TE REO O TE TAITOKERAU:
HE TIROHANGA NA NGA KAIMAHI
Robert Shaw & Monte Ohia
GUIDING STATEMENT
Te Taitokerau - Te Hiku o te Ika nui a Maui
Ko to reo he mana - he wehi - he ihi - he wairua
whangaia a tatou tamariki mokopuna i te taonga tupuna nei.
Kia tupu ake ratou i roto i te korowai o te reo a o tatou matua tipuna nei
Ko te timatatanga o te kauri rangatiru
Ko te kakano nohinohi."
"Guiding Statement" developed for the project Te Reo O Te Taitokerau by Paki Para
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATEMENT
Extract from the Report of the Department of Education, 1988:
Te Reo o te Taitokerau - Oral Assessment of Maori Language
'This research and development project evaluated the effectiveness of an oral-assessment system for Maori language. It assessed School Certificate Maori candidates in the Taitokerau area of Northland in 1937. The project developed appropriate forms of moderation between schools, and involved the training of all teachers- of School Certificate Maori in Taitokerau as oral Maori assessors. Kaumatua and kuia actively participated in the developments. The project was successfully completed. The moderation and assessment procedures have continued during 1988 in Taitokerau and the marks awarded on the basis of these procedures shall be those awarded for School Certificate.
The move towards community-based assessments marks a significant departure from current assessment practices."
THIS CONFERENCE
In this conference the team responsible for the project wish to present some of the outcomes of Te Reo O Te Taitokerau. We seek an opportunity to debate the concepts, which were developed to facilitate the project.
In 1986, when the project was first considered, there was recognition of the need for participants to understand their own role, to understand the role of others and to assist others to maintain those roles.
Whilst our team might appear as NZCER's conference as one group we are three separate interest groups, with distinct and often different responsibilities. We are united in our concern for both Maori children and Te Reo. Nevertheless we operate from different bases - power and influence are derived from different sources, and accountability structure and issues are different.
We are
§ the community
§ the evaluators
§ the department
As members of these three groups we each have different roles to fulfill. At the same time we are also citizens, with some understanding of, and emotional involvement with, the needs of our country. Questions of role definition make demands upon our own integrity, and our willingness to accept the constraints under which others must operate.
The present paper considers three topics:
§ the context in which the project was developed
§ the project's history
§ some principles of development which have guided the present project*
A separate conference paper from Associate Professor J D Marshall and Dr M Peters considers the conceptual basis of the project, commenting on:
· evaluation as education
· evaluation as empowerment
· politics of 'community'
· empowerment
· devolution
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE UNDERTOOK THE PROJECT
Some of the values held by Maori involved in the project may be seen in the statement Paki Para wrote when asked to produce a "guiding statement" for the project Te Reo O Te Taitokerau. He wrote:
"Consideration as an official guiding statement for the project:
Te Taitokerau - Te Hiku o te Ika nui a Maui
Ko to reo he mana - he wehi - he ihi - he wairua
whangaia a tatou tamariki mokopuna i te taonga tupuna nei
Kia tupu ake ratou i roto i te korowai o te reo a o tatou matua tupuna.
Ko te timatatanga of te kauri rangatira
Ko te kakano nohinohi.
People of the North the tail of Maui's Great Fish
Your language is pride-prestige-power-spirit
Nourish our children with this sacred treasure of our ancestors.
The beginning of the majestic kauri
Is the humble (tiny) seed.
"In an attempt to embody the spirit of Te Reo o te Taitokerau Project within the confines of Maori prose the introductory statement is offered to project members for consideration rather than as an official guiding statement for the Project.
"It could be best described as a grouping of a selection of my own personal thoughts and feelings about the importance of Te Reo Maori in general, arranged (hopefully) into some semblance of order to convey the intended message with its significance and reference to Te Taitokerau. Like the consultation with Kaumatua and Kuia with regard to their support for this project, I am of the opinion that consultation and dialogue amongst project members is necessary and essential to ensure that the final official statement for the project receives unanimous support from members.
"When first approached to write an official guiding statement for the project my initial response was one of enthusiasm and confidence in being able to carry out and complete this task.
"However, because of my involvement in Maori committees within our community, as well as my own recent return to the Taitokerau after a twenty year sojourn in the East Coast, I consider consultation with my fellow team members of the utmost importance. I say this with all sincerity as the majority of the assessors have lived and worked within Te Taitokerau for most of their lives. Most importantly their Reo is of Te Taitokerau.
"With this in mind, the introductory statement to this paper is offered as a consideration which will, I hope, generate interest and contributions from project members. From this consultation and dialogue process I am confident that an official guiding statement to enhance and embody the spirit of the Taitokerau Project can be produced."
