Zealand’s most marginalised communities and our most educationally disengaged secondary school students.

In my career, I have worked with a number of teachers whom I consider to be exceptional in their ability to engage the most resistant learners in the learning environment. Over time, I noticed these teachers had some interesting practices and intriguing characteristics, which inspired me to write a thesis on the topic.

Teachers are known to be one of the most significant factors influencing educational engagement. My thesis presents findings from a qualitative research project into the beliefs, practices, and knowledge of exemplary teachers of New Zealand’s most disengaged secondary school students. I had two research questions:

1. What are the understandings, beliefs and practices of highly effective teachers of at-risk secondary students?

2. What teacher knowledge, mindsets and strategies can help to engage Aotearoa New Zealand’s most educationally disconnected secondary students?

The research findings were presented using Sergiovanni’s (2007) head, heart and hand framework. Six generalised statements represent the key findings within each of the three dimensions, and are a compilation of direct quotes and ideas offered by the research participants.

The Head: What exemplary teachers of at-risk learners know:

Mātauranga: knowledge, wisdom, understanding

1. They know they don’t necessarily know how to teach the student sitting in front of them.

2. They know that what works well for these learners would work well in mainstream, and not the other way round.

3. They know themselves, and they consistently turn up as themselves.

4. They know their own personal and professional limitations, and are skilled at working within a collaborative team of other adults.

5. They know what is happening in students’ lives beyond the classroom, and strategically adapt their approach, curriculum content and anticipated outcomes to reflect this knowledge.

6. They know the risk.

The Heart: What exemplary teachers of at-risk learners believe:

Kaupapa: purpose, passion, vision, values

1. They love their work and believe that they can make a difference, but they do not think that they have been sent to save the world.

2. They believe that students are doing the very best that they can with the tools they have, and they do not personalise student behaviour.

3. They like their students, and believe their students are capable and competent and have mana.

4. They have empathy for their students, but they do not pity them. They have empathy but these people are not pushovers.

5. They challenge their own beliefs, the beliefs of the students, and they challenge the system.

6. They believe that there are many variations and models of life, and that there is no ‘one’ pathway or solution to achieve a life well led.

The Hand:  What exemplary teachers of at-risk learners do:

Tikanga: methods, techniques, practice

1. They build powerful relationships and connections with students, students’ peers, families, and communities.

2. They create a safe place, a place of refuge, a culture and climate that allows students to detox from the chaos in their lives.

3. They design resources and are resourceful.

4. They carefully tailor their approach to suit the relationship between the teacher and the student, enhancing the student’s mana never diminishing it.

5. They anchor students with a sense of belonging.

6. They create opportunities for fun and laughter, giving students a bank of happy memories to anchor them in tough times.

The findings of this research project regarding exemplary teachers of New Zealand’s most disengaged secondary school students suggest that more recognition and value be placed on distinctly different knowledge, mindsets and practices, such as teachers’ ability to disengage their ego, to see young people from a holistic perspective, to use time and space strategically, to employ mana-enhancing practices, and to challenge young people to see themselves and their world in a different light. It is hoped these findings provide fresh insight and food for thought regarding how the educational needs of disengaged learners might be met.

---

Rachel Maitland (Ngāi te Ruahikihiki, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāi Tūāhuriri) has a teaching career spanning almost two decades. During this time, she has worked as a teacher and Head of Department in alternative education, and as a teacher and Assistant Principal in a decile one state school delivering education to children and young people in state care.  Rachel is based at one of the school’s seven campuses educating 13 to 18 year old rangatahi sentenced or remanded by the New Zealand Youth Court to a Youth Justice residence. In 2019, Rachel was awarded a TeachNZ Secondary Teachers Study Award, and recently completed her Master of Education thesis at the University of Canterbury.

MOE : Tau Mai Te Reo: The Māori Language in Education 2013 - 2017

MOE : Whakapūmautia Papakōwhaitia Tau ana - Grasp, Embrace and Realise 2011

Ministry of Education: Conducting Excellent Education Relationships

ERO : Evaluation Indicators for Education Reviews in Te Aho Matua Kura Kaupapa Māori

TE RŪNANGA NUI O NGĀ KURA KAUPAPA MĀORI O AOTEAROA 2014

ERO : Framework For Review in Evaluation in Kura Kaupapa Māori Aho Matua

Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa 2014

THE CULTURE AUDIT: A leadership tool for assessment and strategic planning in diverse schools and colleges

Rebecca M. Bustamante

Values for New Zealand School Leadership - Literature Review for the Te Ariki Trust.

Susan Lovett, University of Canterbury

4D Education Review

AUTHORS CHARLES FADEL, MAYA BIALIK, AND BERNIE TRILLING

Leadership 2025: Transforming Capability

AUTHOR Mason Durie

Chair and guardian of Secondary Futures, Mason Durie, considers some possibilities for educational leadership in New Zealand in the next twenty years.