Additional cultural expectations 76 

The Māori teachers who participated in this research were frequently expected, by their employers and colleagues, to organize and facilitate Māori cultural events in their schools. Likewise, they often had to attend to issues involving Māori cultural activities in ways that absolved their non-Māori colleagues and professional leaders from exercising their professional responsibilities to be bicultural practitioners, as required by the New Zealand

Teachers Council Registered Teacher Criteria for registered teachers and school leaders. This finding clearly aligned with a small body of research previously conducted in New Zealand (Archie, 1993; Bloor, 1996; Manning, 2008; Ministry of Education, 1999; Mitchell & Mitchell, 1993) and drew further attention to Padilla’s (1994) theory of cultural taxation and the international implications of this study. As stated elsewhere, Padilla reported that indigenous and ethnic minority teachers in North American settings were unduly subjected to additional tasks and responsibilities seldom expected of their non-ethnic peers and that, as a consequence, they experienced feelings of “being used by the system” (p. 26).

Likewise, Santoro’s (2007) research in Australia also reported ethnic minority and indigenous educators performing additional tasks similar to those identified by the participants in this research. For these participants the additional tasks included activities such as, (i) organising and participating in pōwhiri, (ii) facilitating professional development sessions about Māori culture and Treaty-related matters for non-Māori colleagues and (iii) acting as intermediaries between their schools and the Māori community/Māori caregivers. These additional tasks placed considerable pressure on the participants and increased their workloads significantly in ways that were potentially harmful to their physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.

Moreover, the additional professional and cultural tasks and responsibilities that this group of Māori teachers undertook often went unrecognised financially or otherwise by their employers or fellow colleagues. Frequently, these teachers would describe themselves as ‘ambassador-at-large’ or a ‘one-stop-Māori-shop’. Yet, the participants in this research still felt a deep sense of being ethically and/or morally obliged to play these roles. These Māori teachers felt they were ‘culturally obliged’ to tautoko the students they serve and to support their schools’ respective Māori communities i.e. as ‘fellow Māori’. This deep sense of duty, however, significantly increased their likelihood of feeling ‘overwhelmed’ ‘stressed’, ‘tired’ and ‘burn-out’.

This has significant policy implications both nationally and internationally. Firstly, the ‘cultural taxation’ of this group of Māori teachers appears to suggest that other Māori teachers may be facing similar forms of cultural taxation. Furthermore, it raises questions in relation to the prospect that many, though not all, non-Māori registered teachers and school leaders in the participating schools, appear to be struggling to meet the criteria of the New

Zealand Teachers Council Registered Teacher Criteria for proficiency in their application of Te Reo Māori and bicultural practice. However, it must be noted that some of the participants in this study also identified significant and valued support from some non- Māori colleagues on occasions.

This tendency, which also leaves Māori teachers feeling isolated, creates additional workload pressure for the participants and recurring feelings of ‘burn-out’ not too dissimilar to those described by Mitchell and Mitchell (1993), Bloor (1996), Manning (1998, 2008), and the Ministry of Education (1999). This trend, therefore, has the potential to undermine the implementation of the Ministry of Education’s national strategy for Māori education (Ka Hikitia) within the Waitaha region and, possibly, elsewhere in New Zealand. Given that Ka Hikitia advocates “Māori enjoying educational success as Māori” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 18), it is difficult to see how this admirable goal will be achieved locally and nationally, especially if Māori teachers feel ‘burnt-out’ as a result of being assigned additional duties that take their real workloads well above their official workloads with no recompense and little or no recognition.

It could also be argued that the localized Waitaha trend of ‘cultural taxation’ identified in this research, amounts to a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi principle of ‘active protection’ in the sense that not enough is being done to actively protect the wellbeing of Māori teachers who are critical to the implementation of official Māori education policy guidelines. ‘Bicultural practitioners’, such as those envisaged by the New Zealand Teachers Council Registered Teacher Criteria and the Professional standards for school leaders, require teachers and principals to be capable of performing tasks such as actively participating in hui and pōwhiri. The failure of the Crown to ensure that this is the case also suggests failure to ensure that the principles of ‘partnership’ and ‘participation’ are fairly applied.

This also raises questions about the Crown’s efforts to ‘actively protect’ Māori culture within the participating schools (and schools elsewhere). It is hard to see how ākonga Māori will ‘enjoy educational success as Māori’, if Māori teachers themselves are left feeling burnt-out and/or professionally isolated and leave the teaching profession as a result. Moreover, this problem has been around at least since Mitchell and Mitchell’s (1993)

Māori teachers in their workplaces and urgent research is needed, on a national scale, to examine the scale of cultural taxation and its potential to undermine official Māori education policy guidelines and goals.