Paki Para
In 1986 the Waitangi Tribunal brought down its findings relating to Te Reo Maori. They declared, inter alia:
"The education system in New Zealand is operating unsuccessfully because too many Maori children are not reaching an acceptable standard of education. For some reason they do not or cannot take full advantage of it. Their language is not adequately protected and their scholastic achievements fall far short of what they should be. The promises of the Treaty of Waitangi of equality in education as in all other human rights are undeniable. Judged by the system's own standards Maori children are not being successfully taught, and for that reason alone, quite apart from a duty to protect the Maori language, the education system is being operated in breach of the treaty."
Then, on 20 July 1987 there was Royal assent to the Maori Language Act 1987 and Professor Timoti Karetu was subsequently appointed Maori Language Commissioner. The Crown had already acknowledged the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown now confirmed and guaranteed to the Maori people all their taonga. The Maori language is one such taonga.
Officials within the Department of Education considered the implications of this change of status for Te Reo and recent development work is thought to be consistent with the new status for the language.
School Certificate Maori had long been a controversial part of our schooling system. It came to be recognised as one specific departmental policy which had to deal directly with the diverse needs and demands of Maori people, Maori students, and the examination system and the structure of schooling. The conducting of School Certificate is, under the Education (Secondary Instruction) Regulations 1975, the responsibility of the Director-General. Prescriptions for subjects are laid down from time to time by the Minister.
Richard Benton wrote a report information on fairness in Maori Education for the Royal Commission on Social Policy . He summarised most of the recent research reports, policy documents, commentaries, practices, provisions and outcomes affecting Maori students in the secondary school. Benton concluded the following in relation to School Certificate as a whole:
'This examination is critically important because of its role as a filter in effectively limiting entrance to the upper levels of the secondary school system, by minimising success, and thereby limiting opportunities for entrance to tertiary institutions, particularly universities. This affects non-Maori more than Maori in terms of gross numbers, but Maori more than non-Maori proportionately. It denies access to higher level educational and employment opportunities for most Maori children, and it puts Maori in an uncompetitive situation even where they are successful, because of the vastly greater numbers of successful Pakeha.
On the SC subject Maori, debate has been continuous for at least two decades in the community, in schools, at the School Certificate Examination Board and within the department. It was argued that for "cultural reasons" the subject Maori did not sit well as a part of a norm-referenced national examination. There was also concern about the fate of Maori students in a competitive system. However, schools, Maori parents and Maori students were not willing in numbers to remove themselves from the School Certificate system. Maori people wished to be a part of mainstream schooling. It is noteworthy that most Maori enter a range of 'mainstream' subjects. Only one fifth of SC candidates who identify themselves ethnically as Maori, take the subject "Maori".
Achievement-based assessment was being discussed and development work undertaken in New Zealand and overseas. The Second Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Curriculum, Assessment, and Qualifications in Forms 5 to 7 stated for form 6 "the form of assessment at this level should move from one which ranks students to one which is achievement-based" (p. 91). They also proposed achievement criteria be prepared for the fifth form. Hence, in 1986 officials were concerned to investigate a possible basis for the use of criteria, both as a part of a norm-referenced system and a non-norm-referenced award.
About the same time there was emphasis being placed by the Government on the wider effects of New Zealand's award system. For pragmatic economic reasons there was emphasis on the educational development of tertiary education, particularly the "up-skilling" of the New Zealand work force as a whole. Debate was beginning on the effects of examinations on retention rates. Examination policy was coming to be seen as but one organ of social policy. Of course, education, policy, including examinations, has always been social policy. The emphasis in decision-making until recent times was, however, quite narrowly educational.
Finally, to complete a quick sketch of the project's context reference needs to be made to concerns about the SC Maori prescription. Marshall and Peters wrote to the department:
"Traditionally, Maori is an oral language based on a strong oral tradition which is at
the heart of Maori culture. For over a decade oral Maori had been a component of the
School Certificate Maori. While nominally worth 15 percent of the paper, the effective
weight of the oral component has been calculated at around 9 percent. The
overwhelming emphasis in the School Certificate examination Maori on written skills is
deemed by many as inappropriate in cultural terms and as reflecting pakeha educational
values rather than Maori ones.
(Marshall/Peters Evaluability Assessment)
There was a growing realisation among educational authorities of the importance not only of strengthening the role of Maori language but also dealing with cultural imbalance favouring literacy at the expense of oracy.
The Committee of Inquiry into Curriculum, Assessment and Qualifications in Forms 5-7 (Learning and Achieving, 1986) made the general call to replace foundation structures in education with stronger social principles, which recognise, among other things, not only the need for Maori language courses at all levels but also the Maori perspective on learning and assessment. In particular the committee notes:
in the present system assessment is almost always made on written work and results are reported in written form; this denies the preference of Maori people for a characteristically oral approach' (p.35)
It would be a mistake to believe that the context in which the project is undertaken is most important because the historical events recorded resulted in the department's embarking upon the project. The historical context is most important as the project develops for it provides the climate in which we work.
