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

However, in order to understand Te Whāriki, it is important to place it in context of
Te Tiriti o Waitangi, how it came into existence, and the ramifications for Māori as
a result of Te Tiriti. It is worth noting that had Te Tiriti o Waitangi not been signed
there would be no Tiriti-based curriculum, and although there may have been
indigenous education, it may not have been the concern of mainstream education.
Ritchie (2003) also makes the link between Te Tiriti o Waitangi and early
childhood curriculum when she declares “The bicultural nature of Te Whāriki is a
recognition of those Treaty obligations” (p. 80).
The 1970s and 1980s was a time of growing accountability to Māori and
Te Tiriti concerns. Mutch (2003, p. 118) noted accountability became “a trend that
has emerged in more recent times, as the government and its departments have
addressed their obligations under Te Tiriti of Waitangi”. As part of that obligation,
in 1987 the incoming Labour government moved towards a market-driven
consumerist approach not only in economic matters, but also in education.
Common to all their areas of social policy reform was the implementation of the
principles of Te Tiriti. Rather than adhering to the Articles of Te Tiriti as noted
earlier, government reports it was decreed, were to consider Tiriti principles, three
of which commonly referred to are partnership (Article 1) protection (Article 2),
and participation (Article 3) (New Zealand Royal Commission on Social Policy,
1988).
It was during these policy reforms that a working party was set up to
examine early childhood education and the ensuing report was Education to be
More (Department of Education, 1988a). This report identified one of the
characteristics of good quality care as being “te reo Māori and tikanga Māori”
(Department of Education, 1988a, p. 17). These two aspects were considered
“essential for Māori children … and it is important for non-Māori children to
appreciate the bicultural nature of New Zealand society” (Department of
Education, 1988a, p. 18). This was also the time that early childhood services
became aware of the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and began to develop
policies to reflect this (Cubey, 1992).
Early childhood organisations thus attempted to initiate ways to
implement Tiriti-based programmes, which in theory at least was evidence of a
bicultural philosophy. One consequences of these attempted bicultural initiatives
25