write a discussion

Educational Leadership and Indigeneity: Doing Things the Same, Differently Author(syf Margie Kahukura Hohepa (Ngāpuhiyf Source: American Journal of Education, Vol. 119, No. 4, Leadership in Indigenous Education (August 2013yf S S 1 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670964 .

Accessed: 04/11/2015 11:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Education. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AUGUST 2013 617 American Journal of Education119 (August 2013) 2013 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0195-6744/2013/11904-0007$10.00 Educational Leadership and Indigeneity:

Doing Things the Same, Differently MARGIE KAHUKURA HOHEPA (NGA¯ PUHI) University of Waikato, New Zealand Educational leadership, it is argued, must play a critical role in improving student outcomes, especially those of minoritized and Indigenous students. In the process of improving education and schooling for Indigenous students, Indigenous ed- ucational leadership needs to be considered alongside educational leadership more generally. This article focuses on a particular Indigenous landscape— Ma¯ ori—and examines tensions relating to a project about educational leadership linked with desired student outcomes. The tensions are located in identifying generic aspects of educational leadership in relation todesired student outcomes on the one hand and ensuring that distinctive features of Ma¯ ori leadership are recognized on the other. Indigeneity is identi ed as a space in which such ongoing tensions can be addressed and in which what is wanted from Ma¯ ori educational leadership can be examined and established. Introduction Educational leadership has come under close scrutiny in order to identify and understand what kinds of leadership knowledge, skills, and practices facilitate the achievement of valued or desired student outcomes (Witziers et al. 2003).

Of noted concern is the identi cation of aspects of educational leadership that can address underachievement among students from marginalized and poorly served groups. In many countries, particularly those that have experienced colonization, those groups poorly served by education systems include Indig- enous students (Hughes et al. 2007; Shields 2004). That countries on the North American continent are included in the above is re ected in the de- velopment of this special issue on leadership in American Indian and Alaska Native education.Aotearoa-New Zealand is another such country.

Electronically published June 5, 2013 This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 618 American Journal of Education Introducing a Riddle My father often asked this riddle when I was a child—“What is the difference between a duck?” The answer being, “one of its legs is both the same.” Maybe it is a kind of humor that an Indigenous person or linguist (my father is both) and their children might nd excruciatingly funny (my siblings and I did anyway). It is a riddle that also encapsulates some not-so-funny tensions that emerged for me as an Indigenous cowriter of a best evidence synthesis on educational leadership(Robinson et al. 2009).

The best evidence synthesis program inAotearoa-New Zealand aims to “sys- tematically identify and bring together, evaluate, analyze, synthesise, and make accessible, relevant evidence linked to a range of learner outcomes in a timely manner, to facilitate the optimising of desirable outcomes for the diverse learn- ers in the New Zealand education system” (Ministry of Education 2004, 5).

As such, the program has resulted in the provision of valuable insights from certain bodies of research literature, which helps to inform the delivery of education in our country.

The best evidence synthesis on school leadership involved the identi cation of leadership characteristics linked to improving a range of desired outcomes for diverse learners in English and Ma¯ ori medium education. English medium education refers to schooling that delivers curricular content and instruction in the English language. Ma¯ ori medium education is a term used to umbrella a range of schooling provisions in which students are taught either all or some curricular content through the Ma¯ ori language in immersion or bilingual programs. Ma¯ ori medium education provisions range from classrooms or units in largely English medium schools through to stand-alone schools that operate within explicit Ma¯ ori cultural, philosophical, and tribal frameworks (Ministry of Education 2008a).

I was brought into the best evidence synthesis work on school leadership initially to focus on educational leadership in Ma¯ ori medium schooling, al- though the brief was soon expanded to include the synthesis work more gen- erally. The tensions that emerged out of the work, and that I sought to manage, encompassed identifying generic aspects of educational leadership linked to desired student outcomes from existing research literature on the one hand, and on the other hand, recognizing that there are distinctive features of Ma¯ ori Indigenous educational leadership that are not necessarily captured in liter- ature tting within the parameters of “relevant evidence.” I also had to manage M ARGIE KAHUKURA HOHEPA (Nga¯ puhi) is the Associate Dean—Ma¯ ori and an associate professor of the Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, inAotearoa-New Zealand. Her research focuses on Ma¯ ori medium education and Ma¯ ori educational leadership. This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 619 tensions related to acknowledging intimate, lived experiences of Ma¯ ori edu- cational leadership, while undertaking a task involving the identi cation of overarching principles or generalizations about effective educational leader- ship, synthesized from a circumscribed literature base. 1 The tensions also related to potential limitations of so-called universal con- cepts of educational leadership for guiding effective educational leadership in Indigenous contexts. As Manulani Meyer (2005) has observed, only when quality is able to be expressed in a manner that is distinct to place, culture, and people can we truly consider pathways to universal principles. “The lesson here can become a dialectic one that honors what distinctness is as it inevitably becomes the pathway to universal principles that have endured the test of time. The seeming contradiction of collective excellence owering as individual expression is an ancient way of developing unity. When quality is expressed in this manner it is distinct to place, people, and culture” (Meyer 2005, 2).