THE PROJECT'S HISTORY
The early history of the project was summarised in the Marshall/Peters evaluability assessment: "Relevant Background
a The Department of Education has been undertaking development work on School Certificate Oral Maori for some years. So far the development project has:
i produced five levels which are defined in Maori and will be used to guide assessors;
ii established more extensive training for the assessors;
iii re-designed the oral test;
iv resulted in three moderators being appointed to monitor standards in Maori;
v begun to explore means by which class teachers' involvement may be increased.
b Such development work must be set against more general changes. In 1984 the School Certificate Examinations Board agreed that marks in Maori be adjusted so that distribution is parallel to that in English. In May 1984 the Minister authorised the formation of Forms 3-7 Maori Language Syllabus Committee. The committee, in their report of 12 August 1986, expressed reservations concerning mark adjustments and distribution policies despite the raising of the median to 52 (same as School Certificate English) and the reporting in grades. The School Certificate Examinations Board asked the committee to consider the possibility of a criterion-based achievement system, total internal assessment and reporting oral and written components separately. In October 1985 an interim amendment to School Certificate Maori increased the oral component from 15 to 25 percent. A school survey in March 1985 revealed almost total support for increasing the weighting for the oral component and a substantial minority wanted to increase still further marks allotted to oral Maori.
c Monte Ohia, Robert Shaw and John Matthews from the Department of Education will manage and monitor the project known as Te Reo O Te Taitokerau.
Description of the Project
a The development project in Oral Maori has the following presuppositions
i Changes to the present methods of assessment must be compatible with the likely outcomes of Forms 3-7 Maori Language Syllabus Committee;
ii A criterion-based system of reporting oral assessment will probably be required (i.e. a system that is not norm-referenced);
ii Teacher involvement in, and hence Maori 'control' of the assessment of
candidates should be increased;
iv The oral component will become a more significant part of a form five course in Maori;
v Uniformity of standards must be maintained throughout the country.'
(from Departmental Report)
b The details of the project will be finalised in consultation with the
schools involved. At present, the project, known as Te Reo O Te Taitokerau, would appear to have the following features:
i About 15 schools and 207 fifth formers would be involved. This is all of
the Northland schools;
ii All students would be candidates for SC Maori in 1987;
iii All teachers of 1987 form five Maori classes would undergo the training
given to SC assessors and have the accuracy of their judgements considered
by a moderator;
iv Teachers would be trained at a two-day hui (teacher release days and
normal in-service support would be provided by the department). Early in
term 2 is a preferable time for training;
v Students to be assessed would be brought together into three or four
clusters (covering the whole of Northland). The travel costs for the trial
would be borne by the department and there would be teacher release days
where necessary. Travel distances will be minimised;
vi The venues would in preference be marae;
vii The middle of the second term is the best time for the assessment from the
point of view of the project,
viii How long it would take to assess candidates has still to be determined.
Further information on the time required will be provided to schools after
the initial meeting.'
(from Departmental letter to participating schools)
The Evaluation: Parameters
a The evaluators (Associate Professor Jim Marshall and Dr Mike Peters) were
approached by Mr Robert Shaw (Examinations and Assessment Unit, Department of Education) in early March 1987, briefed on the project and agreed to take part. Associate Professor Marshall was away on sabbatical leave until May 1987, although he indicated by letter his readiness and enthusiasm to be involved.
'As a plan of the overall development project it was proposed that there will be a one-year trial conducted to explore ways by which teachers of Maori may become more involved in the assessment of candidates. At present there is little information available on the feasibility of teacher-based assessment in oral Maori or on alternative forms of moderation between schools.'
(Departmental letter to participating schools)
The department developed a similar proposal to have teachers of Northland (Te Taitokerau) assess fifth form oral Maori and to compare the outcome with the School Certificate assessment in 1986 and although the idea received support financial considerations precluded the development.
b The evaluation will be of the one-year trial. The department expects to gain information on:
§ The effectiveness of assessor training.
§ The reliability of teacher assessment
§ The practicalities of moving candidates to central venues and the
effects on candidates
§ The appropriate forms of moderation for oral Maori
§ The costs associated with various approaches to moderation.
(From Departmental letter to participating schools)
Preliminary Organisation: Meeting with Project Participants
a A hui was arranged at Waimate North on Thursday 9 April 1987, on the basis of a letter of invitation to all Northland schools to discuss the project. In the letter it was indicated that participation in the project would be of considerable professional benefit to teachers although drawbacks to schools included the extra administrative burden placed on teachers. At the hui all but one Northland school was represented, and agreed to take part.
The Project team (Robert Shaw, Monte Ohia, John Matthews and Dave Para) and evaluator (Mike Peters) met with Te Taitokerau teachers ...
Robert Shaw provided an overview of the project emphasising the difference between the project and its evaluation. He addressed certain questions of standards and comparability and identified the organisational/logistical problems peculiar to Te Reo O Te Taitokerau project, viz. that of small numbers of candidates scattered throughout Northland. The notion was introduced that schools could be clustered together to comprise five central venues so as to solve the logistical problem of assessing candidates. Ten or so trained teacher assessors could then move from venue to venue assessing the 180+ candidates."
