Te Tiriti and Identity in Education
This reflective statement follows
a simple framework that offers three approaches to understanding Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education. The as a means
of analysing and critically evaluating the discipline or learning area in
relation to the treaty:
- in relation to oneself
- in relation to the discipline
- in relation to the wider institution/industry
Relating to oneself
- what is my positionality
and identity?
- where am I in relation to Te Tiriti?
- how well do I understand the treaty – its history, context, articles,
provisions, and principles?
Ko wai au? Who am I in this context?
Understanding oneself is the starting point of examining the role of Te
Tiriti in my education context. Everything in education is situated, and both teachers
and learners each approach their mahi from their own cultural, social, and
political contexts (Wilson & Meyers, 2000). Reflecting on my own identity
and positionality:
I was born
in Ōtepoti/Dunedin and trace my tīpuna, on both my mother and father’s sides,
back to Scotland. My mother’s family have lived in Aotearoa New Zealand,
as far as I can tell, since the late 1800’s; in examining my whakapapa, I
realised that my mother’s side goes back three generations before me in this
country – further than I have always thought.
I am Pākehā, male, almost 50 years old, heterosexual, the de-facto
married father of two teenaged children. My identity is influenced by these
contexts which, though relational and complex, are not necessarily fixed (Martin & Van Gunten, 2002). My idea of the ‘self’ is
transient, and open to including new possibilities.
My narrative identity in
Education
The story
of my experience (McAdams, 2011) in educational institutions in Aotearoa is one
of success – I have always felt that I was smart enough to do well, both as a
student and professional.
I always
felt that I belonged within any educational institution I participated in. I
received my schooling in mainstream, predominantly Pākehā institutions in the
1980’s and early 1990’s. The teachers looked like my parents, learning content
spoke to my world of experience and prepared me for the big wide world, which
was also mine.
I heard
very little reo Māori, learned nothing of the marae, tikanga, or kawa.
Mātauranga Māori was barely reflected in teaching and learning content
throughout my whole education experience. Up until Teacher’s College, I did not
learn anything about Te Tiriti o Waitangi until my post-graduate diploma
in teaching.
As a
professional in education, I worked in the non-profit sector for 9 years before
joining Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa in 2019. My current roles in the university
include work as a Senior Curriculum Developer, Team Lead, and Kaiārahi Tiriti. I
have been studying towards a master’s degree for the last two years.
Over the years, I have moved towards a critical
consciousness. I moved from the magical consciousness of primary and high school
through to a naive consciousness (Freire, 2000) that began to form during my
early tertiary education. Even then, I felt this system was for me, and it rarely
occurred to me that anyone would feel they did not belong within it, were not
reflected in the teaching and learning.
Counternarrative & critical consciousness
As I continue learning, a critical awareness has been creeping in. I am
“developing, strengthening and changing (my) consciousness” (Montero, 2014, p.
296) and increasingly understanding the effects of this education system on
others who do not feel they belong, who do not see their worldview or
cultural understanding of knowledge reflected in the teaching approaches, the
learning content, learning outcomes, or assessment practices.
I now see myself
as part of the Pākehā hegemony, and I recognise
that I am a beneficiary of “Pākehā structural advantage” (Shaw, 2024), an education system
that ignored promises made in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and concentrated on educating
people like me – at the expense of the aspirations and inclusion of Māori (Walker,
2016).
I am increasingly aware of my obligations as Tangata Tiriti in this
country. My narrative identity has been reimagined (McAdams, 2011) to view myself as actively attempting
to honour the obligations and commitments made by my ancestors, specifically
through my changes to my teaching praxis. Moving
from conscientization to transformative praxis (Smith, 2005; Freire, 2000) requires
me to engage - intellectually and physically, emotionally, and even spiritually
- in a kaupapa that sits outside the worldview that has been reflected at me
throughout the entirety of my educational experience. As a Pākehā in Aotearoa New Zealand, I need to ask “what is the nature of the obligation incumbent upon those of us who have
benefited from colonisation?” (Shaw, 2021, p. 11)
I feel I am in the process
of being conscientized, but have I been conscientized enough? I have moved away
from a magical or naive consciousness (Freire, 2005), but there is always more
to learn. I recognise in myself the non-linear, layered nature
of moving into a critical consciousness and towards transformative praxis (Smith,
2005). Even as I learn, I continue to be oblivious to what I do not know in
this space, through the Johari window of my awareness (Luft & Ingham,1961). Maintaining an
awareness that there are blind spots in my understanding is essential in moving
carefully forward, careful not to trample on or inadvertently colonise the kaupapa
with my customary Pākehā-dominant mindset (Smith, 2012). Instead, I reimagine my
fluid identity as being in resistance to the hegemony that I am a part of,
reframing the narrative of myself to becoming the intentional opposite of an oppressor
of Māori in the education space (Freire, 2005).
