Te Reo - Brainstorm Mural

Te Reo - Percentage of Maori proficient in Te Reo (Education Counts, Ministry of Education)

What We Have Found

Māori proficiency in te reo has increased significantly since 2001, especially among younger Māori.

Date Updated: March 2008

Indicator Description

Percentage of Māori population proficient in te reo.

Why This Is Important

There is a need to raise foundation skills so that all people can participate in our knowledge society.  Foundation competencies are a set of skills, knowledge and dispositions in the areas of language, literacy and numeracy.

Māori language is a key element of Māori culture, and constitutes part of the broader cultural identity of New Zealand. 

There have been major efforts since 2003, when the Government released the revised Māori Language Strategy to consolidate and coordinate its Māori language programmes and policies, to revitalise te reo and increase the number of people who use it and the situations in which it is used.  Te reo Māori education through the tertiary sector plays an important role in language revitalisation, as well as maintaining and developing the variety within the language in its use in different situations.

How We Are Going

Following both the 2001 and 2006 Census, surveys were undertaken of the Māori population aged 15 years-old and over, looking at the health of the Māori language.  Both surveys included self-assessment of three components of language proficiency, namely: speaking, reading and writing, with the 2001 survey also assessing listening.

Figure 1: Percentage of Māori population proficient in Te Reo by age group (2006)

The 2006 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language found that 22.8% of the Māori population aged 15 and over were proficient in reading Māori (that is, they could read 'well' or 'very well'), a significant increase from the figure in 2001 (13.2%).  The 2006 survey found that 16.8% and 14.0% of the Māori adults were proficient in writing and speaking Māori, compared with 11.6% and 9.8% respectively from the 2001 Census.  The increase in proficiency levels from the 2001 Census was most marked for those aged 25 to 34 years-old.

Figure 2: Age-standardised percentage of Māori population proficient in Te Reo (2001 and 2006)


Proficiency in te reo was highest for the oldest Māori, with 1.4 to 2.3 times the level of proficiency of Māori in the next most proficient age group.  The 15 to 24 year-old age group had the second highest level of proficiency for speaking and writing, while the 25 to 34 year-old age group had the second highest level of proficiency over reading.  This points to a level of success in improving language proficiency in younger speakers.

Figure 3: Students enrolled in Te Reo Māori courses by NQF level (2001 to 2006)  



The vast majority of enrolments in te reo Māori courses were at the lowest NQF levels (level 1 to 3).  There were a total of 12,251 enrolments at this level in 2006, followed by 2,997 enrolments at level 4, and 1,683 enrolments at diploma-level (level 5 to 6).  There was a 5-fold increase in enrolments in te reo Māori at levels 1 to 4 from 2001 to 2003, reflecting the growth in enrolments at Institutes of Technology/ Polytechnics and wānanga in these levels.  However, from 2003 to 2006 the number of enrolments in te reo Māori at these levels declined by 59%, with a decline in enrolments at wānanga being a major contributor to this reduction.  In contrast, there has only been a small decrease in enrolments in te reo Māori at level 5 and above since 2003.  Despite this recent decline, there has been a substantial growth in enrolments for te reo Māori courses since 2001 which has helped produce the significant gains in proficiency in te reo among Māori since 2001.

References

• Kalafatelis, E., Fink-Jensen, K, and Johnson, M. (2007).  2006 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language: Final Report.Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri.
• Ministry of Education (2007).  Profile & Trends 2006: New Zealand's Tertiary Education Sector. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
• Statistics New Zealand (2002).  Final Report on the 2001 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/main/education-and-learning-outcomes/1887

Measuring Wellbeing - Benton on Maori Development?

Excerpt taken from "Wellbeing and Disparity in Tamakimakaurau" report 1.

Click here for all the research reports:

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/well-being-and-disparity-in-tamaki-makaurau-1

Click here for pdf of the general report 

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/central/shared/about/maori-at-auckland/documents/Well-being%20and%20disparity%20Vol%201.pdf

6. Maori development: An interpretation

6.1 Developing human capability 

In his influential book, Development as Freedom, the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has argued cogently for the voiceless poor. It is noteworthy that Professor Sen is both an eminent economist and ethicist ñ his Nobel Prize in economics was awarded for his singular achievement in reintroducing an emphasis on ethics as a core part of that discipline. What Sen suggests is to concentrate particularly on the roles and interconnections between certain crucial instrumental freedoms, including economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees and protective security. Ideally, this would mean investigating societal arrangements, involving many institutions (e.g., the state, the market, the legal system, political parties, the media, public interest groups and public discussion forums) to see how these contribute towards ìenhancing and guaranteeing the substantive freedoms of individuals, seen as active agents of change, rather than as passive recipients of dispensed benefitsî (Sen 2000: xii-xiii, emphasis added).

Sen calls for public action to support people in overcoming their own deprivations. This requires cooperation between researchers from different disciplines, policy-makers, decisionmakers in all sectors, legislators, and of course, the people themselves. Sen sees people as active agents of change.

6.2 Well-being as freedom
The question of well-being informs a great deal of the discussion in Volumes 3 and 4, and is discussed also in relation to official statistics in Volume 2 and Chapter 2 of Volume 5. In our view, there is a vital dimension to well-being, in fact a precondition without which it cannot be achieved or sustained. This is freedom to be, freedom to develop innate, acquired and new capacities; freedom as a right which people are both free to exercise and capable of exercising.

For public policy to make an important difference in people's lives, those who have the responsibility for formulating and implementing it need to see what they can do to expand and enhance freedom, both at the individual and societal level. Amartya Sen views the expansion of freedom ìboth as the primary end and as the principal means of development. He argues that:

Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency. The removal of substantial unfreedoms is constitutive of development. However, for a fuller understanding of the connection between development and freedom we have to go beyond that basic recognition (crucial as it is). The intrinsic importance of human freedom, in 
general, as the pre-eminent objective of development is strongly supplemented by the instrumental effectiveness of freedoms of particular kinds to promote freedoms of other kinds. The linkages between different types of freedoms are empirical and causal, rather than constitutive and compositional. (Sen 1999: xii) 

Sen illustrates his point with these examples:

there is strong evidence that economic and political freedoms help to reinforce one another, rather than being hostile to one another (as they are sometimes taken to be). Similarly, social opportunities of education and health care, which may require public action, complement individual opportunities of economic and political participation and also help to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivations. If the point of departure of the approach lies in the identification of freedom as the main object of development, the reach of the policy analysis lies in establishing the empirical linkages that make the viewpoint of freedom coherent and cogent as the guiding perspective of the process of development. (op. cit., emphasis added) 

The approach advocated by Sen requires a multidisciplinary research team. What is needed, he says, is ìan integrated analysis of economic, social and political activities, involving a variety of institutions and many interactive agenciesî. Senís work has important implications, recognised for example in The [New Zealand] Treasurys paper on the inclusive economy (2001a), and some of his ideas are reflected also in comments about well-being by some of the people who participated in the ethnological study.

In relation to well-being, Sen makes an important distinction between human capital and human capability:

Consider an example. If education makes a person more efficient in commodity production, then this is clearly an enhancement of human capital. This can add to the value of production in the economy and also to the income of the person who has been educated. But even with the same level of income, a person may benefit from education ñ in reading, communicating, arguing, in being able to choose in a more informed way, in being taken more seriously by others and so on. The benefits of education thus exceed its role as human capital in commodity production. The broader human-capability perspective would note and value these additional roles as well. The two perspectives are, thus, closely related but distinct. (Sen 1999: 293- 294) 

This view is underlined by Te Kui, a participant in the ethnographic study (see Volume 3, s. 11.1). She says that the well-being of our people is at a very low ebb and it is time to take action to change this state of affairs because many have become so used to disparity and deprivation that they are no longer even conscious of it.

In my view it goes right back to the to te Maori, te mohio ki te wero take, ki te mohio ki te whakaaro. We need to be politically more aware going back to the Treaty of Waitangi, while Maori did not know the proper language, yet they had a lot to say and asked a lot of questions looked to Pākehā to give the answers. They were raring to go commercially and politically. Their well-being was at a high then but has diminished consistently ever since. We need to work on pushing it up a few notches. 

...

The research programme has endeavoured to keep looking at the bigger issues, taking the broader human-capability perspective suggested by Sen and Ackoff (which also includes the human-capital perspective) because the researchers believe this is likely to be an effective way to help people to transform their lives so they can live more deeply and at the same time contribute with enthusiasm to national development. The two founding cultures of New Zealand have much to learn from each other, but this learning can only take place if Maori are able to retain their uniqueness as a people within a strong united nation, confident to join
the rest of the free world.

Maori well-being is critically bound up with the question of the control of one's destiny, as an individual and as a member of a collectivity. There are layers of authority and control within and outside Māoridom that must be taken into account if development is indeed going to lead to freedom. Educators and researchers certainly have a role in enabling those who make policy to become reflective practitioners, and those who will be affected by it discern underlying causes and likely effects, to become radical but constructive critics and participants in a transformative process.

Tamaki makau rau - Wellbeing and Disparity in Auckland

Well-being and Disparity in Tāmaki-Makaurau 

What factors contribute to cultural, social, economic and political well-being amongst Māori in larger urban areas, and how are these interrelated?

 This extensive, five-part research report focused on that central question. It was explored by drawing on data developed within several research sites within metropolitan Auckland. Since Auckland is a microcosm of the larger urban scene, this information has wider significance.

 The research aimed to: assist in the development of policy that will transform the urban Māori situation, and identify the factors that need attention in order to ensure that all Mäori in larger urban areas have the freedom to develop their capabilities so they achieve personal well-being and contribute positively to their whānau as the pre-requisite to building a dynamic nation.

Appropriate policy was to be built on evidence such as that developed in the study.

 The project was led by Richard A. Benton (principle author) in association with Ngapere Hope and Nena Benton(contribution editors); Charles Crothers, Cluny Macphersonand Manuka Henare (consultants); and Kim Ngarimu (consultant on policy implications).It was published by the then-Ministry of Māori Development, now Te Puni Kokiri.

Tamaki makau rau - Maori Wellbeing in Auckland

Well-being and Disparity in Tamaki-makaurau 

Report on the Urban Mäori Disparities Research Programme New Zealand Population Review 29(1) 2003, 

Charles Crothers

 “Far from being members of a homogenous group, Maori individuals have a variety of cultural characteristics and live in a number of cultural and socioeconomic realities. The relevance of traditional values is not the same for all Maori, nor can it be assumed that all Maori will wish to define their ethnic identity according to classical constructs. At the same time, they will describe themselves as Maori and will reject any notion that they are ‘less Maori’ than those who conform to a conventional image” 

(Durie, 1995: 465). 

“Ka kohi te toi, ka whai te maramatanga.

“If knowledge is gathered, enlightenment will follow”

 Download copy here: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/central/shared/about/maori-at-auckland/documents/Well-being%20and%20disparity%202003%20report.pdf

Te Reo - Maori language may still face extinction

Scotty Morrison

And

Nathan Albury Opinion: New Zealand needs to rethink its language policy to make te reo Maori a more equal partner of English, writes Nathan Albury.

Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori (Maori Language Week) reminds us of the special place our reo holds, and to consider what challenges we still face in securing its future.

There is no doubt the work of our Maori communities, especially Maori- medium education with backing from successive governments, has been a linguistic achievement.

Next to Hebrew and Irish, the linguistic U-turn te reo has taken, is internationally impressive.

But there is no room for complacency.

Our reo is still endangered and this year we anticipate the release of the next Maori language strategy.

This follows the Government's promise of an extra $8 million for a new Maori Language Research and Development Fund, increased funding for te reo, and the reallocation of Teach NZ scholarships to boost the number and quality of te reo-competent educators.

It's a busy year for language policymakers, but who exactly should language policy be targeting? Should revitalisation of te reo focus solely on Maori communities, or should all New Zealanders participate?

Surprisingly, our laws and policies are unclear on this point. Legislation makes te reo an official language on par with English.

The Maori Language Commission prioritises naturalising te reo and upholds that all New Zealanders should have the opportunity to become bilingual.

Maori Language Week itself hopes to foster a New Zealand-wide commitment to the language.

However, actual policy implementation has focused explicitly on Maori communities, often under the guise of community development.

For example, the Maori Language Commission explains that te reo "underpins Maori cultural development which in turn, supports Maori social identity and culture" and the role of non- Maori under the current Maori language strategy is simply to show goodwill.

With that vision, building the pool of speakers of Maori will always be limited. Nonetheless, it seems this exclusivity will continue: Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples explained earlier this year that revitalising te reo is paramount in efforts to promote Maori development.

Is it right that revitalisation policy not include work to foster te reo proficiency among non-Maori? If we are to embrace the union of Maori and non- Maori cultures, it surely seems a disservice to the Maori cause not to demand a greater commitment from wider New Zealand.

This is not in the least because without positive and inclusive interventions, te reo may still face extinction because the Maori population has become a minority on its own whenua.

So, it seems only logical that all New Zealanders be subject to language policy, but this has not yet happened.

Public service agencies still do not require te reo skills as a standard condition of employment. The language test for migrants ignores te reo as an official language of this country.

Only English remains a compulsory language in schools, leaving te reo - an equally official language - to linger on the side.

Our language laws and policies are unbalanced, undermine te reo's revitalisation, and assume te reo is only a matter for Maori.

This is understandable, because our politicians and policymakers discuss an inextricable link between te reo and Maori identity as the impetus for language policy.

Language can indeed be an important precursor to identity - this is a sociolinguistic fact - but it need not be.

Despite the Maori cultural renaissance and a growth in people who identify as Maori, proficiency in te reo is not increasing.

The simple fact is that Maori ethnic identity is less reliant on te reo because Maori identity is now expressed through a much broader range of avenues than ever before.

The age-old assumption that Maori need te reo in order to identity as Maori needs revisiting and the revitalisation of te reo must be seen as a responsibility of all New Zealanders.

This can be achieved by being brave and rethinking our language policy.

We need to update what we know about the value te reo holds among Maori, and pursue more balanced and fairer language laws and policies.

This will not only better support te reo, but above all better reflect our culturally rich contemporary Aotearoa.

This, I hope, is something the Maori language strategy 2013 will help us achieve.

Nathan Albury is a linguist with an interest in language policy.

Mozzies 2011 - A Socio-demographic Profile of Maori living in Australia

SUMMARY This report provides a comprehensive demographic and socio-economic profile of the Maori population in Australia using data from the 2011 Australia Census of Population and Housing.

The purpose is to provide an evidence base with which to inform future policy approaches with respect to Maori in Australia.

It focuses on five key areas:

 Population size and composition;

Identity and culture;

Year of arrival and citizenship;

Education and work; 

Lone parenting and unpaid childcare.

Comparisons are undertaken with Maori in the 2006 Australia Census, as well as with two reference groups: the total Australia population and migrant non-Maori New Zealanders. Where appropriate, we also distinguish Maori migrants born in New Zealand and Maori born in Australia. This captures important differences within the Maori population in Australia that have been under-examined in previous studies. There are significant differences between New Zealand and Australian-born Maori across a range of indicators. Policy approaches and research need to be attuned to this internal variation and the differing circumstances and needs. The initial analysis in this report suggest that Australian-born Maori have higher education levels than their New Zealand-born counterparts living in Australia and are more engaged in higher education in Australia. However, the youthful age structure of the second generation precludes a comprehensive comparison with respect to labour market characteristics and outcomes. While many Maori migrants appear to be living a relatively ‘good life’, earning comparatively high incomes in lower-skilled jobs, theirs is an inherently vulnerable situation given their low levels of education and limited access to social security. Click here to download the report: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/156831/2013-WP3-A-Demographic-Profile-of-Maori-living-in-Australia.pdf