In 1972, a petition on Maori language signed by 33,000 people, was presented to Parliament by Mrs Hana Jackson of Nga Tamatoa. The petition stated that:

'We the undersigned, do humbly pray that courses in Maori language and aspects of Maori culture be offered in all those schools with large Maori rolls and that these same courses be offered as a gift to the Pakeha from the Maori in all other New Zealand schools as a positive effort to promote a more meaningful concept of integration.

The main aim of this petition was to see Maori language offered in all schools as an integral part of the syllabus, beginning at primary school level. To implement this, Nga Tamatoa recommended that fluent Maori speakers be trained in teaching methodology at university and at training college, and that initially these people could be employed as visiting teachers until there were sufficient to have teachers of Maori language attached to every school in New Zealand.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Education assured Nga Tamatoa that courses would be set up wherever there was demand', provided the applicants were fluent speakers of Maori. However, the Education Department, acting in its usual independent manner, has produced a scheme of its own which runs counter to both Nga Tamatoa's proposals and the assurances of the Minister.

The Department has introduced a One Year Teachers' College Course for Teachers of Maori, which in its conception is inadequate, pakeha-oriented, and obviously designed to fail.

Requirements for Applicants

'A good level of general education'

What is a 'good level of general education? The Department no doubt refers to pakeha education qualifications like School Certificate and University Entrance, but such requirement effectively excludes many of the most highly qualified people in Maoridom. Obviously a pakeha criterion.

'Fluent speakers of Maori and English'

Who is judging fluency in Maori, and what criteria are being used. Why is it necessary for applicants to be fluent in English, when Maori was spoken in New Zealand long before English was ever heard, and is still spoken as a living language by many thousands of people? Many generations of New Zealanders have learnt the Maori language without reference to English where Maori has been taught orally and not as an academic second language to English. Obviously a pakeha criterion.

'Although no formal qualification in Maori language is required this would be helpful.'

Of what does a formal qualification in Maori language consist? In the eyes of the Education Department, obviously a pass in Maori at School Certificate, University Entrance, or at University. Hence, a formal qualification means one that is recognised by the pakeha educational system.

But it has never occurred to the Education Department that the Maori people do not necessarily judge fluency in their language by a formal pass in Maori Studies III? Or that university Maori may not be the Maori spoken by the majority of Maori people? Obviously a pakeha criterion.

It is interesting to note that by implication, a formal qualification in English is included in the above requirement. Obviously a pakeha criterion.

'Potential to teach other subjects of the curriculum'

Given that this course aims to train teachers of Maori language for secondary schools (see below), and that these teachers are to receive a Specialist Teachers Certificate at the end of their training, this is a most unusual criterion. This requirement is not made for other specialist teachers, such as woodwork or art teachers. According to a spokesman from the Auckland Education Board, it has been included to ensure that the teachers of Maori will obtain a teaching position, as few schools may be prepared to employ a full-time teacher of Maori language. This demonstrates the hypocrisy underlying the whole course, for the teaching of Maori language in all schools must be given top priority and be made mandatory in all schools rather than being left to the whims of pakeha headmasters. Obviously a pakeha criterion.

Aims of the course

'To train teachers of Maori language for secondary schools'

The aim of the 1972 petition was that Maori should be taught in all New Zealand schools, as an integral part of the syllabus beginning at primary school level. The course now arranged still makes no provision for training primary school teachers, and this leads us to believe that the intention is for Maori to be taught as a dead academic subject rather than as a living and spoken language. In fact, Maori is to be taught just like foreign languages such as Latin, German or French, and taught like them through the medium of English. If the teaching of Maori is to be restricted to the secondary schools as a foreign language or historical relic, then this undermines the whole intention of the exercise which, as we see it, is to introduce Maori language into schools as a medium of teaching and expression in its own right. For this to be achieved, Maori would have to be learnt as a natural process, beginning at the very start of primary school, in the way that English is taught now to Maori pupils. Apart from the blindness of many pakeha New Zealanders, there is no objective obstacle to the development of a bilingual education system, in which Maori is used as a teaching medium and not just as an incidental subject. The fact that the Education Department has chosen to establish a course only for secondary school teachers of Maori shows that they have rejected this concept, which would have required initial concentration on the training of fluent Maori speaking Maoris as primary school teachers.

