teaching in context: some implications of a racialised
Post on 04-Feb-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
23 November, 2008
Teaching in context: Some implications of a racialised social order
Keith Ballard
Emeritus Professor, University of Otago
Word count: Text = 7711 Text + references = 9666.
2
Teaching in context: Some implications of a racialised social order.
Keynote address presented to the Te Kötahitanga Voices Conference 2008, University of Waikato, 26-27 November, 2008
Keith Ballard
I extend my thanks to Professor Russell Bishop for inviting me to take part in this
conference and to present this lecture to you this morning.
At a conference last year I presented a paper on aspects of the social, political and
ideological contexts within which teachers undertake their work (Ballard, 2007). It is on
the basis of that paper that Russell has asked me to talk about context today (note 1).
In particular Russell suggested to me that one of the studies I had referred to would seem
especially relevant to the work of Te Kötahitanga. This is research by the Ministry of
Health and University of Otago (2006) and I have taken from that work the second part of
my title today, the idea of “a racialised social order” (p.4).
To speak of racism and of systemic discrimination is to engage in a challenging and
fraught task. It is challenging because it requires care in the definitions that are used and
in the quality of the evidence that is presented to support a claim that one group of people
experiences harm from the ideas and actions of another group. It is a fraught area because
issues of race and ethnicity arouse strong emotions. Those of us in a majority position
may deny the existence of racism, deny our own part in it or imagine that any harm a
minority experiences is self-inflicted (Sleeter, 2001). Also, racism is a repellent idea to
3
most people so that speaking of it is often avoided. In any case, it needs to be approached
with care lest wrongful attributions are made.
For such reasons I avoided for some time including the notion of a ‘racialised social
order’ in the sub-title of this paper. But it was clear that this would not do. The use of the
term in the joint Ministry of Health and University of Otago (2006) research – two
agencies that I suggest are not known for their unreasoned claims – is based on
compelling data that indicates a context that should be a matter of serious concern (2).
So, before telling you how I have organised my thoughts on context in this paper I will
summarise some key findings from this health research. One aspect of this continuing
work is a comparison of life expectancy between Mäori and non- Mäori. In health and in
epidemiological research life expectancy is regarded as a key indicator of how well a
society cares for its people (Wilkinson, 2005). In their studies the Ministry of Health and
University of Otago (2006) have used census and health data to report on what they term
the 1981 to 1999 ‘decades of disparity’. These were the years when neo-liberal ideology
was embedded into economic and social policies in New Zealand creating an increasingly
unequal society. The study data show that in this period Mäori, who already had higher
mortality rates, experienced a decline in life expectancy in comparison with non-Mäori.
Disparity in life expectancy at birth increased from six to seven years in the early 1980’s
to eight to nine years by 1999 (Ministry of Health & University of Otago, 2006, p. xi).
4
The researchers report that the increase in socio-economic inequality for Mäori in
comparison with non-Mäori in this period explains up to half the observed disparity in
life expectancy between the two groups. Life style variables – including smoking, diet
and alcohol consumption – were found to contribute less than 10% of the variance. This
negates a deficit interpretation of the data (p. 59). Also, inequality in life expectancy was
evident within socio-economic groups (that is, “Mäori : non-Mäori inequalities in
mortality persist within socio-economic strata”, p.xii) indicating that socio-economic
position alone was not the major health impact. Rather, the researchers say that
“discrimination and socio-economic position are closely intertwined” reflecting a
“racialised social order” in which health inequalities are the result of inequalities of
resources and power (Ministry of Health & University of Otago, 2006, p.4).
As well as emphasising that “ethnicity cannot be reduced to ‘socioeconomic position’ in
terms of health impact…” (p. xii) these researchers say that because of historically
unequal access to power and resources the “lived reality” of different socio-economic
positions is unlikely to be the same for Mäori and non- Mäori (p. xii).
Commenting on the most recent of the “tracking disparity” reports, researcher Tony
Blakely says that in the period to 2004 the data show that socio-economic and ethnic
disparities “are no longer widening…” but that “the gaps in death rates – especially the
two-to-three fold high death rates for Mäori compared to European/Other- remain
especially high” (Blakely, 2007, p.1). In this regard Blakely and his colleagues report
that, independent of socio-economic position, the unequal distribution of resources
5
resulting from institutional racism “contribute to much of the ethnic disparities” recorded
in their data and that there is also evidence that interpersonal discrimination contributes
independently to disparities in health status (Blakely, Tobias, Atkinson, Yeh, & Huang,
2007, p.128). As Blakely and his colleagues emphasise, “without doubt not all ethnic
inequalities are explained by socioeconomic position” (Blakely, et al, 2008, slide 34).
I will return to this point later as it challenges a proposal by some researchers (for
example, Openshaw, 2007) that social class and socio-economic status should be
emphasised in the analysis of Mäori experience. However, at this point I want to suggest
the importance of the Ministry of Health and University of Otago (2006; Blakely et al,
2007) findings. They show that New Zealand social conditions, in which racism has a
part, have resulted in a decline in Mäori life expectancy in comparison with non- Mäori
across a ten-year period. That is surely a social context that warrants concern.
The health research studies refer to the intergenerational and cumulative effects on Mäori
of low incomes and poverty. In the next section of my paper I show that levels of child
poverty are high in New Zealand and represent an important context for the work of
teachers.
Following that I will consider racism as a context worthy of teacher study and critical
thought. As Donaldo Macedo and Lilia Bartolome (2001) note, the Brazilian educator
Paulo Freire held that while teachers may not be able “to compensate for structural
inequalities that students face outside of the classroom…” they can work to understand
6
issues of power and control, to provide supportive classrooms and to do their best to help
students deal with injustices in and beyond school (p. 126).
I follow this with a section in which I comment on a recent report on Te Kötahitanga and
suggest how ideas form a context for policy and practice in teaching. I will then conclude
with some thoughts on teaching and context and on how relationships are central to each
of the areas I have discussed.
Poverty and inequality
Susan St John and her colleagues in the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) say that
official recognition of child poverty in New Zealand occurred for the first time in June
2002 in the Labour led governments Agenda for Children document (St John & Wakin,
2003, p.5). It was known that from the early eighties the overall number of New
Zealanders in poverty had risen dramatically to around 20% in 1993 (St John & Wakin,
2003). Using a poverty threshold of 60% equivalent net-of-housing costs median income,
the Ministry of Social Development (2002, p. 10) showed that by 2002 there were 29% of
New Zealand children living in poverty with 66% of children of sole parents living in
poverty (St John & Wakin, 2003, p.10). St John (2007, p. 2) notes that in 2004 one out of
every five children “still exists at the margins of society” while the Ministry of Social
Development (2004, p.6) records that in sole parent homes one in five reported they
“could only sometimes afford to eat properly”.
