Video and vā: Caring for relationality in Pasifika education

Video and vā

Caring for relationality in Pasifika education

MARTYN REYNOLDS

Introduction

Pasifika education involves young people of Pacific heritage interacting in classrooms with teachers who are mainly Palangi (of European origin) or Palangi-trained, as well with their diverse peers. Thus, it has intercultural and relational aspects; both students and teachers bring their culture to the process. However, the way Pasifika education has been described, how issues in the field are explained, and the identity of who is Pasifika are problematic areas. This article traces contested aspects of Pasifika education as a way of locating a piece of small-scale catalytic action research. The research aims to provide contextual intercultural support to student–teacher relationships. It leads to the claim that an understanding of relationships through one or more concepts of Pacific origin may be helpful in reviewing Pasifika education to advance positive change. The research took place in a school and was conducted by a practising teacher largely within the school’s professional-development programme.

Just what is Pasifika education?

That Pasifika education is a contested area is evident in the shifting lexicon of the field. In recent years, Pasifika students have been widely and variously portrayed as a “target group”, as “priority learners” and as “underserved” by the education system of Aotearoa New Zealand. Contestation is also indicated by various explanations of issues in Pasifika education. Deficit theorisation, which explains relatively poor educational outcomes by finding fault in students’ cultures, has had longevity in New Zealand (Alton-Lee, 2003). By contrast, Thrupp (1997) discusses the way the Education Review Office (ERO) found the underperformance of some schools at fault in Pasifika underachievement. For Thrupp, ERO’s analysis excessively downplayed the social and economic context. Hattie (2003) declared cultural relationships as a clear factor in educational outcomes regardless of any coincidence with socioeconomic status. Milne’s (2013) work on the “white spaces” of education looks critically at the culture of education as practice. This view recognises Pasifika education as an intercultural and relational matter and leads to values, power, and communication becoming important to any discussion of targets, priorities, or service. Finally the Pasifika umbrella term favoured by the Ministry of Education has been seen as problematic (Samu, 2006). Referring to students with a connection to one or more of the Pacific Islands, it may hide differences of generation, island origin, birthplace, and gender (Airini et al., 2010). In addition, people of Pacific heritage, including mixed heritage, may be forging an ethno-genesis, relating less to the Pacific and more to urban life (Tupuola, 2004). A message of caution thus exists to those who would make sweeping generalisations for such a diverse group.

Despite these complications, Pasifika education exists, and teachers are asked to articulate with it. However conceptualised, it seems all is not well in the field, evidenced in the secondary sector by NCEA achievement rates which differentiate between ethnic groups (NZQA, 2015; Wilson, Madjar, & McNaughton, 2016). Although these rates can be described as a problem, they neither directly indicate the seat of issues, nor offer an explanation or way forward. However, the research literature of Pasifika education has the potential to produce ideas to reframe teaching- or policy-as-inquiry,¹ to reveal the processes involved in Pasifika education, and to address its contextual complexities and nuances. Well-constructed research may be capable of assisting change-making at deep levels.

The literature highlights a number of themes directly relevant to classrooms. The most pervasive is the importance of the quality of relationships between Pasifika students and teachers to learning (Devine, 2013). Informed by this awareness, what follows is an account of a small-scale school-based research initiative focused on relational matters in Pasifika education. Given the diversity of Pasifika students, Samu’s (2013) advice for researchers (and teacher–researchers) to stay close to local student voice is valuable. Making student and teacher voice central capitalises on the value of small-scale “do-able” school-based research initiatives. Despite local knowledge, when framing research it is important to remember that research is never a neutral activity. Indeed, it could be argued that some of the research literature of Pasifika education may contain cultural assumptions about relationships, for example, what makes relationships “special” (Hawk & Hill, 2000, p. 27) and, by default, what is normal. In this research, a focus on the response of Palangi teachers to Pasifika students investigates the strengths and weaknesses of initiatives which assume a universal meaning for the concept of “relationships”.

