Communities of practice have three common characteristics: a common domain of interest, a community and a practice (Wegner, 2008). The domain is central and provides a unifying feature that those involved are committed to. In this research, each community of practice is concerned with supporting Māori student success as part of its core domain. The community refers to those engaged in joint activities and discussions, and information sharing about the domain.
Each puna kōrero in this research includes at least one iwi and one school that work together in various ways, including through hui, discussions, meetings and accountability
25
reporting. While possibly occurring with varying frequency, it is the interaction between community members that sustains the community of practice. The final characteristic is what makes a community of practice different from an interest group. The participants are practitioners, able to build a knowledge bank of resources, stories, ideas and strategies for use in helping advance their individual and collective practice towards advancing the domain.
A community of practice constitutes more than simply working together. It requires active intent to address a specific issue or to focus on a particular domain, as well as people working together to discuss and implement initiatives. A community of practice approach is useful for schools, as it allows them to build relationships with local iwi while gaining their insight and support, to inform school learning programmes, policies and practice. This enables schools to develop their learning theory and build knowledge across three dimensions: internally, externally and over the students’ lifetimes (Wegner, 2008). Internally, communities of practice ground school learning through participation, and are often subject specific. From my experience, this is an opportunity for iwi to provide iwi centric knowledge, advice and guidance that can be implemented by the school, sometimes with assistance from the school whānau (parents and extended family of Māori students) and the iwi, if they wish and have the capacity to do so. It is important to note that the ways in which iwi may prefer to work or engage with schools will differ in each setting, and is complex. This can only be determined within the community of practice itself, and will be drawn out over time, kanohi-ki-te-kanohi (face-to-face). This research is interested in both the process and its outcomes.
Externally, communities of practice provide the opportunity to connect learning and the experience of students with life outside the classroom and school grounds. Through communities of practice with iwi, there is an opportunity for schools to develop and implement programmes that recognise the identity, language and culture of students, and that makes connections between home, community and school.
Wegner’s third dimension ‘over the life of the student’ emphasises the need to consider the life-long learning, needs and aspirations of the student. Ka Hikitia’s (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2008) goal of Māori enjoying education success as Māori is
26
particularly relevant here. It prompts consideration of how iwi define Māori student success, and what that means for Māori graduates entering tertiary education, the workforce or pursuing other interests. It also holds relevance to this research, as iwi may be a constant influence on networks of schools and education providers in communities in which students will move between during their entire education.
One issue with this model is that members can be located at the centre or at the periphery of the community of practice. Members at the periphery may not have the opportunity or the power to contribute to the terms of reference, the protocols that will be followed or in defining the core goals of the community. In this way, some members may stay constantly at the periphery and therefore maintain only an inactive position, while those at the centre maintain dominance. The nature of how a participant engages in the community can define their identity and risks reinforcing oppressive power relationships between school, community and iwi. This concept of identity and practice may offer insights into how we might understand barriers and enablers to changing power relationships.
Working together in a collaborative manner is a traditional feature of Māori society. The main political, social and economic groupings include whānau, hapū and iwi. Māori values, such as manaakitanga (caring and respecting others), rangatiratanga (sovereignty), mahi ngātahi (working together) and whakawhanaungatanga are still practiced in many kaupapa Māori settings, and recognised in some broader educational settings.
The notion of iwi and schools working together in communities of practice is more recent, and involves the bringing together of different values and systems that might not otherwise co-exist. It also foregrounds issues of power sharing and accountability between members. A Māori explanation of communities of practice has been provided by Mason Durie when delivering the opening address at the Hui Taumata Matauranga in 2001 (Durie, 2001). Presenting the principle of integrated action, he explained that:
success or failure is the result of many forces acting together–the school and community; teachers and parents; students and their peers; Māori and the state…Unless there is a platform for integrated action, then development will be piecemeal and progress will be uneven. (p. 6).
27
Durie advocated for greater co-operation and co-ordination between schools, organisations and other stakeholders, to advance Māori education, while also maintaining cohesion across the educational network. In effect, Durie provided a Māori centric rationale for communities of practice, including but not limited to iwi, to support Māori student success.