7
In this context it should be no surprise that the United Nations International Children’s
Education Fund (UNICEF) Child poverty in rich countries (2005) report records that out
of 24 OECD countries New Zealand is one of a group of five that show “exceptionally
high rates of child poverty” (p. 3). Waldegrave, King and Stuart (1999) note from their
study that such poverty is experienced disproportionately among Mäori and Pacific Island
people (p. 47). Fletcher and Dwyer (2008) report that 22% of New Zealand children live
in poverty (using 60% median income after housing costs, p.18) comprising 16% Päkehä,
27% Maori, 40% other (including Pacifica children, p.25).
There are different ways of measuring poverty, but each has a theoretical and
methodological justification and is open to critical appraisal (St John 2007; UNICEF,
2005). The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2005) supports research on a range of
poverty indicators but notes that “income and its distribution [is] the leading indicator of
poverty…and the most telling single indicator of child well being” (p. 7). Such a measure
is relative to a particular time and place so that it refers to fairness in the distribution of
resources that are available in a society. Nevertheless, in all contexts poverty correlates
with indicators of wellbeing in areas of health, nutrition, education and social
participation (UNICEF, 2005; Fletcher & Dwyer, 2008). It is in these areas that poverty
is recognised in research as having long term implications accruing cumulative damage
(Ministry of Social Development, 2004, p. 10; St John, 2007).
At the same time that high levels of child poverty have been created in New Zealand,
data also shows the development of increasing inequality. Waldegrave(1998) cites a
8
report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in Britain that notes that “income inequality
has been growing more rapidly in the UK than in other [OECD] countries except New
Zealand” (Barcley, 1995, p. 14, cited in Waldegrave, 1998, p. 3). Statistics New Zealand
(Cheung, 2007) calculates a Gini coefficient (a summary measure of inequality where the
range is from 0 to 1, the closer to 1 the higher the inequality) for New Zealand of 0.693
(p. 8) which is consistent with international data indicating New Zealand as having one of
the highest measures of inequality internationally ( Conceicao & Galbraith, 2001, p. 155).
Statistics New Zealand report that the top 10% of wealthy individuals own 51.8% of New
Zealand’s total net worth while the bottom 50% of New Zealanders “owns a mere 5.2
per cent of total net worth…” (Cheung, 2007, p. 6)
In this context, data for the years 1982 to 1998, the period within which neo-liberal
market policies were initiated in New Zealand, show that the mean household equivalent
disposable income (adjusted for number of people and in 1998 dollars) for the lowest
income group decile involved a loss of – 17% in that period (Mowbray, 2001, cited in
Povey, 2002, p. 22). The top income group, decile 10, made a 36% gain in the same
period. The Child Poverty Action Group (St John & Wakim, 2003) says that this shows a
“large shift of income from low and middle income groups to the highest income group”
(p. 11) with an actual decline in income at the lower levels.
From University of Texas Inequality Project data (Galbraith & Berner, 2001), James
Galbraith (2001) says that the sharp rise in inequality in OECD countries after 1981, with
New Zealand showing the largest increase, is not explained by advances in technology or
9
by trade data. Galbraith claims that “[r]ather, the timing points mainly at the quasi-
violent, financial regime change of the early 1980’s” (p. 3). This analysis is supported by
Joseph Stiglitz, former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.
Stiglitz (2003) documents increases in poverty and inequality in countries that have
followed what he terms the “fundamentalist” free market economics promoted by the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund (p.35; see also Naomi Klein, 2007, and
Nobel economist Paul Krugman, 2007).
Nevertheless, there are two contrasting explanations for why significant poverty exists in
New Zealand. Both reflect a different imagining of human motivations and
responsibilities.
The dominant imagination is evident in the neo-liberal discourse of welfare dependency
(Fraser & Gordon, 1997) advanced by both the Labour and National parties. The neo-
liberal belief is that humans are essentially individualistic and self- seeking. This means
that they cannot be trusted to work without the pervasive surveillance systems of
managerialist performativity ( Ball, 1999), and that they may not work at all if they
receive money in the form of welfare benefits on which they will become dependent.
Overcoming ‘dependency’ was the justification given by a National government for the
severe cuts it made to welfare benefits in the 1991 budget, with no research undertaken to
assess the likely impact on families and children ( Blaiklock, Kiro, Belgrave, Low,
Davenport and Hassal 2002, p. 8).
10
Subsequent Labour led governments have not restored benefit levels to pre 1991 levels
(benefits are well below 1991 levels even with recent family tax credits, see Fletcher &
Dwyer, 2008) and have continued to implement the “hard core” of neo-liberal policies
(Roper, 2005, p. 234) that reflect a dependency model (Blaiklock et al, 2002). This model
constructs the issue of welfare assistance not as a sharing of community resources in the
interests of general wellbeing but as a problem of individual responsibility. It involves a
particular concern directed at women who are single parents and assumes that child
rearing itself is not productive work (Fraser & Gordon, 1997). An overall result of this
belief system is that New Zealand does not have family benefits with a universal
component, which are widely regarded as more effective than our targeted benefits, and
the present (2007) Working for Families policy offers support only to those with work,
leaving aside a vulnerable 250,000 children (St John, 2007).
The dominant explanation for poverty, then, locates the problem within the motivation
and morality of the individual. An alternative explanation for the causes of poverty places
emphasis on the wider socio-cultural context that is created as the result of chosen
economic policies and practices.
As the data on poverty shows, the cost to New Zealand children of our chosen policies is
considerable. The most recent UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7 ranks New Zealand as
in the worst group for child income poverty at 19 out of 25 OECD countries (UNICEF,
2007, p. 42). New Zealand is also ranked last but one at the bottom of a table (24 out of
25 countries) on measures of the health and safety of children (p. 12), and New Zealand
11
is the worst country in the OECD (24 out of 24) for deaths from accidents and injuries
per 100,00 under 19 years of age (p. 16). These measures of health and safety are
described by UNICEF as “indicators of the societies overall level of commitment to
children” (UNICEF, 2007, p. 13).
