Bilingual education developments 1970s–1990s

At the point of the reintroduction ((re) vernacularisation) of te reo Māori in the form of bilingual education in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was no national language plan and no formal language policy for te reo Māori use and implementation in Aotearoa/NZ (Peddie, 2003). In 1976, in response to the increasingly parlous state of the language, the rural Ruatoki community located in the Tūhoe tribal area in the North Island were able, through the strength of their own convictions and the use of data from the seminal Benton (1981) study into the health of te reo Māori, to persuade both the Minister of Education and officials of the Education Department (changed to Ministry of Education in 1991) that a bilingual

school should be set up in Ruatoki (Benton, 1984). Subsequently, in 1980, additional schools, including the former Māori (native) schools in predominately rural areas, such as Tawera, Hiruharama and Omahu, were also given official bilingual status. These schools, with support from their elders and local whānau, were trying to save te reo Māori from extinction in their particular communities (Benton, 1984). By 1988, 12 years after this change of status for schools such as Ruatoki, 20 bilingual schools had been established in predominantly Māori communities, including in urban areas. In addition, 67 primary schools and 18 secondary schools operated with some bilingual classes (May, 2001).

These early bilingual schools were required to follow the English-medium Syllabus for Schools—Mathematics: Junior Classes to Standard Four (Department of Education, 1985) and Mathematics: Forms 1 to 4 (Department of Education, 1987). There was no formal Māori-medium curriculum, and limited te reo Māori resource materials to support learning and teaching. Their development reflected a wider trend at that time— much of the school curriculum, resource development and long- and short- term Māori language-in-education planning was highly localised, responsibility having fallen to principals, staff and whānau communities of individual schools (Benton, 1984). Consequently, the implementation of a bilingual-school-based curriculum varied widely from community to community (Benton, 1984). From my observations and anecdotal evidence, mathematics was still taught in the medium of English in most of these bilingual schools, with the odd Māori-language mathematics term used occasionally. Meanwhile, New Zealand mathematics programmes were directed loosely by syllabi and guidelines modelled on the “new maths” reform movement in mathematics education imported from the United States in the 1960s (see Herrera & Owens, 2001, and Shearer, 2002, for discussion on the new maths reforms in the late 1970s).

Following on from these early bilingual education reforms, kōhanga reo (early childhood language nests) were launched in 1982, initially run independently by parents as an important part of the “Māori renaissance”, motivated by widespread Māori recognition of the urgent need to revitalise te reo Māori by that time (King, 2001). The term “Māori renaissance” refers

to the revival in fortunes of the Māori of Aotearoa/NZ, beginning in the latter half of the 20th century (Webster, 1998). As many commentators on this renaissance have noted, kōhanga reo were probably the most influential development in the language revitalisation movement in Aotearoa/NZ (King, 2001; Penetito, 2010; Walker, 1990, 1996). Kōhanga reo are based on the concept of intergenerational language transmission, whereby the native speakers of the “grandparent” generation foster cultural and language acquisition by children, thereby overcoming the post-1940s generation’s rupture or severance from te reo Māori (Campbell & Stewart, 2009). The kōhanga reo movement, as a whānau-driven, grassroots initiative, was also seen as a means of developing cultural and political autonomy/emancipation from the state education system (Smith, 1990; Walker, 1990). This is linked to the sociological argument that control of the education system represents control of society (Freire, 1970, 1972; Illich, 1972).

Outside the few bilingual schools noted previously, however, most of the compulsory state education sector remained ambivalent towards or actively resisted Māori community language aspirations (McMurchy- Pilkington & Trinick, 2008). Linguistic human rights had not yet emerged as an influential paradigm in resisting language shift and language death, and the Māori Language Act was not yet a reality (May, 2003). Graduates from kōhanga reo were entering the state school primary-level system into questionable or, in most cases, non-existent te reo Māori programmes and, as a consequence, concerns emerged about their language loss after a short period of time in these schools (Smith, 1997). The poor response by state schools to these initial te reo Māori revitalisation efforts prompted groups of Māori to establish primary-level kura kaupapa Māori from 1985, outside the state education system (Smith, 1997).

