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

could be implemented without guidance from Māori, leaving educators open to
being labelled as superficial and inaccurate (Colbung, Glover, Rau, & Ritchie,
2007).
Quality in Action (Ministry of Education, 1998) was produced to support
early childhood educators to achieve quality teaching through Desirable Objectives
and Practices (DOPs). Key aspects of Te Whāriki were incorporated into these
DOPs which built upon “the bicultural approach to early childhood education
promoted by Te Whāriki” (Ministry of Education, 1998, p. 6). The DOPs provided
suggestions for both educators and management and, importantly, their
introduction in 1998 can be taken as further evidence that bicultural development
in early childhood education was not only desirable but had now become
mandatory.
Each of the twelve DOPs contains explanations and suggestions for
bicultural practices, such as programmes that could “include a Māori focus and that
the service‟s environment contains appropriate and relevant Māori symbols and
imagery” (Ministry of Education, 1998, p. 23). In addition, suggestions were made
that educators could realise the importance of whānau to the well-being of Māori
children; and incorporate Māori understandings of human development and
learning into their programmes.
Teachers were expected to use te reo Māori and to understand Māori
cultural values. They were also required to “acknowledge Māori approaches to
pedagogy and curriculum” (Ministry of Education, 1998, p. 64). Like Te Whāriki,
the document Quality in Action and subsequent supporting material from the
Ministry had bilingual headings and te reo Māori words and phrases. Parts of
Quality in Action were written in te reo Māori for Māori centres and those teachers
within mainstream centres who were confident in te reo Māori.
Many of these Ministry documents were strikingly similar. On the whole
Tiriti-based approaches continued to be at the level of principles and ideas. When
practical suggestions were provided “such as the use of poi, titorea and ti rākau
(hand games), waiata, and haka” (Ministry of Education, 1998, p. 49) there is an
assumption, perhaps wrongly, of educators‟ understanding and having the requisite
abilities to use these ideas.
52