|
Download this page as a printable PDF (120Kb)
Specific delivery issues
Compulsory or not?
Mixed groups or teams together?
Separate group for Maori participants?
How long to get everyone through?
Tikanga or Treaty first?
Inside or outside facilitator?
Maori or tauiwi facilitator?
How many hours?
Assessment?
Format
Group process
Introduction
I assume Treaty education objectives are -
 Motivating staff to want to act on the Treaty
Empowering staff to feel able to act.
Necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) conditions for organisations attempting to incorporate a Treaty commitment into their structures and culture seem to be -
Commitment at senior levels (management or governance, preferably both)
A mechanism for ensuring rest of the organisation is engaged
A meaningful relationship between the senior level and a strong Maori group, either inside or outside the organisation, which is important to the senior level for organisational or personal reasons.
 top
The primary contribution of an education programme is to engage all of the organisation. It cannot effect the changes on its own - appropriate organisational policies, ownership by the organisation and clear management support for “early adopters” are also needed.
Management involvement needs to be before or concurrent with the rest of the staff, not after.
We have reasonably strong evidence that basic Treaty education workshops do have a significant impact on people’s understanding of the issues; we have very little evidence about its impact on participants’ attitudes. The impact on behaviour and work practice depends on further workshops focusing on implementation and on organisational support, including the availability of time and other resources, and acknowledgement of achievement.
top
I personally believe we should be careful about -
Use of the term “Maori” which masks the different perspectives, values and experiences of the many iwi and hapu
Assuming only the Treaty as the basis of the relationship between indigenous people and the government. Some hapu didn’t sign Te Tiriti and some see the Declaration of Independence or first peoples’ rights as the basis of the relationship.
Using “principles” interchangeably with “articles” – the Treaty has articles, only one party to the Treaty is defining principles
Casual use of the term “partnership” – this is not what the Treaty actually says
Interpretation of the Treaty as a “bicultural” document. Treaties are between sovereign political entities, so “bilateral” is more accurate and makes it easier to address some of the issues about the foreshore and multiculturalism.
Principles of successful education programmes
Successful programmes work with people’s current personal and job experiences, values and mis/information, and provide enough challenge to extend them
Disorienting dilemmas create the most effective challenges (for example, instances of racist laws create dilemmas for people who believe that New Zealand has a good race relations record)
Participants must feel safe enough to move into unknown territory. The use of the “wave” diagramme about different perceptions of an issue at the beginning is useful.
Course content needs to be relevant to participants’ work or personal interests and engaging to create positive attitude, but most people don’t remember many specifics from a one-off workshop. They can learn more deeply if the issue is regularly reconsidered in work activities or in other workshops. Participants’ sense of a positive relationship with the facilitator is important, and thus it is important to match facilitators with groups.
top
Specific delivery issues
Compulsory or not?
Research a few years ago across a range of organisations indicated that about 80% of people at the first session of workshops that required attendance were opposed to being there and would not have come if it were not compulsory. However, by the end of the 10-hour workshops at least 70% of the participants felt that attendance should be required of everyone. So, avoid “compulsory” (which antagonises people) and use something like “management expects participation”.
The induction process is very good place to include Treaty education as people are very receptive to learning the organisation’s culture. However, it is important that this message continues, and it is not just heard at induction.
Research in one large organisation where participation is voluntary shows that initially the “converted” attended, but then those who were interested but felt ignorant came, and after five years of delivery several times a year people came because they felt out of step with colleagues who were relatively knowledgeable.
If most or all staff are expected to participate, the organisation needs to take into account the rate of staff turnover in estimating how often and for how long workshops need to be delivered.
top
Mixed groups or teams together?
General background workshops are effective with either a mix of people from across the organisation or people attending by sections.
If there is a wide disparity of existing knowledge or commitment about the Treaty, it is much more effective to have like-minded people together.
If workshops are focussed on strategising for action, it seems to be more effective if participants attend with workmates or those with similar types of work.
Separate group for Maori participants?
Obviously this decision is for Maori to make; there can be strong feelings either way. Separate workshops allows exploration of feelings in a safer environment, and different content emphasis; combined workshops enable Maori to experience tauiwi reactions.
If it is separate, the decision must be presented to tauiwi by tauiwi, not left to Maori to explain or defend. The “wave” diagramme can be useful in doing this.
top
How long to get everyone through?
In one institution with good commitment and organisation, 400 people attended three workshops, a total of 36 hours, within a six-month period without undue disruption to the organisation’s public service delivery.
In a perhaps more typical organisation, more than 800 people attended an introductory workshop and more than 250 a follow-on workshop within a five-year period.
Tikanga or Treaty first?
For some people workshops about culture definitely work better first and for others Treaty; for most it doesn’t seem to matter. Maori facilitators tend to find delivery of the culture sessions easier if participants have done a Treaty workshop first.
Inside or outside facilitator?
In-house facilitators can ensure that workshops are more relevant to the organisation but may have trouble establishing their credibility as Treaty “experts”. If there are disagreements at a workshop then they can affect the organisation.
The most important factor is the competence of the facilitator
It is better to do no Treaty education than risk doing it with an inexperienced or incompetent facilitator, as staff memory of one bad workshop is very long, creates amazing resistance and can undermine years of positive work.
top
Maori or tauiwi facilitator?
Obviously the ideal is to have both, preferably sequentially, but usually time or budgets don’t allow for that.
I work from the principle that the Treaty is a tauiwi issue; it doesn’t really provide much for tangata whenua that they didn’t already have.
I argue for tauiwi facilitators because -
Te Tiriti is primarily of benefit to tauiwi so we have to do, and be seen to be doing, the work. Having a Maori facilitator reinforces the idea that it’s “a Maori thing” or it is about “us choosing whether to be nice to Maori”.
Tauiwi usually have better credibility with participants, some of whom may think that “of course Maori would say that”
Maori facilitators have asked tauiwi to do it
There are very few Maori facilitators available to do this huge amount of work
Some tauiwi participants are hesitant to raise difficult issues with a Maori facilitator as they don’t want to offend.
But, whoever they are, facilitators should have accountabilities to tangata whenua groups and need to be able to establish positive connection with the participants.
top
How many hours?
This is determined by three related variables – participants’ prior knowledge, which is generally low; the expected outcomes of the workshop; and the length of time available. If groups specify any two of these I can advise about what is needed for the third variable.
12-hour workshops are enough to address the main points for most adult audiences, allowing for some discussion of current issues
Most people are very busy so it is important to acknowledge whatever time they are taking to participate.
Assessment?
Obviously assessment is good way of measuring what people have learned but -
High and low assessment results do not seem to correlate with later understanding
Some people are so preoccupied with assessment that they don’t engage with the material generally
Where people have a choice about assessment, very few do it. Attendance certificates seem valued but certificates showing “competence” are not.
It is important to be seen to have a system for recognising “current competence”. For example, not asking people to attend workshops covering material they already know; this also contributes to resistance.
As most people think they know more than they do, levels of knowledge need to be checked. For example, even relatively long university courses usually do not prepare people to engage with what the Treaty means to themselves, their work or organisation.
top
Format
There should be time between sessions for participants to digest new information, to talk with others and formulate questions
Usually people cannot engage effectively for more than half a day and are more alert in the morning
I recommend four three-hour or three four-hour morning sessions, preferably at least two days but not more than one week apart.
Most people are very keen to have certificates; nice morning teas show organisational support. For substantial workshops, a kete or binder will be needed for handouts.
Group process
Set confidentiality guidelines so people feel safe to explore “non-PC” ideas
Misinformation from participants needs to be corrected so that others in the group don’t accept it as fact, without telling the participant directly that they are wrong
It is good to explore differences but try to avoid arguments with or between specific participants; this can make the rest of group very uncomfortable and is usually not productive
Don’t allow general discussion or debate until all members of the group have basic information, otherwise many participants are left out.
Download this page as a printable PDF (120Kb)
top
|