Officials saw how the community could become a part of the assessment process, through the medium of teachers. The teachers of Maori were to become the link between the non-teaching community and the department They could speak on behalf of the community if they had consulted with the community. From the department's perspective the teachers of Maori would sometimes speak as teachers and sometimes speak as a part of the community.
The pattern of assessment was developed in 1987. In 1988 the new approach was introduced as SC oral Maori for Taitokerau. The Gazette notice summarises how the scheme operates administratively in 1988:
'New Assessment Scheme in Northland
1 In 1988, In Northland, a new approach will be taken to the assessment of
the oral component.
2 The dialect examined in Northland shall be the Taitokerau dialect as defined
by the people of the region in 1987. Teachers should ensure their oral
teaching programmes reflect this,
3 All candidates in the region will be assessed by the new techniques.
Candidates from the registered schools must enter the Taitokerau scheme.
4 A teacher of Form 5 Maori from each school will be invited to be trained in
assessment techniques. The teacher will be expected to assess at a standard
of competency set by the Department of Education. The 1988 training
meeting will be 9am 13 April 1988 to 4.30pm on 15 April 1988.
5 Candidates' oral competence will be assessed at least four times during the
year as follows:
a By their teacher in the week 6 June to 10 June 1988;
b By at least one other teacher in the week 13 June to 17 June 1988;
c By their teacher in the week 26 September to 30 September 1988;
d By at least one other teacher in the week 3 October to 7 October 1988.
6 All assessments will be subject to moderation by the Department of
Education. The Department of Education has appointed Mr D Para, adviser,
Auckland, as moderator for Taitokerau. He will be responsible for ensuring
the comparability of judgements between teachers. The national School
Certificate Oral Maori Moderators will continue to hold responsibility for
standards throughout the country including Northland.
7 The teacher's team leader who will be responsible for the training of the
teachers in 1988 will be Mrs R Rihari of Tikipunga High School, the project
manager who will be responsible for organisational and administrative
matters is Mr S Stewart of Kerikeri High School and the officer for liaison
with the Department of Education is Mr J Matthews, adviser, Whangarei.
8 Any school in Northland which has not been contacted and which expects
candidates for SC Maori in 1988 should contact Mr Matthews without
delay.
9 The following schools are registered as belonging to the scheme in 1988,
the days given being the days their candidates will be externally assessed
within the assessment weeks.
a Broadwood Area School Mondays
b Panguru High School Mondays
c Te Kao Area School Mondays
d Kaitaia College Mondays
e Taipa Area School Mondays
f Opononi Area School Tuesdays
g Northland College Tuesdays
h Whangaroa College Wednesdays
i Bay of Islands College Wednesdays
j Ruawai College Thursdays
k Okaihau College Wednesdays
I Ruawai College Thursdays
m Rodney College Thursdays
n Tikipunga High School Thursdays
o Whangarei Boys' High School Thursdays
p Whangarei Girls' High School Thursdays
10 The external assessment venues will be those used in the trial in 1987.
11 The Department of Education wishes to devolve more of the administrative
responsibility for the operation of the scheme. This matter will be
considered further in 1988.
12 Officer for enquiries: Robert Shaw, Education Officer, Department of
Education, Head Office, Wellington. Telephone (04) 716-136.'
(Education Gazette 1 February 1988)
The outcomes will be described in NZCER's conference by members of the Taitokerau community. For completeness here we summarise some of the outcomes of the project as reported to us by Maori participants concerned about children and Te Reo.
In Maori terms the project was of value in three spheres. There were educational, cultural and linguistic benefits.
The educational benefits were the effects on children, teachers and schools. The mana of Maori children and teachers of Maori was raised by the project. Teachers reported that their classroom practice was being improved because of their work on assessment. The project brought into schools a focus on Maori children and the subject Maori. It precipitated debate within a number of schools about the status of Maori. Strengthened by the project the teachers were able to better represent what they perceived as the needs of Maori students.
The 1987 School Certificate results showed that the performance of candidates in both the oral and written Maori was enhanced. Benefits in relation to pupil self esteem, and pride have been reported. A closer, more productive, relationship has been developed between some students and teachers. No individual candidate was labelled as a failure (by either the assessing or the reporting procedures) and the worth of each person was acknowledged. Emphasis was on the communal nature of the interaction during the assessment process. Individual excellence was recognised and rewarded within the context of a group performance.
Benefits for Maori culture were claimed. Maori values were brought into a project on School Certificate and it was found that they were appropriate, applicable and helpful. The assessors established an assessment whanau (equivalent to a cluster moderation team) which appeared to take on a life of its own; The assessment whanau produced its own approach to assessment and moderation. But, its achievements went beyond this. It became involved in addressing issues that were of national importance: what can be done to improve retention rates? how can all age groups within the community be brought together? how can greater funding be attracted to Maori concerns? how can the Taitokerau experience be used to improve the assessment of School Certificate Maori nationally? how can the learning of Te Reo for SC purposes be used to strengthen an ACCESS programme? All these issues have been addressed in a practical way. Maori culture, in its widest sense, has benefited from the project.
