My brief was to pose a challenge to the sector, and in particular the facilitator workforce, about the changes in practice and values that will be required to deliver on the intent of the new PLD priorities.
Therefore, I want to do this by posing a series of questions and considerations – not around the PLD priorities per se - but around the PLD delivery model to consider how this is then passed on to students. In doing so it is important to understand that PLD delivery sits within a model of schooling that was based on the Prussian system of compulsory attendance for boys and girls, specific training for teachers, national testing and a prescribed national curriculum for each grade level.
This model, known by many as the factory model of schooling, was legislated through the Education Act of 1877, when the responsibility for education moved from families to the state (Melton, 2001). Sleeter (2015) says that “core practices and structures for this purpose, still used today, include grouping students by age, distributing them into ‘egg crate’ buildings, standardising curriculum, measuring student learning for purposes of comparison, and standardising teacher work” (p.112). She says that there are many criticisms of the factory model of schooling, highlighting in particular the following three: the model is:
“highly inequitable, reproducing social stratification based on race and class”;
“its curriculum is standardised, based on a White upper-middle class worldview that limits perspectives, funds of knowledge, and intellectual inquiry, and bores the diverse students in schools”; and, it is
“oriented around compliance with and maintenance of the status quo, rather than social transformation”
Closer to home Penetito (2004) argued that this schooling system “from its inception took on board a set of ‘values’, ‘ideals’ and ‘standards’, more or less coherent with the cultural history of Britain and Europe, that had evolved over several hundred years” ( p. 90). Wally’s point is particularly pertinent in the case of my work because I am particularly interested in Māori students and their whānau. I have learned that when we get it right for Māori students we can also benefit Pacific Island students, other more recent immigrant learners and actually, all other students benefit from these changes as well. While the factory model is deeply embedded across the system, PLD sits within this model, its delivery having morphed slightly over the past three decades. I want us to consider: what difference this has made for Māori and what differences might it make into the future as we deliver on the intent of the new PLD priorities?
I came into PLD through a portal of Research and Development or R&D. My learning was well grounded through the 90s with the Poutama Pounamu Education Research and Development Whānau. We honed our learning in English and Māori medium settings, from quality evidence, and always through the voices of Māori students and their whānau, and from within kaupapa Māori contexts. Through what became known as the creation of educationally powerful connections with family in the Leadership BES (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009) our R&D work contributed to accelerated progress and the highest effect sizes of the overall studies considered.
Our work continued under a kaupapa of believing our tamariki mokopuna and their whānau deserved better from an education system that had perpetuated harm on generations of our people. However, rather than the technicist factory model discussed previously we were learning that this required teaching to be what Freire refers to as an “ontological vocation” (1996, p. 12), saying that teaching requires a theory of existence, which views people as subjects, not objects, who are constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation of their world – leading to an equitable and socially just society.
Our kaupapa was indeed worthy of resisting the prevailing deficit discursive positioning about Māori and working towards more transformative praxis through an ongoing spiralling process of conscientisation and resistance. We believed that a new status quo could be enacted through praxis. This means that teachers and whānau must be informed by sound theoretical research and iterative reflection. The outworkings of this critical process of self-review is, according to Freire, radical hope – the belief that we can, as individuals, make life better for others, this belief “leading the incessant pursuit of humanity” (Freire, 1996, p. 64)
Poutama Pounamu provided a solid grounding for our contribution to Te Kotahitanga in 2000. The model of R&D was again funded as was teacher release. This meant time to engage with an iterative layering of learning from one year to the next; one phase to the next; one cycle of implementation to the next. Time to engage in deep learning through praxis away from the competing priorities of the profession.
