LEGISLATION AND HONOURING THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
Introduction
My name is Elizabeth Rata. I am a professor of education at the University of Auckland. This submission draws on my expertise in education and in Treaty of Waitangi politics.
My submission proposes a way for New Zealand to honour the Treaty of Waitangi within the secular framework of liberal democracy. It requires removing the Treaty from legislation so that those who wish to honour it may do so in civil society.
I recommend that Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) 2025 is altered according to the FOUR recommendations I propose below in order to achieve this aim.
My submission proposes a way for New Zealand to honour the Treaty of Waitangi within the secular framework of liberal democracy. It requires removing the Treaty from legislation so that those who wish to honour it may do so in civil society.
I recommend that Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) 2025 is altered according to the FOUR recommendations I propose below in order to achieve this aim.
SCHOOL BOARDS OBJECTIVES SECTION 127(2)(e)
Section 127(2)(e)
“The Bill amends the objectives for school boards in governing schools by—
• making educational achievement the paramount objective (the highest-priority objective), while retaining the other objectives as supporting objectives (objectives that are essential and support the paramount objective); and adding a new supporting objective . . .
• repositioning the requirement that schools achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students in the supporting objective relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi to increase its visibility . . .”
“Section 127(2)(e), which provides that, in meeting its paramount objective in governing a school, a board must ensure that the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by—
(i) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students; and
(ii) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and teaching and learning programmes reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori,and te ao Māori; and
(iii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori;”
My Argument
Section 127(2)(e) does not in fact reflect the intended paramount objective of the amended legislation; that of ensuring achievement. The inconsistency between intention and purpose makes Section 127(2)(e) not fit for the intended paramount objective. It should be removed from the Bill.
The inconsistency is created by an erroneous connection. Section 127(2)(e) connects giving effect to the Treaty in the ways described in the Bill to achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students. ‘Giving effect’ will require School Boards to adopt culturally responsive/ knowledge systems[i] education (Māori ways of doing, being, and knowing – tikanga, matauranga, te ao Māori). However culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education does not lead to educational achievement although it may have social and cultural benefits.
Comments to support the argument
Culturally responsive/knowledge systems education has been promoted in Ministry of Education policies[ii] since 2003 as the evidenced-based solution to educational under-achievement. The 2020 policy Te Hurihanganui A Blueprint for Transformational Systems Shift was intended to place “knowledge derived from Te Ao Māori” in the curriculum using an “other knowledge-systems”, i.e. a knowledge relativist, justification. This long-term ideology-driven policy development culminated in the 2022 Refreshed Curriculum.
The claim that culturally responsive/knowledge systems education leads to achievement is unsubstantiated. There are no longitudinal studies tracking student progress over time using reliable quantitative methods[iii]. Instead advocacy studies[iv], where the outcome is pre-determined, assert that culturally responsive/knowledge systems education leads to achievement. The claim is promoted by authorities such as the Ministry of Education, the New Zealand Council for Education Research, and radical academics. It is repeated uncritically in the media and accepted as fact[v].
The failure to conduct longitudinal studies from 1990 when kura Kaupapa Māori education was legislated means that many students, including Māori, have been subjected to a lengthy education experiment that is likely to embed disadvantage because it limits access to academic subjects in the sciences, arts and humanities. Culturally responsive/knowledge systems education has no support from international educational theory and cognitive science[vi]. An unaccountable experiment of such magnitude is unconscionable given the consequences for the two generations of students who have been the recipients of the experiment.
The Coalition Government has intentionally replaced culturally responsive/knowledge systems education with knowledge-rich education[vii] in order to meet the paramount objective of educational achievement. Knowledge-rich education acknowledges that educational achievement is the result of many factors[viii] but the following are essential: a national standardised high quality subject-based curriculum, direct instruction by teachers using cognitive science methods, well-managed schools, and committed parents.
Knowledge-rich education takes into account the two main purposes of schooling – to transmit knowledge and to socialise students into modern society. The purposes merge in the secular socialisation practices of the mainstream state school where a knowledge culture embraces students of all backgrounds.
