Sustaining Indigenous languages and cultures: Māori medium education in Aotearoa New Zealand and Aboriginal Head Start in Canada

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we examine stakeholder initiatives to revitalise Indigenous languages in two countries, Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada, the countries in which we live and conduct research. We provide a brief overview of the history of systematic Indigenous language and cultural suppression within our two countries, situating Māori Medium Education in Aotearoa New Zealand and Aboriginal Head Start in Canada; initiatives designed to revitalise and sustain Indigenous languages and cultures through the education of children within their generally parallel historical, social and political contexts. We draw on semi-structured interviews and focus group conversations to highlight perspectives of Māori family members and students in Māori Medium Education and of Anishnaabek early childhood educators in northern Ontario Aboriginal Head Start programs. Participants indicate that these programs are making a difference in revitalising and sustaining Indigenous languages and cultures. Our comparison of positive outcomes and challenges that need to be addressed, based on stakeholders participating in initiatives in two countries, can inform broader conversations about Indigenous language revitalisation through initiatives focusing on early childhood education.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous languages
• maori medium education
• Aboriginal Head Start

Language reflects the cultural environment and ways of viewing the world. It is a source of power and a vehicle for expressing identity (Barlow 1991; Reedy 2003). An ability to speak the language and possess knowledge of cultural values, protocols and histories impacts on children’s sense of belonging and acceptance by others. Conversely, one’s inability to speak the language can impact negatively on the development and maintenance of a sense of belonging, identity and acceptance. When languages are lost, world views and cultures are also lost (Skutnabb-Kangas 2008). As the United Nations (2007) affirms: ‘all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind’ (p. 2).

On a more local level, the long history of failures to support Indigenous languages has had a devastating impact on Indigenous children’s identities and learning in our countries (Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada). The suppression of Indigenous languages is not only a historical phenomenon, however (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). In contemporary formal early learning contexts, such as daycare and early child centres, preschools, and primary/elementary classrooms, dominant language communication practices perpetuate Indigenous linguistic and cultural loss (Battiste 2008).

Research shows that children’s learning of their Indigenous languages and Indigenous culture, based on Indigenous Knowledge and taught through Indigenous pedagogies, support and foster a strong sense of Indigenous identity, which contributes to children’s success as learners in school (Duff and Li 2009; Hare and Anderson 2010; Bakken et al. 2017). Indigenous pedagogies are primarily situated within the extended family (whānau in the Māori language). Although Indigenous knowledges vary from community to community, Indigenous Knowledge is broadly understood as comprising:

the complex set of languages, teachings, and technologies developed and sustained by Indigenous civilizations. Often oral and symbolic, it is transmitted through performance and the structure of Indigenous languages and passed on to the next generation through oral tradition in modeling, ceremonies, problem-solving, and animation, rather than through the written word. Indigenous Knowledge is typically embedded in the cumulative experiences and teachings of Indigenous peoples rather than in a library or in journals of applied research. (Battiste 2008, p. 87)

In this paper, we examine initiatives that place Indigenous pedagogies and Indigenous Knowledge at the forefront of early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada, the countries in which we live and conduct research. One important goal of these initiatives is to revitalise Indigenous languages through early childhood education We situate the initiatives, Māori Medium (MM) Education – Te Kōhanga Reo (TKR) in Aotearoa New Zealand, and Aboriginal Head Start in Canada, within the contexts of the history of systematic Indigenous language and cultural suppression within our countries.

We bring together findings from two separate research studies that have somewhat overlapping purposes in our use of interviews to gain stakeholder perspectives of the programs. The New Zealand study addressed this research question:

1. What are the reasons behind parents and whānau choosing Māori medium or English medium education for their children.

The Canadian study addressed these research questions:

1. How do Indigenous early childhood educators in Aboriginal Head Start programs integrate Indigenous cultural practices and languages into their daily teaching?

2. What experiences and factors have supported and hindered their teaching of their ancestral language and culture?

Taking up each study individually, we provide contextual information about the Aotearoa-New Zealand and Ontario, Canada contexts, in terms of the histories of assimilationist school policies that have led to Indigenous language loss. We then describe our research methods and present our findings in relation to teaching and learning Indigenous language and culture within the Māori medium and Aboriginal Head start contexts. A closing discussion brings together the findings from both studies as we propose ways that our comparative work can inform broader conversations about Indigenous language revitalisation through initiatives focusing on early childhood education.