Relating to the discipline
- where can
Te Tiriti provisions and principles be realised is this learning area/topic?
- what does equity look like in this space?
- what are hapū and iwi aspirations in this area?
Pedagogy, curriculum & assessment
My role in the university as
Kaiārahi Tiriti (Tiriti o Waitangi mentor) has been a privilege. While not
always a comfortable process, it has been instrumental
to my conscientisation. This role has given me the time to gain a solid
understanding of Te Tiriti, the context in which it was created, the intentions
and aspirations behind its Articles, and some understanding of how the
provisions and principles of the treaty may be applied in contemporary
contexts.
Through my work as a Kaiārahi Tiriti and Curriculum
Developer, across the university to develop courses and learning programmes. In
my mahi, I have uncovered two useful questions to use when working alongside
teaching teams:
- -
Where is Te Tiriti present?
- -
Do we have equity between Māori and non-Māori in these spaces?
Specifically, within
teaching and learning practices, I am beginning to understand how Te Tiriti can
be realised in the education space through the different questions relating to
Tiriti provisions and principles that can be put to the practice.
For example, we might ask:
what does the provision of ‘kāwanatanga’ in Article 1 of Te Tiriti look like in
tertiary education?
Implementing
the treaty principle of good ‘governance’ (from translations of the Māori text
completed by Kawharu 1989, and Mutu, 2011), kāwanatanga might mean ensuring
Māori are involved with the development of programmes and courses, that
teachers work with Māori to co-create a new future of education. Another example of
kāwanatanga – the treaty principle of both governance and partnership (Jones,
2024) – is ensuring that course content concerning Māori and Māori collectives is developed in
consultation with Māori experts to ensure it represents authoritative, strengths-based
perspectives (Bishop & Berryman, 2006; Te Hurihanganui, 2020).
What does Tino rangatiratanga (Article 2) look like
in teaching practice? This might consist of ensuring the “legacies of
indigenous resistance and resilience on the lands you are teaching on” (Tawhai,
2024, p. 49) are a distinct part of the teaching and learning experience for
students; that the pūrākau, perspectives, and aspirations of mana whenua are considered
and embedded in the learning material.
A foundational concept of realising Te Tiriti within
education is understanding that Māori students are taonga (Article 2), and
teaching teams should concentrate, first and foremost, on developing positive
relationships and interactions with Māori learners and their wider communities
(Bishop & Berryman, 2007).
There are plenty more
prompts and provocations we can use to continue this mahi: What do Māori
pedagogies look like in this space?
- -
What are hapū and iwi aspirations in this area?
- -
What would equity between western and indigenous knowledge look like in
this space?
- -
Where do Māori learners see
themselves reflected in the teaching and learning?
This type
of questioning of Te Tiriti’s place within a given subject can lead to
transformative change, becoming a means of meaningfully realising the ambitions
of Te Tiriti in teaching and learning practice (Smith, 2005). Overall, the
intention of these interrogations is to build an education practice in which
Māori learners have equity with other learners, where Māori feel a sense of belonging
and a positive emotional engagement with their learning, teachers, and peers
(Kahu, 2014).
Connections to Western
teaching and learning theory
It is easy to look at the what good, Te Tiriti-led
teaching and learning might look like and make connections to established Western
teaching and learning theories for effective practice.
For instance, teaching and learning that
provides authentic learning experiences and authentic contexts for Māori to
learn as Māori (Bishop & Berryman, 2007), or engage in tasks,
activities, and assessments that hold meaning for them (Herrington, 2014),
relates to the treaty principles of equity and equitable outcomes (Article 3 of
Te Tiriti) as well as tino rangatiratanga (Article 2).
The idea of
tino rangatiratanga – self-determination (Tawhai, 2024) – aligns with
constructivist approaches, where learners are encouraged to have agency over
their learning, exploring content and tasks that are authentic for the learner and
allow them to create meaning for themselves (Ng, 2015). One example of how this
might be realised is by creating allowances for
student agency in completing assessment tasks, encouraging learners to evidence
their understanding of learning in ways that are relevant to their experience,
reflect their culture and utilise their strengths.