Research background

Intended to make a practical difference, this research brings together three key assumptions in Pasifika education. First, it assumes that student–teacher relationships are significant. Secondly, it accepts the idea that wide social minoritisation of Pasifika people is pervasive and is thus unintentionally present in schools. Finally, it holds that there is value in education as an emancipatory activity. Each assumption will be examined before turning to the two initiatives which form the centrepieces of the research.

First, the notion that student–teacher relationships are significant to the outcomes of Pasifika education is supported by a wide range of literature. For example, Hawk and Hill (2000), Evans (2011), Alkema (2014), and Tait, Horsley, and Tait (2016) reach this conclusion. There is less certainty about the construction of such relationships. Some suggest that effective relationships are based on teachers’ knowledge of students such as their ways of learning (Spiller, 2012). Others attribute the formation of positive relationships to teacher personality. For example, Hawk, Cowley, Hill, and Sutherland (2002) offer a taxonomy of teacher characteristics preferred by Pasifika students, and summarise “the type of person” (p. 45) who might be effective as teacher.

Secondly, the minoritisation of Pasifika people can be seen both in and out of education.

Intended to make a practical difference, this research brings together three key assumptions in Pasifika education. First, it assumes that student–teacher relationships are significant. Secondly, it accepts the idea that wide social minoritisation of Pasifika people is pervasive and is thus unintentionally present in schools. Finally, it holds that there is value in education as an emancipatory activity.

Alton-Lee’s (2003) review links the level of teacher expectation to ethnicity, a claim supported by Rubie-Davies, Hattie, and Hamilton (2006). Deficit theorising, which is based on stereotypical characterisation, is visible in Pasifika education through the work of Nakhid (2003) and Spiller (2013). Spiller describes this theorising as being fed by teachers misunderstanding the values of students’ worlds. This illustrates the difficulty in defining what knowledge supports positive relationships, questions where accuracy and inaccuracy diverge, and the process whereby the latter becomes problematic. That minoritisation is not the sole responsibility of education can be seen in accounts of the negative media depiction of Pasifika people (e.g., Loto et al., 2006). Hynds and Sheehan (2010), in the case of Māori, illustrate how public group portrayal can affect discourse within schools. There is no reason to believe that this is a singular phenomenon.

The third assumption is that education is properly concerned with students finding their potential; being seen as you wish to be seen is significant in this. The right of self-description exists where students describe themselves to their teachers. Any relationship which develops may be on firmer, more individualised ground if the “world” of the student is individualised. Deficits may be countered and greater degrees of relational and hence academic engagement may occur if students are able to describe their own strengths.

All three assumptions can be located in the contestation described above. Knowing who is a Pasifika and what that means can voice within-group diversity. Focusing on relationships as process avoids blaming homes or schools, placing agency in a space where relational action can be taken. Positive intervention for Pasifika students can be constructed through Pasifika voice as a way of opposing minoritisation as a positive response to differential patterns of achievement.

Research phase 1

Students’ video mihi—students representing themselves

The research to be described took place in two phases. The first centrepiece of the research is video mihi. To mihi is a Māori concept, a formal greeting, in this case made by students for teachers. Filming used VideoPad, an iPad app, the free version of which limits videos to 60 seconds, an advantage because short videos are more likely to be watched by busy teachers.

During an induction day hosted by senior Pasifika students, Pasifika students enrolled at the school but still to complete primary schooling were asked to make a video mihi, to construct themselves for their unknown teachers who would later watch. This was an opportunity to talk from their world-view, to bring their past successes to their new school, to imagine and communicate aspirations and aims for secondary education, and to celebrate themselves. Where emancipation is seen as the right to name oneself, the opportunity to have the first word in a dialogue becomes powerful. Video has the potential to mediate some teacher–student power relations, particularly when the audience is absent and imagined rather than present or known. By providing an open-ended list of topics, support from senior Pasifika students with contextual knowledge, and student-made examples, a framework for mihi production was established which safeguarded usefulness to teachers but also created space for individualised student expression. Thirteen video mihi were created and most released by their makers to be viewed.

When the new school year was underway and new timetables were in place teachers were invited to view the mihi of their respective future students, commenting on what they had seen and on the effect of watching. Much of the video mihi subject matter described areas typically associated with Pasifika people. However, the videos fitted more into a dialogical structure than a one-way stereotypical statement. This is because teachers reacted to students’ individuality. In addition, when teachers watched the videos they appreciated them as visual rhetoric (Hocks, 2003). That is, they derived meaning from images, tone, the sequence of ideas, and so on. Teachers dug beneath the surface, creating a sense of each Pasifika student.

Examining the comments made by a dozen teachers it became clear that they had responded on three levels. For the purpose of analysis, these have been termed instrumental, personal, and affective. Each level of interaction is worthwhile, but engagement differs.

Viewing the mihi—teachers learning about students

In an instrumental response, teachers appreciate the value of specific pieces of information as opportunities to shape curriculum delivery. An instrumental response to a named sport is:

If you can be creating your lessons around sport in some way then he can get engaged in that I can imagine…

Similar comments were made regarding named churches. Here, facts presented about a student are a basis for potential future activity by way of making a connection or of trying to construct direct classroom relevance. This response values the knowledge that students bring to school. The mihi facilitates a space in which this is visible. Although creating connections can lead to future relational engagement, this kind of response is limited to specifics.

A personal response to a mihi values the qualities a student presents. For instance, teachers saw leadership qualities, and consequently valued the student as a person. Teachers also identified need. Positive expectations and interpersonal strategies can be formed where a student is associated with positive attributes or their needs are communicated. For example, a teacher responded:

I already know him, and I think I know what he will need, its mainly confidence, mainly push, mainly support … so in a way this saves a lot of time because … I feel that I know him …

And another commented:

I’d expect him to be enthusiastic and maybe bring some of those leadership qualities he talked about into the classroom ...

The potential of the method is demonstrated where the first comment responds to comportment seen in the visual text, while the second is verbally inspired. At this level, video mihi elicits a student-focused response which goes beyond being fact or curriculum, extending the range of potential interactions as a result.

At the affective level, teachers respond with warmth or emotional anticipation, using words such as “warm” and “lovely”. Affective responses focus on how the teacher feels about the student. An interpersonal and relational reaction is made. Examples are:

I feel quite connected to him immediately, I like him, watching the video, he is really cool...

and:

He’s talked about himself, and laid himself out there… I just connect with him … and you just look forward to seeing how it is going to go. So the emotional connection is just seeing him voicing out who he is…

A very personal connection can be made through the virtual meeting of teacher and student. Because such responses involve teachers’ emotions, it is easy to imagine the potential for acceptance in the first physical meeting.

Critique of schools using students’ video mihi

If relationships between Pasifika students and teachers are important and the reduction of the power of stereotypes can be achieved through individualisation, then the video mihi method has value. It offers a way of warming relationships, facilitating connections, and creating positive expectations. It also gives an opportunity for students to self-describe and to construct themselves for an absent audience. By contrast, the data generally passed from primary to secondary education at transition generally offers only teacher-originated descriptions, both through comments and through numeric data. Despite these virtues, the method promotes interpersonal understanding but does not necessarily promote intercultural understanding. This is because the concept of relationship-building which sits behind it is untroubled. In Pasifika education, an undisturbed concept is likely to be of European rather than Pacific origin. To move further, the second phase of the research turned to vā, a relational concept of Pacific origin, and to the voices of students and parents talking not about themselves but about teaching and teachers. This shifts the teacher education embedded in this phase from learning about to learning from Pasifika students and their worlds.

Critical learning from the Pacific

Vā is a relational concept of Pacific origin, often discussed in the context of Samoan or Tongan culture, but present elsewhere in the region. Although it is impossible to do justice to such an expansive concept in a short article, it is briefly offered as a way of troubling a European relational world-view. Understanding that alternative possibilities exist may be what being intercultural means; learning about another way of thinking is one way we can learn about ourselves.

Accounts of vā, a spatial metaphor of relationality, have been given by a number of Pacific writers. Wendt says vā is “the space between, the betweenness, not empty space, not space that separates but space that relates, that holds separate entities and things together in the Unity-that-is-All, the space that is context, giving meaning to things” (1999, p. 402). Similarly, Ka’ili says vā “emphasises space in between. This is fundamentally different from the popular western notion of space as an expanse or an open area” (2005, p. 89). Mila-Schaaf, explains that to focus on vā “leads to an examination of our interaction with others; a focus on our intentions and conscious actions that influences the nature of our relationships with others” (2006, p. 11). Further discussion can be found in Anae (2010), Lilomaiava-Doktor (2009), Reynolds (2016), and elsewhere.

Vā is a relational concept of Pacific origin, often discussed in the context of Samoan or Tongan culture, but present elsewhere in the region. Although it is impossible to do justice to such an expansive concept in a short article, it is briefly offered as a way of troubling a European relational world-view. Understanding that alternative possibilities exist may be what being intercultural means; learning about another way of thinking is one way we can learn about ourselves.

Perhaps part of the essence of vā can be captured in Hau'ofa’s (1994) comment that the islands of the Pacific are both separated and connected by ocean. Thus it is with classroom relationships. Some Western views see no relationship and no obligation beyond teaching unless these are built or developed. There is no relational self (Giddens, 1991) in this understanding. Looking through the lens of vā, the classroom is always filled with relationships at social, physical, and spiritual levels. Activities which are understood by those involved as positive serve to intensify relationality; inaction or negatively understood activities trample it. There is no neutral ground. The obligation to teu le vā, or nurture relationships (Airini et al., 2010) is placed on all involved despite (and because of) the hierarchical nature of educational interaction. Teu le vā can be translated as making the vā beautiful and involves “balance, symmetry, beauty” (Mila-Schaaf & Hudson, 2009, p. 117). It is a Samoan reference which is similar to the Tongan reference tauhi vā (Ka'ili, 2005). To care for the vā is an ethical matter and by preference, “connections are made and conflict minimised out of concern for the relationship and a desire for harmony and symmetry within the engagement” (Mila-Schaaf & Hudson, 2009, p. 117). An understanding of vā thus gives a navigation for the way classroom relationships in Pasifika education might be constructed without dictating any specific behaviour. Vā is by its nature contextual.

Research phase 2

Teachers going deeper by hearing voice through concepts

After the video mihi part of the research, and partly in response to the findings described above, a short professional development (PD) programme was developed, a forum to integrate a consideration of vā with student and parent voice. The PD comprised six meetings with 11 staff, embedded in the school’s PD cycle. In this way it created no “extra” work for those involved, but simultaneously added value to the research focus and to the school-authorised PD. To access Pasifika voice, Pasifika students and parents were separately asked in a number of forums what they thought Palangi teachers needed to know about Pasifika students, teaching, and teachers. Similar to the Effective Teacher Profile of Bishop and Berryman (2009), taxonomies of “kind”/effective and “harsh”/ less-effective teachers developed as a result. Although these have some resemblances to accounts of Pasifika education such as Hawk and Hill (2000), in this research teachers attempted to locate the significance of various attributes through vā. This meant that a range of positive teacher behaviours from use of voice, classroom organisation, and body language to patience could be understood through a single framework. The ability to fulfil the obligation to teu le vā rather than the possession of a particular personality became a key focus in discussion. As teacher–researcher–learner I became part of the group.

Essentially the PD was about Palangi teachers trying to understand student–teacher relationships through a Pacific concept. The assumption that the concept might apply at some level to a number of our Pasifika students’ understandings was supported by the alignment of local student and parent comment with the literature and with what we were learning about vā. Framed by the schools’ PD requirements and the catalytic intention of the research, teachers were asked to reflect on their practice, peer-observe, and report back to Pasifika parents on the way their developing understanding was affecting their classrooms. Thus, as a group of teachers we tried to grasp what ideas associated with vā—such as obligation, reciprocity, and a desire for harmony—might look like in our own classroom, and how they might shape Pasifika (and other) expectations and readings of our conduct.

Teachers’ video mihi—teachers representing their learning about themselves

At the conclusion of the PD programme, the teachers involved made video mihi for Pasifika parent research contributors as a dialogic act of thanks and accountability. These videos expose another level of teacher response to Pasifika education, one which contains evidence of the effect of teachers learning about themselves, the result of their exposure to Pasifika voice through a Pacific concept. This level of response is self-examination.

Self-examination involves some reframing of teaching and learning. Seeing learning as a joint project, a result of rethinking the flow of power in the classroom, was a frequent theme. For instance, one teacher talked about mutual ownership of learning:

It’s not just my classroom… I teacher and you students, it was what we created together.

Another referred to her previous role as “boss” and its redefinition, shifting to more inclusive language.

A third claimed:

I didn’t expect this but it’s actually a de-formalisation of the student–teacher relationship … a bit of a challenge.

Through these examples, some of the potential of Pasifika concepts such as vā to disturb business-as-usual in schools can be seen, particularly when theoretical learning is allied to local contextually relevant information. Reciprocation, inclusion, and harmony can be seen. It seems that when teachers of European origin start shifting the lens through which they understand Pasifika educational relationships, there is a positive potential for change in the way that Pasifika education is understood.

Conclusion

At the macro level, as discussed above, engaging positively with Pasifika education requires the negotiation of shifting descriptions, competing explanations, and uncertain definitions. At a micro level, this research has demonstrated the potential of Pasifika student voice to both enact and catalyse teu le vā, supporting the relationality between students and teachers. The initial video mihi productions warmed the relational space between participants in Pasifika education despite the lack of Pacific-origin ideas to support this. However, the kinds of response made to Pasifika students through the first phase of the research may rely as much on an individual teacher’s personality and role-definition as on Pasifika student voice.

The introduction of the Pacific concept of vā into the mix reframes teacher response to Pasifika education as learning about the self in relation to others. In this, it shifts focus from teacher personality and makes opportunity, ability, and willingness to learn significant. Because reflection and self-monitoring are involved, teachers are empowered to acknowledge diversity in the Pasifika population. A teacher’s own culture and viewpoints are also included in the relational space. As a result, Pasifika students may be “served” education which aligns more with Pacific understanding, acknowledging the ethnicity of both student and teacher. I wish neither to discount out-of-school factors in education, achievement, or schooling, nor to simplify a complex situation by suggesting a cure-all. But it may be that some disturbance of the way Pasifika education is understood by non-Pasifika participants might lead to a better experience for all concerned. To achieve this, a good first place to look may be to the “sea of islands” (Hau'ofa, 1994).

Note

References

Airini, Anae, M., Mila-Schaaf, K., Coxon, E., Mara, D., & Sanga, K. (2010). Teu le va—Relationships across research and policy in Pasifika Education: A collective approach to knowledge generation and policy development for action towards Pasifika education success. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Alkema, A. (2014). Success for Pasifika in tertiary education: Highlights from Ako Aotearoa supported research. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/successforpasifika

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959

Anae, M. (2010). Teu le va: Toward a native anthropology. Pacific Studies, 33(2), 222–240.

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te Kotahitanga effective teaching profile. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (2), 27–33.

Devine, N. (2013). Mata Pasifika as critique. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 32(1/2), 59.

Evans, B. F. (2011). Teaching practices that support high achievement in the education of Pacific boys. Unpublished master’s thesis, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hattie, J. (2003, February). New Zealand education snapshot: With specific reference to the Yrs 1–13 Years. Paper presented at the Knowledge Wave Conference, The Leadership Forum, University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/48020/401086/file/JohnHattie.pdf

Hau'ofa, E. (1994). Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacific, 6(1), 148–161.

Hawk, K., Cowley, E. T., Hill, J., & Sutherland, S. (2002). The importance of the teacher/student relationship for Māori and Pasifika students. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (3), 44–49.

Hawk, K., & Hill, J. (2000). Making a difference in classrooms: Effective teacher practice in low-decile, multi-cultural schools. Wellington: Ministry of Education Research Division.

Hocks, M. E. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing environments. College Composition and Communication, 54(4), 629–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/3594188

Hynds, A., & Sheehan, M. (2010). Iwi versus Kiwi: Racism, race relationships and the experience of controversial political debates within a context of culturally responsive school reform. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 20, 102–121.

Ka’ili, T. O. (2005). Tauhi va: Nurturing Tongan sociospatial ties in Maui and beyond. The Contemporary Pacific, 17(1), 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2005.0017

Lilomaiava-Doktor, S. (2009). Beyond “migration”: Samoan population movement (malaga) and the geography of social space (vā). The Contemporary Pacific, 21(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.0.0035

Loto, R., Hodgetts, D., Chamberlain, K., Nikora, L. W., Karapu, R., & Barnett, A. (2006). Pasifika in the news: The portrayal of Pacific peoples in the New Zealand press. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(2), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.848

Mila-Schaaf, K. (2006). Va-centred social work: Possibilities for a Pacific approach to social work practice. Social Work Review, 18(1), 8.

Mila-Schaaf, K., & Hudson, M. (2009). Negotiating space for indigenous theorising in Pacific mental health and addictions. Auckland: LeVa.

Milne, A. (2013). Colouring in the white spaces: Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v18i2.177

Nakhid, C. (2003). “Intercultural” perceptions, academic achievement, and the identifying process of Pacific Islands students in New Zealand schools. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(3), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211249

NZQA. (2015). Annual report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship data and statistics 2014. Wellington: Author.

Reynolds, M. (2016). Relating to va. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 12(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.20507/AlterNative.2016.12.2.7

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X53589

Samu, T. (2006). The “Pasifika umbrella” and quality teaching: Understanding and responding to the diverse realities within. Waikato Journal of Education, 12, 35–50.

Samu, T. (2013). Pasifika education: Discourses of difference within Aotearoa New Zealand. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Spiller, L. T. (2012). “How can we teach them when they won’t listen?” How teacher beliefs about Pasifika values and Pasifika ways of learning affect student behaviour and achievement. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (3), 58–66.

Spiller, L. T. (2013). Teachers’ misunderstandings that affect the learning of their Pasifika students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Tait, K., Horsley, J., & Tait, C. (2016). How do academically successful Pasifika students perceive task value? Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 25(1), 47.

Thrupp, M. (1997). The Education Review Office and South Auckland schools: A case of ideology over analysis. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 6, 51–70.

Tupuola, A. M. (2004). Pasifika edgewalkers: Complicating the achieved identity status in youth research. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 25(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860410001687045

Wendt, A. (1999). Afterword: Tatauing the post-colonial body. In V. Hereniko & R. Wilson (Eds.), Inside out: Literature, cultural politics, and identity in the new Pacific (pp. 399–412). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wilson, A., Madjar, I., & McNaughton, S. (2016). Opportunity to learn about disciplinary literacy in senior secondary English classrooms in New Zealand. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1134339

Acknowledgements

This article is an expanded recontextualised version of a paper from the Vaka Pasifiki Education Conference 2016, Honiara. The original presentation forms part of the conference proceedings (in press). Thanks go to participants who made observations and suggestions.

I acknowledge the input of the staff of the Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, particularly Dr Cherie Chu and Dr Mark Sheehan. I have also been guided by the community of Va'aomanū Pasifika at Victoria, particularly Dr Tamasailau Suaalii-Sauni. Thanks also go to the Pasifika community of my school, staff, parents, and students, the teachers in the PD group, and to those who read drafts; Dr Fuapepe Rimoni, Liana MacDonald, and Bevan Holloway. Finally 'ofa atu to my family for their love, patience, and tolerance.

1The term policy-as-inquiry proposes that both educational policy and practice might be expected to operate within the same methodological framework, i.e. to be conducted as part of a responsive inquiry related to effectiveness. Such as with teaching-as-inquiry, we might expect policy-as-inquiry to be responsive, fluid, and under continual reflexive scrutiny.