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

Teachers want to include Tiriti-based curriculum, however, practically
they fell somewhat short of their ideals, due to the mismatch of what they wanted
and what they were able to achieve. Argyris and Schön (1974) discuss the
difference between “theories of action which exist as espoused theories and so
theories-in-use, which govern actual behaviour” (p. 29). Teachers will be further
challenged since Te Whāriki was incorporated into the early childhood education
regulations ("Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations," 2008), making
Tiriti-based curriculum mandatory. However, it must be noted that research by
Fenech and Sumsion (2007) found that contrary to the idea that regulations can be
constraining, there were instances where teachers found regulations were enabling,
because “they actively align with the intent and/or processes of regulation” (p.
113). In the case of Tiriti-based curriculum, therefore, it may be useful for teachers
to persuade colleagues to implement Te Whāriki because it was mandatory.
Although Bown and Sumsion are discussing the Australian context, their stance
could be useful in Aotearoa New Zealand. In other words, “the teachers felt the
Regulation legitimised their roles, and gave them legal responsibility” (Bown &
Sumsion, 2007, p. 44).
Leaving aside legal requirements of Te Whāriki, spirituality was one area
in particular, early childhood teachers displayed reluctance to include within the
curriculum. One solution to incorporate this aspect of Tiriti-based curriculum
evolves from the idea of everyday spirituality (Bone, 2008). Bone expressed
spirituality as the concept of a “sense of connection” (p. i). I observed that
embracing an understanding of everyday spirituality was missing for teachers
because they failed to see spirituality already occurred within their practice. What
teachers missed was the simple step of merely recognising this phenomenon. By
perceiving spirituality from the approach of appreciating what is already in the
landscape (and in children‟s sense of everyday wonder), teachers could move from
deficit thinking about spirituality being “too hard” to the idea of spirituality being
everywhere (Bone, 2008).
Furthermore, when either whānau Māori or teachers moved on from a
centre, difficulties could arise. It is worth noting that “even when Māori are fully
involved in the bicultural process in a mainstream centre, the outcomes are likely to
be unique to that context and not transferable to other settings” (Ritchie, 2003, p.
259