Te Kotahitanga was provided with over a decade of funding and it was a privilege to lead the professional development team. Being able to learn iteratively through the phases meant Phase 5 for the first time produced quite different overall outcomes and in a shorter period of time. After three years the Phase 5 data showed that:
- the achievement of Māori students (as measured by NCEA levels 1–3) in Phase 5 schools improved at around three times the rate of Māori in the comparison schools
- the proportion of Māori students coming back into year 13 (two-thirds of the 2011 year 12 cohort) had increased markedly in Phase 5 schools
A very high proportion of year 9 and 10 Māori in Phase 5 schools (87%) reported that it felt good to be Māori in their school (“always” or “mostly”), and over 60% reported that their teachers (“always” or “mostly”) knew how to help them learn
Māori students had gone from reporting racism in 2009 to saying, “it’s like the opposite of racism in this school” and “you feel way more comfortable around the teachers to learn.”
The move to use the policy lever for change saw much of the learnings from Te Kotahitanga and the Hui Taumata incorporated into Ka Hikitia in 2008. Then in 2011, Tātaiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Māori Learners were published using most of the elements from the Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile. It is interesting that the factory model language supports teaching as a technical activity which is very much in line with the competencies in Tātaiako. Indeed the purpose of Tātaiako was to support teachers “to personalise learning for, and with, Māori learners, to ensure they enjoy educational success as Māori” While there is no legislative requirement for Tātaiako to be implemented through the formal appraisal of teachers’ performance, there was an expectation that these competencies would be included in teacher appraisal and registration as they would be “linked to the Education Council’s Practising Teacher Criteria” (
Te Kotahitanga was socialised as far too expensive and to be stopped with the undoubted expectation that together Ka Hikitia and Tātaiako would go some way to spreading the same outcomes with very little fiscal investment, rather the profession doing what the profession ought to be doing. There was no R&D, no PLD, so no teacher release needed however, as the Auditor General’s report was to show, for Ka Hikitia, there was little to no uptake into practice let alone praxis. Similarly Tātaiako without a level of critical consciousness could become a transactional tick the box response to what some might say, has appropriated Māori metaphors into professional rhetoric. So for students in the factory model, little investment for little return from the profession who are learning to tick boxes.
For me, Building on Success followed with the aspiration of building on the success of Te Kotahitanga and other ‘effective’ programmes but it would be PLD alone - the research is not needed because schools are leading their own learning. Furthermore, there would be no teacher release and rather than an external evaluator, the Ministry of Education would partner and provide ongoing feedback loops into the learning.
The institutions who won the contract received way less funding than Te Kotahitanga to work with far more schools - in total one third of secondary schools over three years to make the difference and sustain it. Accounting for every hour of PD provision became the norm and administrativia became our reality. Despite a rocky start and unrealistic expectations we did see some substantial progress.
The Kia Eke Panuku initiative enabled work in 94 secondary secondary schools from Kaitaia to Invercargill, reaching over 6,000 teachers and nearly 30,000 Māori students. The vision of Ka Hikitia, Māori students enjoying and achieving educational success as Māori, underpinned a kaupapa that Kia Eke Panuku schools aspired to and simultaneous success trajectories provided the framing for all implementation and the development of new tools and resources. This kept an unrelenting focus on all three aspects of the policy’s initial vision – Māori enjoying educational success; Māori achieving educational success and realising both these as Māori.
For schools, this required focussing on both the school’s structures that provided the expectations and opportunities for Māori students to gain qualifications to open doors for future employment and to examine how the school’s culture (and the dynamics of power-sharing) was providing support for Māori students to be Māori or not. In Kia Eke Panuku:
Schools were helped to examine how they were responding to the aspirations of their Māori communities, at the levels of whānau and iwi. These discussions were accelerated through the development and introduction of the ako: critical contexts for change tool.
The Ministry’s evaluation survey showed that over 90% of principals reported that Kia Eke Panuku was making a difference for student attendance, engagement and achievement.
According to ERO Reviews of 18 Kia Eke Panuku schools reviewed in 2016; 16 positively mentioned impact of the influence of Kia Eke Panuku.
At the same time as Kia Eke Panuku was operating, a review of PLD was also taking place with the advisory group contributing to a report in 2014. The review suggested that schools didn’t want to be forced into taking programmes that providers forced on them and ‘programme’ became a dirty word. However, PLD providers did not control what went into schools - the Ministry identified what schools needed, they had processes to select providers, and they prepared the contracts that said what had to happen. In line with the factory model I remember this being spoken about in terms of - tight, loose, tight - tight expectations on what would be delivered, supposedly loose in how you would undertake those expectations and tight in terms of accountability. I know for example in Kia Punuku, a 96 page work plan sat behind the three years of delivery and being asked unrealistically for increased NCEA results in 12 months and sometimes less.