Finally, linguistic gains have been reported. The Taitokerau language was used. The kaumatua and kuia endorsed the language being taught to their children. They have been involved in the School Certificate assessment of their language. The department has acknowledged a Taitokerau dialect. In no other project, to our knowledge, have these events occurred
All these benefits are best, and more appropriately, elaborated on orally by the Taitokerau people at the conference.
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT
We have described the project. The remainder of our paper deals with "principles of development". These are a series of propositions which relate to the way in which our office designed, negotiated and managed the project Te Reo Te Taitokerau.
Some of the principles also draw upon our experience in other projects. One serious attempt to have communities involved in the implementation of central government education policy on a substantial scale was the Community Education Initiatives Scheme. This project developed from the recommendations of a committee which considered the "gang problem". This project suggested some of the principles subsequently more clearly identified in Te Reo O Te Taitokerau. The State Services Commission's project on executive decision-making suggested principles, particularly regarding the professional relationship between evaluators and the department.
At a very basic level the propositions are principles which some officials found helpful in the discharge of their duties. They may be of assistance to others. At a more profound level the propositions may begin a discussion which seeks a theoretical understanding of the role of an official in policy development and the implementation of policy. At the end of our paper we list nine principles of development. They are now discussed under the headings: development, the iterative model of policy development, evolution as a strategy for policy development, the department's leadership role, department/community/ school interactions.
BALANCING THE POWER STRUCTURES
People will not work without reason. A department cannot expect members of the community to work in pursuit of abstract policies, unless the benefits to the individuals themselves (as well as others) are clear. When the project Te Reo O Te Taitokerau was planned the rationale had to be such as to persuade the Taitokerau teachers that the project was worthwhile.
When the project was first discussed at Te Kauri it was rejected. Teachers were immediately aware of the enormous work load involved and quite uncertain of the benefits. They were uncertain of how the project would develop in practice - and there were many questions that departmental officers just could not answer.
A scrupulous honesty and a forthright manner helps such situations. But, it is more important that the community be offered a genuine sharing of power. This means that the community must be able to take decisions and know that the department will respect those decisions. It also means that the community's ability to influence the department be established in a way that is supported by more than the good graces of officers in the department
So, how does a department share power? First, it must be recognised that when the project began everything was on the side of the department. We worked full-time on these matters, we held all the resources, we had experience in similar situations, we had colleagues to whom we could turn for guidance and support
The system in which the project operated is totally the domain of the officials and largely incomprehensible to outsiders. The community has no independent source of advice. In both the case of CEIS and Te Reo O Te Taitokerau the communities had no resources for meeting and reaching collective decisions.
To address this situation the following steps were taken:
a Independent evaluators were established. Paid for by the department, but given the brief to represent arguments which they thought to be sound. When they were introduced to school principals, the community and to teachers of Maori, it was stressed that the evaluators were independent The evaluators were in a position to receive confidential information from people in Taitokerau. They were in a position to place pressure on the department. They had the physical resources and the necessary credibility. Their integrity was such that they could be relied upon to pursue issues until satisfactory resolution was obtained.
b Information and advice was given to members of the community. The evaluators took a considerable role in this as did the department. We explained in detail, and repeatedly, how the system worked, where decisions were taken, what decisions were beyond the prerogative of particular individuals, and how the community might in a legitimate and genuine way influence decisions.
c The Education Act and the Finance Act define the department's responsibility. We reviewed the Acts and subsequent decisions to determine what were our minimal responsibilities. Then, the decision was taken that we would hand over responsibility for all other matters to the people of Taitokerau if they wished to accept that responsibility.
d We paid attention to the morale of the teachers. We tried to be available and supportive, but not directive.
11
There is debate over further steps which, could, or should, be taken. They relate in the main to the financial decision-making. More work is needed, to make clear the theory which relates to the first practical steps that must be taken when central government institutions attempt to share power. We hope NZCER's conference addresses this important issue.
THE PROJECT PUSHES POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Nobody doubts that officials developing the project must be open with the community. It is also the case that work has to be done to ensure the project is "open" within the department. There are practical, pragmatic reasons why it is desirable to keep all of the organisation's head office divisions and the regional office well informed. These reasons relate to project management. Beyond project management, there is a further essential reason for actively pursuing openness within the organisation. Te Reo O Te Taitokerau was structured in order to have an impact on policy decision-making in a wide variety of contexts. "Openness" within the department makes this possible. Four examples indicate some success:
1 As the project proceeded it had a considerable influence on the Maori Language
Syllabus Committee. They were briefed on the project from its inception.