To encourage students to further their studies'

We thought that the aim of the course was to provide teachers of Maori language, who could immediately go into schools rather than continue with even further studies.

Outline of the Course

1) Maori and English would be major components of the course and students would develop another teaching strength, e.g. social studies, music art, or physical education....

We thought that the only compenent of the course was to be basic training in teaching methodology to enable people already fluent in the Maori language to pass on their knowledge. In other words, they would be acquainted with the methods of language teaching which have proved successful in New Zealand and overseas, and both within and outside the formal educational system.

As we have stated above, the other components of the course are completely irrelevant, and can only be construed as an attemot to recruit extra teachers under false pretences, or as cynicism as to the prospects of Maori language being taught at every school in New Zealand. In short, it is merely an exercise in abject tokenism.

Further Criticisms

Difficulty in getting information

Nga Tamatoa has from the very beginning been actively involved in attempting to have Maori language introduced into schools, and has actively encouraged people to apply for the present course.

Why were so many turned down

According to our information, more than a hundred applications were turned down, including a native speaker with School Certificate and teaching experience in voluntary classes, a trained Maori primary school teacher, and one of the most widely recognised Maori orators in New Zealand, again a person experienced in teaching Maori. Meanwhile, a number of pakehas have been accepted.

One of the Department's supposed reasons for introducing only a limited scheme has been that the facilities and tutors are not available. Such an explanation can only come from deliberate ignorance. If facilities are not available at teachers' colleges and universities, then there are still many other alternatives, like maraes, conference houses, etc, where pressure cooker courses could be held, followed by practical experience in the schools. If there are insufficient teachers on the staff of teachers' colleges to cope with larger numbers, then there are other experienced teachers of Maori language available. One example that comes to mind is that of a Maori lady who, with little 'formal education', has devised her own teaching methods, and to whom the Education Department already sends teachers to observe and learn. Perhaps the real shortage is of tutors who are capable in inculcating the pakeha method of teaching Maori as a written academic language, and the real obstacle the unwillingness of the Education Department to trust anyone else.

The Selection Panel

The selection panel is in our view unqualified to judge the applicants, for it is at least 50% pakeha. It should have been comprised solely of Maori elders, who are surely the people best qualified to test the fluency of applicants in Maori language and their suitability to teach both language and culture. The interviews should likewise have been conducted wholly in Maori.

The Application Form

In our opinion the application form does not highlight the qualities needed for the job, but concentrates on pakeha academic experience and achievement. Further more, we are amazed that the application form is in the English language, when the chief criterion must obviously be fluency in Maori. This is another example of the Education Department's refusal to make official use of New Zealand's only indigenous language, and along with the questions asked in the application form, this testifies to the exclusively monocultural bias of the Department.

Conclusion

The course now proposed by the Education Department us yet another example of tokenism, and as such is designed to fail.

As we have shown, the [unclear: aims] and requirements fail to give effect to the intentions of those presenting the petition to Parliament in 1972.

In fact, it is not surprising that the Education Department has come up with such an inadequte scheme, for it has always been reluctant to see Maori introduced into schools.

For what other language has it been necessary to present a petition signed by 33,000 people to Parliament? Latin, Greek, French and German were all introduced without any pressure from the public, and no mass movement was needed to have Japanese or Indonesian adopted as school subjects. The introduction of all these languages is the result of simple adherence to European academic traditions, or of concessions of the needs of overseas trade. But in the case of Maori, New Zealand's own language, the Department will only permit a 'pilot scheme', to be repeated only if 'public demand' requires it. It is obvious from this that the Education Department does not regard the teaching of languages other than English as a means of creating understanding between people. It is significant that languages spoken by the main minority groups from overseas, e.g. Samoan, Tongan, Indian, Rarotongan, Niuean, Dutch, Dalmation or Chinese, with the exception of the last, are not taught at any level within the New Zealand education system. This task is left entirely to voluntary groups who see the importance of language as a means towards developing cultural understanding and identity. The Education Department obviously does not see this as important, or it would have done something long ago.

It is for the same reason that the Department is unwilling to make any real effort to introduce Maori into schools, and no effort whatsoever to introduce it into primary schools, where it could be learnt as a living language.

What Should be Done?