The PLD Advisory Group recommended six principles to frame this new approach, and while each of these principles is entirely defensible they do not come without challenge. The principles and some of the challenges included:
A coherent learning system focused on priority goals – However, who prioritises these goals and how responsive are they to context, and how well understood are they by allocation panels?
Disciplined inquiry - that must be systematic evidence-informed, “based on an analysis of student profiles of engagement, achievement and well-being, focussed on improving these outcomes” however, “responsive to the diversity of leader and teacher learning needs.”
Deep knowledge and skills - The report calls for adaptive experts who are ‘culturally responsive’. But how do we know what ‘their’ culturally responsive is and what’s happened to relationships and coming to know what we should be being responsive to? Who gets to define or determine this? And, under the rhetoric of deep knowledge and skills how much time will this take and how much time do we get to improve praxis or indeed will this become superficial, transactional reification of knowledge leading to more rhetoric.
Multiple opportunities to learn – It is my understanding that from 1 July 2020 onwards all contracts will be 6 months, 12 months or 18 months. So, how many opportunities are there for a classroom teachers to learn?
Sustained improvement – How is this built into a highly contractual, often short term model?
System learning through research and development – where is this in current system?
Parallel, but unconnected to the PLD Review, Investing in Education Success (IES) was also announced in January 2014. By 2016, things had begun to morph even further. The neoliberal rhetoric of the time was loudly proclaiming - “we are not buying programmes”, “schools must be provided with choice,” “we don’t need to prioritise learners, the evidence will lead the way,” “schools must and can engage in their own inquiries,” “we will not fund outside experts who don’t know what they are talking about” – but what really was happening in the new policy direction of Investing in Education success?
It appeared that previously available funding for teacher release may have gone to the new Community of Learning: Kāhui Ako leadership roles (Lead principals, Across School and Within School teachers) and we were socialised to a cascading model of learning; the new leadership roles learn, then lead learning for others cascading the PLD down into the classroom. In my experience this has become more of a trickle-down model and an often hit and miss opportunity for many Māori children sitting in classrooms who might not be feeling the cascade of innovation. However, many students began to experience classrooms as shared teaching spaces with the possible disruption to their learning relationships.
PLD providers lined up to show themselves off to their best advantage through the virtual publication of their wares (CVs were virtually available), while coming to terms with a very different funding and delivery model. The factory model of schooling was clearly in play with PLD providers jumping hoops of administrivia for what has become an ever decreasing pool of funding forcing many very good competitors, small and large, out of the marketplace. The rest is our reality.
With the very recent Phase 3, Ka Hikitia vision statement: Māori are enjoying and achieving education success as Māori, as they develop the skills to participate in te ao Māori, Aotearoa and the wider world. Remember skills, without theory, are strongly linked to the technicist factory model of schooling and likely to result in transactional learning or rhetoric. PLD must move beyond a skills process alone.
Changing outcomes for Māori students is complex but not immutable. We have learned how to make the difference. However, altering one aspect of school life without changing the contexts for learning does not guarantee the fundamental changes needed to re-image a more socially just future. Māori learners being able to access all the benefits available through education requires them to go far beyond the mere acquisition of skills, devoid of understanding and being taught in classrooms where they are free from racism.
To truly change outcomes for Māori students, the change must be driven by a moral imperative or radical hope to realise a different future reality. Most people know that when they engage with professional development, there will be hard work involved. We learned that change required ‘heart work’ – which is both hard and also underpinned by a belief and commitment to a new way of working. Where this is embraced by the schools, the centres, the community, the providers and the contract holders, the change can be accelerated.