Rather than being constructed as a leadership “type” or “style,” Indigenous educational leadership as “different” may be better understood in terms of the enactment of leadership, which is located in and guided by Indigenous knowledge, values, and practices, in order to realize Indigenous educational aspirations.

Educational Leadership inAotearoa-New Zealand The focus on educational leadership inAotearoa-New Zealand has resulted in a number of documents prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of Ed- ucation. Documents include the best evidence synthesis mentioned above (Robinson et al. 2009), “Kiwi Leadership for Principals” (Ministry of Edu- cation 2008b), andTu¯ Rangatira: Te Kaita¯takiiteMa¯tauranga Kaupapa Ma¯ori (Ma¯ ori medium education leadership) (Te Ta¯ huhu o te Ma¯ tauranga 2010). A central purpose of such leadership work is improving student outcomes, es- pecially for Indigenous Ma¯ ori students as well as students from minoritized immigrant backgrounds.

A methodological requirement of the best evidence synthesis on school leadership was an explicit yet inclusive conception of educational leadership, which delimits the educational leadership eld without privileging a theoret- ically or culturally speci c view. The methodology called for attention to theoretical pluralism and responsiveness to diversity (Ministry of Education 2004). Responsiveness to diversity itself can be problematic for Indigenous peoples like Ma¯ ori, as it potentially locates Ma¯ ori in a “state of ‘sameness’” because everyone is diverse (Lee 2008, 252). Sandy Grande (2000) argues on similar lines that the “deep structures of the ‘pedagogy of oppression’ fail to This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 620 American Journal of Education consider American Indians as a categorically different population, virtually incomparable to other minority groups” (468).

The best evidence methodology, however, also required speci c attention to Ma¯ ori astangata whenua(people of the land), the Indigenous people of Aotearoa-New Zealand (Ministry of Education 2004). This, among other things, involves serious consideration of the relationship between Ma¯ ori and the Crown (Government), underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Kawharu 1989; Orange 2004). 2 The writers of the best evidence synthesis on school leadership read the requirement of speci c attention to Ma¯ ori as a requirement to give special attention not only to Ma¯ ori as Indigenous students but also to Ma¯ ori as Indigenous leaders. Indigenous educational leadership is a critical element in the process of improving education and schooling systems for Indigenous students (Smith 2009).

There are fundamental tensions in attempting to t Ma¯ ori leadership into generic conceptions of educational leadership that are developed largely from research ndings that sit outside of a Ma¯ ori worldview and Ma¯ ori knowledge, understandings, and experiences of leadership. These tensions connect with concerns relating to the impact of education systems, which were introduced as part of imperialistic and colonizing practices undertaken across the world, on Indigenous epistemologies, values, beliefs, and practices (Grande 2000; G.

Smith 1997; L. Smith 1999). They also connect with efforts to conceptualize, articulate, and enact Indigenous education and Indigenous ways of knowing and being within such systems (Castagno and Brayboy 2008; Macfarlane et al. 2008). The tensions have heightened as Indigenous peoples have increas- ingly turned to schooling, historically a site of colonization and assimilation, as a contemporary site of language and cultural regeneration and transmission (Grande 2000; Penetito 2010).

The approach taken in the writing of the synthesis was to acknowledge and seek to address tensions through examining critically the extent to which the best evidence synthesis account of leadership could resonate with Ma¯ ori con- ceptualizations of leadership (Robinson et al. 2009). The synthesis resulted in the identi cation of leadership dimensions derived from research and studies that directly or indirectly linked to increased student achievement. There were relatively rare occasions when the writers of the best evidence synthesis on school leadership were able to consider Ma¯ ori educational leadership in the context of research literature that could be identi edas “relevant evidence,” as information about leaders’ cultural and ethnic backgrounds was not gen- erally provided. 3We were successful in managing the tensions to the extent that we were able to inform our identi cation and understandings of the dimensions via knowledge and understandings we were also developing about traditional and contemporary Ma¯ ori leadership. The leadership dimensions, This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 621 how they were derived, and the degree to which they resonate with historical and contemporary Ma¯ ori conceptualizations of leadership, are discussed in depth in Hohepa and Robinson (2008). Indigenous Educational Leadership—Educational Leadership: There Is a Difference The question can be raised as to whether there are distinctive forms of In- digenous educational leadership, given that many schooling systems and con- texts experienced by Indigenous peoples, and in which educational leadership is enacted, are in essence colonial impositions (Penetito 2010; Simon and Smith 2001; Smith 2009). And, more important, assuming that they do exist, to what extent is Indigenous educational leadership able to enact distinctive forms within these imposed contexts?

