Whakarāpopoto

Ko Wetekia kia rere he kīanga reo Māori e kōrero ana mō te puawaitanga o te pitomata o te tangata. E matapakihia ana ngā urupounamu e pā ana ki te takahi o te mana o ngā ākonga e whai ana i te pūtaiao ki ngā kura o Aotearoa. Ka timata ki te whakarāpopototanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, e kīia nei ko te mea i whakakotahi ai i te iwi Māori me ngā uri o te Kuini o Ingarangi. Koia hoki te mea e aratohu ana i te anga marautanga pūtaiao o Aotearoa kātahi. Kārua, ka titiro ki ētahi rautaki whakaako me ētahi aratohu kaupapa here e pā ana ki ngā wawatā o ngā hapori Māori mō he marautanga pūtaiao whakaumu. Kātoru, ka matapaki i ngā ahuatanga e pēhi ana, e takahi ana i ngā ākonga Māori e wāhi ana i te pūtaiao. Kāwhā, ka whakaatu i ngā tuhinga mai i te ao whānui e tautoko ana i ngā karanga ki te whakatangatawhenua i te mātauranga pūtaiao hei whakamana i te mātauranga, i ngā horopaki ako me ngā whakaaro Māori kia whai …. Ai. Kam utu ka hora atu he rangahau nō he Pā Wānanga he whakaaro mo te rongoā ki ētahi o ngā raru i matapakihia kētia.

This paper explores science education in New Zealand schools, specifically how historical processes of ecological imperialism, environmental racism and institutional racism have attenuated Māori experiences in science education. The paper advocates for the inclusion of place-based education (PBE) approaches to foster the validation of Māori epistemology and pedagogy. A case study of a Pā Wānanga (Māori learning community) is discussed to illustrate the relevance and effectiveness of PBE in addressing historical injustices.

Some telling observations regarding issues of equity that are relevant to Māori experiences of science education were made in a report by a former New Zealand Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor:

Our [New Zealand] science educators produce very fine students well-prepared for tertiary education but, as in other countries, we have a long tail of children who do not get adequate exposure to science, who are turned off science and do not have the most basic of scientific literacy skills. Unfortunately, this tail is disproportionately long in areas of social disadvantage and with high Māori and Pasifika populations. There are particular challenges in the Māori community created by those schools wishing to teach in Te Reo [the Māori language], as the full scope of scientific language is not yet available and there are few teachers who are fluent in Te Reo. (Gluckman 2011, p. 7)

Previous to this statement, the Office of the New Zealand Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee (ONZPMSAC) produced a discussion paper which expressed similar concerns:

Māori and Pasifika students, and those from low socio-economic areas, are over-represented among those low achieving students. These students are also most likely to be among those who discontinue their science education early. It is recognised that addressing this issue is complex. It will involve a high level of input from the Māori and Pasifika communities which are over-represented in this group, and will need to identify best practice already evident in some schools. Poor levels of participation in science from low decile communities throughout New Zealand, coupled with lack of engagement between science organisations and these communities, increases the challenge faced by teachers trying to engage these students in science. Ensuring that teaching and learning programmes are relevant to the lives of the students in this target group is a key area for development. This requires allocation of resource to enable connections to relevant science contexts, enabling teachers to provide learning experiences that will inspire students to see links between science and their communities. (ONZPMSAC 2010, pp. B66–B67)

This paper proposes that there are sound ways to address the issues identified by the ONZPMSAC (2010) and the Gluckman (2011) report. A summary of a complex Treaty relationship between Māori and the Crown (New Zealand government), which informs the framing of New Zealand’s science education curriculum, is the starting point. Additionally, the paper discusses other overarching professional practice guidelines that inform the design of New Zealand’s science curriculum. This is intended to explain the obligations that New Zealand’s science teachers have as ‘Crown agents’ (i.e. public servants) to deliver science education programmes in ways that are just and responsive to the needs of Māori people—the Crown’s treaty partner.