Because liberal democracy provides choice for parents who wish a specific form of socialisation for their children, there are alternatives to state-funded secular education. Charter Schools with an iwi approach and kura kaupapa Māori are already available for those who wish their children socialised into te ao Māori. Such specific socialisation must be augmented by the provision of an academic curriculum in order to ensure educational achievement and entry into modern pluralist society.
Argument Summary
There is no educational justification for the Bill’s asserted and unsubstantiated connections between the Treaty, equitable outcomes, and achievement in Section 127(2)(e). The ways in which the Section requires giving effect to the Treaty are inconsistent with the Bill’s paramount objective of education achievement. For that reason Section 127(2)(e) should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Remove Section 127(2)(e) from the Bill.
I recommend repealing the Bill’s General Policy Statement, Section 9 and those Sections which give effect to Section 9, for example Section 4.
Knowledge-rich education takes into account the two main purposes of schooling – to transmit knowledge and to socialise students into modern society. The purposes merge in the secular socialisation practices of the mainstream state school where a knowledge culture embraces students of all backgrounds.
Because liberal democracy provides choice for parents who wish a specific form of socialisation for their children, there are alternatives to state-funded secular education. Charter Schools with an iwi approach and kura kaupapa Māori are already available for those who wish their children socialised into te ao Māori. Such specific socialisation must be augmented by the provision of an academic curriculum in order to ensure educational achievement and entry into modern pluralist society.
Argument Summary
There is no educational justification for the Bill’s asserted and unsubstantiated connections between the Treaty, equitable outcomes, and achievement in Section 127(2)(e). The ways in which the Section requires giving effect to the Treaty are inconsistent with the Bill’s paramount objective of education achievement. For that reason Section 127(2)(e) should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Remove Section 127(2)(e) from the Bill.
SECTION 9: HONOURING THE TREATY
I recommend repealing the Bill’s General Policy Statement, Section 9 and those Sections which give effect to Section 9, for example Section 4.
General Policy Statement —-“The Education and Training Act 2020 (the Act) establishes and regulates an education system that—honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relationships.”
Section 9 Te Tiriti o Waitangi
“(1) The main provisions of this Act that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility
to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi are—
(a) section 4, which states that the purpose of this Act includes establishing
and regulating an education system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and
supports Māori-Crown relationships.” (and other Sections as noted in the Bill)
My Argument
The belief that the Treaty should be honoured is held by an unknown proportion of the New Zealand population. These people may believe that to remove the Treaty from the Bill is to dishonour it. However that is not the case. It is possible for the Treaty to be honoured and to remove it from legislation. The remainder of my submission addresses this paradox.
Comments to Support the Argument
Belief and Legislation
To honour or not to honour follows from what one believes the Treaty means. Some New Zealanders believe fervently that the Treaty must be honoured. Others do not – equally fervently. For some the Treaty is our nation’s founding document. Not so for others. It is a sacred covenant with a timeless spirit for some, but merely an historical document for others. Some believe it is the nation’s constitution. Others believe it is not. As with all beliefs, there is no proof either way, no right or wrong. You either believe or you don’t.
When a belief is inserted into legislation however, the belief acquires the status of doctrine. It is then treated as if it were a true fact. The belief in its new form as true fact is regulated through policy and practice. The belief now has power. Adherence is required even from those who do not subscribe to the belief or who are opposed to it. In this way, institutionalising beliefs undermines the state’s secular bedrock.
‘To give effect to . . .” is the phrase in the Bill which requires that adherence.
“Giving effect to the Treaty” may affect individuals’ employment conditions or professional status. At that point, the belief, the law and individuals’ freedom are in direct conflict. There are numerous examples of this conflict[ix]. I predict many more unless the Treaty is removed from legislation.
Lessons from New Zealand History
We would be wise to look to history to see how parliamentarians dealt with the issue of belief and legislation. In 19th century New Zealand, the issue had the potential for serious conflict between Christian religious denominations. In the 21st century, the issue concerns race and the Treaty – also with potential for division and conflict.
Nineteenth century parliamentarians secured a tolerant and united civil society and state institutions which gave effect to the foundational democratic principles of universalism, freedom, and equality. They understood that when divisions are institutionalised, they are made permanent but when those same divisions are shifted to civil society with its plurality of beliefs and opinions, they are defanged. Civil society is forced to deal with difference by individuals exercising tolerance.
A unified and peaceful nation was created by making the state secular, a remarkable achievement that we are in danger of losing.
The 1877 Education Act captures the wise and foresighted intent of our ancestors.
Secular Education
Section 84(2) of the 1877 Education Act states:
“The school shall be kept open for five days in each week for at least four hours, two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.”
The final decision to legislate for a secular education system was seen as neither pro-Christian nor anti-religion. It was a decision for tolerance with beliefs to be accommodated in civil society at large, not authorised by the state to be practised in state institutions.
In typical liberal style which tends to stretch the principle of freedom as far as is tolerable, ways were found to accommodate religion in education while at the same time ensuring that state schools were secular. [x]
1. Choice was, and continues to be, provided – private and religious schools, integrated schools, kura kaupapa Maori, special designated schools, charter schools; and at tertiary level – seminaries, wananga, and private institutions.
2. Communities could, with the School Committee’s agreement, provide religious education when the school was officially closed – known as the Nelson System.
3. The 1964 Education Act allowed for the social studies curriculum to provide instruction about but not in[xi] the various world religions.
Honouring tradition
The nation’s Christian heritage is honoured by maintaining some traditional rituals at state events where the spiritual realm is evoked to recognise the enormity of death and disaster. Examples are the appeal to the Christian God in the National Anthem and Christian prayers at Anzac Day. Because the rituals express tradition, non-believers tend to accept them. Attendance at these events is voluntary.
The Treaty of Waitangi could be honoured in the same way. Ceremonies and rituals commemorating traditions which link to the Treaty provide occasions for honouring this major event in the nation’s heritage. Waitangi Day and Matariki are national events of this type. As with religious rituals, non-believers who prefer to recognise the ritual for the evocation of tradition rather than the expression of belief may choose to attend.
Civil society is where the Treaty can be honoured by those who believe it is sacred and timeless, just as the Bible is honoured by those who believe in the Christian faith. But when the Treaty is institutionalised through legislation it becomes an object of division and conflict.
A secular state enables social cohesion by not including beliefs in state institutions. The right to hold and practise beliefs is legislated but not the beliefs themselves.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Remove the Bill’s General Policy Statement and the Te Tiriti o Waitangi Section 9(1)(a).
RECOMMENDATION 3
Remove Section 127(2)(e) as a consequence of deleting Section 9.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Part 4 Section 281
Include the term ‘institutional neutrality’ (meaning ‘secular’ in modern parlance) to support the freedom of expression and academic freedom provisions for universities. This supports Recommendation 2 above. Deleting the Bill’s General Policy Statement and the Te Tiriti o Waitangi Section 9(1)(a) will strengthen Section 281’s intention.
A university cannot be secular or neutral if it must give effect to the belief in honouring the Treaty.
____________________
[i] ‘Knowledge systems’ is the latest way to refer to the knowledge relativism promoted by postmodern academics since the 1980s. It is more correctly ‘belief systems’ but the word ‘knowledge’ reinforces the error that there is no universal way of understanding and explaining natural phenomena. In education policy, the term mana orite promotes this so-called ‘knowledge equivalence’ with heritage groups having their own knowledge systems. Modern science is falsely described as a cultural knowledge system, that of the ‘West’.
I have used the rather elongated term ‘culturally responsive/knowledge systems education’ to capture both the curriculum and pedagogy – both what is taught and how it is taught.
[ii] Ministry of Education reports promoting culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education include:
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S. and Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: The Experiences of Year 9 and 10 Maori Students in Mainstream Classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2009). Ka Hikitia – Accelerating Success. The Maori Education Strategy 2008-2012.
Ministry of Education Ka Hikitia – Accelerating Success. The Maori Education Strategy 2013-2017. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2015). Ka Hikitia in action – kia rewa ki runga
Ministry of Education (nd). Kia Eke Panuku: Building on Success. Culturally responsive and relational pedagogy.
Ministry of Education (2020). Te Hurihanganui A Blueprint for Transformative Systems Shift
Ministry of Education (2022). Te Mataiaho: The Curriculum Refresh.
[iii] Longitudinal studies are required to find reliable quantitative evidence about students who under-achieve.
Ministerial Curriculum Advisory Group Report (MAG) (2024) Appendix 2: Standards of Evidence, pages 34-38. “The MAG will consider only studies that use quantitative measures of learning, preferring those with psychometric properties that have been shown to be valid.” (p. 34).
It is negligent of the Ministry to have not conducted a longitudinal study of the various iterations of culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education. Such research would have provided actual evidence.
Longitudinal studies are the international ones (PISA and TIMSS) which show the decline of NZ education in Maths, Reading and Science since 2003. Other OECD countries show a similar decline – all of which moved to a mixture of constructivism, student-centred, 21st century ‘learnification’ approaches combined with a less rigorous subject-based curriculum. Some of these countries are, like NZ, now adopting a knowledge rich curriculum and explicit teaching methods. See Rata, E. (Ed). (2024). Research Handbook on Curriculum and Education. Edward Elgar Publications.
Click to view
Figure1: New Zealand PISA2022 trends in mean achievement of mathematics, reading literacy, and sciences, in Nuijinsing, J., Rata, E., Vanhees, C., Geudens, A., Surma, T., and D. Muijs, D. (in press). Re-imagining the Curriculum: A Case Study of the Knowledge Turn in New Zealand and Flanders. In Swift, D., and B. Barrett (Eds.), Knowledge Production and Exchange in Education: New Perspectives from Social Realism for Curriculum and Professional Practice Routledge. (7th Cambridge Symposium Volume)
[iv] See Fortune, K., Durie, K., Palmer, G. (2024). Ma mua ka kite a muri, ma muri ka ora a mua – “Equity” in kura mana Māori Motuhake, a literature review commissioned by the Ministry of Education and conducted by The Wahanga, NZCER’s Kaupapa Māori Research Unit. It is almost impossible to conduct studies into Māori education without taking an advocacy approach. Research ethics approval, research funding, and publication in New Zealand journals are tightly controlled by Kaupapa Māori advocates, including those on the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. As a result the very limited number of publications that are critical of political advocacy in education are mainly international publications.
[v] It is not possible to evaluate claims that culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education leads to achievement for Māori students without taking account of (at the bare minimum):
* The number and type of schools which practise this form of education and how it is understood and implemented
* Comparisons between Māori students in culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education with those in mainstream schools which follow a subject curriculum
* The backgrounds of Māori students including socio-economic status, parental education, and other factors known to affect student performance
In addition, anecdotal accounts of individuals who are regarded as ‘success stories’ for culturally responsive/ knowledge systems education need to take into account factors which led to the success. For example, what subjects were taken at school? The extent of abstraction in a subject creates varying degrees of difficulty, something found, for example, in the difference between physics and communication or culture studies. Was the achievement measured by NCEA standards or by University Entrance? Was the post-school career path made available on merit or by affirmative action policies such as Te Rautaki Ao Takitaki: The stars that guide us’ (2022-2025), a Parliamentary staff hiring policy requiring competencies in te ao Māori.
[vi] Tim Surma, Claudio Vanhees, Michiel Wils, Jasper Nijlunsing, Daniel Willingham, John Hattie, Nuno Crato, Daniel Muijs, Elizabeth Rata, Dylan Wiliam, & Paul A. Kirschner. (2025). Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: The Knowledge Turn. Springer.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-74661-1.
Rata, E. (Ed.), (2024). Research Handbook in Curriculum and Education. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[vii] Ministerial Curriculum Advisory Group Report (MAG) (2024)
[viii] Ministerial Curriculum Advisory Group Report (MAG) (2024)
Surma et al (2025 – see endnote v
[ix] Employment conditions are compromised when prayers/ karakia and other forms of spiritual evocations are held during working hours. For example, the Faculty of Arts and Education at the University of Auckland, where I am employed begins Faculty meetings with a prayer despite being a secular institution. This practice is commonplace in the public service and in education. Professional status may be affected, even to the extent that practising licences are withdrawn. Janet Dickson’s challenge to the the Real Estate Authority’s mandatory requirement of Treaty training is the most egregious example of the pusillanimous response of many professional bodies to ideological pressure.
[x] Although state schools remain secular to this day the requirement is weakened by the changes to the exemptions.
The 2020 Education and Training Act 2020 states that Teaching in State primary and intermediate schools must be secular (Section 97)
(1) Teaching in every State primary and intermediate school must, while the school is open, be entirely of a secular character.
There are two limited exemptions in state schools. (My emphasis).
One exemption is similar to the ‘Nelson System’ but with greater flexibility for religious observance during the school day “ if a State school’s board, after consultation with the principal, determines that school buildings may be used for the purposes of religious instruction or observances conducted in a manner approved by the board”. (Section 56)
The 2020 Act includes an additional exemption with Section 57(1)(b) a potential trojan horse for including belief-based education when the ‘normal curriculum’ is (mis)represented as ‘knowledge systems’ education.
Section 57 Additional religious instruction
(1) This section applies if the Minister is satisfied that—
(a) the majority of the parents of students attending a State school wish their children to receive religious instruction additional to that provided under section 56; and
(b) the additional religious instruction is not to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school.
Section 58 imposes conditions on the two exemptions. Student attendance at religious instruction must be confirmed (1) A student enrolled at a State school may only attend or take part in any religious instruction at the school if a parent of the student has confirmed in writing to the principal that they wish for the student to take part or attend.
Section 57(1)(b) is relevant to the first part of my submission where I describe the damage done to NZ education by including the ‘knowledge systems’ approach into the curriculum. These are belief systems but are falsely misrepresented as knowledge systems by postmodern relativists. Such belief systems, including religious instruction and observances, are not subject to the requirements and procedures of science – i.e. objective, provisional, falsifiable, and universal, therefore they are to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school and contrary to Section 57(1)(b).
[xi] The principle of secularism in state institutions is maintained when students in state schools are taught about local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori but not instructed into the beliefs – an indoctrination approach made respectable by refering to beliefs as ‘knowledge systems’. Appropriate curriculum subjects for the inclusion of such content are history, social studies, language (English and Māori), and geography. The content must be selected for its accuracy and taught in an objective manner.
Attention must be paid to ensure that matauranga Māori is not presented as science. Matauranga Māori is based on the belief in the existence and operation of a spiritual sphere as the explanation for natural and physical phenomena, similar to creationism. Science ascribes the explanation to the properties and processes of the phenomena. The knowledge systems approach, also known as mana orite or knowledge equivalence, that the Bill in its present form recognises would include both supernaturalism and naturalism. This will lead to widespread confusion amongst students about what science is. See an account of this in The History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Newsletter, May 2025. May HPS&ST Newsletter, available HERE
More importantly the inclusion of matauranga Māori in the state school Science curriculum may be illegal in that it contradicts Section 57(1)(b). Although the beliefs in a causation spiritual force are not presented explicitly as “additional religious instruction”, when taught using the relativist knowledge system justification, the effect is to provide students with instruction into beliefs that are not science. This is “to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school.
Content about the empirical methods of observation and trial and error used by all ancestral groups including Māori, can be included in social studies courses about the history of science.
Beliefs in a guiding spirit world (mauri) may be included in non-secular schools (i.e. Christian, te ao Māori-based) for the purpose of socialising students into those beliefs, but the curriculum itself must be secular if it is to lead to achievement. This is an accommodation of the two purposes of schooling – socialisation and knowledge transmission – one that mainstream Christian schools have come to terms with since the evolution and vitalism debates of the 19th century were resolved concerning the naturalism of modern science.
Professor Elizabeth Rata is a curriculum expert and sociologist of education at the University of Auckland. She was a member of the 2024 Ministerial Curriculum Advisory Group and is currently on the Ministerial Charter Schools' Authorisation Board. She is also the Co-Chair of the Inter-University Academic Freedom Council which provides support and advice to academics from all New Zealand universities.
