You are here

Issues of culture and assessment in New Zealand education pertaining to Māori students

Rangimarie Mahuika, Mere Berryman and Russell Bishop
Abstract: 

Assessment, much like learning, is interactive, social and contextual. New information and experience is understood and assimilated in relation to prior knowledge and experiences. While it is increasingly accepted that Māori learners have their own ways of understanding the world which are different from those of their non-Māori peers, teachers need to be careful not to promote a homogeneous approach to Māori learners. This article advocates the use of culturally responsive pedagogies that include assessment practices to meet the specific needs of the students. In association with the development of these understandings, there has grown a shift in focus from the deficiencies of the learner to a closer examination of the role of schools and schooling, the “system” itself and the production and implementation of culturally responsive models and quality teaching programmes that include formative assessment approaches.

Issues of culture and assessment in New Zealand education pertaining to Mäori students1

Rangimarie Mahuika, Mere Berryman and Russell Bishop

Abstract

Assessment, much like learning, is interactive, social and contextual. New information and experience is understood and assimilated in relation to prior knowledge and experiences. While it is increasingly accepted that Mäori learners have their own ways of understanding the world which are different from those of their non-Mäori peers, teachers need to be careful not to promote a homogeneous approach to Mäori learners. This article advocates the use of culturally responsive pedagogies that include assessment practices to meet the specific needs of the students. In association with the development of these understandings, there has grown a shift in focus from the deficiencies of the learner to a closer examination of the role of schools and schooling, the “system” itself and the production and implementation of culturally responsive models and quality teaching programmes that include formative assessment approaches.

Introduction

In terms of policy, the current response of the education system to educational disparities in New Zealand is to “continue New Zealand’s transformation to a dynamic, knowledge-based economy and society, underpinned by the values of fairness, opportunity and security” (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 9). To attain this objective, the government has set two goals for the New Zealand education system: “to build an education system that equips New Zealanders with 21st century skills and to reduce systemic underachievement in education” (p. 11). To reach these goals, the Ministry of Education has as its mission “to raise achievement and reduce disparities” (p. 17). This dual approach is seen as being necessary because, although by international standards, average student achievement is high, “we still have one of the widest gaps between our highest and lowest achievers” (p. 17), and this situation exists within schools rather than between schools (Alton-Lee, 2003).

Assessment plays a key role in realising these aims by being an integral component of any teaching programme and providing a vehicle for teachers and schools to understand the various learning needs of their students and the directions that teaching needs to take in response. In effect, then, assessment provides a means for teachers to evaluate students’ progress so that they together can make judgements about how best to tailor teaching and learning programmes so as to address the various strengths and weaknesses of learners. Further, assessment provides evidence from which parents can be informed of their children’s progress in such a way that they can make sense of and participate in their children’s learning journeys. Assessment also provides a base from which qualifications can be awarded by ensuring that individuals have the requisite skills and knowledge to fulfil certain tasks and in the end become competent and contributing citizens in society. However, assessment is more than simply taking tests or collecting and analysing data. There is also a necessary judgement in what knowledge is valued by society and represented as being “official” and legitimate in the classroom through decisions about what is assessed and how this assessment is carried out. Such judgements cannot help but have significant implications in culturally diverse nations, such as New Zealand, because of the contestation over what constitutes legitimate knowledges within neocolonial settings. The Ministry of Education (1998) claims that for assessment to be valuable, it “must provide teachers, schools, students, and parents with information that helps to improve the quality of education outcomes for students” (p. 4). However, it is clear that there is a much wider debate about what constitutes appropriate and effective assessment that needs to be entered into before we will see it addressing the aims of raising individual student and overall achievement levels through the reduction of educational disparities.

Do Mäori have different learning and assessment needs?