To truly change outcomes for Māori students, all players (school personnel, community personnel, providers, contract holders) must be extremely nimble. Nimbleness is required at the micro-level – within each school and centre. All situations and contexts are unique. The reform model must be applied responsively, following a transactional recipe for reform will not work. Nimbleness is also required at the macro-level – all players need to work with the changing political environment, policy requirements, school structure changes and competing requirements within the school.
Complex change cannot be measured and reported by single indicators. Moral-driven reform requires different measures than the existing standardised and evaluative reporting frameworks have allowed. Telling the complex story remains challenging because complex change cannot be measured by and reported in short time frames, nor is it linear – short-term reporting (every six months) can be misleading when, to move forward, some schools need to understand their current reality which means they might need to move backwards first. It is also counter-productive to measure programme effectiveness at a student level too early in the reform programme.
Enabling opportunities for individualised deep learning through PLD off both the underpinning theories and how this plays out in practice are the powerful tools of transformative praxis as tools for sustainability. We have learned that when leaders and teachers begin such a journey they want access to continue their own personal learning through praxis and related study, so that, their learning becomes further embedded, sustained and more widely spread.
Transformative praxis, the deep learning takes time and commitment, on the part of leaders and teachers, on the part of the PLD providers and on the part of the Ministry of Education.
So how will the PLD priorities be shared and what difference will they make? Will we continue to reify the knowledge and perpetuate the rhetoric of the market place or is the wellbeing of this current generation, remember they are our future - too important to continue to reinforce a status quo of inequity where some are privileged and some are not?
To bring about transformative change, requires both:
- a cultural shift, that is, a relational approach, founded in Kaupapa Māori thereby indigenising the education system; and
- a structural shift that is founded in Critical Consciousness thereby decolonising the education system.
This must not be a ‘one size fits all’ transactional response. Instead, it must be a truly responsive model, tailored to each school or centres’ context, building from their strengths and being led from the cultural toolkit of the learners themselves. I would suggest the need to move past a factory model response that sets out a ‘recipe’ for success that can be learnt and applied without calling for informed minds or changed hearts within and across each community. This requires moving beyond PLD as transactional rhetoric to deep praxis. Mauri ora.
My brief was to pose a challenge to the sector, and in particular the facilitator workforce, about the changes in practice and values that will be required to deliver on the intent of the new PLD priorities.
Therefore, I want to do this by posing a series of questions and considerations – not around the PLD priorities per se - but around the PLD delivery model to consider how this is then passed on to students. In doing so it is important to understand that PLD delivery sits within a model of schooling that was based on the Prussian system of compulsory attendance for boys and girls, specific training for teachers, national testing and a prescribed national curriculum for each grade level.
This model, known by many as the factory model of schooling, was legislated through the Education Act of 1877, when the responsibility for education moved from families to the state (Melton, 2001). Sleeter (2015) says that “core practices and structures for this purpose, still used today, include grouping students by age, distributing them into ‘egg crate’ buildings, standardising curriculum, measuring student learning for purposes of comparison, and standardising teacher work” (p.112). She says that there are many criticisms of the factory model of schooling, highlighting in particular the following three: the model is:
“highly inequitable, reproducing social stratification based on race and class”;
“its curriculum is standardised, based on a White upper-middle class worldview that limits perspectives, funds of knowledge, and intellectual inquiry, and bores the diverse students in schools”; and, it is
“oriented around compliance with and maintenance of the status quo, rather than social transformation”
Closer to home Penetito (2004) argued that this schooling system “from its inception took on board a set of ‘values’, ‘ideals’ and ‘standards’, more or less coherent with the cultural history of Britain and Europe, that had evolved over several hundred years” ( p. 90). Wally’s point is particularly pertinent in the case of my work because I am particularly interested in Māori students and their whānau. I have learned that when we get it right for Māori students we can also benefit Pacific Island students, other more recent immigrant learners and actually, all other students benefit from these changes as well. While the factory model is deeply embedded across the system, PLD sits within this model, its delivery having morphed slightly over the past three decades. I want us to consider: what difference this has made for Māori and what differences might it make into the future as we deliver on the intent of the new PLD priorities?