UNICEF (2007) emphasises that comparisons across countries show that there is “no
obvious relationship between levels of child well-being and GDP per capita” (p. 3) and
that poor levels of child well-being “are not inevitable but [are] policy-susceptible” (p. 3;
see also UNICEF, 2005, p.2). From the evidence of their studies the UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre says that reducing child poverty requires state support. They note that
because of such support there have been many countries where significant increases in
unemployment in the 1980’s and 1990’s have not resulted in a significant rise in child
poverty (UNICEF, 2000 report 1). Clearly New Zealand presents a different picture
confirmed by Bradshaw and Finch (2002, cited in St John & Wakin, 2003, p. 23) who
show that on measures of support for families New Zealand ranks toward the bottom at
17 out of 22 OECD countries
It seems evident that when we imagine that people are individual and self- seeking then
we will extend support to them only reluctantly. If we wish to support children and
families in ways that will enhance well being for all in our communities then we should
work from an alternative position that imagines people as interdependent and that sees a
wider sharing of resources as the basis for a more democratic and just society (Fraser,
1997).
12
Racism
Processes in a society that treat some people psychologically, socially and materially less
well than others involve discrimination (Bhaba, 1994), and “where inequality and
injustice disproportionately affect particular racial or ethnic groups”, such oppression
may be identified as racism (Malin, 1999, p. 2). Colonisation involves related processes
of power in which the ideas, meanings, language and ways of being of one group of
people dominate those of another group (Smith, 1999).
In this context, a school system that consistently meets the needs and wishes of a
dominant group, Päkehä, and consistently meets less well the needs and wishes of
another group, Mäori (Te Puni Kokiri, 1998, p.11; Human Rights Commission, 2006),
should be analysed not from a deficit model of individual or group inadequacies but in
terms of colonisation, oppression and racism. As part of such an analysis, the policies and
practices that comprise New Zealand’s market model of schooling are implicated. The
market policies of ‘Tomorrows Schools’ have created widening gaps between wealthy
and poor state schools with increased ethnic and socio-economic class segregation
(Harker, 2000; Waslander & Thrupp, 1995) and a decline in student performance in those
schools that are market losers in this competitive system (Lauder, Hughes & Watson,
1999; Fiske & Ladd, 2000). Alan Hall (1999) considered the implications of a successful
school that gains students at the expense of another school. The losing school declines in
student numbers and resources and this may harm the educational chances of students
13
who remain at that school. Hall suggests that such harm represents an ethical challenge
for teachers and an issue of social justice.
Racism clearly represents a challenge to social justice. Statements expressing views
associated with racist positions became evident in New Zealand following the Don Brash
Orewa speech in 2004 (Hager, 2006, pp. 79-96; Taonui, 2006). As leader of the National
party at the time, Brash (2004) described Mäori claims over stolen land as the “Treaty
grievance industry”; claimed that Mäori gained special privileges from government
funding based on ‘race’; and suggested that there were no “full blooded Mäori”, a
reference to the idea of blood purity that is a basis for eugenics and racism. In an
editorial, the Sydney Morning Herald referred to these statements by Brash as “playing
the race card” and said that “[t]he liberation of racist…views from the constraints on
which social cohesion relies is not easy to reverse” (Editorial, 2004, p. 12).
The Brash speech and its claims that Mäori were a privileged group was popular and
associated with a dramatic increase in voter support for the National Party. The response
of the Labour led government suggested an alignment with such views by requiring that
policy areas be made “needs” based and not associated specifically with data on Mäori
(or other ethnic group) deprivation, as, for example, in health, or with Mäori rights under
the Treaty (Hager, 2006, p.94).
A particular example of alignment with a populist discourse demanding the invisibility of
Mäori involved The New Zealand curriculum: A draft for discussion (Ministry of
14
Education, 2006). The draft curriculum deleted all reference to the Treaty of Waitangi
with the exception of one mention (in Social Sciences, Level 5). At an IHC(Inc)
advocacy seminar in Wellington (23 November, 2006) I said that the deletion of the
Treaty from the Draft Curriculum was shameful and a disgrace. In response, Labour
Party Minister Ruth Dyson disagreed. She said that the Treaty was now so well
understood that it was “infused” throughout the curriculum. The term ‘infused’ may be
the latest code word for assimilation and suppression. In teacher education ‘infused’
signals an intention to delete serious study of the Treaty, inclusion and other social justice
areas.
In its submission on the curriculum draft, the Human Rights Commission (2006) said that
removal of the Treaty was in direct contrast with the (then) current curriculum where the
Treaty was one of the principles on which the curriculum was explicitly based. The
Commission stated that the Treaty should be in the guiding principles of the new
curriculum and should be reflected throughout the learning areas. The final version of the
curriculum reflects this position.
What it is that children are required to know through formal processes of education will
always be a contested site as interest groups struggle to have their values and beliefs
expressed through the curriculum. Success is an indicator of power, and for the moment
power resides locally and internationally (Bob Lingard, 2001, p.28, for example,
describes the OECD “proselytising” a neo-liberal managerialist model of education) with
those who support and sustain a neo-liberal, New Right ideology. In the previous section
15
of this paper I have claimed that political application of the theories and practices
grounded in this belief system have consistently across countries and cultures benefited a
few and disadvantaged many. The evidence also shows that benefits have accrued to
white people over others (Allen, 2001).
In this context I do not think that we can make alternative ideologies work toward more
socially just societies unless racism is addressed as a significant force that permeates
society and underpins disadvantage and oppression (Malin, 1999). To challenge modern
racism and its links to a populist nationalism (Rizvi, 1990) requires more than striving for
understanding through inevitably limited accounts of minority cultures in bicultural and
multicultural studies (Rizvi, 1992). While accounts of the Other have a role in exposing a
reader to realities that are not their own, Marilyn Cochran-Smith (2000) suggests they
may also create a “false sense” (p. 174) of understanding racism in those who are not
oppressed, and could be a further instance of the appropriation of the lives of a minority
in the interests and to the benefit of the majority. Christine Sleeter (1993) expresses a
related concern that white discussion of difference and ethnicity may take on a “‘tourist’
frame of thinking” (p. 14) and involve a depoliticised discourse that avoids issues of
racism and white power. What is needed beyond exposure to stories of harmed
individuals and groups, and beyond a concern for care and empathy that avoids
engagement with politics and oppression, is a critical analysis of racism that, for white
educators such as myself, must include scrutiny “of the power that accompanies our
color” (Sleeter, 1993, p. 15).
16
In an account of an anti-racist professional development programme for American
teachers, Sandra Lawrence and Beverly Tatum (1997) record one participant as saying
that she had thought of racism as “an individual act of meanness … [not] an intricate
system of advantage, of which I was a part” (p. 336). An understanding of whiteness as
“institutionalised privilege” (Hytten & Adkins, 2001, p. 439) is essential if white
researchers and teachers are to act against racism within schools and universities and if
we are to understand that we cannot get “an individual dispensation that releases us from
our racial position” and its rewards (Scheurich, 1993, p. 9). For those of us who are
white, then into each classroom and each community setting that we enter, we take our
white colour as a cultural, hegemonic signifier of normalcy, privilege, and power. This
does not go away because we say that we oppose racism and that we work on anti-racist
agendas. Rather, as Scheurich (1993) suggests, it requires recognition of our racialised
status and the “need to make white racism a central, self-reflective topic of inquiry within
the academy” (p. 9; see also International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
Special Issue: Whiteness issues in teacher education, 2003, Vol.16, No. 1). This self
reflection should, I suggest, follow Freire’s (1998) call for intellectual rigour and avoid
the often simplistic rituals of ‘reflective practice’ which John Smyth (1992) describes as
lacking in a “politically informed” analysis (p. 292).
Donaldo Macedo and Lilia Bartolome (2001) analyse white racial superiority in western
societies in terms of the oppression of subjugated minorities and the invisibility of this
oppression to most white people. They urge that educators attend to the “hegemony of
17
white power” (p.81) in universities and take seriously the ways in which racist views are
promulgated as shared ‘common sense’ through the mass media.
Ideas as context
Educational historian Roger Openshaw was invited by the New Zealand Post Primary
Teachers’ Association (PPTA) to “review the Te Kötahitanga project” (Openshaw, 2007,
p.iv). Openshaw’s methodology did not include interviews with participants and he did
not undertake observations of teacher professional development sessions or practice in
classrooms. What Openshaw does provide in what he describes as his “comprehensive,
independent and scholarly review” (p. v) are data from a questionnaire survey; criticism
of data in the Te Kötahitanga Phase 3 report (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh & Teddy,
2007) that is presented to support a claim that Te Kötahitanga has enhanced student
achievement; critical commentary centred around the role of teachers in student
achievement; and some ideas on Mäori culture (3). In this section of my paper I will
focus on some of the ideas about Te Kötahitanga that Openshaw (2007) provides and that
have been endorsed by the PPTA who commissioned and published the review.
For the review the PPTA sent out “[a]pproximately 1000 questionnaires” and received
308 responses. Of these 264 were from teachers who had participated in Te Kötahitanga
(225 present and 39 former participants, p. 31). As a brief summary of some of the
findings from the questionnaire survey the data show that 48.7% of respondents said they
had not felt “completely free” in making the decision to participate in Te Kötahitanga
(p.33) and 52.8% of current participants said they did not feel completely free to opt out
18
(p. 34). There were comments of feeling pressured and bullied, including by employment
contractual arrangements and school policy requirements for participation. The idea that
we can be “completely free” to determine our actions in professional or employment
contexts warrants some thought. Nevertheless, these questionnaire responses suggest an
area for further investigation in terms of programme evaluation and development, and
also an area for possible action in terms of teacher wellbeing.
Without diminishing the significance of reported experiences of pressure to participate,
such further analysis should consider research indicating that in areas that challenge long
held beliefs and values, in programmes of anti-racism for example (a similar context is
that of anti-disablism), such responses may occur and may not accurately reflect
programme intentions or processes (Hytten & Adkins, 2001; Lawrence & Tatum, 1997;
Malin, 1999; Rizvi, 1992). To understand such issues in Te Kötahitanga would require
research that observes programme activities and involves talking with teacher and other
participants. Interpretation of the research data might then be undertaken with awareness
of the kind of studies I discuss in the previous section of this paper that examine
experiences of anti-racism projects in education and professional development settings.
The questionnaire responses in the Openshaw report identified some other concerns,
including a perception that Te Kötahitanga is blaming teachers for low student
performance and a view that the programme is not attending to issues beyond teacher
influence that may impact on achievement (p. 38). Responses also provided comment on
various aspects of the Te Kötahitanga approach to teacher professional development.
19
Nevertheless, 63.4% of respondents agreed that Te Kötahitanga could “dramatically
improve Maori student performance” (p. 36); a “large majority” said that the Effective
Teaching Profile was “either beneficial or highly beneficial” (p. 38); 65% of the teachers
rated the facilitators “highly for credibility” (p. 42); and 59% responded in agreement to
the proposal “that their teaching has improved as a result of participation in Te
Kötahitanga” (p. 42). Overall, the data from this self-selecting sample indicate for Te
Kötahitanga some areas requiring critical attention but also some key areas of significant
achievement.
In his report Openshaw has two sections of commentary on Te Kötahitanga. In the first
section Openshaw claims that the programme is part of the school effectiveness
movement that supports, and is supported by, a neo-liberal ideological position.
Since the time of the Lange Labour government (1984-1999) neo-liberal ideology and its
beliefs in markets and managerialism has formed the basis for educational policy and
practice in New Zealand. The school effectiveness movement is closely aligned with the
individualistic model of human behaviour that the neo-liberal belief system promotes.
Like Openshaw I am of the view that the school effectiveness approach is distrustful and
controlling of teachers (Ballard, 2003; 2004a) and limits the scope and creativity of the
curriculum and of teaching in classrooms (Ballard, 2004b)). However, I do not believe
that Te Kötahitanga is part of the school effectiveness model. The school effectiveness
model is positivist, technicist and managerialist in its approach. I see no evidence of these
in the relationship- focused kaupapa Mäori model of Te Kötahitanga.
20
The school effectiveness movement often claims that an aspect of education is in ‘crisis’
and that teachers should be held responsible for this and for resolving the problem.
Openshaw says that Te Kötahitanga is part of the school effectiveness approach because
Te Kötahitanga writers have referred to a ‘crisis’ in Maori education and because they
attend to the role of the teacher in student achievement. He offers no other evidence for
his claim.
There are educational researchers, myself included, who oppose neo-liberal ideology and
the school effectiveness movement but who also have identified an issue of significant
concern in education and who work with teachers on ways of understanding and
addressing that concern (Ballard, 2004c; Lingard, 2001; Slee, 2001). New Zealand
researcher Martin Thrupp (1999), for example, says that a failure to address the problems
of schools in poor areas will have “educational and social prospects [that are] truly
alarming” (p. 196), a description that school effectiveness people would readily grasp.
Thrupp emphasises that schools alone should not be held responsible for poor
achievement in such settings and writes of his opposition to the school effectiveness
model in this regard (Thrupp, 2008, has endorsed the Openshaw 2007 report). However,
he also says that teachers should “strive to do their best by the students in their care” (p.
183). Clearly the idea of an ‘alarming’ problem (‘crisis’) and teachers ‘doing their best’
(which would surely include professional development) can and does exist outside of the
school effectiveness field.