First, we wish to attend to the long-standing question about whether Mäori learners are culturally different from their non-Mäori counterparts, and thus have different learning and assessment needs that must be addressed in culturally appropriate and responsive ways (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Durie, 2001; Smith, 1997). Our immediate answer is yes and no. Yes, because we promote the notion that Mäori students need to be targeted by teachers through the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogies that include assessment practices, and no, because we are mindful of the danger of suggesting that Mäori students are so different that they need some different, and as yet undiscovered, “recipe” for addressing these differences.

A culturally responsive pedagogy is necessary because as Päkehä culture has long been accepted as the mainstream or norm in New Zealand, many teachers are unaware of the influence it has either on them or the education system. As Joan Metge (1990) explains, “[w]hereas members of the minority group have their own ways thrown into relief in their encounter with others, Päkehä people take theirs for granted as the norm” (p. 15). In the normalisation of their own culture, many Päkehä educators fail to see how the education system reinforces their own cultural values and beliefs. The sociocultural context in which a teacher or student lives influences their values and beliefs and the ways in which they make sense of and understand the world and their own position in it. In a very real way our culture acts as a kind of blueprint for the way we interpret information and the importance we attach to various types of information (Bevan-Brown, 2003). As learning and assessment is interactive, social and contextual, new information and experience is understood, analysed and assimilated in relation to prior knowledge and experiences. It is not surprising, then, that, for example, compatibility between the school and home environments will better facilitate effective learning and assessment. By extension, Bevan-Brown (2003) argues that while most, if not all, teachers want the best for all of their students, the problem is often that they do not understand the important role that culture plays in terms of sense making in children’s learning and assessment, and they do not know how to address these issues within their teaching practice. Often, then, these teachers continue with what they know, using teaching and assessment practices that fail to respond to the cultural needs of their Mäori students.

However, identifying what is meaningful and relevant to Mäori learners poses another difficulty in accommodating cultural difference in New Zealand assessment policy and procedures. Hemara (1999) highlights these difficulties in dealing with issues relating to Mäori education, as Mäori are by no means a homogeneous group:

Mäori who are native English speakers, and who have never been to a marae or do not know their whakapapa, are just as much part of contemporary Mäori culture as those who have been steeped in ancient traditions. How assessment practices respond to Päkehä/Mäori differences and Mäori diversity is crucial (Hemara, 1999, p. 62). Bishop and Glynn (1999) identified the need for pedagogic and associated assessment practices to be responsive in ways that allow teachers to create supportive and empowering relationships within their classrooms. They note power sharing and interdependence as fundamental to the relationships that are established. Ensuring that relationships are nondominating is similarly important, and individual students’ right to self-determination is crucial. When the notion of culture is central to learning relationships, teachers, through power-sharing practices, create a space that allows Mäori students to bring what they know, and their ways of knowing and making sense of the world, into the classroom with them. Perhaps more importantly, these learning environments reinforce for Mäori students that their ways are valued, acceptable and accepted. Classroom dialogue provides a context where the prior knowledge of each learner can be shared and engaged to create new insights and understandings. Each participant’s own contribution spirals into the co-construction of new knowledge. Such dialogue is fundamental to these classrooms, and participants are connected and committed to one another through the establishment of a common vision for what constitutes excellence in educational outcomes.

On the negative side, the taha Mäori programme of the 1980s, which was an attempt to include a Mäori “side” into an otherwise unmodified curriculum, was an approach that was based upon the notion that providing Mäori curriculum content and associated assessments would be the answer to educational disparities. However, this approach failed to address the problems of educational disparities because it failed to address the fundamental cause of educational underachievement by Mäori students—which is that Mäori students are treated differently in mainstream schools, most often, negatively.