Research interviews
conducted by Bishop and Berryman (2007) stressed the importance of relationships
on learners, reflecting foundational learning theories of effective engagement outlined
in the 1980’s by Moore, who noted the importance of considering how learners
interacted in three distinct ways: with their teachers, the learning content,
and their peers. Māori learners and their whānau identified the absolute
importance of creating positive interactions between teacher and their students,
an idea that is confirmed in other research stressing the importance of
catering to the emotional elements of learning (Delahunty et al., 2013; Kahu,
2014) for building learner engagement and success.
Based on teaching and learning theory, many across
the university already provide learning experiences and engage with their
students in ways that reflect the principles and provisions of Te Tiriti. Creating
an awareness of how such practices explicitly relate to the principles and
provisions of Te Tiriti will allow teaching teams to do this intentionally, and
to build on their practice in meaningful ways.
Relating to the Institution
- what
might Te Tiriti look like in the future of this industry/ this institution?
While Te Tiriti is a blueprint for transforming teaching, it can also be the foundation for reimagining our educational institutions. This change occurs as we become critically conscious of the way students engage with the learning we provide, how they feel a sense welcome and of belonging, how the learning content reflects their aspirations and those of their communities.
The context that frames this
reflective statement is the university that I work within as a curriculum
developer. In our 2022-2027 strategic plan, the institution announced that it
would become Te Tiriti o Waitangi-led, determined to uphold the provisions
and principles of this founding document of the nation in all
aspects of teaching and learning (Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University Strategy, 2022).
Any collective identity exists without a real, tangible foundation except the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves (Deltis & Maneval, 2019). Making the public statement that we aspire to be Tiriti-led is the beginning of retelling the story of ourselves (McAdams, 2011) as an institute, and asserting our place in the tertiary education landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand, reimagining our collective identity as one of being leaders in this cultural space.
Enacting such change at an institutional level is no mean feat. In the same
way that individuals carry levels of critical awareness, so too do the
institutions that we work within. Organisational processes and systemic ways of
operating that sit at a magical or naïve level often create a hidden curriculum, the
“unstated rules” (Anderson, 2001, p. 30) for achieving success within that
institution. Historically, in many education institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand, these rules have heavily favoured Pākehā/Western learners while disadvantaging Māori (Walker, 2016). This type of hidden curriculum is still present and embedded in many institutions, making it challenging and at times even impossible for Māori to succeed as Māori (Bishop & Berryman, 2007) within that educational setting.
To affect change, education institutions need to move
from a collective magical or naïve consciousness to becoming collectively conscientized
(Freire, 2005) through the interrogation of our own practices. This
requires reimaging our institutional identity, creating a counter -hegemony
that resists the historic and entrenched practices (Adkin, 2022) that disadvantage
Māori learners.
Smith (2005) suggested that Māori were a part of the struggle against
the Pākehā hegemony “whether they liked it or not, whether they knew it or not”
(p. 39); this in turn means that Pākehā,
as wielders of that hegemony, are a part of the struggle also - whether they know it or
not, whether they like it or not. What does it take for members of the cultural
(Pākehā) hegemony to challenge and change a system that so heavily favours
them?
Transformation might begin with a mindset shift, away from the individualistic identities encouraged in Western/Pākehā spaces towards prioritising the collective, aligning more with Kaupapa Māori approaches to teaching and learning (Smith, 2005).
This aspiration to become Te Tiriti-led requires us to reimagine ourselves within
the hegemonic imagination of our society (Paris, 2016), both as an
educational institution and as individuals within that institution. Ibrahim (2017) identifies three steps for inducing social change:
conscientizing individuals, supporting acts of collective agency through
conciliation, and promoting reform through collaboration. A Te Tiriti-led approach asks individuals to develop critical consciousness on “their personal role in disrupting racism and discriminatory practices (Te Hurihanganui, 2020), a ‘resistant imagination’ that allows for the possibility of change by undoing our social understanding of ourselves and others (Paris, 2016).
The learning and developing awareness of individuals, such as myself, around Te Tiriti in education as part of the Kairārahi Tiriti
initiative leads to change that permeates all areas of the
institution and will lead to a steadily growing positive impact for Māori learners. The conscientisation of an institution will occur like this, through
changes to the critical consciousness and awareness of one individual at a time.
