supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

several community groups around Auckland; one, with whom I subsequently lost
touch (before the project was concluded), was a kindergarten teacher; and the third
was a lecturer from another early childhood teacher education provider.
I was surprised at how difficult I found it to ask Māori colleagues to be
part of the advisory group. I was mindful of the sheer number of requests they
receive from Pākehā and was concerned that I would appear to be yet another
person attempting to “dial a pōwhiri” (Manning, 1998, p. 106). This is where non-
Māori call upon Māori to provide Māori aspects of ceremonial occasions or when
Māori knowledge is to be rubber-stamped. This role of being asked to provide
token Māori knowledge and protocol for Pākehā was one every member of the
advisory group subsequently reported they had experienced rather frequently. I
wondered what the benefits of being involved in this process might be for them,
and this unease remained with me throughout the research. In hindsight what I was
experiencing was what early childhood teachers also experience as they attempt to
build relationships with local iwi.
The first meeting was an opportunity for everyone to get acquainted. It
also enabled me to outline my proposal, present the questionnaire, seek feedback,
ask questions, and to ask attendees to consider becoming a member of the advisory
group. As our kōrero continued the group expressed their willingness to be part of
the Māori Advisory Committee as they said there was a wider social benefit of
enhancing Māori and Pākehā relationships. Although somewhat reassured at the
time of this meeting my unease continued to surface, when I considered when and
how often and for what purpose I could/should call the group together. What I
might discuss seemed to live in the realm of me „taking‟ rather than of reciprocity.
There always seemed to be a balancing act in working with the Māori Advisory
Committee closely to be guided appropriately, but without over-using the group
with their limited time and the danger of falling into dial-a-pōwhiri mode
(Manning, 1998). Given the length of time of this project, inviting and expecting
such input was seeking a big commitment from them. Of the original group of
five, there were two who left Auckland (one to go overseas) and two did not
respond to efforts to contact them, and as a consequence the group did not meet
again in its original form.
120