I came into PLD through a portal of Research and Development or R&D. My learning was well grounded through the 90s with the Poutama Pounamu Education Research and Development Whānau. We honed our learning in English and Māori medium settings, from quality evidence, and always through the voices of Māori students and their whānau, and from within kaupapa Māori contexts. Through what became known as the creation of educationally powerful connections with family in the Leadership BES (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009) our R&D work contributed to accelerated progress and the highest effect sizes of the overall studies considered.
Our work continued under a kaupapa of believing our tamariki mokopuna and their whānau deserved better from an education system that had perpetuated harm on generations of our people. However, rather than the technicist factory model discussed previously we were learning that this required teaching to be what Freire refers to as an “ontological vocation” (1996, p. 12), saying that teaching requires a theory of existence, which views people as subjects, not objects, who are constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation of their world – leading to an equitable and socially just society.
Our kaupapa was indeed worthy of resisting the prevailing deficit discursive positioning about Māori and working towards more transformative praxis through an ongoing spiralling process of conscientisation and resistance. We believed that a new status quo could be enacted through praxis. This means that teachers and whānau must be informed by sound theoretical research and iterative reflection. The outworkings of this critical process of self-review is, according to Freire, radical hope – the belief that we can, as individuals, make life better for others, this belief “leading the incessant pursuit of humanity” (Freire, 1996, p. 64)
Poutama Pounamu provided a solid grounding for our contribution to Te Kotahitanga in 2000. The model of R&D was again funded as was teacher release. This meant time to engage with an iterative layering of learning from one year to the next; one phase to the next; one cycle of implementation to the next. Time to engage in deep learning through praxis away from the competing priorities of the profession.
Te Kotahitanga was provided with over a decade of funding and it was a privilege to lead the professional development team. Being able to learn iteratively through the phases meant Phase 5 for the first time produced quite different overall outcomes and in a shorter period of time. After 3 years the Phase 5 data showed that:
- the achievement of Māori students (as measured by NCEA levels 1–3) in Phase 5 schools improved at around three times the rate of Māori in the comparison schools
- the proportion of Māori students coming back into year 13 (two-thirds of the 2011 year 12 cohort) had increased markedly in Phase 5 schools
a very high proportion of year 9 and 10 Māori in Phase 5 schools (87%) reported that it felt good to be Māori in their school (“always” or “mostly”), and over 60% reported that their teachers (“always” or “mostly”) knew how to help them learn
Māori students had gone from reporting racism in 2009 to saying, “it’s like the opposite of racism in this school” and “you feel way more comfortable around the teachers to learn.”
The move to use the policy lever for change saw much of the learnings from Te Kotahitanga and the Hui Taumata incorporated into Ka Hikitia in 2008. Then in 2011, Tātaiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Māori Learners were published using most of the elements from the Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile. It is interesting that the factory model language supports teaching as a technical activity which is very much in line with the competencies in Tātaiako. Indeed the purpose of Tātaiako was to support teachers “to personalise learning for, and with, Māori learners, to ensure they enjoy educational success as Māori” While there is no legislative requirement for Tātaiako to be implemented through the formal appraisal of teachers’ performance, there was an expectation that these competencies would be included in teacher appraisal and registration as they would be “linked to the Education Council’s Practising Teacher Criteria” (
Te Kotahitanga was socialised as far too expensive and to be stopped with the undoubted expectation that together Ka Hikitia and Tātaiako would go some way to spreading the same outcomes with very little fiscal investment, rather the profession doing what the profession ought to be doing. There was no R&D, no PLD, so no teacher release needed however, as the Auditor General’s report was to show, for Ka Hikitia, there was little to no uptake into practice let alone praxis. Similarly Tātaiako without a level of critical consciousness could become a transactional tick the box response to what some might say, has appropriated Māori metaphors into professional rhetoric. So for students in the factory model, little investment for little return from the profession who are learning to tick boxes.
For me, Building on Success followed with the aspiration of building on the success of Te Kotahitanga and other ‘effective’ programmes but it would be PLD alone - the research is not needed because schools are leading their own learning. Furthermore, there would be no teacher release and rather than an external evaluator, the Ministry of Education would partner and provide ongoing feedback loops into the learning.