References
Adkin, L., 2022 Hegemony and counter hegemony in Showing Theory to Know Theory https://doi.org/10.22215/stkt/al18 https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/showingtheory/chapter/hegemony-and-counter-hegemony/
Anderson, T. (2001). The Hidden Curriculum in Distance
Education: An Updated View. Change, 33(6), 28-35.
Bishop,
R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture speaks. [electronic resource]: cultural
relationships and classroom learning. Huia Publishers.
Bishop,
R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kōtahitanga Phase 3
Whānaungatanga: Establishing a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in
mainstream secondary school classrooms. Wellington: Ministry of Education,
81-90.
Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2013).
Socio-emotional connections: identity, belonging and learning in online
interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
23(2), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2013.813405
Delits, H., & Maneval,
S. (2019). The “hidden kings”, or hegemonic imaginaries: Analytical perspective
of post-foundational social thought. Societes, 146(4), 25-41.
Freiri,
P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuim.
Herrington, J., Mitchell, V., Rowe, M., &
Titus, S. (2014). The case studies - Authentic learning. In V. Bozalek, D.
Ng’ambi, D. Wood, J. Herrington, J. Hardman, & A. Amory (Eds.), Activity
theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies: Towards a transformative
higher education pedagogy (pp. 192-210). Taylor and Francis. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/massey/reader.action?docID=1783964&ppg=219
Ibrahim, S. (2017). How to Build Collective Capabilities: The
3C-Model for Grassroots-Led Development. Journal of Human Development
and Capabilities, 18(2), 197–222.
Jones,
C. Treaty principles a principle of good government. Waateanews.com https://waateanews.com/2024/03/19/treaty-principles-a-principle-of-good-government/
Kahu,
E. (2014) Increasing the emotional
engagement of first year mature-aged distance students: Interest and belonging The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 5(2), 45-55
Kawharu,
I. H. (1989). Waitangi: Māori and Pākehā perspectives of the Treaty of
Waitangi. Oxford University Press
Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1961). The johari window. Human
relations training news, 5(1), 6-7.
Martin,
R. J., & Van Gunten, D. M. (2002). Reflected identities: Applying
positionality and multicultural social reconstructionism in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 44-54.
McAdams,
D. P. (2011). Narrative identity. Handbook of identity theory and research, (Eds).
Schwartz SJ, Luyckx K., Vignoles VLNY.
Ministry of Education - Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga (2020). Te
Hurihanganui https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/te-hurihanganui/
Montero,
M, (2014) Conscientization, in Teo, T. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of
critical psychology. Springer. pp. 296-300
Mutu, M. (2011). The state of Māori rights. Huia
Publishers
Ng, W. (2015). Theories Underpinning Learning
with Digital Technologies. In New Digital Technology in Education (pp.
73-94). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05822-1_4
Paris, W. M. (2016). Assata Shakur, Mamphela Ramphele, and the
Developing of Resistant Imaginations. Critical Philosophy of Race, 4(2),
205–220. https://doi.org/10.5325/critphilrace.4.2.0205
Shaw R. A Tale of Two Stories: Unsettling a Settler Family’s
History in Aotearoa New Zealand. Genealogy. 2021; 5(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy5010026
Shaw, R., 2024, Richard Shaw: The Unsettled, RNZ National https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018933146
Smith, G. H. (2005). Beyond Political Literacy: From
Conscientization to Transformative Praxis. Counterpoints, 275, 29-42
Smith, G.H. (2012). Kaupapa Māori - the dangers of domestication. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 10-21 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42978775
Tawhai,
V. (2024) Mā te ihu o te waka – Te Tiriti as our guide in educational settings.
In Maro, P. Te; Averill, R (Eds.) Ki Te Hoe! Education for Aotearoa NZCER
Press, 2023. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/massey/detail.action?docID=30371475
Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University Strategy, 2022 -2027
(2022) https://www.massey.ac.nz/documents/806/Massey_University_Strategy_WEB_EN.pdf
Walker, R. (2016). Reclaiming Māori education. Decolonisation
in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice, 19-38.
Wilson, B. G., & Meyers, K. M. (2000). Situated Cognition in
Theoretical and Practical context. In D. H. J. S. M. Land (Ed.), Theoretical
foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-58). Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.