A changing emphasis on assessment

Therefore, we welcome the shifts in emphasis that have occurred since the early 1990s from assessment for a summative purpose (that is, viewing assessment solely as a means of ascertaining achievement levels in individual learners and whole cohorts at particular points in time) to assessment with a formative purpose (that is, assessment as a tool for enhancing learning). Formative assessment, which entails the use of detailed feedback to scaffold student learning, has been identified as “one of the most influential elements of quality teaching” (Alton-Lee, 2003, p. 86) and as a key feature of quality teaching for students from diverse backgrounds. This approach is “based on the assumption that all students can learn and provides opportunities for students to improve their performances” (McGee-Banks & Banks, 1995, p. 155). Formative assessment supposes that students are given sufficient opportunities to practise the new skills they are learning, and as they progress, the feedback they receive supports them to understand what they need to do to improve and how they might accomplish that (Clarke, Timperley, & Hattie, 2003). For example, moving away from traditional letter grades to detailed feedback and providing students with the opportunities to revisit their work has a considerable influence on both student motivation and achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The way the approach is employed varies, however.

While formative assessment is becoming more commonly practised in New Zealand schools, both the amount of formative assessment and the limited uniformity of its effective implementation remain a concern. For example, Hattie (2009) identified that the feedback students receive can be measured in only seconds per day. Of even more concern are the experiences of Mäori students who, when interviewed in 2001 and 2004–5 in the Te Kotahitanga programme, identified that even in the same class within mainstream classrooms, Mäori students received less feedback and attention than did Päkehä students (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh, & Teddy, 2007). The opposite pattern pertained to behavioural feedback. These experiences are supported in a study by Carkeek, Davies and Irwin (1994), which also found that the school’s language of instruction was associated with the frequency of positive reinforcement, with Mäori students experiencing approximately twice as much positive feedback in Mäori language immersion programmes than in mainstream programmes. Such findings take on particular significance in light of the noticeably higher performance of students in Mäori-immersion programmes (Alton-Lee, 2009), albeit in a limited range of subjects as yet, and the still substantial achievement gap in mainstream programmes between Mäori students and their non-Mäori peers. Clearly, formative assessment has the potential to provide quality assessment for Mäori students. However, its implementation must be consistent for Mäori students to derive the same benefits as their non-Mäori peers. In the Te Kotahitanga interviews, Mäori students were clear that they needed feedback and feedforward of an academic nature rather than of a behavioural nature (which is what they mostly received), so that they could make progress with their learning. They were so emphatic about the need for formative assessment and associated discursive teaching interactions that this became a major feature of the Te Kotahitanga effective teaching profile (ETP) (Bishop & Berryman, 2006).

Ongoing formative assessment can provide teachers with formal and informal opportunities to notice what is happening during learning activities, and to recognise where the learning of individuals and groups of students is going, so that teachers can help to take that learning further. Using formative assessment can also enable teachers to ask themselves questions about what they should or can do differently. Thus they can use their professional knowledge, their knowledge of a range of pedagogical strategies and evidence about their students’ current knowledge and understanding to connect to and respond to the thinking of each student. As the Ministry of Education (2004, p. 16) says, such feedback to students is most effective when it:

focuses on the tasks and the associated learning, not the student

confirms for the student that they are on the right track

includes suggestions that help the student (that is, that scaffolds their learning)

is frequent and given when there is opportunity for the student to take action

is in the context of a dialogue about the learning.

It is when feedback connects directly to specific and challenging goals that relate to students’ prior knowledge, experience and cultural understanding that students and their teachers are better able to focus more productively on new goals and the next learning steps. In this situation, students are more likely to acknowledge their own skill levels and gaps, and identify where they need and want to take their learning in the future. What is of crucial importance, however, is teachers’ ability to identify what constitutes appropriate evidence of student performance.

What counts as evidence?