The institutions who won the contract received way less funding than Te Kotahitanga to work with far more schools - in total one third of secondary schools over three years to make the difference and sustain it. Accounting for every hour of PD provision became the norm and administrativia became our reality. Despite a rocky start and unrealistic expectations we did see some substantial progress.
The Kia Eke Panuku initiative enabled work in 94 secondary secondary schools from Kaitaia to Invercargill, reaching over 6,000 teachers and nearly 30,000 Māori students. The vision of Ka Hikitia, Māori students enjoying and achieving educational success as Māori, underpinned a kaupapa that Kia Eke Panuku schools aspired to and simultaneous success trajectories provided the framing for all implementation and the development of new tools and resources. This kept an unrelenting focus on all three aspects of the policy’s initial vision – Māori enjoying educational success; Māori achieving educational success and realising both these ‘as Māori’.
For schools, this required focussing on both the school’s structures that provided the expectations and opportunities for Māori students to gain qualifications to open doors for future employment and to examine how the school’s culture (and the dynamics of power-sharing) was providing support for Māori students to be Māori or not. In Kia Eke Panuku:
Schools were helped to examine how they were responding to the aspirations of their Māori communities, at the levels of whānau and iwi. These discussions were accelerated through the development and introduction of the ako: critical contexts for change tool.
The MoE’s evaluation survey showed that over 90% of principals reported that Kia Eke Panuku was making a difference for student attendance, engagement and achievement.
According to ERO Reviews of 18 Kia Eke Panuku schools reviewed in 2016; 16 positively mentioned impact of the influence of Kia Eke Panuku
At the same time as Kia Eke Panuku was operating, a review of PLD was also taking place with the advisory group contributing to a report in 2014. The review suggested that schools didn’t want to be forced into taking programmes that providers forced on them and ‘programme’ became a dirty word. However, PLD providers did not control what went into schools - the Ministry identified what schools needed, they had processes to select providers, and they prepared the contracts that said what had to happen. In line with the factory model I remember this being spoken about in terms of - tight, loose, tight - tight expectations on what would be delivered, supposedly loose in how you would undertake those expectations and tight in terms of accountability. I know for example in Kia Punuku, a 96 page work plan sat behind the three years of delivery and being asked unrealistically for increased NCEA results in 12 months and sometimes less.
The PLD Advisory Group recommended six principles to frame this new approach, and while each of these principles is entirely defensible they do not come without challenge. The principles and some of the challenges included:
A coherent learning system focused on priority goals – However, who prioritises these goals and how responsive are they to context, and how well understood are they by allocation panels?
Disciplined inquiry - that must be systematic evidence-informed, “based on an analysis of student profiles of engagement, achievement and well-being, focussed on improving these outcomes” however, “responsive to the diversity of leader and teacher learning needs.”
Deep knowledge and skills - The report calls for adaptive experts who are ‘culturally responsive’. But how do we know what ‘their’ culturally responsive is and what’s happened to relationships and coming to know what we should be being responsive to? Who gets to define or determine this? And, under the rhetoric of deep knowledge and skills how much time will this take and how much time do we get to improve praxis or indeed will this become superficial, transactional reification of knowledge leading to more rhetoric.
Multiple opportunities to learn – It is my understanding that from 1 July 2020 onwards all contracts will be 6 months, 12 months or 18 months. So, how many opportunities are there for a classroom teachers to learn?
Sustained improvement – How is this built into a highly contractual, often short term model?
System learning through research and development – where is this in current system?
Parallel, but unconnected to the PLD Review, Investing in Education Success (IES) was also announced in January 2014. By 2016, things had begun to morph even further. The neoliberal rhetoric of the time was loudly proclaiming - “we are not buying programmes”, “schools must be provided with choice,” “we don’t need to prioritise learners, the evidence will lead the way,” “schools must and can engage in their own inquiries,” “we will not fund outside experts who don’t know what they are talking about” – but what really was happening in the new policy direction of Investing in Education success?
It appeared that previously available funding for teacher release may have gone to the new Community of Learning: Kāhui Ako leadership roles (Lead principals, Across School and Within School teachers) and we were socialised to a cascading model of learning; the new leadership roles learn, then lead learning for others cascading the PLD down into the classroom. In my experience this has become more of a trickle-down model and an often hit and miss opportunity for many Māori children sitting in classrooms who might not be feeling the cascade of innovation. However, many students began to experience classrooms as shared teaching spaces with the possible disruption to their learning relationships.
PLD providers lined up to show themselves off to their best advantage through the virtual publication of their wares (CVs were virtually available), while coming to terms with a very different funding and delivery model. The factory model of schooling was clearly in play with PLD providers jumping hoops of administrivia for what has become an ever decreasing pool of funding forcing many very good competitors, small and large, out of the marketplace. The rest is our reality.
With the very recent Phase 3, Ka Hikitia vision statement: Māori are enjoying and achieving education success as Māori, as they develop the skills to participate in te ao Māori, Aotearoa and the wider world. Remember skills, without theory, are strongly linked to the technicist factory model of schooling and likely to result in transactional learning or rhetoric. PLD must move beyond a skills process alone.
Changing outcomes for Māori students is complex but not immutable. We have learned how to make the difference. However, altering one aspect of school life without changing the contexts for learning does not guarantee the fundamental changes needed to re-image a more socially just future. Māori learners being able to access all the benefits available through education requires them to go far beyond the mere acquisition of skills, devoid of understanding and being taught in classrooms where they are free from racism.
To truly change outcomes for Māori students, the change must be driven by a moral imperative or radical hope to realise a different future reality. Most people know that when they engage with professional development, there will be hard work involved. We learned that change required ‘heart work’ – which is both hard and also underpinned by a belief and commitment to a new way of working. Where this is embraced by the schools, the centres, the community, the providers and the contract holders, the change can be accelerated.
To truly change outcomes for Māori students, all players (school personnel, community personnel, providers, contract holders) must be extremely nimble. Nimbleness is required at the micro-level – within each school and centre. All situations and contexts are unique. The reform model must be applied responsively, following a transactional recipe for reform will not work. Nimbleness is also required at the macro-level – all players need to work with the changing political environment, policy requirements, school structure changes and competing requirements within the school.
Complex change cannot be measured and reported by single indicators. Moral-driven reform requires different measures than the existing standardised and evaluative reporting frameworks have allowed. Telling the complex story remains challenging because complex change cannot be measured by and reported in short time frames, nor is it linear – short-term reporting (every six months) can be misleading when, to move forward, some schools need to understand their current reality which means they might need to move backwards first. It is also counter-productive to measure programme effectiveness at a student level too early in the reform programme.
Enabling opportunities for individualised deep learning through PLD off both the underpinning theories and how this plays out in practice are the powerful tools of transformative praxis as tools for sustainability. We have learned that when leaders and teachers begin such a journey they want access to continue their own personal learning through praxis and related study, so that, their learning becomes further embedded, sustained and more widely spread.
Transformative praxis, the deep learning takes time and commitment, on the part of leaders and teachers, on the part of the PLD providers and on the part of the Ministry of Education.
So how will the PLD priorities be shared and what difference will they make? Will we continue to reify the knowledge and perpetuate the rhetoric of the market place or is the wellbeing of this current generation, remember they are our future - too important to continue to reinforce a status quo of inequity where some are privileged and some are not?
To bring about transformative change, requires both:
- a cultural shift, that is, a relational approach, founded in Kaupapa Māori thereby indigenising the education system; and
- a structural shift that is founded in Critical Consciousness thereby decolonising the education system.
This must not be a ‘one size fits all’ transactional response. Instead, it must be a truly responsive model, tailored to each school or centres’ context, building from their strengths and being led from the cultural toolkit of the learners themselves. I would suggest the need to move past a factory model response that sets out a ‘recipe’ for success that can be learnt and applied without calling for informed minds or changed hearts within and across each community. This requires moving beyond PLD as transactional rhetoric to deep praxis. Mauri ora.