The ensuing passage summarises the historical processes of colonisation that occurred in New Zealand to illuminate how the inter-related themes of ecological imperialism and environmental racism impacted negatively upon Māori communities’ experiences of science education. A review of international literature is presented next to provide a rationale for our call for the development of decolonizing (Indigenous place-conscious, land-based) pedagogical approaches to science education which are responsive to local Māori communities’ Treaty rights and their pursuit of eco-justice goals. Such pedagogies validate local Māori knowledge systems and view culturally significant sites as being rich learning contexts. Finally, a case study of a Pā Wānanga is provided. Te Pā o Rākaihautū (Te Pā) is a designated special character school that opened in Ōtautahi (Christchurch, New Zealand) in January 2015. It is developing Indigenous place-conscious science education for its community in ways that have the potential to remedy many of the problems identified by the ONZPMSA and Gluckman reports.

The Treaty of Waitangi (1840)

It is argued that any discussion of Māori experiences of science education should commence by rendering due consideration to The Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty is comprised of two contested language texts (Māori and English) and is widely considered to be the founding document of contemporary New Zealand society. The vast majority of Māori signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi signed the Māori language text, otherwise known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In 2014, a Crown court of inquiry found that the Ngāpuhi iwi (tribe in the far north), and other selected tribes, did not cede sovereignty as a consequence of signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Waitangi Tribunal 2014). However, the Crown still maintains that it did acquire sovereignty due to a combination of treaty-making, acts of conquest and subsequent Crown legislation, which stripped Māori of millions of acres of their traditional lands (Anderson, Binney and Harris 2014).

The New Zealand government's stance upholds the exclusive right of the Crown’s judiciary to determine the spirit of the conflicting Treaty texts—otherwise known as the principles of the Treaty (New Zealand State Services Commission 2005). Therefore, New Zealand’s official science curriculum guidelines are underpinned by two core principles for Crown action on the Treaty of Waitangi (Hayward 2009). These core principles are ‘partnership’ and ‘active protection’ (New Zealand State Services Commission 2005, pp. 14–15). Since 1987, the New Zealand Courts, including the Waitangi Tribunal, have developed other more detailed principles including ‘participation’. However, as the New Zealand State Services Commission (2005) observed: “the concepts of ‘partnership’ and ‘active protection’ remain dominant” (p. 15).

As a result of this constitutional debate, we have adopted a position that is akin to an ‘ethical space’ (Ermine 2007), whereby we strive to illuminate where the Tiriti/Treaty partners converge in their thinking. This space allows us to propose pedagogical pathways for science education that we believe may support all New Zealanders to move forward as a society—whilst grappling with issues shaped by a contested past, especially with regard to issues of equity, which should inform any discussion about enhancing Māori experiences of science education.

Key New Zealand curriculum policy documents and guidelines

Before discussing the current New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) science guidelines (Ministry of Education 2007), it is worth noting that the previous New Zealand Science Curriculum (NZSC) declared that science education needs to facilitate ‘greater accessibility’ for students who are Māori (Ministry of Education 1993). It added that, a ‘culturally responsive’ and ‘inclusive’ science curriculum needs to provide Māori students with opportunities to:

  • learn science that they, their peers, their teachers, their whānau [family], and the wider community value;

  • learn science through the medium of te reo Māori [the Māori language];

  • learn science which acknowledges and values Māori scientific knowledge;

  • develop scientific concepts within Māori contexts;

  • use their preferred learning and communication styles, such as co-operative learning and holistic approaches; and have oral contributions recognised for both learning and assessment purposes;

  • interact in an environment where the language and resource materials used are non-racist;

  • use a wide range of resources in te reo Māori;

  • have access to positive Māori role models, including Māori teachers, in their science programme. (p. 12)

A helpful framework for enhancing Māori achievement in science education had its genesis at the 2001 Hui Taumata Mātauranga (The Educational Summit), where Mason Durie (2001) proposed three lofty goals for Māori education in response to the disparities that were a reality for Māori. These goals were:

  1. 1.

    To live as Māori.

  2. 2.

    To actively participate as citizens of the world.

  3. 3.

    To enjoy good health and a high standard of living.

From this inaugural summit meeting, several initiatives for raising Māori achievement were introduced upon the New Zealand education landscape. The Government’s Māori Education Strategy—Ka Hikitia: Managing for Success 2008–2012 (Ministry of Education 2008), emerged as the most far-reaching of these initiatives.