In an analysis of teachers’ discursive positioning in relation to influences on Mäori student achievement (Bishop, Berryman, Tiakiwai, & Richardson, 2003), the main influences on Mäori students’ educational achievement that people identified varied according to where they positioned themselves within discourses. The majority of teachers identified the main influences on Mäori students’ educational achievement as Mäori students themselves, their homes and the structure of the schools; that is, influences outside the classroom. In so doing, a large proportion of the teachers pathologised Mäori students’ lived experiences by explaining their lack of educational achievement in deficit terms as something within the child or the child’s home. The main consequences of such deficit theorising were the creation of negative and problematic relationships between teachers and Mäori students; lowered teacher expectations of Mäori students’ abilities; and a loss of an appreciation of how powerful agentic teachers can be in bringing about change in learning outcomes for students previously denied access to the benefits that education has to offer. The result of such deficit theorising was that teachers used what we identified in Bishop and Glynn (1999) as practices that pathologised the lived experiences of Mäori peoples. These “pathologising practices”, such as remedial programmes, transmission instructional practices and behaviour modification programmes, along with a major emphasis on summative assessment, maintain the status quo of educational disparities. In addition, these theories and practices are based on “evidence” that is discursively or ideologically, rather than contextually, generated. Therefore, as Bruner (1996) identified, unless these positionings and practices, and the evidence upon which they are based, are addressed and critically evaluated, teachers will not be able to realise their agency and little substantial change in educational disparities will occur.

Alton-Lee (2004), Coe (1999) and others are also critical of evidence that is unsubstantiated, anecdotal or ideological. They suggest that the processes and criteria by which evidence might be considered relevant need to be credible, justifiable and transparent. Increased pressure for accountability and effectiveness in the development of educational policies and systems clearly indicates that evidence other than that which is uncritically generated from within discourses of deficiency should increasingly be sought and used as the basis for making informed decisions in education (Alton-Lee, 2004; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000; Slavin, 1986). Coe (1999), for example, has argued against policies imposed with inadequate evidence of their likely effects, suggesting that really worthwhile evidence comes from trying something out in an authentic learning situation and testing to see whether it has had the desired effect.

In this regard, teachers’ experiences and knowledge make their participation vital in the framing of questions, and in the gathering and interpretation of evidence in the context of education. Reid (2004) further argues that if 21st century educators are to teach their students to use evidence in order to become critical, flexible and creative, then they must model these qualities themselves. In concurrence with Darling-Hammond (2000), Reid (2004) contends that this requires the development of a culture of inquiry in which “educators are understood as people who learn from teaching rather than as people who have finished learning how to teach” (p. 3), which means “the notion of inquiry is not a project or the latest fad. It is a way of professional being” (p. 3). Reid posits “a process of systematic, rigorous and critical reflection about professional practice, and the contexts in which it occurs, in ways that question taken-for-granted assumptions” (p. 4) as being at the heart of a culture of inquiry. At the same time, he asserts that “[n]o education system or single institution should simply exhort people to engage in inquiry without an acknowledgement that inquiry skills need to be built thoughtfully and systematically” (p. 7).

This systematic approach implies that education practitioners, as well as those developing policies and reform, require a similar culture of inquiry and skills to learn from the evidence of what works. This can be especially problematic when education systems are overloaded and fragmented (Fullan, 1999) or continue to service some groups of students inequitably (Bishop et al., 2003).

Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) propose assessment literacy as a solution. They suggest assessment literacy begins with the development of teachers’ capacity, individually or with others, to examine student achievement (data or authentic classroom work) and make critical sense of it. On the basis of such critical examination, they propose the development and implementation of class and school improvement plans aimed at continuously improving results. Alongside this, assessment literacy involves the ability of educators to positively influence debates focused on the application of achievement data. Another solution proposed by the Ministry of Education (2004), is evidence-based inquiry, requiring educators to incorporate and synthesise a range of evidence—from professional practitioners, from young people and their families and from national and international research—into planning for and understanding their work.

Teachers’ use of evidence of Mäori student performance

Taking what we know about evidence informing the learning of students, Timperley, Wilson, Barrar and Fung (2007) recently undertook a synthesis of international evidence on teaching and professional learning and development aimed at developing a better understanding of how teachers could access professional development in ways that have more effect on the diverse range of students who are in their classrooms.

In this synthesis, the authors identified and unpacked the particular professional learning opportunities received by teachers and the effect such opportunities had on their teaching practice and, in turn, on student outcomes. Timperley et al. (2007) propose a cycle of teacher inquiry and knowledge building that is focused on the promotion of valued student outcomes. They propose a cycle of inquiry whereby teachers—individually and collectively—identify important issues relating to students’ learning needs, and in turn take responsibility for acquiring the knowledge required to respond to the issues, monitor the subsequent effect of their actions and adjust their practice accordingly.

A key assumption underpinning their cycle is that the inquiry occurs and is driven by evidence at three interdependent and parallel levels. Each level is driven by a series of critical questions that begin with a focus on the learning needs of students using the following key questions: “What do they already know? What sources of evidence have we used? What do they need to learn and do? How do we build on what they know?” (Timperley et al., 2007, p. xliii). In response to the evidence generated by these questions, the cycle continues with questions focused on the learning needs of teachers:

How have we contributed to existing student outcomes?

What do we already know that we can use to promote valued outcomes?

What do we need to learn to do to promote valued outcomes?

What sources of evidence/knowledge can we utilise?” (Timperley et al., 2007, p. xliii).

Teachers respond to the evidence generated from these questions in the design and implementation of new tasks and learning experiences; teachers then reflect on these new tasks and learning experiences in terms of their effect on students; that is, “[h]ow effective has what we have learned and done been in promoting our students’ learning and well being?” (Timperley et al., 2007, p. xliii). Timperley et al. (2007) found that some of the most powerful outcomes emerged when teachers took responsibility for evidence that showed that what they had been doing had not optimised learning conditions for their students. On the basis of the evidence generated at this point, the cycle begins again with the identification of the learning needs of students as a result of the new education initiatives.

Unpacking what we consider constitutes assessment has major implications for assessment practices. For example, the literature frequently suggests using portfolios for assessment as a way for students “to document the complexity and individuality of their work and to reflect on their progress and areas that need improvement” (McGee-Banks & Banks, 1995, p. 156). However, while portfolios are used extensively within the early childhood sector in New Zealand, their use in higher levels of schooling is inconsistent, both in quality and frequency. Portfolios are sometimes used more as an opportunity to show parents examples of students’ work rather than using them for more practical assessment purposes (Timperley, 2004). However, as Holt (2001) explains in the context of the mathematics curriculum, assessment through portfolios, concept maps and student journals can provide opportunities for students to both demonstrate and develop their mathematical understandings in a noncompetitive way. The importance of noncompetitive assessment is echoed by Begg (1993) who argues that competitive assessment methods emphasise individual performance which not only reinforces European practices and values but may further disadvantage Mäori students. As Gilmore (1998) states, “assessment must primarily be in the interests of the student and his or her immediate whänau and not simply as a means of identifying one student over another” (p. 14).

Kent’s (1996b) master’s thesis, which examined interviewing as a valid assessment strategy for Mäori students, highlighted a number of factors essential for understanding effective assessment for Mäori learners. Using a context that was familiar to the students—cooking a hängi—students investigated the scientific concept of the phenomenon of heat. The research compared the student responses to a written assessment task with their responses to an individual interview followed by a class interview which focused on the student perceptions of the different assessment methods. The research found that the interviews provided a more accurate reflection of the students’ understandings of the concept of heat than the written assessment alone as students’ written responses were influenced by their perceptions of what they thought the question was asking: “students often misread the task question, seemed incompetent because of a single slip in a complex process, failed to recognise the value of their knowledge, and had their non-standard responses marked down by a marker who did not understand the quality of thinking” (Kent, 1996a, p. 95). The interviews were unanimously preferred by the students as they were able to ensure that they understood what was being asked of them by the interviewer and the oral nature of the interview made it easier for the students to more fluently express their ideas and understanding:

The individual interview encouraged the expression of conceptions where the written responses could not and enabled the students to express themselves in ways that were intelligible to the interviewer. If a written or verbal statement was incomprehensible to the interviewer, further questioning elicited clarification (Kent, 1996a, p. 98). It has been acknowledged that “traditional time constrained pencil and paper tests have proved unreliable indicators of Mäori achievement in the past” (Ministry of Education, 1992, p. 13). However, there are situations where traditional pen and paper tests cannot be avoided, and a belief that Mäori students cannot achieve using such methods is simply false and can perhaps more accurately be put down to inadequate and inappropriate preparation. Hernandez-Sheets’ (1995) work highlights how, in creating a culturally relevant Spanish programme, her students were supported to prepare for national exams with study tutorials covering both exam content and exam skills. Tutoring in study and exam skills is also mentioned by Lipman (1995) as explicitly teaching the students how to deal with assessments, which supports and encourages students to choose academic success. Practice in sitting exams in test situations was also used to better ensure that students were prepared to deal with an environment so different from their supportive and encouraging class. Stiggins and Chappuis (2005) also recommend using assessment tools in advance of grading as teaching tools in support of student learning and assessment and future assessment.

While this is one aspect of the teaching and assessment programme that can be drawn on, it is important to remember that in Hernandez-Sheets’ study, it was the context that provided the impetus for success:

In this program a culturally centered pedagogy included: the use of Spanish language as the medium of instruction, affirmation and validation of ethnic identity, development of self-esteem, curricular content emphasis on the students’ cultural heritage, history and literature, and the implementation of learning and assessment strategies that matched preferred learning and assessment styles (e.g. oral language, cooperative learning and assessment, peer support, and family involvement). (Hernandez-Sheets, 1995, p. 189)

The success of this programme highlights the potential of effective assessment methods for cultural minority students when they are based within a programme of culturally responsive teaching.

Conclusion

Historically, New Zealand assessment practices and education policies have been applied to all students uniformly with little recognition of the inherent differences and diversity that existed among these students. This has slowly changed over the years and it is now more widely understood that Mäori learners have their own specific ways of understanding the world which are different from those of their non-Mäori peers and as such need to be addressed directly by teachers in a culturally responsive manner. However, teachers need to be careful not to promote a homogeneous approach to Mäori learners. The reality is that Mäori people are not homogeneous in nature or form, but multilayered and multifaceted not only in dialect, but also in intertribal tradition and politics. In association with the development of these understandings, there has grown a shift in focus from the deficiencies of the learner to a closer examination of the role of schools and schooling, the “system” itself, and the production and implementation of culturally responsive models and quality teaching programmes that include formative assessment approaches.

References

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Alton-Lee, A. (2004). Using best evidence syntheses to assist in making a bigger difference for diverse learners. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Alton-Lee, A. (2009, December). Te Kotahitanga: Using research and development (R & D) to make a much bigger difference for our children and our society. Presentation to the inaugural Te Kotahitanga conference, Hamilton.

Begg, A. (1993). Tomorrow’s mathematics curriculum. In E. McKinley & P. Waiti (Eds.), SAME papers 1993 (pp. 210–231). Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.

Bevan-Brown, J. (2003). The cultural self-review. Providing culturally effective, inclusive education for Mäori learners. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture speaks: Cultural relationships and classroom learning. Wellington: Huia.

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kotahitanga Phase 3 Whanaungatanga: Establishing a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in mainstream secondary school classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S., & Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: The experiences of year 9 and 10 Mäori students in mainstream classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carkeek, L., Davies, L., & Irwin, K. (1994). What happens to Mäori girls at school? An ethnographic study of school-based factors affecting the achievement of Mäori girls in immersion, bilingual and mainstream primary school programmes in the Wellington region. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2003). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing students’ learning in the primary and intermediate classroom. London: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Coe, R. (1999). A manifesto for evidence-based education. Retrieved 12 March 2007, from Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring: http://www.cemcentre.org/evidence-based-education/manifesto-for-evidence-based-education

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from Education Policy Analysis Archives: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515

Durie, M. (2001, February). A framework for considering Mäori educational achievement. Unpublished address to the Hui Taumata Mätauranga: Mäori Education Summit, Taupo.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Gilmore, A. M. (1998). Assessment for success in primary schools. Report of the submissions to the green paper. Christchurch: Unit for Studies in Educational Evaluation, Education Department, University of Canterbury.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Hemara, W. (1999, October). Assessment—Mäori attitudes to assessment. Paper presented at the Examining Assessment conference, Wellington.

Hernandez-Sheets, R. (1995). From remedial to gifted: Effects of culturally centered pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 186–193.

Holt, G. (2001). Mathematics education for Mäori students in mainstream classrooms. ACE Papers, 11, 18–28.

Kent, L. (1996a). Assessment for Mäori students in science within a bilingual unit. In B. Webber (Ed.), He paepae korero: Research perspectives in Mäori education (pp. 89–108). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Kent, L. (1996b). How shall we know them? The comparison of Mäori student responses for written and oral assessment tasks. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Lipman, P. (1995). “Bringing out the best in them”: The contribution of culturally relevant teachers to educational reform. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 202–208.

McGee-Banks, C. A., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152–158.

Metge, J. (1990). Te kohao o te ngira: Culture and learning. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1998). Assessment for success in primary schools. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2004). Educate: Ministry of Education statement of intent, 20042009. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2006). Educate: Ministry of Education statement of intent 20062011. Wellington: Author.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2000). School factors related to school quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.

Reid, A. (2004). Towards a culture of inquiry in DECS (Occasional Paper No. 1). Adelaide: Department of Education and Children’s Services, Government of South Australia. Retrieved 29 June 2006, from http://www.earlyyearsliteracy.sa.edu.au/files/links/link_58027.pdf

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5–11.

Smith, G. H. (1997). Kaupapa Mäori as transformative praxis. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11–18.

Timperley, H. (2004). AUSAD Analysis and use of student achievement data. Final evaluation report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Note

The authors

Rangimarie Mahuika is of Ngäti Rangiwewehi descent, has worked as a researcher with Te Kotahitanga since January 2008 and is part of the teaching team for the Kaupapa Mäori research paper offered within the postgraduate diploma in Te Kotahitanga offered at the University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Email: rmarie@waikato.ac.nz

Dr Mere Berryman is of Tuhoe descent, with more than 20 years as a classroom practitioner, and nearly 15 years as researcher and manager of the Ministry of Education, Special Education Poutama Pounamu Education Research and Development Centre based in Tauranga. Mere now holds the position of Senior Research Fellow, and is based in the Faculty of Education at the University of Waikato, Hamilton. This position allows her to continue to build on 20 years of research, working as part of a research whänau to develop and trial programmes aimed at supporting educators to work more effectively with Mäori students and their families in a range of education settings.

Email: mere@waikato.ac.nz

Russell Bishop is a descendant of Ngäti Awa and Ngäti Mahuta. He is the foundation Professor for Mäori Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Waikato, Hamilton. He is also the Director of the Te Kotahitanga Research and Professional Development Project. His research experience in the area of collaborative storying as kaupapa Mäori has given rise to national and international publishing, including the books Collaborative Research Stories: Whakawhanaungatanga, Culture Counts: Changing Power Relationships in Classrooms, Pathologising Practices, Culture Speaks and, in 2010, Scaling Up Education Reform.

Email: rbishop@waikato.ac.nz

1Parts of this paper have been reproduced with permission from Bishop, O’Sullivan & Berryman, 2010, Scaling up Education Reform: Addressing the Politics of Disparity, published by NZCER Press.