21
Researchers John Smyth and Robert Hattam (2004) have studied Australian high school
students who have been expelled or who have dropped out early. On the basis of student
ideas for improving education they present recommendations that include attention to
issues beyond the school setting. However, their recommendations for within school
action include enhancing teacher student relationships; developing teacher sensitivity to
“class/gender/racist/homophobic harassment”; and “confront[ing] teacher-student
harassment by requiring a rethinking of pedagogy” (p. 193). Smyth and Hattam
recommend “transforming the culture of the school” (p. 194, emphasis in original) so
that “all students experience success” (p. 184). In the context of their work and its
opposition to neo-liberal politics and policies this challenge to teachers does not carry an
implication that they are part of the school effectiveness movement.
It seems to me that asking teachers to consider if the assumptions they work with could
be harmful to some students need not be part of what Openshaw (2007) calls “simply
finger pointing and apportioning blame” (p. 9). When such concerns are presented
within the context of the school effectiveness approach then blaming teachers and
implying their responsibility for overcoming social ills is an integral part of that model.
However, the same concerns can be presented in an alternative context of ongoing
teacher learning and professional development in which critical thought allows for the
possibility that changes in teacher approach are needed and recognises that such changes
are of value to teachers and students. If this were not the case then just about all
professional development could be assessed as blaming teachers for what they do not
know or do.
22
Education, including teacher education through professional development, is about
change. Change implies recognition that on the basis of values or of data some ideas and
practices are to be preferred over others. For example, Gloria Ladson-Billings (2008)
suggests that instead of talking about an “achievement gap” shown by minority children
we should talk of repaying an “education debt of longstanding inequities and educational
disenfranchisement” (p. 236). Outside of the school effectiveness movement such a
critical evaluation of the ideas behind our work is a basis for ongoing professional
development rather than a basis for attacking teachers.
In the field of disability, for example, research indicates that the belief system known as
the medical model is the basis for discrimination and exclusion experienced by many
disabled students in the New Zealand school system (Ballard, 2004c). In this context the
United Nations (Munoz, 2007) says that in order to achieve social justice for disabled
students it is necessary for policy makers and teachers to reject medical model (deficit)
thinking and work with alternative positions which emphasise disabling environments
rather than impaired persons.
The United Nations recommendations on disability in education are consistent with the
New Zealand Disability Strategy (Minister for Disability Issues, 2001) to which schools
are required to comply. It seems to me that this approach to disability is very much like
the attention that Te Kötahitanga gives to changing the ways in which teachers construct
their relationships with students. Like the Te Kötahitanga criticism of deficit thinking
23
about Mäori educational achievement, disability researchers recognise that teachers who
hold a deficit position on disability reflect the predominant socio-cultural context in
which such assumptions are the norm. That does not mean, however, that disabled
people and their allies should not ask teachers to examine their thinking and practices in
order to improve levels of educational participation and achievement for disabled
students. Further, encouraging such critical thought by teachers does not in itself imply
allegiance to the school effectiveness model.
Nevertheless, Openshaw (2007) claims that asking teachers to examine their ideas and
practices around culture as an aspect of teacher-student relationships is to impose a
school effectiveness approach. Also, he suggests that such an approach directs attention
away from the influences of social class and of economic and home factors on school
achievement. Openshaw emphasises that these factors are the responsibility of politicians,
government agencies and communities rather than teachers.
From my reading of the literature there are some researchers who study the role of social
class and class-mix in educational achievement and who fail to consider in any
substantial way issues of culture, ethnicity and racism. There are some researchers who
focus on culture, ethnicity and racism and who give only limited attention to class
structures that may shape actions and opportunities within and beyond an ethnic group. In
both fields of study at present the issue of inequality as an independent and powerful
variable (Wilkinson, 2005) is rarely evident.
24
To the extent that such an incomplete analysis applies to Te Kötahitanga I do not see this
as warranting the ‘school effectiveness’ accusations presented by Openshaw. Rather, it
presents a context requiring more thought and more research (as Te Kötahitanga
researchers intend, see Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh & Teddy, 2007, p.185) so we might
consider, for example, the case presented by American black writer bell hooks (2000)
that “class matters” but also evidence such as that from American researcher Michelle
Fine and her colleagues ( Fine, Weis, Weseen, &Wong, 2000) who describe their efforts
to match samples on a class basis in studies of poverty in American cities. They found
that the within class experiences of white and non-white Americans were not the same
and that for African Americans race and racism “saturates every pore of their lives” (p.
112; see also Krugman, 2007). This is consistent with New Zealand data from the
Ministry of Health and University of Otago (2006; Blakely et al, 2007) studies that show
ethnicity and racism to be influences that are interrelated but that also have powerful
actions independent of the influences of poverty and class. On the basis of such data the
emphasis that Openshaw (2007) gives to socio-economic status is not supported.
The second area of commentary in Openshaw’s (2007) Report involves his ideas on
Maori culture and their implications for Te Kötahitanga.
Openshaw writes that many Mäori academics are part of a “newly emergent middle class
capitalist neo-tribal elite” (p. 23) who adhere to an “ideology of culturalism” (p. 24).
Openshaw says that “culturalism” emphasises the role of culture in individual experience
and is similar to “fundamentalism” (p. 24). Such an approach, says Openshaw, is
25
aligned with an “indigenous nationalism” that has “some of the characteristics of pre-war
fascism” (p. 25) involving a “brand of mystical, anti-rational and holistic ideas regarding
… cultural unity…” (p. 25).
Openshaw claims that attention to cultural matters in Te Kötahitanga means that
insufficient attention is given to issues of economic conditions, social class and family
resources. He says that this approach by Te Kötahitanga is a deliberate ploy by the
“Mäori elite” to direct attention “away from themselves and on to schools and teachers”
(p. 27) through a process of “indoctrination” in a “culturalist ideology” (p. 28). He also
says that the early childhood curriculum Te Whaariki and work on reading with Mäori
and Pasifica children in South Auckland by researcher Stuart McNaughton are part of an
“ideology” of “culturalism” and a “further tightening [of] the regime of surveillance on
teachers” (p. 23) which could lead to performance pay for teachers and a voucher system
for education (p. 48). It would seem that for Openshaw and the PPTA if projects have
Mäori and Pasifica involvement they are to be opposed.
Openshaw (2007) describes the writers of Te Kötahitanga as elite “neo-tribal” Mäori
(p.23) who he says are ‘contemptuous’ in their approach to deficit explanations of Mäori
school achievement (p. 10 & 11). He says that he finds their work “irksome” (p. 8), “very
strange” (p. 14), and that it involves a “culturalism” that has aspects of “fascism” (p. 25;
note 4).
26
Openshaw references his comments on a Mäori elite and on culturalism to researcher
Elizabeth Rata (for example, Rata & Openshaw, 2006; Rata, 2006) who is listed as a
member of the advisory body (5) to the Openshaw (2007) report (p. v). Rata (2008) says
that individual Mäori share more in common with other social groups than with the
claimed common interests of what she refers to as a “primordial” Mäori ethnic group
whose “various social practices” include “body-snatching” at funerals (p. 3).
Rata also claims that the “wheelers and dealers” of the neo-tribal elite have more in
common with their pakeha business world equivalents than with “those Mäori” who,
quoting Chapple, (2000 p.115), she says have “low literacy, poor education … benefit
dependence, sole parenthood … drug and alcohol abuse, physical violence and illegal
cash cropping” (Rata, 2008, p.3). This group, says Rata, should be considered as part of a
low socio-economic sub-cultural group rather than ethnic group (Rata, 2008, p.3). Rata
presents no data to support this claim (p.6). In contrast, the Ministry of Health and
University of Otago (2006) data show Mäori and non- Mäori to have different
experiences of similar socio-economic positions (p. xii).
According to Rata (2008) the basis of a democratic society is the individual (p. 4). Rata
claims that to protect nationhood and “a common national identity” (Rata, 2006, p. 5)
requires that we do not give political recognition to ethnic groups (although ethnic
identity can be adopted as a “private” choice – Rata 2006, p.3) and must reject “tino
rangatiratanga projects, such as the Kaupapa Maori system in education” because they
involve a “subversive process” that intends to replace “New Zealand’s liberal democracy
27
..[with] an undemocratic ethno-nationalism …” (Rata, 2007, p. 1). Rata (2006) says that
such a process, led by “well educated elites” has resulted in genocide, for example in
Rwanda and in Cambodia under Pol Pot (pp. 5-6). This seems meant to suggest that
educated Mäori represent a threat of violence in New Zealand.
Researcher Alison Jones (2006) has noted that although Elizabeth Rata is Päkehä she is
often assumed to be Mäori and has been referred to as “the Maori Don Brash” in the New
Zealand Herald newspaper (p. 1). Given her support for the Brash comment on ‘blood’
(Rata, 2006, p.2) and for Brash’s individualistic notion of ‘nationhood’ (Rata, 2007) such
a label may not be surprising. Also, just as Brash’s statements on Mäori have been seen
as racist (Editorial, 2004, p.12) so to has this charge been directed at Rata’s work
(Pihama, 2004). Whatever the case in this regard, no doubt those who see Mäori as
comprising a self serving ‘elite’ along with benefit dependent growers of illegal crops
who engage in ‘body-snatching’ at funerals (Rata, 2008, p.3) – and those who agree with
Rata (2007, p. 5) that Mason Durie’s ideas on citizenship are “nonsensical” - will value
her work and its prominence in Openshaw’s (2007) report together with the PPTA’s
endorsement of that.
Openshaw (2007) presents a strongly negative account of Mäori culture and of the
motivations and aspirations of Te Kötahitanga. The support of the PPTA for these ideas
seems likely to encourage a context in which Mäori views are not well received.
Openshaw (2007, pp. 24-30) sees the political recognition of a Mäori ethnic group as
problematic, while for Rata (2008) such recognition is a threat to democratic processes.
28
These ideas are consistent with the position taken by Brash (2004) in his Orewa speech in
which he denied the “constitutional status of Maori…as secured by the Treaty of
Waitangi” (Barber, 2006, p.13). If such ideas were acted on then removing political
recognition would further reduce Mäori access to resources and power. The Ministry of
Health and University of Otago (2006) research has shown that Mäori at present have
relatively limited access to resources and power and that this creates a ‘racialised social
order’ with negative effects on Mäori health and wellbeing. The idea that Mäori should
have less political recognition seems likely to worsen that clearly harmful context.
Some implications in context.
A racialised social order exists in and through social relationships. This means that we
are all involved. We are involved as we support or oppose the beliefs, values and
ideologies that create inequality in economic and social practices. This implies that we
should strive to be aware of how our interactions with others may be collaborative or
oppressive.
Teacher professional development asks us to think critically about what we do and why.
For example, a study of unequal access to resources and power might consider how
relationships are formed and experienced in the wider socio-political contexts within
which schools operate. Teachers may consider how a classroom may reflect or subvert
the values and practices of these contexts and how a classroom itself is a place where
justice and injustice is enacted (Amnesty International, et al, 2007; Gallego,
Hollingsworth & Whitenack, 2001).
29
An aspect of the wider social context I have discussed in this paper is that New Zealand
has one of the highest levels of income and wealth inequality in the developed world
(Cheung, 2007). Social epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson (2005) has made extensive
comparisons of data on equality and inequality across and within developed countries. He
has shown that greater inequality in a society is associated with significant inequalities in
health and life expectancy; less cohesive relationships; less empathy and concern for the
social good; deteriorating quality in family relationships; and greater levels of anti-social
and violent behaviours. It seems that environments of greater inequality place stress on
the sociability of humans and harm their physical and psychological health (Dorling,
Mitchell & Pearce, 2007). This is a further area worthy of study in terms of increasing
our knowledge about the contexts of teaching and their possible implications.
This is not to suggest that teachers should be held responsible for overcoming the effects
of harmful environments beyond the school. Rather, as Smyth and Hattam (2004)
suggest, the critical study of cultural, economic and ideological contexts acknowledges
that schools “do not exist in isolation” (p. 195). It supports work already undertaken by
schools to understand the lives of students and in particular to understand how to support
those students who are most disadvantaged. In this regard Smyth and Hattam suggest that
schools should show sensitivity to the effects that poverty has on young people and
should be “pro-active” in adopting “ anti-racism practices” (p. 193). Ongoing advocacy
for properly funded state schools is also, I suggest, work in support of student learning
and student rights.
30
Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1998) says that [“e]ducators need to know about the
world of the children” that they teach (p. 72). He also suggests that without a
commitment to freedom and justice “the teaching task becomes meaningless” (p. 4).
Perhaps from experiences of care and social justice in schools students may learn how
cooperation (Fraser, 1997) and respect (Sennett, 2003) are central to citizenship and to
democracy.
My overall implication is this: that we should strive to be critically aware of the
assumptions and beliefs that we hold about others; that we should consider how these
shape our expectations and interactions in classrooms and communities; and that we
should understand that it is through our relationships with others that we create contexts
that support, or that fail to support, fairness and justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. In the present paper the section on poverty and inequality and the section on racism are from Ballard (2007). 2. The Ministry of Health and University of Otago (2006) research is published in three reports and involves extensive statistical analysis focussed around many possible explanations of data relationships and of interactions between data sets such as socio-economic status, life-style and ethnicity. 3. Openshaw draws heavily on ideas from his own work and that of Elizabeth Rata. The claim for thoroughness might be challenged by the lack of any data from interviews or observations of the Te Kötahitanga programme and by the number of references used in the text but not included in the reference list.
31
4. Elsewhere Openshaw (2007) claims that the writers of Te Kötahitanga are “showcasing” what he claims is their lack of historical knowledge (p.8); may not understand Freire (p. 5); and “as one may expect” are selective in their data analysis (p.6). Such terms and implications are not usual in writing that claims to be scholarly. 5. The advisory body comprised Judie Alison and Bronwyn Cross of PPTA, and academics Elizabeth Rata, Howard Lee, and John Clark (p. v). Other contributors are described as two researchers with data analysis experience who “preferred to remain anonymous” (p. vi).
References
Allen, R. L. (2001). The globalization of white supremacy: Toward a critical discourse on
the racialization of the world. Educational Theory, 51(4), 467-485.
Amnesty International, Development Resource Centre, Human Rights Commission,
Office of the Children’s Commissioner, & Peace Foundation (2007). Building
human rights communities in education: He whakatu tika tangata-a-iwi whanui.
Wellington: Human Rights Commission.
Apple, M.W. (1996). Cultural politics and education: Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Ball, S. J. (1999). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards
the performative society. Paper presented as the Frank Tate Memorial Lecture and
keynote address to the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual
Conference, Melbourne.
Ballard, K. (2003). The analysis of context : Some thoughts on teacher education, culture,
colonisation and inequality. In T. Booth, K. Ness, & M. Stromstad (Eds.),
Developing inclusive education (pp.59-77). London: Routledge Falmer.
32
Ballard, K. (2004, a). Ideology and the origins of exclusion: A case study. In L. Ware
(Ed). Ideology and the politics of (in)exclusion. (p. 89-107). New York: Peter
Lang.
Ballard, K. (2004, b). Learners and outcomes: Where did all the children go? New
Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work. 1, 95-103.
Ballard, K. (2004, c). Children and disability : Special or included? Waikato Journal of
Education, 10, 315-326.
Ballard, K. (2007). Education and imagination: Strategies for social justice. The
Herbison Lecture presented to the National Conference of the New Zealand
Association for Research in Education, University of Canterbury, 4-7 December.
Barber, K. (2006). Breaking the consensus: The politicisation of Maori affairs. SITES:
New series. 3, (1), 5-20.
Barclay, P. (1995). Joseph Rowntree Foundation inquiry into income and wealth (Vol.
1). York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Bhaba, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kotahitanga Phase 3
Whanaungatanga: Establishing a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in
mainstream secondary school classrooms: Report to the Ministry of Education.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Blaiklock, A. J., Kiro, C. A., Belgrave, M., Low, W., Davenport, E. & Hassall, I. B.
(2002). When the invisible hand rocks the cradle: New Zealand children in a time
of change (Innocenti Working Paper No. 93). Florence: Innocenti Research
Centre.
33
Blakely, T. (2007). Ethnic and socio-economic disparities in death rates no longer
widening. Press release, University of Otago, 22 August. Retrieved on 8 July
2008 from http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2007/22-08-07-press-release.html.
Blakely, T., Tobias, M., Atkinson, J., Yeh, L-C., Huang, K. (2007). Tracking disparity:
Trends in ethnic and socio-economic inequalities in mortality 1981-2004.
Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Blakely, T., Tobias, M., Atkinson, J., Yeh, L-C., Huang, K. (2008). Tracking disparity:
Trends in ethnic and socio-economic inequalities in mortality 1981-2004(06).
Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Public Health Association,
Waitangi, 3 July, Power Point Slides sent to K. Ballard by T. Blakely.
Bradshaw, J. & Finch, N. (2002). A comparison of child benefit packages in 22 countries
(Research Report Series No. 174). Leeds: Department of Work and Pensions.
Brash, D. (2004) Orewa speech: Nationhood. http://www.national.org.nz/speech-article
ID1614. (Accessed 11 August, 2007).
Chapple, S. (2000). Maori socio-economic disparity. Political Science. 52, (2), 101-115.
Cheung, J. (2007). Wealth disparities in New Zealand. Wellington: Statistics New
Zealand.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education.
Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 157-190.
Conceição, P. & Galbraith, J. K. (2001). Toward a new Kuznets hypothesis: Theory and
evidence on growth and inequality. In J. K. Galbraith & M. Berner (Eds),
Inequality and industrial change: A global view (pp. 139-160). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
34
Dorling, D. Mitchell, R. & Pearce, J. (2007). The global impact of income inequality on
health by age: an observational study. British Medical Journal, 335:873, Online
First, 22 October 2007, accessed from bmj.com, 7 November, 2007.
Editorial (2004). The NZ race card. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 March, p. 12.
Executive, PPTA. (2008). Tomorrow’s Schools: Yesterday’s mistake? Paper presented to
the Annual Conference of the PPTA, 30 September- 2 October, Brentwood Hotel,
Wellington.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., Wong, L. (2000). For whom?: Qualitative research,
representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (Second edition).(pp. 107-131).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Fiske, E. B. & Ladd, H. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. New York:
Brookings Institute Press.
Fletcher, M. & Dwyer, M. (2008). A fair go for all children: Actions to address child
poverty. Wellington: Children’s Commissioner & Barnados.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist”
condition. New York: Routledge.
Fraser, N. & Gordon, L. (1997). A geneology of ‘dependency’: Tracing a keyword of the
US welfare state. In N. Fraser, Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the
“postsocialist” condition (pp. 121-149). New York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
35
Galbraith, J. K. (2001) Globalisation fails to make the money go around. Sydney Morning
Herald. July 26, http://old.smh.com.au (Accessed 11 June, 2007).
Galbraith, J. K. & Berner, M. (2001). Inequality and industrial change: A global view.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallego, M., Hollingsworth, S. & Whitenack, D. A. (2001) Relational knowing in the
reform of educational cultures. Teacher’s College Record 103, (2) 240-266.
Giarelli, J. M. (1996). Forward. In M. W. Apple, Cultural politics and education.(pp. vii-
viii). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hager, N. (2006). The hollow men: A study in the politics of deception. Nelson: Craig
Potton Publishing.
Hall, A. (1999). Some ethical questions for teachers arising from inter-school
competition. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for
Research in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in
Education, Melbourne, 29 November-2 December.
Harker, R. (2000). The impact of de-zoning on New Zealand secondary schools. Paper
presented to the New Zealand Association for Research in Education Annual
Conference, University of Waikato, 2 December.
Hooks, b (200). Where we stand: Class matters. New York: Routledge.
Human Rights Commission (2006). The New Zealand curriculum draft for consultation
2006: Human rights issues. Wellington: Human Rights Commission.
Hytten, K. & Adkins, A. (2001). Thinking through a pedagogy of whiteness. Educational
Theory, 51(4), 433-450.
36
Jones, A. (2006). Article on E. Rata published in New Zealand Herald, Friday 10
November 2006, manuscript copy provided by author.
Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Camberwell,
Victoria: Allen Lane.
Krugman, P. (2007). The conscience of a liberal. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). A letter to our next president. Journal of Teacher Education,
59, (3), 235-239.
Lauder, H., Hughes, D., & Watson, S. (1999). The introduction of educational markets in
New Zealand: Questions and consequences. New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, 34(1), 86-98.
Lawrence, S. M. & Tatum, B. D. (1997). White educators as allies: Moving from
awareness to action. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell & L. M. Wong (Eds), Off
white: Readings on race, power and society (pp. 333-342). New York: Routledge.
Lingard, B. (2001). Some lessons for educational researchers: Repositioning research in
education and education in research. Australian Educational Researcher, 28(3), 1-
46.
Macedo, D. & Bartolomé, L. I. (2001). Dancing with bigotry: Beyond the politics of
tolerance. New York: St Martins Press.
Malin, M. (1999). “I’m rather tired of hearing about it…”: Challenges in constructing an
effective anti-racism teacher education program. Curriculum Perspectives, 19 (1)
1-11.
Minister for Disability Isuues (2001). The New Zealand Disability Strategy: Making a
world of difference- Whakanui oranga. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
37
. Ministry of Education (2006). The New Zealand Curriculum: A draft for discussion.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Health and University of Otago (2006). Decades of disparity III: Ethnic and
socio-economic inequalities in mortality, New Zealand 1981-1999. Wellington:
Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Social Development (2002). New Zealand’s Agenda for Children – Making
life better for children. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Ministry of Social Development (2004). Children and young people: Indicators of
wellbeing in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Mowbray, M. (2001). Distributions and disparity: New Zealand household incomes.
Wellington: Ministry of Social Policy.
Munoz, V. (2007). The right to education of persons with disabilities: Report of the
Special Rapporteur on the right to education. United Nations General Assembly,
Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251, 15 March 2006, entitled
“Human Rights Council”, 19 Feburary, 2007.
Openshaw, R. (2007). Evaluation of Te Kotahitanga- Phase 3. Wellington: New Zealand
Post Primary Teacher’s Association.
Pihama, L. (2004). Maori and indigenous education (IRI) statement. Press release of the
International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, 28 July,
2004, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/EDO407/s00077.htm, (accessed 25 april,
2008).
Povey, D. M. (2002). How much is enough? Life below the poverty line in Dunedin 2002.
Dunedin: Presbyterian Support Otago.
38
Rizvi, F. (1990). Understanding and confronting racism in schools. Unicorn, 16(3), 169-
176.
Rata, E. (2006). Ethnic fundamentalism in New Zealand. Address to the Sceptics
Conference, 30 September.
Rata, E. (2007). Belonging to New Zealand. Keynote Presentation to the Creating Spaces,
Teachers Refresher Course Conference, Tapu Te Ranga Marae, Island Bay,
Wellington, 2 July.
Rata, E, (2008). Keynote speech to Team Solutions Annual Conference, Waipuna
Conference Centre, Auckland, 8 February.
Rata, E. & Openshaw, R. (eds) (2006). Public policy and ethnicity: The politics of ethnic
boundary-making. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rizvi, F. (1992). Racism, multiculturalism and the cultural politics of teaching. In L.
Logan & N. Dempster (Eds), Teachers in Australian schools: Issues for the 1990s
(pp. 69-84). Canberra: The Australian College of Education.
Roper, B. (2005). Prosperity for all ?: Economic, social and political change in New
Zealand since 1935. Southbank, Victoria AU: Thomson-Dunmore Press.
Scheurich, J. J. (1993). Toward a white discourse on white racism. Educational
Researcher, 22(8), 5-10.
Sennett, R. (2003). Respect: The formation of character in a world of inequality. London:
Penguin Books.
Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the
case for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 5,
(2/3), 167-177.
39
Sleeter, C. E. (1993). Advancing a white discourse: A response to Scheurich. Educational
Researcher, 22(8), 13-15.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Introduction. In Macedo, D. & Bartolome, L. I. Dancing with
bigotry: Beyond the politics of tolerance. (pp. vii-xv). New York: Palgrave.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people.
London/Dunedin: Zed Books/University of Otago Press.
Smyth, J. (1992) Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American educational
Research Journal, 29, (2), 267-300.
Smyth, J. & Hattam, R. (2004). Dropping out, drifting off, being excluded: Becoming
somebody without school. New York: Peter Laing.
St. John, S. (1995) The future of the poverty industry: Thinking about welfare in the
1990’s- liberal and conservative battle lines. A paper prepared for the New Zealand
Council of Christian Social Services,17 August.
St. John, S. (2007). Child poverty and family incomes policy in New Zealand.
http://cpag.org.nz/resources/publications/res 1478 0512.pdf, (Accessed 15 April
2007).
St. John, S. & Wakim, L. (2003). Our children: The priority for policy. (2nd Edition).
Auckland: Child Poverty Action Group.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Taonui, R. (2006). Attitude of party leader disturbing. Otago Daily Times, 4 October, p.
17.
40
Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maöri Development) (1998). Progress towards closing
social and economic gaps between Maori and non-Maori. Wellington: Te Puni
Kokiri.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic! School mix, school
effectiveness and the social limits of reform. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Thrupp, M. (2008). Secondary teaching, social contexts and the lingering politics of
blame. Keynote address to the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association
Conference, Secondary Teaching on the Move, Waipuna Hotel and Conference
Centre, Auckland, 17 April.
UNICEF (2000). A league table of child poverty in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card
No. 1. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
UNICEF (2005). Child poverty in rich countries, 2005: Innocenti Report Card No. 6.
Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child wellbeing in rich
countries. Innocenti Report Card No. 7. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research
Centre.
Waldegrave, C. (1998). Balancing the three E’s, equality, efficiency and employment.
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 10, June, 1-14.
Waldegrave, C., King, P. & Stuart, S. (1999). The monetary and consumer behaviour in
New Zealand of low income households. Wellington: The Family Centre Social
Policy Research Unit.
41
Waslander, S. & Thrupp, M. (1995). Choice, competition, and segregation: An empirical
analysis of a New Zealand secondary school market 1990-1993. Journal of
Education Policy, 10(1), 1-26.
Wilkinson, R. (2005). The impact of inequality: How to make sick societies healthier.
New York: The New Press.
top related