The position taken in the synthesis is that there are features of Ma¯ ori leadership, as leadership that is indigenous toAotearoa, which are distinctive.

There is, however, a danger of developing an essentializing and homogenizing discourse about Ma¯ ori educational leadership. The position taken is that the identi cation of a Ma¯ ori educational leadership style would encourage ste- reotypical views and misrepresent the wide range of approaches to be found within Ma¯ ori educational leadership. In cognizance of the danger of locating Ma¯ ori educational leadership as a unitary construct, and in binary opposition toPa¯keha¯(European New Zealander) leadership, distinctions are described in terms of knowledge, values, nature of duties, practices, commitments, and responsibilities that underpin leadership, rather than in terms of a leadership style (Hohepa and Robinson2008; Robinson et al. 2009).

Ma¯ ori education leadership requirements include leadership within the school, the classroom, and the community, and leadership that ripples out “into the wider corridors of Ma¯ ori development” (Durie 2001b, 11). Thus, Ma¯ ori educational leaders are expected to establish positive relationships with a variety of institutions, communities, sectors, andiwi(tribes) and to be familiar with systems of knowledge, from the past, present, and future. Ma¯ ori edu- cational leaders are expected to know how to lead and to carry out Ma¯ ori culturally preferred practices in social situations and to operate appropriately in Ma¯ ori cultural contexts. They are also expected to know how to conduct themselves in professional educational settings and activities that may have little link to Ma¯ ori society in general. Durie (2006, 14–15) sees effective Ma¯ ori leadership as that which is “expert in navigating withinte ao Ma¯ori” (Ma¯ ori society) “and exploringte ao wha¯nui” (wider society). In addition, Ma¯ ori ed- ucational leadership has a signi cant responsibility in trying to ensure that This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 622 American Journal of Education Ma¯ ori students both acquire universal knowledge and skills and Ma¯ ori knowl- edge and skills, which will help realize aspirations held among Ma¯ ori.

Understanding distinctive features of Ma¯ ori educational leadership is im- portant because it re ects the broader positionthat “fundamentally Ma¯ ori still want to be Ma¯ ori” (Smith 2009, 7). Choosing to carry out one’s profes- sional role as an Indigenous person in educational contexts, however, can place one in tenuous, unsafe positions. Maiki Marks (1984) has likened working as a Ma¯ ori educator in the New Zealand education system to being invited to be a mourner at thetangihanga(funeral) of your culture and your language.

Jenny Lee (2008) has critiqued how Ma¯ ori cultural values have been positioned as a disadvantage to leadership practices of Ma¯ ori senior educational managers and principals. She notes the implications were “that had these senior man- agers been cultureless—they may have been more successful” (Lee 2008, 273).

First-time Australian Aboriginal principal Susan Matthews provides another graphic example of how enacting Indigenous educational leadership can be dangerous. She set up a classroom for new entrant Aboriginal students that drew its curriculum from culturally lived knowledge and preferred student outcomes. The classroom was forcibly closed down and she questioned this:

“[Was it because] I was an Aboriginal principal that tried to put in place something that was so totally different and built upon my beliefs as an Ab- original person? Can we as Aboriginal principals be allowed to use our own cultural knowledge about leadership, teaching and learning and more im- portantly Aboriginal ways of learning, to reinvent education within a school environment with a predominately Aboriginal population?” (Hughes et al.

2007, 43).

Indigenous educational leaders are not simply leaders who happen to be Indigenous. They are leaders who choose not to compromise their Indigenous identity simply because they are an educational leader. Putting Indigenous knowledge, culture, and language at the center of Indigenous education lead- ership is important, so that emotional and moral energy related to identity may be harnessed to enhance Indigenous student learning more generally (Smith 2009). As Hine Waitere (2008, 37) explains, “We need to nd the courage to ask today what are the implicationsfor educational leadership when framed within the needs of a cultural group to retain a cultural identity?” What is required is Indigenous educational leadership, located within and informed by our own cultures. Also required are policies and procedures that protect, support and grow such leadership, in order that it can help make a positive difference to Indigenous student outcomes.

Leadership to intervene in Ma¯ ori underachievement and to realize Ma¯ ori potential (Ministry of Education 2008b) will require leadership that is consis- tent with Ma¯ ori perspectives, values and practices pertaining to leadership (Waitere 2008). Indigenous leadership, however, does not presume leadership This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 623 that is restricted to Indigenous knowledge only. Ma¯ ori educationalists, be they teachers or leaders, “are not necessarily effective by virtue of their ethnicity” (Lee 2008, 278) or cultural membership alone. Ma¯ ori educational leadership, and Indigenous educational leadership more widely, can also require under- standing of, and critical re ection on, what is known about effective educa- tional leadership practices. Indigenous educational leaders can consider how their leadership is different, as well as how it might need to be similar to educational leadership per se, in order to ensure positive changes to Indigenous educational outcomes. Difference in Sameness—Assimilating or Accommodating?

Some argue that living in today’s increasingly globalized world necessarily involves taking on more globalized practices and knowledge (Durie 2005).

Others argue that applying educational practices and knowledge of a powerful or dominant group onto Indigenous peoples constitutes ongoing colonization (Awatere 1984; Smith 1999) and that globalization itself “is simply a new metaphor for imperialism” (Grande 2000, 469) that will continue to undermine Indigenous culturalintegrity.

Taking a purist line in either direction is atodds with the “real-life” situations that Ma¯ ori not only nd ourselves in but also in many instances choose to construct. These situations seldom re ect either a sense of “cultural purity” in any traditional shape or form, or a wholehearted embracement of “the new world.” Education “should not be an ‘either / or’ choice with respect to Indigenous peoples access to their own cultural knowledge or indeed world knowledge forms” (Smith 2009, 2). Jennie Joe (1994) makes similar distinctions between imposed and selected changes and accommodations by Indigenous North American cultures withina Western national milieu.

Joe (1994) draws a distinction between “acculturation” and “assimilation” that is pertinent to the contrasting views described above and issues underlying debate around whether or how Indigenous knowledge and non-Indigenous knowledge should be brought together. While Joe observes that Native Amer- icans experience signi cant social pressure to take on non-Indian knowledge and practices, in effect to become assimilated, many in turn “strive instead to become acculturated” (109). In this sense acculturation involves the accep- tance and use of tools, technology and skills of the non-Indian world and the retention of an Indian worldview and its incumbent values. “Values may be in con ict between the two worlds, but an acculturated Indian person may accept the means, tools, technology, and skills used in the non-Indian world while still retaining the Indian values. On the other hand, an assimilated This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 624 American Journal of Education Native American accepts non-Native values and tools, and therefore becomes the same as a non-Native in act, word, and deed” (Joe 1994, 109–10).

A way of exploring the implications of modifyingIndigenous educational leadership practices is to consider how leadership practices sourced from non- Indigenous evidence can be engaged with in ways that identify, emphasize, and articulate preferred values, beliefs, and practices of Indigenous peoples— that is, how might this be done, in order that the tension of the duck riddle of encapsulating difference in sameness and sameness in difference is ad- dressed? For those working in Ma¯ ori-initiated and -designed educational ini- tiatives, such as Kura Kaupapa Ma¯ ori (Ma¯ ori language immersion schools based on Ma¯ ori philosophy and practice), tensions may apply across a range of areas. This is because teaching, learning, and leading can actively involve using knowledge, skills, technologies, and resources generated out of non- Ma¯ ori worldviews while working to reclaim and regenerate Ma¯ ori knowledge, language, values,and beliefs (Penetito 2010). Indigenization How might non-Indigenous constructions of educational leadership, and non- Indigenous constructions and conceptualizations more generally, be accom- modated within an Indigenous worldview? Critiques of so-called Western ac- ademic and intellectual elds by historically marginalized groups—Indigenous, colonized, minoritized, women (Awatere 1984; Burman 1994; Grande 2000; Mama 1995)—have begged the question, Is it possible to use and to develop knowledge in empowering ways in elds that themselves have played fun- damental roles in disempowerment? I rst came across the notion of indi- genization as a doctoral student in the early 1990s as I sought out psychological approaches that might provide valid and appropriate means to study and understand Indigenous development and learning as an Indigenous person.

Virgilio Enriquez (1989) proposed a model of indigenization as a means to transform psychology as a discipline to t with the Filipino local culture.

Enriquez described two broad approaches in his model, which position In- digenous cultures in two contrasting ways. One approach involves indigeni- zation from within; the other involves indigenization from without. Indigen- ization from within uses the Indigenous world as the source of theoretical concepts and methods, which emerge out of experiences of people from the Indigenous culture (Pe-Pua and Protacio-Macelino 2000). These are then elab- orated into theoretical frameworks for use and application. Indigenization from without locates culture as the target of theoretical concepts and methods by modifying an existing area of academic study, and its theories, concepts, This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 625 and approaches, to create or maximize its degree of alignment or t with a culture.

The sources and directions proposed by Enriquez suggest a kind of exclusive parallelism. That is, the process of indigenization is unidirectional in nature, where its course is largely shaped by particular histories and circumstances.

However, culture ow in one direction does not preclude ow simultaneously occurring in the other. In reality, while there could be a particular directional emphasis depending on a set agenda, either process of indigenization is just as likely to be composed of multidirectional interactions. Although Enriquez holds that the perspectives motivating either process of indigenization can work at cross-purposes, the two processes identi ed can also take place in a more symbiotic interaction.

What are the bene ts and dangers inherent in a strict adherence to either process orientation of indigenization as described byEnriquez? Indigenization from within can make sense of and validate Indigenous practices and expe- riences from the rm base of Indigenous knowledge and worldviews. But a strict adherence to an Indigenous worldview as the only source of theories and practices may also lead to little more than sentimental revivalism of what is, or is perceived to be, “traditionallyIndigenous” intellectual theorizing, methods, and technologies. Indigenization from without can provide a greater range of theoretical tools and technologies to derive meaning out of, and theorize about, Indigenous experiences. Exclusive attention to modi cation of theories, concepts, and approaches only emanating out of a non-Indigenous worldview could also lead to uncritical transfer and translation of non-Indig- enous intellectual technology into Indigenous knowledge bases. Dangers of “parochialism,” of “cultural dogmatism,” of “assimilation,” and of “hege- mony” abound. Avoidance of sentimentalized rei cation and essentialism of what is considered cultural tradition, as well as avoidance of naive and in- appropriate co-option of knowledge from a non-Indigenous cultural worldview, is critical (Joe 1994; O’Sullivan 2007a; Paradies 2006).

Along the same vein, it is perhaps timely to argue for moving beyond an unquestioning view that the legitimacy and validity ofall so-called Indigenous knowledge, values, and beliefs is “taken for granted.” 4For example, non- challenging and uncritical acceptance of what are presented as traditional Ma¯ ori beliefs, knowledge, and practices is not necessarily productive or ben- e cial. What count as Ma¯ ori beliefs, knowledge, values, and worldviews de- serve being shown the respect of rigorous interrogation.

Working from an indigenization perspective that sees Indigenous cultures, such as Ma¯ ori, who have experienced colonization as either recipients or sources of “culture ow” (Enriquez 1989, 71) does not address the right to be different in sameness. What occurs between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge is not linear. There is potential for reciprocal engagement and This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 626 American Journal of Education impact at many given points. What exists is fundamentally relational, involving multidirectional exchanging and interchanging of ideas. In this sense Indig- enous conceptualizations can contribute just as much to the revisioning of non-Indigenous conceptualizations and theories. Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005) made the observation that Until recently, there was very little literature that addressed how to get Western scientists and educators to understand Native worldviews and ways of knowing as constituting knowledge systems in their own right, and even less on what it means for participants when such divergent systems coexist in the same person, organization, or community. It is imperative, therefore, that we address these issues as a two-way trans- action. Native people may need to understand Western society, but not at the expense of what they already know and the way they have come to know it. Non-Native people, too, need to recognize the coexistence of multiple worldviews and knowledge systems, and nd ways to un- derstand and relate to the world in its multiple dimensions and varied perspectives. (9) What is needed is an approach that recognizes thatto be effective, Indigenous engagement with non-Indigenous ideas needs to be active, dynamic, and se- lective. Indigeneity—An Alternative Answer to a Riddle Indigeneity has been described as a set of rights that an Indigenous people might reasonably expect to exercise in today’s world (Durie 2001a). Those rights encompass the right to be the same in some senses and to be different in others and the right to live in today’s world while ensuring the survival of one’s traditional culture (Fleras and Elliot 1996, O’Sullivan 2007b), much as the duck can be different in its sameness.

Ma¯ ori have drawn on indigeneity as a principle andtheoretical approach to affect Ma¯ ori-valued outcomes in education, research, health, and many other areas (see, e.g., Durie 2001b, 2003; Smith 1999). Indigeneity provides a way of addressing tensions alluded to in the riddle about the difference between a duck. That is, the complexities of recognizing and maintaining a focus on Indigenous ways of knowing and doing things, in this case enacting Indigenous educational leadership while also investigating non-Indigenous, often-dominant leadership approaches. This necessarily includes investigating and debating whether there might be universal aspects of educational lead- ership. This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 627 The politics of indigeneity provides space to be different and same. It helps to create spaces outside of majority-minority or colonized-colonizer position- ing. For Ma¯ ori it moves beyond Tiriti-/treaty-de ned relationships, where Maori can think critically about what we want from, and about what is needed from, education. Strong Ma¯ ori leadership ensures a strong focus on challenges and issues experienced by Ma¯ ori, as well as the aspirations and potential of Ma¯ ori. Mason Durie (2001a) argues that this focus includes not only an un- derstanding of historical issues that emerge out of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but also an understanding of issues that occurred before its signing. As such it includes an understanding that Indigenous rights are not the same as treaty rights. Durie notes, “Indigenous rights have a longer memory. 1840 is some- what incidental to a set of customs and lores that evolved over some hundreds of years...and...anunderstanding of indigeneity is about a set of rights that Indigenous peoples might reasonably expect to exercise in modern times” (2001a, 8).

Ma¯ ori educational initiatives and institutions, such as Te Ko¯ hanga Reo (Ma¯ ori language immersion centers that cater for preschool children), Kura Kaupapa Ma¯ ori, and Wa¯ nanga (Ma¯ ori institutions of higher learning, akin to universities) are “tangible outcomes of the politicsof indigeneity” (O’Sullivan 2007a, 103). O’Sullivan observes that indigeneity enables Ma¯ ori to approach “questions from an unapologetically Ma¯ ori-centred position. Answers to what Ma¯ ori want from education can therefore be considered beyond compromise co-option of western ideas and from a coherent set of pragmatic principles as indigenous paradigm” (2007b, 1–2).

With regards to leadership, the development of educational initiatives such as Te Ko¯ hanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Ma¯ ori has drawn on many types of Ma¯ ori educational leadership. Included are leaders with professional and lead- ership knowledge ofAotearoa-New Zealand’s national education system, in which Ma¯ ori have developed Maori medium schooling options that are both unique and distinctive from, as well as similar to, English medium schooling (Penetito 2010). Parents, grandparents, and community members have also enacted leadership and have typically played crucial leadership roles in the establishment of Ma¯ ori medium educational initiatives (Skerrett 2010; Ta¯kao et al. 2010). These educational initiatives focus on Ma¯ ori-identi ed and Ma¯ ori- speci c aspirations and needs in terms of the regeneration and continuation of Ma¯ ori language and culture. They also focus on needs that are similar to those facing English medium schools and their communities, which relate to the provision of quality education that prepares students to function success- fully on national and international stages (Durie 2001a).

Ma¯ ori educational leadership requires an enactment of indigeneity in order to continue to contribute to the transformation of education inAotearoa-New Zealand. Indigeneity assumes that Ma¯ ori have rights in the control and de- This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 628 American Journal of Education cision making relating to the education of Ma¯ ori children. These rights extend to control over de ning what counts as desiredor valued educational outcomes and what kinds of Ma¯ ori educational leadership are required in order to realize such outcomes. Indigeneity as a principle and as an approach provides a space in which Ma¯ ori educational leadership can do at least two things. One, Ma¯ ori educational leaders can practice leadership that is Maori. Two, Ma¯ ori edu- cational leaders can engage with available knowledge, theories and information about effective educational leadership in ways that may result in enactments of Ma¯ ori educational leadership that appear relatively the same as “non- Ma¯ ori” leadership, while located in Ma¯ ori cultural knowledge and cultural frameworks. Conclusion Educational leadership has been identi ed as a key factor in raising achieve- ment, particularly among Indigenous and other minoritized students. While there has been a strong focus across the globe on identifying generic char- acteristics of leadership and leadership practices that make a positive difference for students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of leaders themselves have often been given less consid- eration. A focus on leading education and schooling in order to bring about better outcomes for Indigenous students, however, requires an accompanying focus on Indigenous ways of enacting educational leadership.

This article began with identifying tensions arising out of synthesizing best evidence on effective educational leadership, and discussing the potential that such work may have for rendering Ma¯ ori, and Indigenous education leadership more generally, into sameness through the identi cation of generic charac- teristics of educational leadership. The synthesis does, however, provide im- portant information on what particular forms of evidence tell us about edu- cational leadership that makes a difference to certain student outcomes. I have argued that indigeneity provides a space in which Ma¯ ori leadership can crit- ically engage with this information, on the basis that Ma¯ ori educational lead- ership may have needs and goals similar to those found across educational leadership more generally. Indigeneity also provides the space in which Ma¯ ori educational leadership can expect to have those needs addressed and those goals met in different culturally preferred ways and contexts, drawing on different kinds of evidence and knowledge bases. Indigeneity concerns the right to conceptualize, articulate, and address Ma¯ ori educational leadership differently—in ways that are distinctly Ma¯ ori.

I have argued against relegating Ma¯ ori educational leadership itself into sameness, be it in terms of a singular style or approach. Ma¯ ori educational This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 629 leadership will not t into a unitary construct or de nition. It may be exercised in many ways, and across different educational contexts, yet still remain Ma¯ ori.

In summary, indigeneity is identi ed as a principle and theoretical approach that is playing an increasingly critical role in Ma¯ ori education today in “the creation of an education system that integrates culture with education” (O’Sullivan 2007a, 4). Indigeneity enables the realization of Ma¯ ori aspirations and the meeting of Ma¯ ori needs, including those pertaining to Ma¯ ori edu- cational leadership. Notes 1. As young parents, my husband and I were actively involved in early developments of Maori medium education programs, namely Te Ko¯ hanga Reo (language “nests” for preschool children) and Kura Kaupapa Ma¯ ori (Ma¯ ori immersion schools), which our children all attended. We continue to be involved as grandparents of children in these programs.

2. Te Tiriti o Waitangi—written in Ma¯ ori—was rst signed on February 6, 1840, between a number of chiefs from northern tribal groups to which I belong. Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides for Ma¯ ori control of resources and for protection of Ma¯ ori knowl- edge, language, and culture, while guaranteeing Ma¯ ori the same rights and oppor- tunities as non-Ma¯ ori. The English version, called the Treaty of Waitangi, cedes sov- ereignty to the English Crown; this is not the case, however, in the Ma¯ ori version, which agrees to the Crown having governorship and to Ma¯ ori retaining “rangatira- tanga” (sovereignty).

3. An exception to this is research that was undertaken in Ma¯ ori medium schooling contexts. A signi cant corpus of this type of research is reported on in chapter seven of Robinson et al. (2009).

4. See G. H. Smith (1997) for a critical discussion of the signi cance of taking the validity and legitimacy of Ma¯ ori knowledge “for granted” to transformative theory and praxis.

References Awatere, Donna. 1984.Ma¯ori Sovereignty. Auckland: Broadsheet.

Barnhardt, Ray, and Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley. 2005. “Indigenous Knowledge Sys- tems and Alaska Native Ways of Knowing.”Anthropology and Education Quarterly36 (1): 8–23.

Burman, E. 1994.Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. London: Routledge.

Castagno, Angelina, and Bryan Brayboy. 2008. “Culturally Responsive Schooling for Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature.”Review of Educational Research78 (4):

941–93.

Durie, Mason. 2001a. “A Framework for Considering Ma¯ ori Educational Advance- ment.” Opening address presented at the Hui Taumata Ma¯ tauranga, February 24, Turangi, New Zealand.

Durie, Mason. 2001b. “The Hui Taumata Ma¯ tauranga: Progress, and Platforms for This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Educational Leadership and Indigeneity 630 American Journal of Education Ma¯ ori Advancement.” Address presented at the Hui Taumata Ma¯ tauranga Tuarua, November 11, Taupo, New Zealand.

Durie, Mason. 2003.Nga¯Ka¯hui Pou: Launching Ma¯ori Futures. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Durie, Mason. 2005. “Leadership 2025: Transforming Capability,” http://secondary- futures.boost.co.nz/matrix/2005/10/transforming_story.php.

Durie, Mason. 2006. “Ma¯ ori Education 2026.” Paper presented at Post Primary Teach- ers Association conference, April 20, Wellington, New Zealand.

Enriquez, Virgilio G. 1989.Indigenous Psychology and National Consciousness. Tokyo: Uni- versity of Foreign Studies, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliot. 1996.Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 2nd ed. Ontario: Prentice Hall.

Grande, Sandy. 2000. “American Indian Geographies of Identity and Power: At the Crossroads of Ind ´gena and Mestizaje.”Harvard Educational Review70 (4): 467–98.

Hohepa, Margie, and Viviane Robinson. 2008. “Ma¯ ori and Educational Leadership:

Tu¯ Rangatira.”AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Scholarship4 (2): 20– 38.

Hughes, Paul, Gavin Khan, and Susan Matthews. 2007. “Leaders: Acting to Improve Outcomes for Indigenous Students.”Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research, August, Melbourne, http://research.acer.edu.au/research _conference_2007/13.

Joe, Jennie. 1994. “Revaluing Native-American Concepts of Development and Edu- cation.” InCross Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development, ed. P. Green eld and R.

Cocking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kawharu, I. Hugh, ed. 1989.Waitangi: Ma¯ori and Pa¯keha¯ Perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Jenny. 2008. “Ako: Pu¯ra¯ kau of Ma¯ ori Teachers’ Work in Secondary Schools.” EdDoc diss., Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.

Macfarlane, Angus, Ted Glynn, Waiariki Grace, Wally Penetito, and Sonja Bateman.

2008. “Indigenous Epistemology in a National Curriculum Framework?”Ethnicities 8 (1): 102–27.

Mama, A. 1995.Beyond the Masks: Race, Gender and Subjectivity. London and New York:

Routledge.

Marks, Maiki. 1984. “The Frustrations of Being a Ma¯ ori Language Teacher.” InNga Tumanako: Ma¯ori Educational Development Conference, Turangawaewae Marae, 23–25 March 1984, ed. Rangi Walker. Auckland: University of Auckland, Centre for Continuing Education.

Meyer, Manulani. 2005. “Remembering our Future: Higher Education Quality As- surance and Indigenous Epistemology.”WINHEC Journal2005 edition, http:// www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdf.

Ministry of Education. 2004.Guidelines for Generating a Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration 2004.

Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. 2008a.Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success: The Ma¯ori Education Strategy, 2008–2012. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. 2008b.Kiwi Leadership for Principals: Principals as Educational Leaders.

Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Orange, Claudia. 2004.An Illustrated History of the Treaty of Waitangi.Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.

O’Sullivan, Dominic. 2007a.Beyond Biculturalism: The Politics of an Indigenous Minority.

Wellington: Huia Publishers.

O’Sullivan, Dominic. 2007b. “Indigeneity and Reconceptualising Ma¯ ori Education This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hohepa AUGUST 2013 631 Policy.”MAI Review1, http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/index.php/MR/article/view/ 23/23.

Paradies, Yin C. 2006. “Beyond Black and White: Essentialism, Hybridity and Indi- geneity.”Journal of Sociology42 (4): 355–67.

Penetito, W. 2010.What’s Ma¯ori about Ma¯ori Education?Wellington: Victoria University Press.

Pe-Pua, Rogelia, and Elizabeth Protacio-Macelino. 2000. “Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Fil- ipino Psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez.”Asian Journal of Social Psychology 3 (1): 49–71.

Robinson, Viviane, Margie Hohepa, and Claire Lloyd. 2009.School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why—Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration.Wellington:

Ministry of Education.

Shields, Carolyn M. 2004. “Dialogic Leadership for Social Justice: Overcoming Pa- thologies of Silence.”Educational Administration Quarterly40 (1): 109–32.

Simon, Judith, and Linda Smith, eds. 2001.A Civilising Mission? Perceptions and Repre- sentations of the New Zealand Native Schools System.Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Skerrett, Mere. 2010. “A Critique of the Best Evidence Synthesis with Relevance for Ma¯ ori Leadership in Education.”Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 25 (1): 42–50.

Smith, Graham Hingangaroa. 1997. “The Development of Kaupapa Ma¯ ori: Theory and Praxis.” PhD diss., Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.

Smith, Graham Hingangaroa. 2009. “Transforming Leadership: A Discussion Paper.” Keynote paper presented at the Simon Fraser UniversitySummer Institute Lecture Series “Leading Change in Education,” July 6, Surrey, British Columbia.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999.Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.

London: Zed Books.

Ta¯ kao, Nuki, Denis Grennell, Kate McKegg, and Nan Wehipeihana. 2010.Te Piko o te Mahuri: The Key Attributes of Successful Kura Kaupapa Ma¯ori.Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Te T a¯ huhu o te Ma¯ tauranga. 2010.Tu¯ Rangatira: Te Kaita¯takiiteMa¯tauranga Kaupapa Ma¯ori[Maori medium educational leadership]. Wellington: Te Ta¯ huhu o te Ma¯- tauranga.

Waitere, Hine. 2008. “Cultural Leadership: Creating Futures Our Ancestors Can Walk in with Our Children.”Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice23 (2): 34– 47.

Witziers, Bob, Roel Bosker, and Meta Kru¨ ger. 2003. “EducationalLeadership and Student Achievement: The Elusive Search for an Association.”Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly39 (3): 398–425. This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:44:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions