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

I would argue, therefore, that this document and accompanying materials
were of limited use for educators wishing to embrace and understand Tiriti-based
pedagogy. What is needed is knowledge and understanding of tikanga, to avoid
such superficial approaches. For example, some children merely copying the haka,
as they see it performed by the All Blacks before a rugby match, rather than
understanding what it is about. Ritchie and Rau (2008) maintain that the best way
for knowledge and understanding to develop is in partnership with whānau Māori.
However, as will be shown in chapters 5 and 6, these connections are not always
possible. If teachers cannot make the necessary connections to whānau Māori they
must find alternatives and these can, if they are uninformed, leave them open to
being perceived as tokenistic at best and completely off-track at worst.
The next document to emerge from the Ministry was The Quality Journey
(Ministry of Education, 1999). This document was intended to guide teachers in
reviewing their practices. The introduction to The Quality Journey states that it
“extend[s] concepts and ideas found in ...Quality in Action, and Te Whāriki. In
particular, it focuses on and develops the review process” (Ministry of Education,
1999, p. 5). The Quality Journey has two touchstones to guide this review process:
(i) the DOPs, and (ii) acknowledgement of Māori partnership because of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi (Ministry of Education, 1999). The problem with this document,
however, was the assumption that the touchstones were attainable. It may be true
that many teachers want to implement Tiriti-based curriculum but equally, it is true
that establishing relationships with whānau Māori can be problematic. This means
that until meaningful relationships become established those teachers are likely to
be left faltering.
The Quality Journey has reflective questions which invite educators to
consider how they support Māori children; how well they communicate and work
in partnership; and how well the service works for Māori and incorporates te reo
Māori me ōna tikanga. Whereas these reflective questions are useful and even
thought-provoking, there continues to be a lack of specificity similar to that found
in the rest of the Ministry‟s documents. This lack of specificity and the assumption
of educators having knowledge in this arena continue to impede the abilities of
practitioners to implement Tiriti-based curriculum.
53