However, care was taken by the Qualifications and Assessment Division not to
claim too much for the project or to argue for particular decisions. The work of the
evaluators and the direct experiences of persons who had been involved in the
project influenced the Maori Language Syllabus Committee.
2 People associated with the project were aware of the possible relationship with the
Maori Language Act 1987 and this resulted in contact being made with the Maori
Language Commissioner. He was briefed on the project and supported the work.
Subsequently, discussion went to other areas of department policy concerning Te
Reo and further meetings occurred between the Commissioner and the
department's management
3 The project influenced the assessment of SC Maori nationally. The department's
efforts to cluster candidates from groups of schools for the oral test became
acceptable to teachers when the Taitokerau example became known. The
development of a criterion-referenced SC written Maori has been markedly
influenced by Taitokerau. It is unlikely the department could have embarked upon
its present project in written Maori had the Taitokerau project not been successful.
4 Experience regarding achievement-based assessment gained in the project being
applied by the department in Sixth Form Certificate development projects.
Any assessment of Te Reo O Te Taitokerau's value or worth (effectiveness or efficiency, perhaps) needs to take the wider policy outcomes into account Such matters seldom appear in accounts of projects but they are genuine tangible benefits. They are benefits which are only achievable because the project is in place, the developers seek to capitalise on it, and the tradition of openness is established within the department from the project's inception.
THE ITETRATIVE MODEL OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
A development officer within a department is concerned to find means by which both policy and practice may be altered for the better. A frequently seen strategy of development within the present administrative system is to say:
· there is a problem
· we will investigate
· after the investigation reports will be given to various committees for consideration
· we will consider what the committees say
· we, or they, will decide.
This linear model may work, but we have never seen it work. It tends to result in "closed" limited investigations instead of open developmental projects. The linear model sometimes results in clean unequivocal decisions which, on reflection, seem unsound In many contexts the following approach is preferable. It might be called an iterative model.
· there is a problem
· we will relate it to other problems in the same field
· we will establish a project with limited objectives
· we will ensure that all parties who have a genuine interest in the problem are involved
· forums will be established where proper discussion can take place
· (over a relatively long period)
· we will assist with the development of concepts to address the problems
· we will re-define the problem - alter our objectives - as the project proceeds
· we will make and promulgate policy changes as and when their merit becomes clear
· the iterative process (problem-forum-re-definition-decision-change-problem) will proceed with the department minimising its input as far as it is able consistent with the perceived importance of the current policy objectives.
What happens within the forum is largely the key to the success of the project. Practical experiences need to be reflected upon in light of theoretical understanding (and the striving for theoretical understanding). Stephen Toulmin has written much on problem solving forums in his version of the evolutionary model for the advance of science. In our model of policy change the forum has many features in common with that described by Toulmin. When the iterative model of policy development is operated we see the maintenance of forums as being probably the prime practical responsibility of the department.
In Te Reo O Te Taitokerau there was one major decision: would the trial year result in the new approach to SC assessment being established in Taitokerau. From the beginning of the project it was clear that that decision could only sensibly be taken in late 1987. At that time it was possible to know the project's outcomes and it was still possible to take decisions for the 1988 school year. Planning was necessary to ensure that the outcomes of the project were conveyed to those responsible for the decision. Opportunities had to be established to allow full discussion of the project by the wide range of departmental officers who would contribute to the making of the decision to continue the project. All this took place before the evaluators had written their final report. Yet the evaluators' role was critical. They initiated the discussion by providing draft reports. Their visit to Wellington ensured the department confronted the issues which were placed before the department by John Matthews and Dave Para.
The substantive point is that decisions to change practice are best taken during the course of the project. Planning needs to be undertaken to bring this about
EVOLUTION AS A STRATEGY FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
We support departments taking an "evolutionary" approach to policy development The alternative is to legislate once to make a series of interlocked changes.
Proposals to develop the School Certificate Maori prescription have been discussed for at least the last 15 years. The minutes of the School Certificate Examination Board record many attempts to have substantial changes considered. Always the approach proposed was that there be a review and then decisions would be taken: the linear model.
Eventually, Maori Language Syllabus Committees were established to totally revise the teaching of the subject Maori in primary and secondary schools. There was to be a major change made to the teaching of Maori and examination prescriptions were to be subsequently reviewed. There was to be a "revolution".
The Maori Language Syllabus has been at least five years in preparation, its draft for secondary schools is still not published, and it will be many years before it results in changes within the school system. Their review and the consultation process are very time-consuming. Prescriptions for examinations have yet to be considered.
A series of small changes made to the SC prescription (and to assessment techniques) in the last three years have resulted in substantial improvements. Changes are reported to be having a positive effect on teaching practice. The Taitokerau project was undertaken within the existing SC prescription. No changes needed to be made to any regulations to accommodate Taitokerau.
If anything, the evolutionary approach to policy development is probably assisted by financial constraints. Financial constraint encourages developers to examine every decision carefully. If there had been more money available it is difficult to see how it could have markedly improved the outcome. The problems of the project were never financial. The pace of the project is decided by other factors. The department set deadlines at various points and made them very clear. See the Gazette notice for example. People need time to consider proposals, formulate their response and act New actions are, in this work, developments from established patterns of behaviour and not a de novo synthesis.
Our conclusion is: change for the better is more likely to result from deliberately pursuing an "evolutionary" model of change, than it is by reviewing the whole policy with a view to major change.
THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP ROLE
Management theory tells us that the best leadership style is largely dependent on the task to be performed.
When confronted with a project like Te Reo O Te Taitokerau what style of leadership should be provided? Here we do not intend to list the alternatives which are available, but rather to note some of the leadership characteristics, and personal inclinations which we have found to be helpful in the project
A good place to begin is by recognising that the project has a strong intellectual base. It is driven by concepts and arguments about concepts. It is possible to see the project as being instrumental in achieving specific aims or objectives which are determined at the outset But, to confine the project in this way is to limit both its potential and the scope for the involvement of other people.
The alternative is to accept that the actual objectives for the project are open to modification, indeed, radical change, as the project proceeds. The project's objectives are expressions derived from broad social concepts. Mission statements (and broad social objectives) are often more clear than specific project objectives. Changes in the conception of the project are only possible through debate in appropriate forums.
Hence, much abstract writing and an enormous amount of talking is at the heart of the project. (We had better add that a public servant has a clear responsibility to guide such modifications to the objectives to ensure that the government's project continues to accord with the government's broad intentions.) Consequently, the first requirement is that the department is fully involved in the more abstract debates.
Second, the essence of leadership according to some managers is to be found in the battle for the hearts and minds of people. Leaders succeed in having their views prevail. So it is with the Department of Education which has a responsibility to ensure people become convinced of the value of the government's broad policy objectives and the best educational practice.
In a project like Te Reo O Te Taitokerau there are times when it is possible to share a vision of the future with others. Such moments are rare. One occurred when Taitokerau teachers agreed to participate in the trial and many said "it is our chance" "we have been given an opportunity". More frequently, however, there is not the opportunity to share a vision and the developers' specific objectives can only be gained through negotiation. This results in co-operation but not converts. Often the whole hearted support of people is only achieved by having people experience particular events and then allowing them to see the benefits. We saw our role as that of winning converts.
One aspect of the leadership style that appeared appropriate in this form of policy development is that officials must hold a strong, unwavering commitment to achieving goals, because methods of working are often indirect and results only become apparent after many months. In Te Reo O Te Taitokerau the department placed problems in the hands of the Taitokerau community, provided suggestions and tried to ensure morale was high. Whilst the community worked on the problems, officials had to allow decision-making to take place in Taitokerau and also to search for ways to ensure the longer-term goals of the department were likely to be met.
The account that has been given to how the project Te Reo O Te Taitokerau was conceived and managed may be thought to indicate that those involved were manipulative. It is for the people of Taitokerau to say how they felt about the project at various times.
When considering leadership styles it is important to ask: what other approach might have been taken to develop a new form of School Certificate Maori? The community became the focus of the project and it is fitting that this be so. Viewed from the work responsibilities of many within the Department of Education, however, the project was, is, and probably always will be an explanation within School Certificate. From that perspective the department's responsibilities come to the fore and two requirements stand out - justice must be done to individual candidates, and the credibility of the award must be maintained. Both of these responsibilities are derived directly from the Education Act 1984 Section 196A. Consequently, officials did not hold the option of allowing the community to proceed without adherence to some basic requirements.
It is in this context of responsibility that we must ask at NZCER's Conference for suggestions on other approaches to the task of developing School Certificate Maori
DEPARTMENT/COMMUNITY/SCHOOL INTERACTIONS
The department in Te Reo O Te Taitokerau developed a strategy for "consultation". We wished to allow the community to be involved in the most appropriate and productive manner. The practical detail, and the hard work was largely on the shoulders of Paki Para. The Marshall/Peters paper at the present conference considers the concepts involved at some length. Here we list some of the ideas which were discussed as the project proceeded:
a It was accepted that the language of Taitokerau belonged to (was "owned by") the people of Taitokerau. Consequently, the department sought the permission of those people for their taonga to be used in the project. Paragraph 2 of the Gazette notice quoted in the present paper acknowledges the relationship.
b Various strategies were considered to gain the permission of the people before an approach was selected. It was decided Paki Para would visit selected families one at a time. He represented the department to people in their own homes and took the time necessary to explain the department's intentions. This is preferable to hui when the issues are complex and very important Hui followed.
c Head Office officials encouraged the involvement of kaumatua and kuia in all hui. This meant that the training of teachers and the assessment of candidates was open to the community. The effects were clear. Most important of them from an educationalist's perspective was the strengthening of the teachers. We believe teacher performance improved in part as a result of community scrutiny, but, more important, the teachers' position in their own school was strengthened. The status of the subject Maori was raised in the minds of school principals and other teachers. Initial concerns expressed by principals about teacher work load were to some extent overtaken when there was subtle scrutiny of their schools by the community.
In the present constitutional arrangement the department's ability to influence school principals, and school governing bodies, is limited. The community's support for some of the department's objectives was appreciated It was in the interests of children. It appears that the community was empowered by the department providing information, resources and suggestions.
d A model for school/community interaction was identified and encouraged. In most New Zealand schools 'the' school interacts with 'its' community. If the relationship is weak on the side of either the school or the community, the whole relationship breaks down. Leadership is needed on both sides. That leadership may not always be present.
In the Taitokerau model of school/community interaction schools are grouped together and the community is grouped together. Consequently, the benefits of good leadership were seen to have a wide influence.
The department has not been able to monitor the changes principals have made to the extent that we might have wished. The early role of the Northland Principals' Association must be noted in addition to the leadership shown by individual principals.
In October 1988 the department is to meet both the principals of Taitokerau and the teachers of Maori. We hope that all principals will decide to regularly meet the teachers as part of the second assessment week. If a forum can be established in which issues can be debated we expect improved standing for teachers of Maori and improved decision-making in individual schools. We see the department's role as one of strengthening individuals, encouraging a high standard of professional debate and imparting information when the opportunity arises.
e The department allowed the community the opportunity to take initiative. There are many things paid, experienced administrators can probably do more quickly and easily than the community. Actually, efficiency and effectiveness are not all that is at stake. We recognise the symbolism and the rights of persons to control their own affairs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The history of Te Reo O Te Taitokerau, from the perspective of departmental development officers, suggests the following principles of project management:
a Complex problems which involve the community are best resolved by an iterative model of evolutionary decision-making. The essence of this approach to policy development is that concepts are developed and they are subject to scrutiny in appropriate forums. This results in good decision-making with commitment to ideas, and in turn ensures practical outcomes.
b Useful progress can result from a department's undertaking policy development as a series of smaller steps. Evolutionary approach is often more rapid than the more extensive, embracing review of policy.
c Within the department procedures need to be established to enable knowledge of the project to be brought into focus whenever it can contribute to policy-making.
d Funding for implementation stages, should the project be successful, needs to be planned for in advance.
e The department's leadership role in this approach to policy development largely relates to two matters:
i fostering the development of new concepts to address problems, and
ii the obtaining of commitment of participants to both the broad policy objectives and the specific actions necessary to operate the project.
f Officials wishing to operate a programme which involves community responsibility can begin by reviewing the exact parameters of the department's responsibility as set down by statute.
g When attempting to involve the community in a project, positive steps must be taken to balance the power structures.
h Evaluators can be established to play a professional political role in project
development. They are useful as advocates for arguments, which they consider to be sound, both in the community and in the department.
i All effects, both within the department as well as in the community, should be taken into account before judging the worth of a project such as Te Reo O Te Taitokerau.
These principles are indicative of the values held by some officials. They are also suggestive of a particular relationship between community - department - evaluators. We hope that they may further discussion of both the project Te Reo O Te Taitokerau and management theory.
* The opinions expressed are those of the individuals attending the conference and should not be read as department policy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Both personally, and on behalf of the Department of Education, we wish to thank the following persons, all of whom have contributed to the project.
Nga tamariki O Te Taitokerau, Kaumatua and Kuia, Teachers of Maori, John Matthews,Dave and Molly Para, Oneroa Stewart, Wiremu McMath,Tupu Williams, Rehi Rihari, Kath and Andy Sarich, Mike and Gail Peters, Jim Marshall, Hans Wagemaker, Tony McNaughton, David Hughes, Rory O'Connor, Lyall Perris, Jim Strachan,Wiremu Kaa, Jim Ross, Akuhata Tangaere,Toko Hau, Peter Tipene, Ngarui Wihongi, Kepa Stirling, Massey Nathan, Judith Riki, John Sadler, Les Laurenson,Laurie Pink, Maurice Dean, Raoul Cornwell, Peter Andrews, Elgin Edwards, Brian Armstrong, Alan Taylor, Jill Parker, Greg West, Jim Peters, Cleve Barlow, Meremere Penfold, Brian Smart, Frank Leadley, Allan Dickie, Edna Tait, Doug Simpson, George Bryant, Keith Dewhurst, Whena Pink, Takiri Pumipi, Ella Spring, Kahu Waititi, George Wynyard, Peter Wensor, Pare Nathan, Patsy Shaw, Pani Hauraki, Betty Farr, Miria Rose, Ipu Absolum, Gail Maloney, Sue Lindsay, Chris Simms Members of the National Moderators of Oral Maori, Ces Manning, Wally Penetito, Tony Cross.
"KO TE REO TE MAURI O TE MANA MAORI"
- Sir James Henare
Paper presented to the:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
Wellington
New Zealand
1988