NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

Niu Sila / New Zealand is an interesting nation.  With a large indigenous Maori population, and a diversifying multi-cultural citizenry, there are constant debates about the place of Maori (and other minorities including Pacific peoples) in modern Niu Sila.

The Maori Party, currently in co-alition with the National Government, recently stirred up the radio talk-back red-necks with a call by co-leader Dr Pita Sharples to allow open access for Maori students into tertiary education.

Of course that’s not all he said, but that’s all the mainstream media picked up to get their revenue tills ringing.   Dr Sharples also said:

“My speech made clear that educational under-achievement by Maori students is obvious at school.  That is why the Government allocated an extra $20 million to expand the Kotahitanga programme in secondary schools, and almost $70 million to extend the 20-hours free early childhood education to kohanga reo and playcentres,” said Dr Sharples.

There is no doubt there is underachievement by Maori and Pacific students in education.

The Starpath Project at Iunivesite o Aukilani / The University of Auckland has warned in its report that many Maori and Pacific students may not make it to university because they are making ill-informed NCEA subject choices.  The study reports anecdotally on students who aspired to tertiary education but chose vocational subjects instead of academic ones.  It found parents did not understand NCEA so were ill-equipped to advise their children on subject choice, and the wide range of subjects available under NCEA meant students were being diverted from the narrow range of subjects which lead to tertiary success.

This is supported by other programmes I have been involved with, that too many schools with predominantly Maori and Pacific students are under-resourced (and sometimes mismanaged) with poor quality of teaching, offering limited subjects that would increase the chances of the students to get into tertiary education, instead offering easier vocational subjects.  Furthermore, many of these vocational subjects may give a student enough NCEA credits, but in order to get into many tertiary institutions the credits need to be ranked, which many vocational subject credits are not.

Dr Sharples states “But the point is: what can universities do to overcome the crisis? It is not good enough simply to blame schools.”

Dr Sharples also said “Wananga have transformed Maori aspirations for tertiary education, by making courses easily accessible, and providing a kaupapa Maori learning environment. So will the universities respond, by stepping outside conventional thinking, and embracing new approaches?”

A wananga is a type of tertiary education provider that provides education in a Maori cultural context.  Yet mainstream New Zealand (and some Pacific people) are up in arms about it, saying it’s racist, it’s segregation etc.  Those arguments only attempt to hide the differences between peoples.  By trying to say we are all the same, we conceal the inequalities that do exist between people.  There are structural inequalities inherent in our society that have many Maori and Pacific peoples starting at a disadvantage.

This isn’t purely politicking, but it’s statistically evidenced.  If you go to a high decile school the probability of gaining University Entrance is higher than a low decile school.  Where do most Maori and Pacific people’s live?  In low decile school areas.  How is that fair, that just because you are born in a area that has crap schools, thereby affecting your probability of gaining a tertiary education?

Again, from a mathematical point of view, ethnicity is the lowest common denominator when assessing on how to spread the limited public funds into education (and health etc).  It’s not a permanent characteristic, but it’s the most effective way to target disadvantaged groups: through targeting ethnic groups that dominate the poor socio-economic statistics.

Looking further ahead, with large youthful populations and higher fertility rates, Maori and Pacific people’s will make up the majority of the future workforce of Niu Sila.  Statistically, if this future workforce is born of a community that continues to fail in many academic areas, we will have a poorly skilled, poorly equipped workforce. 

For the aging Palagi population, they should be worried.  Statistically, they will make up the majority of the pensioner age group in the foreseeable future.  The elderly population will need a productive highly skilled work force to keep paying the taxes that will pay for their pensions.

If we were all born into families with the same level of wealth, attend the same quality of schools, given the same opportunities, then yes, then we can argue it’s an individuals own fault for not working hard enough to get into a tertiary institution.

But that’s not reality.  We do have poverty.  We do have crap schools.  We do have large concentrations of ethnic groups in low decile areas.  There are a whole host of other reasons that should also be taken into consideration when we start criticising some-one for not ‘working hard enough’.

Many Iunivesite’s do have programmes and scheme’s in place to assist disadvantaged groups with access into degrees and support services while studying.  But most people only point out the ethnic schemes: Maori and Pacific Island entry quota’s.  They don’t point to the mature student quota’s or the people with disabilities’ quota, or the women’s quota.  These are all disadvantaged groups, that the Iunivesite’s have identified as having under-representation in doctors, lawyers, engineers etc.

Many degrees have limited spaces.  To limit the number of student’s entering the degree the Iunivesite artificially creates a cut-off point, for example to get into a law degree student’s must have a A- average.  But that’s not to say a person with a B+ average is any less capable of completing that law degree than an A- student, it’s just that a line had to be drawn.  In fact the Iunivesite o Aukilani has chopped and changed the entry level for Law school many times over the last few years.  Therefore it is false to assume that students who enter a degree under a quota won’t be able to complete the degree.

Quota’s aren’t an easy ride to getting a degree.  It’s providing an opportunity to participate in tertiary education, acknowledging the societal inequalities that prevent many people from those disadvantaged groups of gaining entrance into the degrees.  Once in, they still have to meet the same level of academic excellence as everyone else, they still have to pass the same exams everyone else sits, they still have to prove themselves just like everyone else.

When a person graduates with a Iunivesite degree it’s because they earned it, bearing no consequence on the quality of that soon to be doctor or lawyer etc, since they all passed the same exams.

Dr Sharples also stated “I also called for universities to meet Maori educational needs half way, by interweaving kaupapa Maori into their own strong European academic traditions to create win-win outcomes for Maori and non-Maori students alike.  A New Zealand education for all citizens should draw on the strengths of both Maori and European traditions and pedagogy.”

Doesn’t that sound like equality to you?

So when Dr Sharples called for open access for Maori students into tertiary education it’s not an attempt to create inequalities but to redress the existing inequalities (amongst other measures).  After all, our futures depend on it…

[Update: Here's a great article by Samoan columnist for the New Zealand Herald, Tapu Misa, about the "business case" for targeted funding for Maori and Pacific peoples: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10581259&pnum=0]

The difference between private and public schools here in Niu Sila / New Zealand are probably not so pronounced as in other countries, well from a student’s perception anyway.  There are some very good public schools that many people mistake for private schools, and some private (church) schools that are worse than public schools.  But nevertheless, in general, there is a difference between private and public schools.

The usual stereotypes of rich little snobs having the luxury to choose to go to private schools, and poor grubby children of working class homes dependant on public schools, is not too far off the truth.  The rich can afford to and do send their kids to private schools, whereas the working class poor cannot choose and must send their kids to public schools, therefore totally reliant on the willingness (or unwillingness) of the Government of the day to resource and support the local school.

I started off this article saying the difference is not so pronounced here in Niu Sila, but that’s because we have a history of the belief in an egalitarian society, with decades of public funding into health and education.  It was very much built of the Kiwi idea of everyone being able to “have a fair go”.  Of course, with the lurch to the far right in the last half century, cuts in health and education have exacerbated the difference between the services offered by private hospitals and schools compared to public ones, as right wing neo-liberal free marketeers cut back the “fair go” State.

In that same vein, the Education Minister Anne Tolley said the Government had demonstrated its commitment to education in private schools through a $1.68 billion injection, from this years Budget, of frontline funding that will direct large amounts of money towards areas such as improving school buildings, boosting funding for children with special needs and running high-speed broadband internet through most schools.

Executive director of the Independent Schools of New Zealand Deborah James said “[Independent schools] bring a choice in education, not all schools suit all children so it’s wonderful in a democracy that families can choose an education that best suits the needs of their child.”

Unfortunately, what the Government and Mrs James fail to mention is this ‘choice’ really means rich people’s choice.  Unless your child was one of the lucky fortunate few who gained a scholarship to a private school, or you can afford the thousands of dollars in fees let alone uniform, stationary, sporting and other extra-curricular costs, then you don’t really have a “choice”.

And what support is given by the Government to the schools that parent’s with no “choice” have to depend on?

President of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association Kate Gainsford was concerned to see funding cuts of $35.779 million for professional development, $6.005 million for school support programmes and $11.701 million for curriculum support programmes.

The Government said private schools will receive their first Government funding injection in a decade the $35 million allowing them to keep their fees at a more affordable level for parents (ie rich parents).  And I believe that’s at the expense of underfunding the public schools making it less affordable for them to provide quality education for the poor parents.

My younger brother was fortunate enough to get a scholarship to allow him to pay for his fees at a private school, while my sister went to one of the top public schools in central Aukilani.  While there was not much difference in the educational achievements between the two (similar) schools, once either schools were compared to our local high school you could see how well resourced, the quality of teaching, the academic and pastoral care given, the range of options for sporting, cultural and extra curricular activities, were available at the private schools.

While I was studying at Uni, I part-time worked at the Equal Opportunities office.  The statistics I came across were really bad.  The majority of enrolments to the Uni from school leavers came from the top decile (rich) schools.  Even worse for Pacific and Maori students who lived in areas that had low decile (poor) schools, nearly half those at form 5 (third to last year at high school) drop out before they even get to form 7 (last year at high school).  That’s 50% of our younger generation not even making it to the starting line of trying to get into tertiary education.

Of course there are a myriad of reasons, but a lot of it has to do with the under funding, under resourcing (which affect quality of teaching, administration, range of subjects available etc) of those low decile schools which are largely public schools.

The previous Government implemented policies that did see some change in those statistics, by for example providing more funding for public schools.  Universities have also had for years quota systems for disadvantaged groups.  The previous Government strengthened those approaches by providing supplementary grants.  The result being an increase of tertiary participation by people from those disadvantaged groups.

The quota’s are a very contentious issue which I’ll leave for another blog, but it is undeniable that the current Government’s recent funding announcements will see a reversal of that trend.

Before the previous Governments policies, public schools were complaining that private schools were poaching the most talented students from public schools, thereby concentrating the brightest and talented students at the rich schools and then reflected in schooling results.  Of course the private schools said they were providing “choice”.  The previous Government reintroduced zoning which required schools to take in every student within their zone before offering any available spaces to students outside the zone.

The consequences were many of the public schools retained their talented and brightest students, improving the schools results.  Anecdotally, the richer schools have also been losing on the rugby field with first fifteen teams losing for the first time in school history, to poorer public school teams.  Retaining talent in public schools.

It’s not as clear cut, as I probably make it out to be in this article, on the pro’s and con’s of private and public schools.  But there is certainly truth in the fact that private schools don’t provide choice for every parent, just the rich ones.

My friend told me of how his dad had to change his Samoan name Faletasi (or Tasi) to Gus, because the teachers at his Intermediate school couldn’t pronounce the Samoan version.

My parent’s raised us to be proud Samoans, to be proud of who we are and where we came from.  This included being proud of our long Samoan last name.  But my whole childhood I used to get embarrassed when my parents would come to parent’s evenings and correct the Palagi teacher when mis-pronouncing our last name.  Even if the teacher was already mid-sentence, my parents would repeat our last name until it was said properly or at least there was a satisfactory attempt at pronouncing it properly. 

My parents would later lecture us kids that sure they have come to this strange land and have had to learn a new language, but there is honour in a name.  Your name is part of your identity, and mis-pronouncing it is like trying to change who you are.

But I also went to a “Grammar” high school, which harked back to the days of Mother England and the ‘proper’ Grammar schools, with head masters and the fear of the cane lurking behind the teacher’s desk.  At this school you addressed everyone by their last names.  At Primary and Intermediate school I just shrugged the mis-pronunciation off, coz I didn’t want to make a fuss over my name.  But at high school where you heard it said all the time, it just became annoying. 

My last name begins with T, is 10 letters long, 6 being vowels.  It’s not especially hard to pronounce, but I think Palagi’s have most difficulty in sounding the Polynesian vowels out properly.  So it wasn’t until a teacher just couldn’t be bothered trying to pronounce my last name during a roll call that he just called me “T-man”.  That was it!  I corrected the teacher, and at that point I felt like my dad at a parent’s evening.

It’s become important to me to not only have my last name pronounced properly but also to pronounce Maori words and names properly.  After all this is their land.  Furthermore I hated English classes, and every time I got poor marks in English exams I’d wish I could give my teacher an “F-” too when pronouncing names on the roll.

While me and my siblings make an effort to pronounce Maori names, it hasn’t quite caught on with the rest of our family.  Mangere is still Mangry, Manukau is still Mana-cow, Otahuhu is still Oh-da-who.  I think there is a superiority complex we Samoans have over other Polynesian / Pacific peoples, combined with a ‘if it good enough for the Palagi’s to say it that way, it good enough for us too’ attitude. 

As a fellow Polynesian language, Te Reo Maori / Maori langugage is very similar to Samoan.  All the vowels are the same, Maori has R’s, K’s and H’s, but no L’s and S’s.  The R’s are rolled, and the F consonant is spelt WH.  I believe the reason it is spelt that way is because in some regions of Niu Sila / New Zealand, Maori pronounced the F consonant as a W sound.

Earlier this month, the New Zealand Geographical Board recommended to the Government that the City of Wanganui be spelt correctly: Whanganui.  Although the local Maori (Te Runanga o Tupoho) pronounce the name with a W sound (and not the F), it should be spelt with the H added in. 

The Palagi Mayor of W(h)anganui, Michael Laws threw a tantrum, saying that for 150 years it had been spelt without the H, and changing it now would deny the identity that has since formed.  Mr Laws said the name Wanganui had a history of its own and changing it would be an injustice to its residents.  “The culture of my people, the mana [/respect] of my people, their heritage, would be absolutely trampled over.”

While that is a brave argument, I think it’s simply incorrect.  Sure for 150 years it was spelt without an H, but Maori had a name for the region for over 1000 years, and it was spelt WITH the H.  Furthermore, just because people say it often enough, doesn’t make it accurate.  If everyone at my high school had begun to copy that teacher, and call me “T-man” for the rest of my time at that school, it doesn’t make it right, nor does it change the fact that there is a correct way of pronouncing my last name.

These incorrect spellings are remnants of the racist colonial attitude over the indigenous peoples.  Even worse, the ’settlers’ renamed whole areas.  But with a push by the Maori Renaissance and bodies such as the New Zealand Geographical Board, there has been a change in the tide.  Mt Egmont is now called Mt Taranaki, Mt Cook is Mt Aoraki, Auckland is also commonly known as Tamaki Makaurau, and New Zealand is beginning to be recognised as Aotearoa New Zealand.  All Maori names that would not have been heard of in mainstream (Palagi) Niu Sila 30 years ago.

I also noted that Remuera, one of the most affluent suburbs in Niu Sila, is also spelt and pronounced incorrectly.  The Maori name is Remuwera.  However I don’t see the millionaires in those mansions scrambling to change the name anytime soon.

If we want people to pronounce our names properly, and not be called ‘T-man’ or forced to change it ‘Gus’ then we need to show the same respect to other languages (like Te Reo Maori) that we expect from them.