Kaupapa Māori and New Public Management: Solutions for Education Policy Development for Māori Introduction The role of the state in shaping the lives and life-chances of indigenous peoples is widely acknowledged. Even in the face of a globalizing world and a privatising economy, states continue to play a pivotal role in determining who gets what, and why. (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999, p. 107) Unfortunately in Aotearoa New Zealand, the state’s actions have led to less than optimal outcomes in many areas for Māori (Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous people). The statistics displaying the gaps between Māori and non-Māori are overwhelming. The Māori population on average has lower incomes, higher unemployment rates, poorer health and education outcomes, greater likelihood of living in rented accommodation and proportionately higher rates of criminal convictions (Statistics New Zealand, 2007). As Durie (2011) describes, compared to other New Zealand children, Māori children are more likely to live in a lone parent family, not be immunised, have no parent in paid employment and to live in poverty. Many of these disparities can be related back to policies which have affected Māori both historically and presently (Kidman, 2011). Kidman argues that Māori education policy in mainstream schooling continues to perpetuate the assumption that Māori are ill-fated victims of colonialism. However, Ringold (2005) describes that policies need to be inclusive and have diversity and culture woven into their design in order to build on the desire of Māori to succeed on their own terms within an increasingly integrated and globalised world. So how can policy development continue to be improved to include Māori perspectives? This essay aims to examine two theories, Kaupapa Māori and New Public Management (NPM) , and to discuss their usefulness in terms of education policy development for Māori.
Transcript
Kaupapa Māori and New Public Management: Solutions for Education Policy Development for Māori
Introduction
The role of the state in shaping the lives and life-chances of indigenous peoples is widely
acknowledged. Even in the face of a globalizing world and a privatising economy, states
continue to play a pivotal role in determining who gets what, and why.
(Fleras & Spoonley, 1999, p. 107)
Unfortunately in Aotearoa New Zealand, the state’s actions have led to less than optimal outcomes in
many areas for Māori (Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous people). The statistics displaying the gaps
between Māori and non-Māori are overwhelming. The Māori population on average has lower incomes,
higher unemployment rates, poorer health and education outcomes, greater likelihood of living in
rented accommodation and proportionately higher rates of criminal convictions (Statistics New Zealand,
2007). As Durie (2011) describes, compared to other New Zealand children, Māori children are more
likely to live in a lone parent family, not be immunised, have no parent in paid employment and to live in
poverty. Many of these disparities can be related back to policies which have affected Māori both
historically and presently (Kidman, 2011). Kidman argues that Māori education policy in mainstream
schooling continues to perpetuate the assumption that Māori are ill-fated victims of colonialism.
However, Ringold (2005) describes that policies need to be inclusive and have diversity and culture
woven into their design in order to build on the desire of Māori to succeed on their own terms within an
increasingly integrated and globalised world. So how can policy development continue to be improved
to include Māori perspectives? This essay aims to examine two theories, Kaupapa Māori and New Public
Management (NPM) , and to discuss their usefulness in terms of education policy development for
Māori.
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
2
Kaupapa Māori
Overview
Kaupapa Māori is a proactive political discourse based on Māori philosophy and principles (Bishop &
Glynn, 1999). Following the rapid urbanisation of Māori during the post World War II period, and
particularly during the 1970s and 1980s, there was a shift in mindset of large numbers of Māori people
and political consciousness of Māori communities intensified. Smith (2003) states that rather than
waiting for things to be done to them in a political sense, Māori began to do things for themselves. They
moved to more proactive political action and away from reactive politics (Smith, 2003). Māori wanted
to increase autonomy over their own lives and cultural welfare, therefore the Kaupapa Māori movement
was born and has become a strong tool in “comprehending, resisting and transforming the crises related
to the dual concerns of schooling underachievement of Māori students and ongoing erosion of Māori
language, knowledge and culture as a result of colonisation.” (Smith, 1997, p. 27).
The intention is that the Kaupapa Māori praxis can be used to identify the ‘taken for granted’ notions
which exist in Aotearoa New Zealand society and are replicated by policy makers and political decision
makers, and ideas that sustain relations of domination and subordination can be undermined, changed
and/or overthrown (Smith, 1997). Bishop and Glynn (1999) support this understanding, stating that
Kaupapa Māori is committed to critical analysis of existing unequal power relations within Aotearoa
New Zealand society and aims to restructure these power relationships so that the Treaty of Waitangi
partners can be autonomous and interact as such, rather than interact from a position of dominance
and subordination.
Kaupapa Māori is a meaningful theory of change, and has three significant components which Smith
(1997) identifies as conscientisation, resistance and praxis. Smith believes that each of these elements
is necessary to effect meaningful change and argues that each is equally important and together they
form a circular set of relations which can be entered from any position.
Components of Kaupapa Māori
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
3
Conscientisation: involves revealing the reality and critically analysing and de-constructing existing
practices which work to entrench Pākeha-dominant social, economic, gender, cultural and political
privilege.
Resistance: takes place in the form of oppositional actions by the constructing of shared understandings
and experiences to form a sense of collective politics. These politics are made up of reactive activities
(responding to the dominant structures of oppression, exploitation, manipulation and containment) and
proactive activities (resolving and acting to transform existing conditions).
Praxis: involves undertaking transformative action to promote change. Praxis is concerned with
developing meaningful change by intervening and making a difference through reflection.
Kaupapa Māori provides a mechanism which can be used to critique existing policy and to ensure new
policy development is in the best interests of Māori.
Perhaps the most recognisable outcome of the Kaupapa Māori movement has been the development of
Māori education. Māori communities undertook transformative action using Kaupapa Māori as the
central organising theory and praxis to deal with the demise of their language and educational
underachievement of their people (Smith, 1997). Māori immersion education strengthens Māori
ownership of education, and responds to the principle of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) as
embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as preserving te reo Māori, teaching cultural traditions,
transferring knowledge through generations and providing education within a Māori context.
Usefulness for education policy development for Māori
Kaupapa Māori is perhaps the most useful tool when developing any policy for Māori, as the main
intention of the theory is that a Māori world-view is legitimate, authoritative and valid (Bishop & Glynn,
1999). Johnson (1999) describes that Kaupapa Māori praxis provides a means for Māori to target the
structural inequalities and unequal power relations which exist in education. The contexts in which
decision-making occurs in education occur are controlled by Pākeha and Māori are for the most part
powerless, not only in terms of their access to resources and control for validity over their own
knowledge and language, but also in terms of how policy reforms take place (Johnson, 1997). The
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
4
critique and development of policy from a Kaupapa Māori standpoint addresses this inequity and
validates the importance of Māori knowledge and language. A Māori-centred approach is able to create
change at certain strategic points along the policy process (Johnson, 1999). Smith (1997) argues that it
is due to the flexible, adjustable and critically reflective nature of Kaupapa Māori that it is a successful
transformative strategy.
Johnson (1997) describes that historically education for Māori has been determined by Pākeha and this
has resulted in policies which specify criteria which need to be met in order to ‘achieve’. These criteria
have been designed in line with Pākeha values and belief systems and culminate in imposing Pākeha
interpretations of suitable educational initiatives for Māori, however because these initiatives are based
on criteria derived from the dominant group, they are unrealistic and alienate Māori. A current example
of this is the National Standards policy. If policy were developed from a Kaupapa Māori perspective,
Māori values and belief systems would be integral, therefore ensuring that Māori interests and
aspirations were protected and developed. Bishop and Glynn (1999) describe that a Māori-centred
approach to policy development such as Kaupapa Māori locates Māori aspirations, preferences and
practices at the centre.
Unfortunately however, as Fleras and Spoonley (1999) note, moves to acknowledge Māori models of
self-determination and constructive engagement, such as Kaupapa Māori, are likely to involve significant
struggle as the rights of tino rangatiratanga pose a fundamental challenge to the prevailing assumptions
underlying the current governance system.
New Public Management
Overview
New Public Management (NPM) is an administrative theory that played a large role in the reform
Aotearoa New Zealand’s public management underwent in the mid to late 1980s (Boston, Martin, Pallot,
& Walsh, 1996). First coined by political scientists working in the field of public administration in the
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
5
Australia and the United Kingdom, NPM describes a point of view about organisational design in the
public sector (Barzelay, 2002). Barzelay (2002) describes that the ideology behind NPM is that the public
sector will work more effectively and efficiently by following a private business model.
NPM is generally thought to include the following features and assumptions when applied to education:
Financial management devolved to school level;
Emphasis on productivity;
Standardised tests of students’ performance, league tables – extensive use of quantitative
performance indicators;
Parental choice, voucher systems – consumerism;
Consumer charters as mechanisms for accountability;
Appraisal systems and performance related remuneration;
Emphasis on principals acting as managers.
(Vogt, 2001)
Boston, Martin, Pallot and Walsh (1996) explain that although many of these ideas are not new, what is
new is the way in which they are combined in NPM and the manner of their implementation along with
the vigour with which they were pursued.
In terms of education, NPM led to a reorganisation of the education system with the governance of
schools and tertiary institutions adapted to give principals and vice-chancellors the “role, responsibilities,
and authority of the chief executive of a firm.” (Easton, 1999, p. 149). Easton (1999) describes that this
theory works on the premise that a ‘firm’ will be efficient when operating under competitive conditions,
when its chief executive is given a budget which they can allocate according to their judgement.
Therefore under sufficient competitive pressure, the principal or vice-chancellor will use the budget
(input) to maximise the output it produces in order to attract more ‘clients’ (students) and therefore
more funding (Gordon, 1997). The output that schools provide however, is a subject of considerable
disagreement in education literature, as Easton (1999) describes. The most common indicator used is
student attainment (Easton, 1999; Gordon, 1997), however this measure does not allow for the fact that
students to not begin from the same starting point. Easton (1999) compares this to the economic terms
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
6
of gross output and net output. Gross output is equivalent to student attainment (grade attained) and
net output is student achievement (value added), however he contends that NPM confuses the two and
the student is treated as an input or raw material which is transformed into the output of an educated
pupil with no allowance made for the initial circumstances of the students. The outcome of this
assumption is that schools compete to attract the students with the most potential to be successful in
order to gain the greatest gross output for the resources that are applied.
Gordon (1997) concludes that the adoption of NPM ideologies into education has led to a rapid growth
in inequalites between schools in terms of income, school population and the provision of resources for
the future. Schools in wealthy areas are equated with providing ‘good’ education and schools at the
bottom of the market hierachy can do little to improve their position.
Usefulness for education policy development for Māor i
While Kaupapa Māori seems the most useful theory for policy development for Māori, New Public
Management exists at the other end of the scale. Although there seem to be positives in devolving the
state’s decision making powers to communities, these have yet to be realised in the reality of the
situation. Johnson (1997) notes that the Tomorrow’s Schools policy failed to take into account the wider
social, political and economic realities of Māori in general. Had the policy been developed from a
Kaupapa Māori standpoint, the outcomes might have been radically different. Māori interests
throughout the restructuring of education policies along the New Public Management lines were
marginalised and the interests and aspirations of Māori were reinterpreted to “conform with
preconceived notions centred around what the new education system should be delivering and how.”
(Johnson, 1997, p. 83). This marginalisation resulted in Māori lacking influence in the decision-making
processes. Fleras and Spoonley (1999) describe that non-Māori defined the issues that policy needed to
address, then proposed a corresponding set of solutions based on Eurocentric presumptions which fail
to acknowledge the reality of Māori differences.
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
7
Johnson (1997) notes that there are several reasons why NPM is not useful when developing policy for
Māori. NPM structures are supposed to devolve decision-making to a community level, however the
practices employed in New Zealand’s ‘democratic’ society in which the majority rules leads to a system
in which Māori, a minority group, experience powerlessness to make and implement decisions (Johnson,
1997). Smith (1997) describes how the power imbalance between Māori and Pākeha exists not only in
terms of their access to resources and control of validity over their knowledge and language, but also
interms of how policy reforms occur and NPM fails to address this issue. To attempt to address power
differences from a market position as NPM tries to do, only serves to further exacerbate the power
differentials (Smith, 1997).
Another issue is the importance NPM places on individualism which ignores the fundamental Māori
concept of collectivism, which Johnson (1997) as describes the basis of the philosophies underpinning
the important Māori concept of whanaungatanga. This ideal of individuality reduces Māori collective
interests to little more than an aggregation of individual choices which contradicts Māori practices of
collective decision-making, accountability and responsibility to whanau (Johnson, 1997).
Easton (1999) describes a further tension that the use of NPM in education creates for Māori, which is
concerned with the output that the school creates. The NPM model works on schools having inputs and
outputs – the inputs are usually assumed to be labour, capital, students, intermediates and property and
the outputs are educated students (Easton, 1999). Easton (1999) argues that this measure is invalid as it
does not allow for the initial circumstances of the students, it also means that in order to attain
maximum efficiency or the highest level of output for input, schools have to control all their inputs.
Therefore in order to work at maximum efficiency, a school has to be able to control its student intake
and attract potentially successful students. Those who are easiest to teach and generate the greatest
gross output for the resources applied to them are the most attractive for schools. Student numbers
form almost entirely the basis for schools’ funding, so this means schools must attract students in similar
or increased numbers, year after year to maintain their levels of funding. Gordon (1997) contends that
this means schools in wealthy areas have a greater chance of producing students who achieve highly
and are able to be more selective as their intake are characterised by a readiness to learn, quick
adaptation to the habitus of school life, supportive two-parent families and relative stability. This model
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
8
does not take into account a number of factors which are a reality for Māori – high levels of
unemployment, poverty and educational underachievement, as Johnson (1997) describes the
consequences of these realites clearly explain why the educational reforms based on NPM do not
adequately cater for Māori interests and aspirations.
Conclusion
The two models for policy development discussed in this essay operate at opposite ends of the
spectrum, Kaupapa Māori from a collective, Māori-centred position and New Public Management from
an individualist, Eurocentric standpoint. As described above, in order for Māori aspirations, practices
and principles to be at the forefront of policy development for Māori, it makes sense to use Kaupapa
Māori theory. As Ringold (2005) described, Māori want to succeed as Māori, but in order to be able to
do this education policy needs to account for diversity and culture as well as recognise the different
starting points that Māori come from. The state will always play a role in shaping the lives and life-
chances of Māori people however; they can enable Māori to succeed as Māori by legitimising a Māori
world-view, assessing decisions through a Kaupapa Māori lens and developing policies which allow for
self-determination – the answers to solving issues for Māori lie within Māoridom.
References
Barzelay, M. (2002). Origins of the New Public Management: An international view from public
administration/political science. In K. McLaughlin, S. P. Osborne, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), New Public
Management: Current trends and future prospects (pp. 15-33). London: Routledge.
Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North:
Dunmore Press Limited.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public Management: The ideas and theories
underpinning the New Zealand model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Durie, M. (2011). Ngā Tini Whetū: Navigating Māori Futures. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia Publishers.
Emma Scobie-Jennings Education Policy Development for Māori
9
Easton, B. (1999). The whimpering of the state: Core education. Auckland : Auckland University Press.
Fleras, A., & Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous politics and ethnic relations in New
Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, L. (1997). 'Tomorrow's Schools' today: School choice and the education quasi-market. In M.
Olssen, & K. M. Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (pp.
65-82). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Ltd.
Johnson, P. M. (1997). Tiptoeing through the puha: Policy reforms for Māori education. In M. Olssen, & K.
Morris Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (pp. 83-106).
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Johnson, P. M. (1999). "In through the out door": Policy developments and processes for Māori. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies , 34 (1), 77-85.
Kidman, J. (2011). Māori education and neoliberal citizenship: Beach crossings in the 21st century. In P.
Whitinui (Ed.), Kia Tangi Te Tītī: Permission to speak (pp. 18-30). Wellington: NZCER Press.
Ringold, D. (2005). Accounting for diversity: Policy design and Māori development in Aotearoa New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Fulbright New Zealand.
Smith, G. H. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis. Unpublished PhD. Auckland:
University of Auckland.
Smith, G. H. (2003). Indigenous struggle for the transformation of education and schooling. Keynote
Address to Alaskan Federation and Natives (AFN) Convention. Anchorage, Alaska.
Statistics New Zealand. (2007, March 27). QuickStats about Māori. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from