Editor's note: During the bill's first reading Minister for Education, Erica Stanford said in Parliament, April 10, 2025:
The 2020 Act includes an additional exemption with Section 57(1)(b) a potential trojan horse for including belief-based education when the ‘normal curriculum’ is (mis)represented as ‘knowledge systems’ education.
Section 57 Additional religious instruction
(1) This section applies if the Minister is satisfied that—
(a) the majority of the parents of students attending a State school wish their children to receive religious instruction additional to that provided under section 56; and
(b) the additional religious instruction is not to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school.
Section 58 imposes conditions on the two exemptions. Student attendance at religious instruction must be confirmed (1) A student enrolled at a State school may only attend or take part in any religious instruction at the school if a parent of the student has confirmed in writing to the principal that they wish for the student to take part or attend.
Section 57(1)(b) is relevant to the first part of my submission where I describe the damage done to NZ education by including the ‘knowledge systems’ approach into the curriculum. These are belief systems but are falsely misrepresented as knowledge systems by postmodern relativists. Such belief systems, including religious instruction and observances, are not subject to the requirements and procedures of science – i.e. objective, provisional, falsifiable, and universal, therefore they are to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school and contrary to Section 57(1)(b).
[xi] The principle of secularism in state institutions is maintained when students in state schools are taught about local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori but not instructed into the beliefs – an indoctrination approach made respectable by refering to beliefs as ‘knowledge systems’. Appropriate curriculum subjects for the inclusion of such content are history, social studies, language (English and Māori), and geography. The content must be selected for its accuracy and taught in an objective manner.
Attention must be paid to ensure that matauranga Māori is not presented as science. Matauranga Māori is based on the belief in the existence and operation of a spiritual sphere as the explanation for natural and physical phenomena, similar to creationism. Science ascribes the explanation to the properties and processes of the phenomena. The knowledge systems approach, also known as mana orite or knowledge equivalence, that the Bill in its present form recognises would include both supernaturalism and naturalism. This will lead to widespread confusion amongst students about what science is. See an account of this in The History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Newsletter, May 2025. May HPS&ST Newsletter, available HERE
More importantly the inclusion of matauranga Māori in the state school Science curriculum may be illegal in that it contradicts Section 57(1)(b). Although the beliefs in a causation spiritual force are not presented explicitly as “additional religious instruction”, when taught using the relativist knowledge system justification, the effect is to provide students with instruction into beliefs that are not science. This is “to the detriment of the normal curriculum of the school.
Content about the empirical methods of observation and trial and error used by all ancestral groups including Māori, can be included in social studies courses about the history of science.
Beliefs in a guiding spirit world (mauri) may be included in non-secular schools (i.e. Christian, te ao Māori-based) for the purpose of socialising students into those beliefs, but the curriculum itself must be secular if it is to lead to achievement. This is an accommodation of the two purposes of schooling – socialisation and knowledge transmission – one that mainstream Christian schools have come to terms with since the evolution and vitalism debates of the 19th century were resolved concerning the naturalism of modern science.
Professor Elizabeth Rata is a curriculum expert and sociologist of education at the University of Auckland. She was a member of the 2024 Ministerial Curriculum Advisory Group and is currently on the Ministerial Charter Schools' Authorisation Board. She is also the Co-Chair of the Inter-University Academic Freedom Council which provides support and advice to academics from all New Zealand universities.
Editor's note: During the bill's first reading Minister for Education, Erica Stanford said in Parliament, April 10, 2025:
"The bill makes it clear that giving effect to Te Tiriti is essential and key to support student achievement. The bill also makes the requirement that schools are achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students at the top of the list of how schools are required to meet Te Tiriti o Waitangi objective. All tamariki deserve to attend a school where the primary objective is to ensure that they can achieve to the very best of their ability."
Professor Elizabeth Rata is a sociologist of education in the School of Critical Studies, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland where she is Director of the Knowledge in Education Research Unit (KERU). This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment