Why National Standards won't help Maori

With respect, I think Tariana Turia is plain wrong on National Standards. From Waatea:

Associate Education Minister Tariana Turia is backing the release of national standards data as a way to improve the education of Maori children.

Mrs Turia says it’s time for educators and families to step up so the next generation of Maori don’t face a future of unemployment or low-paid work.

“I think Hekia Parata is doing a really good job. People may not like what she’s saying and they may not like what she’s doing but it’s all research-informed, it is taken from research that has been carried out over a number of years, she’s saying ‘we want that for Maori kids too, and we’re going to have it,’” Mrs Turia says.

Well, that’s the thing: the release of National Stadards data will not improve the education of Maori children. The data is meaningless. Firstly, National Standards are neither moderated nor standardised. This renders comparisons between schools largely meaningless.

Secondly, a different set of standards apply to Kura Kaupapa. So when Mum’s deciding to whether to send little Hemi to the local primary or the local Kura, National Standards are a useless guide. To use a tired phrase, you’re comparing apples with oranges. Keri Milne-Ihimaera comments that standards for Kura reflect “a Maori worldview and are quite different”.

Thirdly, National Standards (as they are) tell us nothing we don’t already know. Maori kids are failing. Am I supposed to be surprised by that?

It’s also worth remembering that National Standards are not an innovative new approach to teaching, nor do they encourage new approaches. National Standards represent a yardstick. All we’re doing is measuring Maori kids against where the government thinks those kids should be. Ka Hikitia, Te Kotahitanga, Whakahau Whakamana Whakahihi; these are innovative approaches to teaching. Pity the government is underfunding them.

So, National Standards are about measurement and communication. Apparently parents want to know “in plain English” how well or not so well their child is doing. Well, what happens when the child is branded a failure and the parents are told? Nothing. National Standards, as they are, end there. The $60m spent determining who is below the arbitrary National Standards line would have been better spent on actually helping the underachievers rather than telling them they’re underachieving. Isn’t that just common sense?

Charter Schools and Maori

Charter schools: at best the evidence is mixed, at worst the evidence is an indictment against the idea. There is no compelling evidence in clear support of the idea – or at least I’m not aware of anyone who has produced or pointed to any compelling evidence.

Over the past 48 hours a lot of has been written on charter schools, most of it rightly rubbishes the idea, but we haven’t seen anything from a Maori perspective. With that in mind, I’ll give an outline of the idea from a Maori perspective.

On first principle, the charter schools idea is attractive. Allowing iwi to take control of education in their rohe (area) satisfies the very foundation of tino rangatiratanga – the right of Maori to control things Maori. Any idea that will advance tino rangatiratanga is certainly welcome. The idea also fits nicely with the partnership principle i.e. the government funds education while Maori deliver it.

On a cynical level, the charter schools could, hypothetically speaking, mean profit. If the corporate arm of iwi, as opposed to say the social services arm, took responsibility for iwi charter schools then the motive would be profit. Controlling education would be another step in iwi’s desire for more control over New Zealand, especially in strategic areas. The iwi leaders are currently transfixed with delving into strategic resources and companies like geothermal power and Air New Zealand, but control over education is probably a far more potent area. Iwi could, hypothetically and cynically speaking of course, shape how their students see the world.

On a brighter note, iwi would be attracted to the idea as a means of reviving Maori culture. If our charter model is anything like the overseas models iwi would have the power to set the curriculum. Iwi could include subjects like rongoa (broadly speaking Maori medicine) or set up traditional wananga. This probably ties in to the principle of active protection i.e. the government, in allowing iwi to set such a curriculum, is taking active steps to protect Maori culture.

It’s a gamble though, allowing iwi anywhere near education. Iwi certainly have no experience in delivering education and I doubt there are many overseas models to draw on. Having said that, the kura kaupapa model is a good place to start. However, in my opinion kura kaupapa, although successful overall, are still suffering from teething problems. I don’t think it would be sensible for Iwi to deliver Maori language medium schools only too. Young Maori need to be prepared to enter the Pakeha world. This necessitates an element of mainstream education in whatever model iwi adopt.

I tentatively support the idea of iwi having some power over Maori education. This doesn’t mean I support the charter school model. In fact, I strongly oppose charter schools. I think it’s unfair that the overwhelmingly Maori populations in South Auckland and Christchurch East, along with the non-Maori population too, be subject to a trial of what is, at worst, a failed model. Surely John Banks should use his people in Epsom as guinea pigs for his pet idea. When the trial fails, or is repealed as soon as Labour gets in, New Zealand is going to have a subset of failed young people. I don’t think Act and National can see that there is a connection between poor policy and results in real world. Anyway, as above the idea of iwi control over Maori education is decent and if the charter idea goes ahead I’d support iwi involvement.