ACE Papers July 2003 Smith 30
Biculturalism: The relationship between education policy and art education practice in secondary schools in Aotearoa New Zealand
Jill Smith – Principal Lecturer in Art Education, Auckland College of Education
In this research I take the position that biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand is not so much a theoretical construct as a proclamation of a political stance. I aim to uncover the interpretations of biculturalism that have guided state education and to investigate practices which respond to what I call the „bicultural imperative‟.
Although the research focused on art education in secondary schools, the enactment of statutes establishing bicultural policy in education has implications for other curriculum areas.
The motivation for the research arose from my role as a teacher educator with responsibility for training secondary school art teachers. Bicultural policy requires me to prepare students in respect of Mäori art. Earlier research has made me conscious of the dilemma of firstly, a largely non-Mäori secondary school teaching force required to fulfil bicultural obligations and, secondly, the comparatively few Mäori holding the (Western) qualifications requisite for entry to tertiary institutions and colleges of education, and subsequent employment in secondary schools. My awareness also of the paucity of knowledge and experience that the majority of my predominantly non-Mäori students have of „things Mäori‟
predisposes me towards affirmative action.
Two questions prompted my research on this topic:
; What is the political and social agenda that lies behind New Zealand‟s
bicultural education policy?
; What are the perceptions, behaviours and performances of the participants in
relation to the bicultural curriculum imperative?
31 Smith July 2003 ACE Papers
I took as my starting point the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 by over 500 Mäori Chiefs, and by Governor Hobson, representing the British Crown. The intention was not to research the Treaty itself although the topic required an intensive search of the literature related to it and subsequent events.
The Treaty established the signatories as equal partners holding equal rights and privileges but the precise interpretation of this declaration of equality, and its legal status, has been argued ever since. The vast literature on the Treaty reveals that it conformed to prevailing colonial policy, but according to such as Kawharu (1989), Orange (1987), Brownlie (1992), and Renwick (1991) it was politically motivated and can be interpreted as an expedient solution adopted by the British Crown. The Treaty remains a central issue in New Zealand.
Claudia Orange, in the foreword to her seminal publication The Treaty of Waitangi
(1987) claims, “The British considered that they had acquired sovereignty over New Zealand, but to Mäori people the treaty had a very different significance”. Further, she claims that successive provincial governments quickly subverted the original intentions of the Treaty. She records Chief Justice Prendergast‟s ruling in 1877 that the Treaty was a “nullity”, a declaration which held sway until the 1970s. This effectively rendered the Treaty, and the protections it was intended to give Mäori, completely without force. Orange believes that “The gap between Mäori
and European expectations of the Treaty remains unbridged” (1987: 5).
The literature also suggests that imperialism, the maintenance of dominant Päkehä power and authority, has prevailed. Despite some evidence of often paternalistic, humanist attitudes, assimilation has been overtly and covertly the prevailing policy. Research by such as Jones, McCulloch, Marshall and Linda and Graeme Smith (1990), Pearson (in Macpherson, Pearson & Spoonley, 1991) and McKenzie & Openshaw (1997) reveals substantial disaffection with such policy. Orange considers that:
ACE Papers July 2003 Smith 32
…confusion over the treaty arises from the way it has been used to
further what the different parties have each considered legitimate
interests and to validate certain assumed rights. Europeans, in
particular, have shifted their position on the treaty to suit their
purposes (1987: 2).
In the 1970s, a climate of liberal humanism prompted by „Päkehä guilt‟ and
responsive to Mäori protest and affirmation of rights, led to enactment of statutes establishing bicultural policy. It was in 1975 that the School Certificate Art prescription was introduced. A most innovative art education document for its time, and one which endured until 2000, it was the first to include a specific requirement for students to study „the significance and form of some examples of
Mäori art‟ (Department of Education, 1974).
In 1993, the Ministry of Education‟s The New Zealand Curriculum Framework,
which includes Essential Learning Areas for the visual arts, specifies bicultural requirements for all schools. In the foreword states:
The Curriculum Framework acknowledges the value of the Treaty of
Waitangi, and of New Zealand‟s bicultural identity and multicultural
society (Ministry of Education, 1993: 1).
stAnother key Ministry of Education document, Education for the 21 Century,
The Treaty of Waitangi establishes the right of Mäori and non-Mäori
to all the benefits of education (Ministry of Education, 1994: 7).
The most recent curriculum statement, The Arts in the New Zealand Curriculum,
33 Smith July 2003 ACE Papers
In Aotearoa New Zealand, all students should have opportunities to
learn about traditional and contemporary Mäori art forms (Ministry of
Education, 2000: 71).
The most recent assessment statements for students in years 11-13 are the Achievement Standards for NCEA, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (2000). At year 11, for example, an internally assessed standard in Visual Arts requires students to:
Research art and artworks from Mäori and European traditions and their contexts
(NCEA Visual Arts achievement standard 1.1, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2000).
While statutes and documents may be definitive, Tim May claims that:
Documents do not simply reflect, but also construct social reality and
versions of events…documents are not neutral artefacts…[they] are
now viewed as mediums through which social power is
expressed…They are approached in terms of the cultural context in
which they were written and may be viewed as attempts at persuasion
(May, 1993: 138-139).
Such a view raises issues of the relationship between definitive statements of law and the interpretations and implementations of them. Curriculum statements are binding requirements upon New Zealand schools. They emphasise that all students and not just Mäori are to receive a bicultural interpretation of arts education. Although my research explored this relationship in a sample of secondary schools, I argue that it has significance beyond the classroom. To require that a nation sustain bicultural policies and practice has substantial social and cultural ramifications.
ACE Papers July 2003 Smith 34
The Problem of Defining ‘Biculturalism’
Although arguments related to the Treaty are unresolved its principles have been enshrined in government statute and shape the educational policies upon which my research was focused. It is these issues that both underlie and complicate a definition of biculturalism in New Zealand.
„Biculturalism‟ is a controversial issue. New Zealanders display a wide variety of views and attitudes. Some Mäori groups seek independent sovereignty and reject what they see as the oppressive policies of a post-colonial government. By contrast, some Päkehä resent what they see as privileged treatment of Mäori and reject any responsibility for their past treatment. There are both Mäori and Päkehä (Jones et al, 1990) who are concerned about claims that Mäori health, education, economic status, employment and criminality are of serious concern. Others such as Vasil (1998) maintain that Mäori do not constitute a separate national community and that tribal organisation is the base of loyalty. Still others protest the need for multiculturalism rather than biculturalism (Whitecliffe in Boughton & Mason, 1999).
Eminent Mäori scholar, Ranginui Walker, claims that the assimilationist policies which contradicted the intention of the treaty inflicted “on subsequent generations
of Mäori children an identity conflict that persists to the present day” (Walker in Bray & Hill, 1973: 111). He considers the destruction of their culture has developed both a defeatist and aggressive response from Mäori who seek an identity outside the Päkehä conventions.
Mäori artist and scholar, Robert Jahnke, sees biculturalism as a deliberate Western construct. To him biculturalism is a means by which the dominant and power-holding sector can ameliorate discontent and salve conscience without surrendering supremacy. He states:
35 Smith July 2003 ACE Papers
One suspects that like those time „dishonoured‟ terms like
„acculturation‟ and „assimilation‟ (its) legitimacy is determined by
political expediency. For biculturalism to be more than a pathetic
fallacy requires empathetic negotiation across the boundaries of
cultural reality. To presuppose a priority of vision defined solely by
Western perception merely perpetuates the cultural capital of the elite
as the sole criterion of cultural legitimacy (1995: 9-10).
Elizabeth Rata (Rata, 2000) commenting upon biculturalism, provides a cogent analysis of the evolution of what she terms the „bicultural project‟, a bicultural partnership ideal of the 1980s designed to correct the wrongs of the past. For Rata, biculturalism was established by middle-class post-war Päkehä humanists as a response to Mäori impatience with the failure of successive governments to recognise and deal with Mäori disempowerment. It has, she considers, been short-lived. The new middle class has sensed defeat and retreated in the face of increasing ethnification and indigenisation by Mäori who reject the paternalism of biculturalism and multiculturalism.
There are Päkehä such as Christie, at one time principal of Mt Albert Primary School, who see Mäori as not taking advantage of what is offered by a beneficent government, of being given unfair advantages in terms of compensations negotiated under the Waitangi tribunal, and of provoking dissent by claims for independence and sovereignty. In one of his commentaries, „Brainwashing in
Schools‟, he states:
The situation is created in New Zealand where children with even a
slight trace of Mäori ethnicity, or none at all - and often none at all –
are coerced into displaying „Mäori culture‟, into believing notions of
kotahitanga, kingitanga, and rangatiratanga, and to assume a partisan
ethnic stance… All such thinking, though based on bunkum, is taught
ACE Papers July 2003 Smith 36
in schools by government directive and enforcement, with the support
of academia from where it is piped throughout (Christie, 1999: 71).
What emerges in the literature is that there is difference of opinion about what constitutes „biculturalism‟. Whatever the truth of the matter, as an educator I must accept that biculturalism is written into state statutes for education.
As I discovered in this research, however, the effective implementation of such requirements is dependent upon and affected by the attitudes, opinions and behaviours of the participants.
The Problem of Defining ‘Mäori Art’
Equally difficult for this research was defining „Mäori art‟. It is as complex and
differentiated as art of the Western world. Hakiwai explains that what the Western world has called „Mäori art‟, Mäori call taonga:
Taonga or treasures embody all those things that represent our culture.
The histories, myths and traditions, memories, experiences and stories,
all combine to help define and identify us as Mäori people…Our
treasures are much more than objets d‟art for they are living in every
sense of the word and carry the love and pride of those who fashioned
them, handled and caressed them, and passed them on for future
generations (Hakiwai in Starzecka, 1996: 54).
Recognising the role of taonga is a critical dimension of the bicultural issue. Its place, and the reverence given it by Mäori, give it the mana or status of cultural property, and hence requires under the treaty and subsequent legislation, protection by the state. It requires the maintenance of education in meanings,
origins and mana. It combines all the forces of the arts, of music, drama, oratory, and carving to convey the ethos of the people.
37 Smith July 2003 ACE Papers
Notwithstanding the above, which focuses on the interpretation of art and artefacts of pre-European contact, the literature reveals a significant variety of opinions, definitions and viewpoints as to what might be considered Mäori art today. This variety is as evident in Mäori scholarship as in Päkehä interpretation.
Eminent Mäori elder and scholar, Hirini Mead, considers that:
Mäori art is made by Mäori artists working within Mäori stylistic
traditions of the iwi for the iwi (1984: 75).
He claims that many contemporary Mäori artists are not making Mäori art, yet concedes, “Mäori artists in the art schools of the Päkehä are spearheading a movement to change the face of Mäori art more radically than ever before” (1984:
The necessity for Mäori art to remain rooted within traditional practice and using traditional idioms and materials is rejected by such as Mäori art curator, Rangihiroa Panaho (1987), who claims that it has always been innovative and responsive to change. He sees no problem with the contemporary artist‟s use of Western materials and techniques in interpreting Mäori ideology.
What the literature reveals is that the many positions regarding „what is Mäori art‟
make the interpretation and teaching of it, as defined in curriculum documents, a complex issue. My research revealed that it is an issue which has not been sufficiently acknowledged.
Implications of Biculturalism for Art Education
A thorough analysis of policy and curriculum documents indicated that prior to the 1950s Mäori art had been systematically neglected from art education in New Zealand schools. This neglect was grounded in policies of a dominant Päkehä society that, even in its „Native Schools‟, adhered rigorously to a British model of
ACE Papers July 2003 Smith 38
curriculum. Expatriate New Zealander, Graeme Chalmers believes that “art education was (and is) a major agent of colonisation and cultural imperialism”. He states:
In Colonial New Zealand art education was imperialistic and
Eurocentric. It may not have been as blatantly and overtly racist as in
South Africa, where, in the 1950s President Verwoerd was quoted as
saying “When I have control of Native education, I will reform it so
that the Natives will be taught from childhood to realise that equality
with Europeans is not for them”. But throughout the colonised world
there were, and are, many covert expressions of the same policy
(Chalmers in Boughton & Mason, 1999: 176).
Hirini Mead, claims that:
Before Te Mäori (1984) the study, protection, and care of, and the
speaking about Mäori art were largely the province and domain of the
dominant culture. Mäori art was a captured art, and museums could be
regarded as repositories of the trophies of capture (1997: 181).
Following the Te Mäori Exhibition in the prestigious Metropolitan Museum in
New York in 1984, and subsequently in Chicago and Los Angeles, it became clear that the art of the Mäori was internationally highly regarded. Such regard was not
ththat 19 Century patronising curiosity about the artefacts of primitive tribes which earlier writers refer to, but recognition by world authorities of its aesthetic
sophistication and symbolic power.
In the years since becoming a teacher educator, I have re-evaluated my earlier practices as a secondary school art teacher. In the 1970s I saw no problem in teaching Mäori art. There existed enough of Mead‟s „captured art‟ in books and museums to satisfy the requirement of the School Certificate Art prescription that
39 Smith July 2003 ACE Papers
students study „the significance and form of some examples of Mäori art‟. For
myself, and I suspect other Päkehä teachers, the emphasis lay in recording the
forms of Mäori art rather than understanding their significance.
My thesis (J. Smith, 2001) which informs this paper recognises the limitations of my earlier practice, which is I believe a national dilemma and formed the raison
d’être of the thesis:
If the state requires that all students in all of its schools receive some education about the culture and arts of the Mäori, who is to provide that education?
For the qualitative research which underpinned my thesis I chose an interpretative case study, a flexible methodology described by Bob Smith (2000: 112) as most commonly used „to raise issues and inform dialogue about some institutional practice or innovation‟. I sought through the fieldwork of an „intrinsic case study‟ to explore the questions referred to earlier.
My research was localised within secondary art education, my specialist territory. The settings for the case study comprised Ngä Kura Tuarua, three secondary
schools, which provided a variety of physical and environmental contexts. To
protect their identity I named them Te Kura Hine (the girls‟ school), Te Kura
Tama (the boys‟ school) and Te Kura Hine-tama (the co-educational school). The
selection, based on Patton‟s (1990) „criterion sampling‟, included low to high
decile classification and ethnic composition. One had up to 50% Mäori and/or Pacific Islands students, another a wide range of student ethnicities, and a third was predominantly „white‟ mono-cultural.
Twenty-seven participants, nine in each school, and myself as the „key instrument‟ (Eisner, 1991), were involved in the research. Participant perspectives were gained through qualitative methods suggested by Biklen and Bogdan (1992) and Wolcott (1992) – „examining, enquiring and experiencing‟. „Examining‟ involved analysis