Ka Hikitia

Ka Hikitia is driven by two levers, namely ‘potential’ and ‘ako’ (reciprocity of learning). ‘Potential’ comprises three underlying principles: ‘Māori potential’, ‘cultural advantage’ and ‘inherent capability’ (Ministry of Education 2008). The first principle (‘Māori potential’) represents the need to adopt a strengths-based approach—one that respects language, identity and culture, within productive partnerships that honour the intent of the wider Treaty relationship between Māori and the Crown. Thus, Ka Hikitia embraces a Māori worldview in order to guide the actions of science educators—both pedagogically and ontologically. In 2013, the strategy was refreshed to become Ka Hikitia: Accelerating Success 2013–2017 (Ministry of Education 2013a), and stated that:

Identity, language and culture are an asset and a foundation of knowledge on which to build and celebrate learning and success. Understanding how identity, language and culture impact on Māori students’ learning and responding to this requires all stakeholders to develop a greater understanding of their own identity, language and culture and the ways in which they shape their lives. (p. 17)

Ka Hikitia should, therefore, inform all New Zealand schools’ science curriculum design, delivery, assessment and evaluation procedures to operationalize the national curriculum.

The New Zealand curriculum and the key competencies

The national curriculum comprises two curriculum frameworks to mirror a bicultural relationship between Māori and the Crown. These inter-facing frameworks include the NZC and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (the NZC version for Māori immersion and Māori-medium education settings). Both frameworks set the direction for teaching and learning in their respective settings and provide guidance for educators as they continually construct and evaluate their curriculum. Despite the fact that these two frameworks emanate from different cultural perspectives, they both start with a shared vision that promotes the development of a set of key competencies that all young people need for study, work, and lifelong learning, so they may go on to realise their potential (Ministry of Education 2007).

The key competencies (‘thinking’, ‘using language’, ‘symbols and texts’, ‘relating to others’, ‘managing self’, ‘participating and contributing’) are identified within the NZC (Ministry of Education 2007, pp. 12–13). Angus Macfarlane, Ted Glynn, Dick Grace, Wally Penetito and Sonja Bateman (2008) identified five cultural constructs, which are reflective of a Māori worldview and collectively known as He Tikanga Whakaaro. These were identified to support teachers’ understandings about particular cultural competencies that are vital to enabling Māori students to achieve educational success as Māori (Ministry of Education 2013a). These cultural competencies can be interwoven with the key competencies of the NZC and they have relevance in terms of offering a cultural lens to the design and delivery of science education programmes:

  1. 1.

    Whanaungatanga—Relationships: establishing and nurturing relationships and connections between people.

  2. 2.

    Whaiwāhitanga—Participation: making space for others to contribute; remaining modest and humble.

  3. 3.

    Tātaritanga—Thinking; making meaning; using language: processing information; having an open mind; valuing all views.

  4. 4.

    Manaakitanga—Caring for others: prioritizing the wellbeing of others; being hospitable, respectful and kind.

  5. 5.

    Rangatiratanga—Autonomy: ensuring that others retain power to make decisions; upholding others’ mana (status; dignity; self-esteem).

An alignment of each set of five competencies is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 NZC Key Competencies (Adapted from Macfarlane, Glynn, Grace, Penetito, and Bateman 2008)
Full size table

So, how might the He Tikanga Whakaaro competencies enhance the engagement and achievement of Māori learners in science education, specifically in terms of their interactions with the NZC science strands and learning foci (Ministry of Education 2007)?

The NZC science strands

The aims of science education are represented as a progression of achievement aims, grouped into five strands across the eight learning levels from Years 1 to 13 (Ministry of Education 2007). The core and overarching strand is nature of science, where students learn what science is and how scientists work. It is intended that students develop the attitudes, values and skills to build a foundation for understanding the world around them, and therefore come to see science as a socially valuable knowledge system. The living world strand is about living things and how they interact with each other and the environment. It is intended that students develop an understanding of the diversity of life and life processes, of how life has evolved, the link between life processes and ecology, and of the impact of humans on all forms of life. The emphasis is on the biology of New Zealand, including the sustainability of its unique fauna, flora and ecosystems.

The planet earth and beyond strand explores the interconnecting systems and processes of the Earth, the other parts of the solar system, and the universe beyond. Students learn that land, water, air, and life are all inter-dependent and important and that humans can affect the interdependence in both positive and negative ways. The physical world strand provides explanations for a wide range of physical phenomena, including light, sound, heat, electricity, magnetism, waves, forces, and motion, united by the concept of energy, which is transformed from one form to another without loss. The material world strand involves the study of matter and the changes it undergoes. Students learn to interpret their own observations, and to communicate their understandings scientifically. It is intended that students are able to understand challenges, such as environmental sustainability.

The NZC science strands provide rich opportunities for teachers to explore local environmental contexts and sites of cultural significance as sources of scientific knowledge. Māori oral traditions and cosmology narratives relate to places and recount a plethora of achievements over the centuries that reflect knowledge sophistication, understanding and systematic processes for discovery that rival modern science. For example, the voyages across the oceans that used astrological features, wave patterns and biological phenomenon as navigation guides; the construction of ocean voyaging waka (canoes) with carved scalloped grooves in the hull that altered the fluid dynamics, inverted sails that captured more wind and outriggers; the timing of planting, harvesting and storage of food, the use of plants to heal; the guardianship of waterways; the fashioning of pounamu (greenstone); the crafting of musical instruments, tools and weaponry; the construction of whare (houses). These along with many other examples of technologically advanced processes are part of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), and are rich sources of information from which to decolonize science education, and create learning opportunities for Māori students. The community and environment can become the conduit to creating a culturally responsive classroom; one that utilises place-based knowledge and facilitates the key competencies.

Tātaiako: cultural competencies for teachers

The Ministry of Education (2013b) advises all teachers that Tātaiako: Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Māori Learners, which is a series of guidelines developed to inform teacher appraisal processes, would only be achieved if teachers use “local Māori contexts to support Māori learners learning” (p. 3). It also recommended that PBE approaches would best assist teachers to meet the tangata whenuatanga competency of incorporating local knowledge of place. Yet many New Zealand teachers appear to know little about the tenets of PBE or the academic literature underpinning it (Manning 2017). This is a concern because as Laurie Lane-Zucker suggested:

Place-based education is distinguishable by the fact that it actively challenges conventional notions of [science] education by requiring teachers and children to ask seemingly ‘simple’ questions such as, “Where am I?” “What is the nature of this place?” “What sustains this community?” (Lane-Zucker as cited in Sobel 2004, p. iii)

Fittingly, Lane-Zucker added that this process requires nothing less than a ‘re-storying process’, whereby teachers of science should toil alongside their school community to enable students to, ‘respond creatively to [the sometimes conflicting] stories of their home ground so that, in time, they are able to position themselves, imaginatively and actually [i.e. as emerging scientists], within the continuum of nature and culture particular to that place’ (p. iii).

Ecological imperialism and environmental racism: Māori historical experiences of science education

Ka patua te whenua i te kino, ka ngaro te mana me te wairua mō te iwi

Violence against the land is as destructive to the mana [authority] and wairua [spirit] of the people of that land as it is to the land itself.

This whakataukī (proverb) encapsulates a key set of notions that guide this paper. When considering the historical backdrop to the challenges identified by Gluckman (2011) and Richard Manning (2017), Hiria McRae’s (2014) doctoral research is a valuable complementary unit of scholarship. The thesis outlines the experiences of science education of Māori students, tribal and teachers from Rotorua, a provincial city located in the central North Island. Participants were adamant that “perceptions and experiences of place, science and Māori culture were disconnected from Ngāti Whakaue [the local iwi/tribe] despite its rich potential as a setting for science education” (McRae 2014, p. iv). McRae added that: “Some students spoke about wanting to contribute and make a difference for their Māori communities and for their immediate environment; however they felt these opportunities were not offered in their science learning” (p. 279). In response, she recommended that a ‘local context principle’ should underpin any future Ngāti Whakaue science education strategy, arguing that this principle should be supported by PBE pedagogies that are applied to local environmental issues impacting upon the tribe. Some of the key issues facing those Māori communities affiliated to McRae’s research participants include the wellbeing of local waterways which have great cultural value and have the potential to provide a rich range of learning contexts (Te Arawa Lakes Trust 2015).

The historical degradation of these waterways is typical of Māori community experiences elsewhere in New Zealand which, in turn, reflect a wider process of ecological imperialism similar to that described by Alfred Crosby (2000). It also draws attention to Māori experiences of environmental racism that are not dissimilar to those experienced by Native American and other marginalised ethnic minority communities in the United States of America—as described by Robert Bullard (1993). The ecological imperialism and affiliated acts of environmental racism that rapidly transformed the New Zealand landscape from the nineteenth century onwards included the removal of Māori learners from their traditional learning spaces into alien classroom environments, which disconnected the people from their whenua (traditional landscape). How can Māori learners grow to become confident in their identity as tangata whenua (people of the land), if they are dislocated from the whenua (land) outside their classroom windows? How can they know their tūrangawaewae (place to stand), if the foci of their science education are not centred on their own local lived-world experiences, but rather privilege the epistemologies and ontologies of distant Europe?

According to James Belich (2001), British settlers claimed they subdued Māori military resistance in the nineteenth century, and tamed the new land, primarily to create a ‘better Britain’. To speed up this process, the settler government introduced an industrial schooling system to assimilate Māori learners (Manning 2008). It was underpinned by a social Darwinian ideology that extolled the virtues of progress and assumed the supremacy of Western science at the expense of local Māori knowledge systems, which had arisen from centuries of interaction with local land and seascapes, flora and fauna (Park 2003). With regard to how the historical legacy of science education may still decontextualize and disconnect Māori students’ experiences of science education, Geoff Park (2003) shared this telling insight, which aligns with the concerns of McRae (2014) and Manning (2017):

Europeans first imagined New Zealand as a garden and a pasture in which the best elements of British society might grow into an ideal nation … When the smoke of their colonists’ fires cleared at the end of the 19th century, New Zealand had become a different country. Māori had lost their most precious life-support system. Only in the hilliest places did the forest come down to the sea. Huge slices of the ancient ecosystem were missing, evicted and extinguished. Our histories, however, have neither the sense of place nor ecological consciousness to explain what has happened … We cannot get very far without stories, without history. New Zealanders who want to know their landscape, need to know about 19th Century Britain and the behaviour of its explorers abroad, about their [scientific] preconceptions of land and native people. (p. 13)

A review of international literature explains why we believe place-based pedagogical approaches are needed to enable all New Zealand learners to deepen their knowledge of their local landscapes. These approaches help to rationalise our desire to see increasingly more New Zealand science educators engage proactively with Māori communities to:

  1. (i)

    ensure their participation in the design and delivery of science education programmes and;

  2. (ii)

    actively draw upon both Māori and Western forms of scientific knowledge to remedy the ecological legacies of the dominant culture’s preconceptions of the native landscape and people.

A rationale for adopting place-conscious pedagogical approaches

Science education always occurs within a place and a place is “more than just a location on a map” (Harasymchuk 2015, p. 42). It has a lived history and “expands a cultural landscape to include related ecosystems, bioregions, and all the space-specific interactions between the human and the more-than-human world” (Gruenewald 2008, p. 143). People experience place in differing ways (Tuan 2003). This is especially true in countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the USA where Indigenous peoples and settlers live on and beside contested lands and waterways, which are full of memories, aesthetics and unique spatial arrangements that are open to multiple and contested interpretations (Ruitenberg 2005).

As a result, numerous writers have addressed how PBE and critical pedagogies of place (CPP) can support Indigenous Australian, Native American, First Nations and Māori peoples’ aspirations for the transformation of power relationships that often typify colonial constructs of schooling (Manning 2008). This transformation can also occur because Indigenous ways of knowing the world have traditionally involved place-based pedagogies particular to the geology, topography, flora and fauna in which they evolved (Penetito 2009).

PBE and CPP can be adapted to compliment traditional Indigenous pedagogies and to uphold traditional Indigenous worldviews (Harasymchuk 2015). Exponents of culturally responsive approaches to PBE and CPP tend to share a belief that Western models of schooling are mechanical in nature, oppressive, anthropocentric and prone to fragmenting knowledge while Indigenous worldviews tend to be inter-connected and holistic in scope (Cajete 1994, 1999). As Oscar Kawagley and Ray Barnhardt (1999) observed:

Students in Indigenous societies around the world have, for the most part, demonstrated a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the experience of schooling in its conventional form, an aversion that is most often attributable to alien school culture, rather than any lack of innate intelligence, ingenuity, or problem-solving skills on the part of the students. The curricula, teaching methodologies, and often the teacher training associated with schooling are based on a world view that does not always recognize or appreciate Indigenous notions of an inter-dependent universe and the importance of place [authors’ emphasis] in their societies. (p. 117)

PBE is not without its critics, however. As stated earlier, some researchers have challenged North American exponents of PBE for not doing enough to address Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty concerns (see Tuck, McKenzie and McCoy 2014). For example, La Paperson (2014) encapsulates these concerns by expressing apprehension that, “place-based education, from a settler perspective, is far more inclusive. Place becomes something everyone can claim, can tell a story about” (p. 124). This stance suggests that there is always a risk that Pākehā (non-Māori) teachers of science—who far outnumber their Māori counterparts in New Zealand schools—may adapt PBE approaches to science education in ways that are not culturally responsive to: (i) promote Pākehā nationalist narratives; (ii) marginalize Indigenous knowledge and; (iii) undermine Māori peoples’ claims to sovereignty that were affirmed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840).

Meanwhile, Georgina Stewart (2017), in response to Gluckman’s report (2011), expressed concern regarding the narrow scope of the current discourse surrounding a crisis in Māori science education. Her disquiet may also encourage New Zealand exponents of PBE to reflect upon their current practices especially when seeking to teach science both inside and outside their classrooms. Stewart expressed concern that bilingualism and biculturalism in education including Kaupapa Māori education are based on relativist attitudes toward language and culture, but the language and culture of the vast majority of schools nationally are still Eurocentric. In Māori-medium schools, the nature of the school fosters a strong sense of identity for Māori students compared to those in many English-medium schools.

In practice, mainstream science teachers, especially of Year 9 and 10 Science often ‘tick the Treaty box’ (Papesch 2006) by using emblematic Māori topics to show their commitment to equity and the Treaty of Waitangi (McKinley 2008). Meanwhile, in Māori-medium settings, the development of Pūtaiao (Māori-medium science curriculum) continues firmly down a translation pathway, which essentially translates English content into the Māori language—an approach that pays little apparent attention to purpose and benefits. Further, a translation approach thwarts an opportunity for Māori knowledge, pedagogy and values to be authentically embedded into a curriculum that is destined for a Māori-medium context.

The following case study has been selected because it is a Pā Wānanga that challenges universalistic and decolonizing Western cultural assumptions about science education and the problematic translation approach described by Stewart (2017). This Pā Wānanga (Te Pā o Rākaihautū) strives to operate in ways which align more closely with Indigenous pedagogies of place described by Oscar Kawagley and Ray Barnhardt (1999) and Alma Trinidad (2014).

Te Pā o Rākaihautū: a case study

Te Pā o Rākaihautū (Te Pā) is a designated special character school opened in Ōtautahi (Christchurch) in January 2015. Rākaihautū was the first ancestor of the Waitaha tribe, which was the earliest tribal group to occupy Te Waipounamu (South Island of New Zealand) at around 850 AD (Beattie 1918). According to Ngāi Tahu tribal experts:

Ko Rākaihautū te takata nānā i timata te ahi ki ruka ki tēnei motu ka nohoia tēnei motu e Waitaha

Rākaihautū was the man who lit the fires of occupation in this island

It is recounted in traditional narratives that Rākaihautū fashioned the major geological features (rivers, lakes and mountains) in Te Waipounamu using Tūwhakarōria, his kō or digging stick, and in doing so named and claimed Te Waipounamu for his descendants. Rākaihautū was known to be a leader, navigator, explorer, innovator, and creator whose accomplishments provide an appropriate template and fitting analogy for the types of educational, personal and cultural outcomes that Te Pā strives for its learners.

Origins

Te Pā is the outcome of dissatisfaction with the New Zealand education system, which effectively resulted in Māori learners needing to relinquish their Māoritanga (the essence of being Māori). The genesis of Te Pā resulted from a conscientization process similar to that described by Paulo Freire (1984). Several members of the founding committee were involved with a Māori performing arts group named Te Ahikaaroa, which has worked toward creating positive outcomes for the local Māori community. First, key members of this group opened an early childhood education centre called Nōku Te Ao (The world is mine) in 2002, which worked from the New Zealand early childhood curriculum, known as Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 1996). The collective community decision to extend operations into the primary and secondary education sectors was a natural and logical progression, prompted by limited options for families seeking culturally responsive schooling for their children (Ataria and Parata-Takurua 2012).

Objectives

Fundamentally a learning village, Te Pā weaves together traditional Māori epistemologies, ontologies and pedagogies with Western scientific teaching methods to enable learners to enjoy educational success as Māori. At its core, this community-based education model is family-centred and reframes the question of what a science education should look like in a modern environment by intentionally reconnecting families with ancestral places, genealogy and traditional narratives that ground people in their own tribal location. Their inclusive and holistic philosophy is reflected in the following mission statement:

Kia Matatū, Kia Matatau, Kia Mataora!

Stand with Pride, Passion and Purpose!

This philosophy acknowledges that nurturing the whole person (physically, psychologically, socially and spiritually) enables Māori learners to live more fulfilling lives as individuals with uniqueness and potential (Ataria and Parata-Takurua 2012). Te Pā has a deliberate focus on attracting Māori students from mainstream state-funded schools by providing an alternative education choice that is aligned more closely with Māori ways of knowing, being and doing.

Te Pā is creating a seamless place-conscious transitional environment from early childhood to secondary with a learner-centred philosophy. In partnership with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (a Māori Tertiary education provider), Te Pā delivers diploma and undergraduate degree courses. In that vein, families are provided with education opportunities that foster reconnection with culture, language and identity, and engagement in science education in ways that are culturally relevant and responsive.

Since opening in 2015, Te Pā has experienced rapid growth in its enrollment, from 75 learners to an estimated 260 at the conclusion of the 2017 school year. The governing body is currently engaged in a process of securing a permanent site to construct purpose-built facilities that will cater for up to 500 learners and services that are aligned with the learning village concept. Moreover, this site will provide a rich range of place-conscious learning opportunities for emerging Māori scientists studying scientific matters that are of community interest.

The relationship between culture and place at Te Pā

Rethinking the role of culture and place in learning has been a natural extension and logical approach for Te Pā, which allows for the embedding of language, values, experiences and practices into the curriculum (Smith 1997). Furthermore, like a traditional village, culture and identity are central to the success of learners and positive educational outcomes for families. Durie (2001) advocates for the critical role of Māoritanga in preparing learners for career pathways and eventual contributions to the wider national and global contexts. Further, he articulates the disadvantages to Māori learners if these teachings and experiences are passed over purely in favour of Western academic subjects and learning. The Rākaihautū narratives combined with numerous Māori cultural imperatives provide a rich tapestry to construct learning pathways that may meet multiple needs and interests while creating numerous physical, cultural, spiritual and educational wellbeing outcomes for learners (Ataria and Parata-Takurua 2012). For example, this has manifested itself pragmatically as an acknowledgement of the value of ‘out of classroom learning’ and the reframing of the natural environment as a legitimate learning place for the teaching of science.

The narratives and teachings of Rākaihautū provide a fertile base for the composition of waiata (songs), haka (posture dances) and mōteatea (chants and dirges) that learners experience and express through the performing arts, further entrenching the stories, feats and values of Rāhaihautū. Journeys to significant places where the accomplishments of Rākaihautū are witnessed in the geological landscape provide tangible connection with these narratives. These experiences also constitute a valuable opportunity to integrate the numeracy, literacy and science curriculum areas.

An overview of PBE approaches to Pūtaiao currently evolving at Te Pā

Te Taiao (the natural environment) remains at the heart of the philosophy and praxis at Te Pā. Historically Māori, like many other Indigenous cultures, codified and personified the environments they inhabited according to their perception of reality in order to create meaning and sense. Therefore, Māori language, philosophy, kawa (fundamental customary principles) and tikanga (the practical articulation of those principles), and indeed the people are bi-products of place (Manning 2008). Te Pā utilises layers of place-based knowledge as frameworks to connect learners at all levels with the Pūtaiao curriculum and the sites of cultural significance where learning occurs. Importantly, when PBE and Indigenous CPP are implemented across Te Pā they provide consistent and clear pedagogical approaches for meaningful learning across the education sector. By way of an example, the utilisation of Rākaihautū narratives in naming the learning cohorts creates a logical Māori conceptual curriculum framework that gives meaning and enables an Indigenous science curriculum to be authentically constructed.

Early childhood education at Te Pā

Nōku Te Ao, the early childhood centre at Te Pā, is considered the foundation stone upon which the spirit of Te Pā is imbued and the navigational instruction for learning is set. Māori creation legends and Rākaihautū narratives are foundational for early childhood learners. Personification of the natural world is seen as a powerful mechanism that is adopted to strengthen notions of ‘self’ and family identity as learners start to conceptualise their universe. Critically, these teachings are reinforced through deliberate and kinaesthetic experiences that seamlessly weave the esoteric realm with the physical world. This approach is entirely consistent with an Indigenous pedagogies of place approach to science education (Kawagley and Barnhardt 1999) and the Te Whāriki philosophies (Ministry of Education 1996).

Primary education at Te Pā

Puna Hauaitu (years 0–3) is named after a body of water that Rākaihautū created. It was filled with the purest of glacial waters flowing from the mountains. This metaphor represents the potential that learners in Puna Hauaitu possess. The curriculum provides learners with experiential opportunities, which are framed by cultural geography or the notion of place (Tuan 2003). Puna Waimarie (years 4–6) are depicted as bodies of water that are bountiful and calm. The delivery of the Pūtaiao curriculum at these levels engages learners in science education activities that are associated with significant geographical areas that intertwine and strengthen the connections between people and the natural environment. Puna Karikari (years 7–10) refers to the bodies of water that are fashioned by hand and articulate a carbon footprint that humankind imprints on the landscape. Concepts like sustainability become more systematic and entrenched in this group, and build on the foundation that was established in Nōku te Ao.

Secondary Education at Te Pā

Waka Uruao (years 11–13) was the waka that Rākaihautū and his people journeyed into Te Waipounamu. This metaphor reflects an expectation that—like Rākaihautū—learners in this group will begin to determine and navigate their own pathways as they carve out their own worlds. This Pūtaiao curriculum is designed to encourage discovery and research as a means of reaching a desired destination. Notably, however, these efforts sometimes encounter challenges due to the rigidity imposed by the New Zealand National Certificate of Educational Achievement framework and traditional mainstream secondary school timetables (Manning 2008).

Adult education at Te Pā

Te Pā is committed to engaging the whole family in education (Ataria and Parata-Takurua 2012). At a pragmatic level this is being achieved through a relationship with a tertiary institution that delivers courses at Te Pā. At a more fundamental level Te Pā is observing families engaging with cultural imperatives and place-based education activities that prompt learners to act as agents of change within their families and the wider cultural landscape. It is likely that this result is further augmented by a culture at Te Pā that creates and encourages multiple points for family engagement in an education journey that is decolonizing (Battiste 2013).

Conclusion

It has been evident for a long time and in many countries just how lacking many conventional science education systems have been in serving Indigenous ways of knowing to their learners. Much of what was once considered fair, just and right within national curricula provision may no longer be deemed principled, relevant or appropriate. Recent developments continue to reshape the landscape of educational provision in New Zealand, and while there is much to be applauded, concerns still linger. As an incrementally evolving society, we are continually reflecting on the events and experiences of the past, taking stock of the issues and realities of the present, and then adapting the parameters, definitions and constructs that serve to refine acceptability and reason as we move forward into the future.

This paper is premised on the belief that Indigenous understandings of science education offer scholars unique opportunities for reiterating the notion that cultural transpirations are at every juncture of our day-to-day lives. Indigenous peoples from different parts of the world have universally been promoting alternative concepts and realities—aspects of science that are multidimensional, holistic, regenerative and sustainable. At a tribal and national level, this paper has offered brief glances of the past before moving on to current trends within the New Zealand education system. Mandated Māori education initiatives were outlined and a synopsis of the science strands within the NZC were presented. Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi was referred to not only as the monumental foundational document that it is, but also as a classic referent for the social studies of science and place-based education. Collectively, these anthologies expanded on definitions of science education, and prepared a platform for a case study—one that is Indigenous, has a focus on science education as a cross-cultural, cross-age, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary phenomenon. This case study, and others that uphold similar aspirations, are pillars of hope for cultural studies in science education in its variety of forms.