5.4 (Re) vernacularisation of te Reo Māori: The Education Amendment Act 1989

Somewhat belatedly, and after considerable lobbying from te reo Māori education groups, the Education Amendment Act was passed in 1989, and it was to have far-reaching implications, albeit of different time scales, for te reo Māori in schooling. One of the “short-lived” implications was that

the Education Amendment Act required “all schools” to ensure all reasonable steps were taken to provide instruction in tikanga Māori (Māori cultural practices), and in the Māori language where demand for this existed (de Bres, 2008). Even though there were questions raised about the quality of te reo Māori practised by the bilingual schools established in the late 1970s and early 1980s (McMurchy-Pilkington, 2004), an unexpected consequence of this Education Act was that Māori groups demanded mainstream schools (including secondary) make available Māori immersion or bilingual units in their schools, regardless of the number of Māori students (McMurchy-Pilkington & Trinick, 2008). Because it was a legislative requirement that all state-funded schools implement the policy, the customary excuses, such as low student numbers or lack of staff capability, could not be used as a pretext for inaction and or ambivalence. As a result, there was an unexpected proliferation of bilingual units in English-medium secondary schools, in particular, attempting to teach mathematics and science in the medium of Māori (Ohia et al., 1989, 1990). However, the growth in bilingual education in state mainstream schools was subsequently to come to an abrupt halt.

Unfortunately for te reo Māori revitalisation efforts, the government—in response to right wing agitation from communities and schools—quickly changed components of the 1989 Education Act in a 1990 Education Amendment Act to delete any legal obligation on the part of mainstream schools to respond to parental and community requests for te reo Māori programmes (McMurchy-Pilkington & Trinick, 2008). Māori linguistic rights were marginalised once again and revitalisation efforts in mainstream state schools, particularly state secondary schools, were significantly diluted (McMurchy-Pilkington & Trinick, 2008).

The Education Act 1989 did, nonetheless, crucially endorse Māori-medium schools, kura kaupapa Māori, at primary (and secondary) level as a legitimate state-funded schooling alternative within the state education system (May, 1999), serving those students who had been in kōhanga. While state support of kura kaupapa Māori has since proved something of a double-edged sword, requiring kura to implement state-mandated curricula and assessment practices developed from essentially

Eurocentric interests, the 1989 Education Act at least provided the opportunity for kura kaupapa to gain financial and operational support in the further expansion of Māori-medium education (McMurchy-Pilkington & Trinick, 2008).

The demand from Māori for secondary Māori-medium education did not cease with the 1989 Education Act and the 1990 Education Amendment Act, kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori. As noted by May and Hill (2005), there was a domino effect throughout the education system. There was increasing demand for Māori-medium secondary schooling options, in order to meet the educational needs of fluent Māori-speaking students graduating, in turn, from kura kaupapa Māori (May & Hill, 2005). The first state-funded wharekura opened in 1993 with Year 9 and 10 students at Hoani Waititi Marae, in West Auckland (Campbell & Stewart, 2009). Wharekura are the secondary school prototype of Māori-medium immersion, as distinct from kura kaupapa Māori, which focus on the primary level. Since that time, a number of wharekura have emerged, generally attached to kura, with common governance and management (Ministry of Education, 2008a).

A few of the more resilient bilingual and/or immersion units within mainstream schools continued to develop during the 1990s, despite the lack of support from the state. The teaching of curriculum areas, such as mathematics (pāngarau), began to come to the fore (Ohia et al., 1989, 1990). Most of the key individuals involved in the subsequent pāngarau lexical and curriculum development were teachers in these secondary- level contexts during this period. Indeed, this group of Māori-medium mathematics educators (Te Ohu Pāngarau—see Chapter 7) were to play a pivotal role in the subsequent development of the Māori-medium numeracy strategy, including curriculum and dictionary development.