Aotearoa – New Zealand

Te reo Māori – the Māori language

Te Reo Māori is distinctive to Aotearoa, New Zealand. It along with other Polynesian languages are derived from the wider Austronesian language family group, which is the largest language family group in the world, stretching from Madagascar in the west, Rapanui (Easter Island) in the East, Aotearoa/New Zealand in the south, and Taiwan in the north (Harlow 2007). Over time the Austronesian language separated and transformed into many variations and sub groups, ultimately leading to approximately 450 Austronesian languages in Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. Te reo Māori, descends from the Eastern Polynesian dialect of the sub-group known as Central Pacific, along with other Polynesian languages such as Hawaiian, Marquesan, Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Mangarevan, Rapan, Togarevan, and Rarotongan (Anaru 2011; Walworth 2014).

For Māori, te reo is regarded as sacred as it was given to the ancestors by the gods (Barlow 1991). It has a life force, a living vitality and a spirit. Te reo Māori is both a communication and a means of transmitting Māori customs, valued beliefs, knowledge and skills from one person the next, from one generation to the next. It reflects the cultural environment and Māori ways of viewing the world, and is a source of power, and a vehicle for expressing identity (Barlow 1991). An ability, therefore, to speak te reo Māori and possess knowledge of cultural values, protocols and histories can impact on the development and maintenance of a sense of identity, belonging and acceptance.

Assimilationist schooling policies and Māori language loss

The early missionaries believed Māori lived in a state of ‘barbarism’, with inferior intellect, language, and culture, thus in order to save their souls, Māori needed to be civilised and Europeanised (Belich 2001; May 2003; 2005; Harris 2007). The aim of the early mission schools was to interrupt the transmission of Māori culture, te reo Māori and world-views, and replace them with what was perceived as the far superior and civilised European ones, and to transform Māori into ‘Brown Britons’ (Belich 2001).

In 1847, the first Education Act, the Education Ordinance Act, set out the principles for education in New Zealand, and required the use of the English language used in every publicly funded school for instruction. Twenty years later the 1867 Native Schools Act decreed that only the English language be used in the education of Māori. In 1894, the education for Māori became compulsory, meaning that all tamariki were only taught in English and the speaking of te reo Māori in the schools was often punished (Te Puni Kokiri 2018). This eurocentric focus, aimed at cultural subordination, and language domination, led to a decline in te reo Māori speakers and the widespread use of English. A Waitangi Tribunal (2011) report timelines the decline in the use of te reo Māori in the twentieth century:

• In the first quarter century, tamariki spoke te reo Māori at home but, only English at school, often due to fear of punishment;

• In the second quarter century, many adult graduates spoke te reo Māori with other adults but not to their children, whose first language was English; and

• In the third quarter century, monocultural schooling and mass urbanisation resulted in a generation with little or no te reo Māori.

Calman (2012) makes the point that in 1913 over 90% of Māori school children spoke te reo Māori, however by 1975 this figure had fallen to less than 5%. This rapid decline meant that there was a very real danger te reo Māori would become extinct (Benton 1979).

The use of intelligence testing and child studies in the early twentieth century also reinforced educational thinking about the racially inferior Māori child. IQ and mental ability tests were used to confirm the presumption of inferior innate intelligence (Harris 2007). In the 1960s and 1970s attention moved to what was seen as the ‘Māori problem’. Māori children were deemed to use a ‘restricted language code’ and to be ‘suffering a pathology’, resulting from a ‘deficient cultural background’ (Walker 1991, p. 9). Some researchers’ defined Māori children as ‘retarded’ based upon Western models of developmental psychology, with retardation linked to their cultural environments.

The schooling system was maintained over time and continued to be the source of cultural conflict and oppression for tamariki Māori (Harris 2007). Walker (1991, pp. 7–8) claims that ‘this institutionalisation of racism within the Education Department and its schools explains the existence and entrenched nature of the education gap between Māori and Pākehā’ (New Zealanders of British descent). These deficit perspectives of Māori continued to inform and justify successive education policies. ‘State controlled education resulted in Māori being educated within a system that not only devalued them as a people but emphasised the negative features of Māori knowledge and culture’ (Berryman 2008, p. 33).

Initiatives to revitalise language

Kaupapa Māori education grew out of the growing political consciousness and dissatisfaction in the 1970s and 1980s with the positioning of Māori in a deficit educational paradigm. Kaupapa can be translated as; strategy, principle, a way to proceed, a plan or a philosophy. Embedded within the concept of kaupapa is a notion of acting strategically, of proceeding purposively (Smith 1999). Kaupapa Māori is a movement of resistance and of revitalisation, incorporating theories that are embedded within the Māori world (Berryman 2008). Pihama et al. (2004) describe it as not only a resistance strategy but a strategy for nurturing and revitalising te reo Māori and traditions. Benton (1979), stressed how crucial this was when he reported that the numbers of fluent speakers of te reo Māori were declining rapidly. Walker (1996) added that;

Because of that stark revelation, organic leaders and intellectuals were forced to adopt the radical strategy of seceding from mainstream education. They took control of the education of their own children by setting up a parallel system of schooling. The immediate goal was to rescue the Māori language from extinction (p. 165).

By the late 1980s and 1990s, the raised consciousness amongst Māori communities facilitated a Māori revitalisation movement which focused on te reo Māori, cultural philosophies, preferences, aspirations, and practices (Bishop and Glynn 1999; Mahuika 2008). Walker (1996) makes the point that, ‘After twenty-five years of trying to reform the education system from within to make it more bicultural, Māori leaders realised that the co-operative strategy was not effective’ (p. 156). Māori rejected the deficit focus present in previous educational initiatives and policies and stressed Māori autonomy. ‘Kaupapa Māori responded to the dual challenge of imminent te reo Māori death and consequent cultural demise, together with the failure of a succession of government policy initiatives’ (Bishop and Glynn 1999, p. 62). The Kaupapa Māori approach developed across all education fields including Te Kōhanga Reo (ECE), Kura Kaupapa Māori (Primary Schools), Wharekura (Secondary Schools) and Wānanga (Tertiary Institutions) (Bishop and Glynn 1999).

Te Kōhanga Reo, or Māori language nests, were established as a strategy for nurturing and revitalising the te reo Māori, Māori culture and traditions and enhancing life opportunities, access to power and equality of opportunity (Consedine and Consedine 2005; Pihama et al. 2004). The first kōhanga reo was established in April 1982, and by the end of that year the number had grown to 50. The growth of kōhanga reo was rapid and three years later there were 377 and by 1993, 11 years after the first kōhanga reo opened, the numbers had reached 809 (May 2005).

Kura Kaupapa Māori are Māori medium state schools that operate within a Kaupapa Māori philosophy and deliver the curriculum in te reo Māori. The first kura kaupapa Māori, was established in 1985. Like kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa numbers grew rapidly through the 1990s and 2000s and by 2009, there were 73 kura kaupapa with just over 6000 students (Calman 2012). Wharekura or secondary schooling developed from the kura kaupapa as a means of retaining students within a Māori medium environment. Wānanga are Māori tertiary institutions developed to regenerate te reo Māori and Māori knowledge, and to provide kaupapa Māori tertiary education. There are three wānanga with approximately 25,000 full-time students (RNZ 2017). In 2019, some 10,000 students were studying te reo Māori (New Zealand Ministry of Education 2019).

The importance of tamariki enrolling in Māori medium education is underpinned by a New Zealand Ministry of Education (2019) overview which highlights a number of critical points related to how English medium and Māori medium schools deliver for tamariki. The overview states that although incremental gains have been made in Māori educational achievement, in English medium schooling, Māori remain disproportionately represented in the group of children who under-achieved. It states that equity gaps between Māori and non-Māori are persistent and significant, with over 10 percentage points difference between Māori and non-Māori across many whole of system measures, and this increases at higher levels of education. Alternatively, Māori medium schools deliver exceptional results, with Māori achievement rates consistently on par with all in the school populations and significantly higher, between 15 and 20 percentage points, than for Māori in English medium settings.

According to Education Counts, as at 1 July 2020, there were 22,391 students enrolled in Māori medium education, (primary and secondary) representing 2.7% of the total school population, and 294 schools with students enrolled in Māori medium. This is an increase from 2019 numbers of 290 schools and 21,489 students (Education Counts 2019). While the numbers clearly indicate an increase in enrolments in Māori medium education, the increase is not representative on the growing Māori school age population. Furthermore, losses in Māori medium education students tend to occur as students get older and transition through the education system. For example, in 2014, less than half of the 2600 children who transitioned from te kōhanga reo to primary school continued into Māori medium schooling and this pattern was comparable for the move from primary to secondary, with approximately 1000 Year 6 Māori medium students in 2011 leaving Māori medium education within three years. A number of possible reasons for the drop in the percentage of students attending Māori medium education have been suggested, such as: choice, lack of provision, entry requirements, whānau fluency, or whānau might be anxious about whether they would be able to help their tamariki with their schoolwork, convenience or where parents saw their tamariki heading and the belief that mainstream schools offer more opportunities (Wilson 2016).

The research

In 2016, the Ministry of Education funded project, Transition Pathways of Tamariki between Māori medium ECE and Schooling project was undertaken by Dr Richard Hill, Dr Lesley Rameka (University of Waikato) and Dr Mere Skerrett (Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington), to investigate what impacted on whānau choices in relation to Māori Medium education and the journey of their children into and within compulsory schooling. The project aimed to support initiatives to strengthen te reo Māori and the connection of Māori children to

• their identity, language and culture; and

• their ability to achieve success on their own terms throughout their education journey into employment.

The project explored how schools, both English medium and Māori medium, accommodated Māori medium students in transition and what could be done to support Māori medium education to retain students throughout the schooling system.

Method and methodology

The project used a kaupapa Māori methodological approach (Bishop and Glynn 1999; Smith 1999), as the participants were predominantly Māori and the context the research deals with is Māori. Kaupapa Māori theory, methodological principles, and understandings provided the cultural and ethical foundation of the project, locating Māori ways of knowing, being, and doing as central to the research design, process, analysis, and intended outcomes (Berryman 2008; Pihama 2004; Rameka 2015). The research team is committed to kaupapa Māori principles and practices and researching in ways that retain authenticity and adherence to Māori values and beliefs. Māori tikanga were used during the process, including the use of te reo Māori where participants requested.

The project was situated in four regions, with six education providers at the ECE, primary and secondary school levels in each. The participants included: two families from each institution; a group of Māori medium students in their last year at both the primary and secondary levels at each institution; a group of Māori medium, ECE parents from each hub; and ECE centre, and school staff – principals and teachers.

The research utilised individual semi-structured and focus group interviews. Semi-structured interviews enabled the gathering of rich information in a sensitive manner, thus allowing relationships between the researcher and participants to be nurtured. They also provided an element of power to participant voices by providing scope for interview conversations to develop in different directions, and to focus on different topics depending on the wishes and interests of the participants. Although a number of research questions were explored in the research, this article will focus on one:

What are the reasons behind parents and whānau choosing Māori medium or English medium for their child?

Findings

Reasons for choosing Māori medium education

Sense of identity and belonging

For whānau one of the central reasons for choosing Māori medium pathways related to the strong desire that their tamariki learn to stand strong no matter where they go and what they do, be confident, be proud of being Māori, know their genealogy, who they are and where they belong. Whānau viewpoints regarding their tamariki’s sense of identity and belonging include: ‘I really want my kids to stand strong wherever they go. Anywhere in the country, and say ‘this is who I am, this is me … this is my whakapapa (genealogy);’ and ‘So that they can stand strong in the Māori and Pākehā worlds. I don’t care what they do so long as they follow their tupuna’s example – stand bravely.' Te reo Māori was viewed as essential to achieving these aspirations for their children, as was knowledge of culture and protocols of their ancestors and tribes.

A Māori medium education provides Māori children a full education

A common belief amongst whānau in Māori medium settings, was that because Māori medium education aligned with Māori culture, pedagogies and values, it was better able to cater to the educational needs of their tamariki. As one whānau member explained:

I liked … the mature, well-grounded, well-rounded graduates that Māori medium were producing. I really loved it … And I saw in that possibilities and characteristics for my children. So that was one big factor – that I liked the product they were churning out.

Māori medium was also viewed as the best means of enabling tamariki to walk in two worlds and to succeed in both.

Whanaungatanga – relationships

Whānau explained that a key difference between English medium and Māori medium education was the relationships. They felt welcomed and confident to provide input into their tamariki’s education in Māori medium settings, and that the support was there for them and for their tamariki. One whānau member described Māori medium settings as: ‘Where people actually genuinely care about them and want them to do their best, and not sit them at the back of the class because they are brown and have low expectations.’ Another whānau member stated: ‘We expect them to succeed because they’ve got support, whereas in mainstream, we don’t have much input … So it’s actually a friendlier environment.’ In Māori medium settings, there was a strong sense of being whānau and being at home.

Retention and revitalisation of te reo Māori

The need to retain and revitalise te reo Māori was a hugely important factor in choosing a Māori medium pathway for tamariki, as one whānau member explained:

I know that revitalisation of te reo Māori is important to our people. That would be the sole reason why. If, we don’t speak Māori, it’s going to get lost, and we might as well all be Pākehā and speak English for the rest of our lives.

Another whānau member said, ‘The reo is dying, and I don’t want it dying in my era.' Participants emphasised the importance of te reo Māori to ‘being Māori’, and countering the impact of the loss of te reo Māori on Māori identity.

Parents missed out on learning te reo Māori

A particularly strong driver for whānau was that they had missed out on learning te reo Māori themselves, when growing up and did not want their tamariki to miss out. As explained by one whānau member, ‘Because I was brought up without the reo … and I felt that my kids were missing out on something I couldn’t give them.' Another whānau member emphasised that when they were growing up there was no Māori medium education option, recalling: ‘I missed out heaps … when we go to the marae … there’s only certain bits I grasp … and that's what I don’t want for my kids.' When they were children, questions circulated about the value of learning te reo Māori. This resulted in them sometimes feeling embarrassed, lacking confidence, and not being able to understand what is going on in Māori speaking contexts. This was not what they wanted for their tamariki and mokopuna (grandchildren), as expressed by one kuia (grandmother): ‘I was brought up in a world where there was no reo. I was brought up by my uncle. He believed … you're better off to speak English … and now I want them (mokopuna) to speak Māori.’

Reasons for choosing English medium education

Perceptions that English medium offered more opportunities

English medium was viewed by some whānau and tamariki as offering a broader range of learning opportunities, whereas Māori medium did not offer enough. A tamaiti makes the point that: ‘There’s more options here … subject choices and stuff.' Career opportunities were a significant motivation for tamariki choosing to transition to English medium secondary schools. One tamaiti said, ‘I want to be a veterinarian … they don’t have a Physics teacher (Māori medium) … So, some of the Year 12 and 13s have to come down here (English medium secondary school) for classes. In a similar vein, another tamaiti explained, ‘I want to go to uni and become a physiotherapist … so at (Māori medium) sometimes they can’t provide teachers for certain subjects, so we have to do online teaching and that was hard.’

Because Māori medium schools tended to be smaller, they were not able to offer the same range of sports opportunities that could be experienced in larger English medium schools. Sports were important, as one tamaiti explained: ‘And it’s really just because … we wanted to do different things … to get involved with all the sports.' Another tamaiti reinforced this notion by saying: ‘So we wanted to get involved with all the sports … I think our main reasons is just education and sports really. But (Māori medium), we’re not big enough to make those teams.'

Easier options

Whānau explained that they were uncertain about which schooling option was right, and viewed English medium as the safer and easier option. The expectation of high levels of support and commitment by families to Māori medium was an issue. Mainstream English medium schools and ECE services were viewed as easier options than the Māori medium as they didn’t require the same level of involvement and commitment by families. Whānau members explained: ‘ … with the mainstream you pretty much know what’s expected of you. There’s not so much pressure on you as a parent. I found a great relief in putting him into the mainstream.' Another whānau member added to this perspective stating, ‘I think we all have to weigh up as parents … That level of commitment that you don’t have, in any other (school). It’s the ability of the whānau to support everything.’

Parents do not speak te reo Māori

One of the main barriers for whānau choosing English medium pathways for their children was that families don’t have te reo Māori. A teacher explained,

You know, you hear so much that, ‘I’m so sorry, I don’t speak, I don’t speak.’ And I think a lot of parents don’t go to kura because they’re scared of that. And they haven’t yet taken on the reo.

The Eurocentric, New Zealand education system has consistently failed tamariki Māori, resulting in significant educational underachievement and declining abilities to speak te reo Māori. What is clear, is that Māori medium education provides a pathway for Māori educational achievement, and language revitalisation, supporting the personal, educational, socio-cultural and linguistic development of Māori tamariki and whānau. It therefore must be championed and fully supported if the history of cultural dislocation, deprivation and subjugation for Māori, is not to be perpetuated into the future.

As we show in the next section on Aboriginal Head Start as a response to assimilationist language and educational policies and pedagogies in Canada, the colonisation experiences leading to loss of Indigenous language, culture and identity are mirrored in both hemispheres.

Assimilationist schooling policies and Indigenous language loss

Many decades of assimilative policies and practices of successive Canadian governments have led to the current context where, in the 2016 census, 260,550 or 21% of Indigenous peoples living in Canada, indicated that they could speak their language well enough to hold a conversation. Residential schools, in operation from 1880 to the latter part of the twentieth century (the last school closed in 1996), had the greatest impact on Indigenous language loss in Canada. Indigenous children were violently torn from their families and forced to attend residential schools. While living in residence throughout the 10 months of the school year, they were punished for speaking their own languages and forbidden from interacting with family members (Hare and Anderson 2010; Ball and Lewis 2011). The assimilative goals and practices were rationalised as being necessary because an inability to speak English was deemed, by the Department of Indian Affairs to be a disability (Milloy 2017).

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was established in 2008 with the mandate to inform all Canadians about what happened in residential schools. Many generations of non-Indigenous and Indigenous Canadians have gone through formal schooling without this knowledge. Along with a formal statement of apology from the Prime Minister of Canada in 2008 (Government of Canada 2008), this was the first official acknowledgement of ‘the injustices and harms experienced by Aboriginal people and the need for continued healing’ (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015).

Today there are more than 70 Indigenous languages in Canada, within 12 language families. Cree is spoken by the greatest number of people (96,575 speakers). The two languages spoken by Indigenous early childhood educators whose experiences are highlighted in this paper, Anishnaabemowin and Oji-Cree, are spoken by 28,130 and 15,585 speakers respectively (Statistics Canada 2019). All three are part of the Algonquian family of languages.

Contemporary schooling

Education in Indigenous communities is funded federally and administered locally by a Board of Education elected by community members. Each province and territory has control over all aspects of non-Indigenous publicly-funded education in its jurisdiction. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) calls to action include providing funding for schools in Indigenous communities that is equivalent to that of public schools.

Whether Indigenous children in Canada attend federally funded schools in their Indigenous communities or provincially-funded schools outside their communities, their teachers follow a provincially-developed curriculum. Through her research, the Canadian author has been introduced to northern Indigenous communities that offer immersion kindergarten programs, where the community’s Indigenous language is spoken by the teacher and children are encouraged to use the language throughout the day. For the most part, however, Indigenous children are taught in English or French, Canada’s official languages. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) calls for culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Indigenous children have led to initiatives to provide more substantive teaching of Indigenous languages and culture (e.g. First Peoples’ Cultural Council 2016). In the author’s experience, some Indigenous schools offer a class called cultural is taught regularly (e.g. every other week) by community Knowledge Keepers and Elders. Usually held on the land, cultural class is a time for children to learn the language, stories, teachings and practices of their community through traditional teaching methods (Peterson and Horton 2019). Additionally, there are initiatives by entities such as the Canadian School Boards Association (2020), faculties of education and provincial school boards to Indigenise the curriculum. In 2018, for example, the Council of Ministers of Education held a symposium on Indigenising teacher education across the country. As indicated in a summary report, Indigenising teacher education is important for creating ‘Indigenizing teacher education programs is important not only to build capacity for all teachers, but also to create learning environments that are more welcoming to Indigenous students. It can also facilitate ‘reconciliation through education’ by incorporating Indigenous ways of knowing and being in all classrooms (Council of Ministers of Education 2018, p. 1). These more recent initiatives follow from the report and calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. More than two decades prior to these calls, however, Aboriginal Head Start was initiated, as described in the following section.

Aboriginal Head Start, an initiative supporting Indigenous language and culture revitalisation

Initiated in 1995, the Aboriginal Head Start program is a federally-funded Canadian early childhood program for children aged 3–5 years old, first offered to urban and northern communities and then expanded to on-reserve communities in 1998 (Ontario Aboriginal Head Start Association 2018). Aboriginal Head Start was created to provide Indigenous language and cultural teachings as part of the early learning experience of Indigenous children in Canada. With the goal of reflecting local child-rearing practices and cultures in the programs, parents, caregivers, and local community members are encouraged to participate in developing, planning, operating, and evaluating programs (Preston 2008; Nguyen 2011). There are six mandatory program components: parental involvement; culture and language; education and school readiness, health promotion; nutrition, and social support (Ontario Aboriginal Head Start Association 2018). In a study that involved 24 Aboriginal communities and about 400 parents, early childhood educators, administrators, and community members, Barrieau and Ireland (2003) found that children who took part in Aboriginal Head Start demonstrated increased independence, self-esteem, and demonstrated greater fluency in their Indigenous languages than did their peers who had not attended an Aboriginal Head Start program.

The research

The Canadian research project involved early childhood educators who teach in northern Ontario Aboriginal Head Start programs. The educators were among dozens of practitioner-researchers in a multi-year collaborative action research project spanning two provinces. The purpose of the larger study was to support young children’s language and literacy through experiential/play-based activities. The branch of this study reported in this paper used interview data to examine how Indigenous early childhood educators integrate Indigenous pedagogies, cultural knowledge and language into their Aboriginal Head Start program, and to identify the supports and barriers that have influenced their language and cultural revitalisation practices.

Methods

Participants are four female Indigenous early childhood educators in two Aboriginal Head Start programs in northern Ontario, one in a fly-in northern Indigenous community and the other in a northern urban community. Early childhood educators had from 2 to 16 years of experience in Indigenous early years settings. Over a period of three years, the four of us conducted collaborative action research to develop culturally-based play activities that drew on their communities’ Indigenous languages and cultures. We met in their respective Aboriginal Head Start schools to talk about children’s Indigenous cultural learning demonstrated in their dramatic play. Early childhood educators implemented their projects, gathering data through video-recordings. Then, using an iPod placed on a tripod, they video-recorded play interactions of children whose parents had given consent. In follow-up collaborative action research meetings, we viewed the videos and discussed what we observed of children’s Indigenous language and cultural learning. Based on these discussions, early childhood educators tweaked their action research initiative or started a new initiative.

Toward the end of our collaborative action research, I interviewed the educators, asking about the ways they integrated the Indigenous Knowledge and language of their communities and about supports and barriers to their implementation. Additional data sources are notes from conversations during the collaborative action research meetings where early childhood educators talked about what they observed in the video-recordings they had taken of their interactions with children, in terms of what children showed about their Indigenous language and cultural knowledge. Using inductive analysis, patterns based on the two research questions, were determined. These patterns that are described, with examples from the data, in the following section.

Findings

Early childhood educators’ integration of Indigenous knowledge in play contexts

Three early childhood educators’ initiatives involved a house center with Indigenous dolls, baby blankets and tikinagans, as well as pictures of babies in tikinagans (a cradle board) and family members carrying babies on their back in a tikinagan. Printed descriptions included words in Anishnaabemowein: Kokum (Grandma) and Mishomis (Grandpa). One early childhood educator took children onto the land to set up rabbit snares and then created a forest center for children to explore traditional hunting practices and ways in which animals build shelters in the winter. Participating early childhood educators played various roles in the play, interacting with children using their community’s Indigenous language and providing Indigenous teachings, such as how to swaddle a baby in a tikinagan.

In our conversations about video-recordings of children’s play in these Indigenous culturally-influenced play activities, we noted that children imitated the Indigenous cultural practices that the early childhood educators had demonstrated whenever they were part of the play. Children showed understanding of Anishnaabemowin words but did not speak them in their play interactions.

Influential, supportive experiences

The four early childhood educators talked about memorable childhood experiences that were influential to their work with young children. They told stories about their memories of relatives and community members whose ways of interacting with children have influenced their work in the Aboriginal Head Start setting. They also talked about their confidence in using their Indigenous language, Anishnaabemowin, in their Aboriginal Head Start classrooms. Their stories showed how family and community members had passed on the teachings of the land in their childhoods.

Participants remembered family and community gatherings, and storytelling while on the land. Powwows and camping in the bush for days with family members in order to pick blueberries or pine cones, to harvest wild rice, or to hunt or trap, and later dry the meat and skins of moose and other animals. Through watching and doing alongside family members, participating early childhood educators learned traditional skills and knowledge. They endeavoured to pass on the teachings to the children in their Aboriginal Head Start classrooms by using Indigenous teaching practices. They found, in the analysis of the videos of children engaged in play, that adults’ modelling of cultural practices and contextualised use of Anishnaabemowin, supports children’s development of funds of Indigenous cultural knowledge. They observed that the children drew upon these funds of knowledge in their dramatic play.

Factors limiting early childhood educators’ teaching of Indigenous language

Participating early childhood educators talked of their need to learn Anishnaabemowin better. They felt that their teaching of Anishnaabemowin was limited because English was their mother tongue and it was difficult to find fluent speakers who could teach them their language. They were concerned that their limited knowledge of Anishnaabemowin was hindering children’s learning of the language. Early childhood educators explained that the Indigenous words and expressions used in interactions with children in their classrooms were limited to names of animals and everyday expressions.

They had been making every possible effort to learn Anishnaabemowin, picking up phrases from fellow Aboriginal Head Start educators and others in their professional and social network. One early childhood educator had taken Anishnaabemowin classes, but was disappointed in the level of language fluency that was possible because of the approach employed by the language teacher. She was frustrated that names of animals were the first words taught whenever she took a class. The intergenerational loss of Indigenous languages described in reports (e.g. Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures 2005; Hare and Anderson 2010) is in evidence in participating early childhood educators’ lives.

Conclusions and implications: bringing together two studies from Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada

There are many similarities in the histories of Māori language speakers and those speaking Indigenous languages in northern Ontario (Belich 2001; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015; Te Puni Kokiri 2018). In both contexts, Indigenous language medium education is vital to the development of positive identities and a sense of belonging (Reedy 2003; Duff and Li 2009). As our paper shows, there is a clear difference between the vitality of te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand and that of Indigenous languages in northern Ontario, Canada, however. Opportunities for parents to have their children in Māori medium education are much more plentiful than opportunities for Indigenous parents in Ontario to have their children learn in their Indigenous languages.

One of the calls to action arising from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) findings in Canada is to ensure that Indigenous community members are at the forefront of supporting Indigenous language and culture revitalisation. This is reflected in the mandates and practices within Indigenous educational settings such as Aboriginal Head Start in Canada, and Māori Medium Schools in New Zealand. Indigenous teachers transmit the teachings and other cultural knowledge that they learned as children. In this way, Indigenous language, culture and identity are normalised within the educational system.

Using Indigenous ways of knowing and Indigenous languages in everyday teaching fosters Indigenous children’s strong sense of identity, deepens their cultural knowledge and enhances their confidence in speaking and understanding their Indigenous language (Reedy 2003; Duff and Li 2009; Hare and Anderson 2010). Indigenous early childhood educators in northern Ontario and parents in Aotearoa New Zealand spoke with one voice when they told us in interviews and focus groups that a strong grounding in their Indigenous languages enables Indigenous children to walk competently and confidently in the Indigenous world and in the global world. In the case of the Māori children, their confidence is apparent in the way that they conduct themselves and are able to understand the different Māori contexts in which they find themselves. The Anishnabeq children in Canadian Aboriginal Head Start classrooms imitated Indigenous cultural practices that the early childhood educators and showed understanding of Anishnaabemowin through their interactions with early childhood educators and peers.

The need to revitalise Indigenous language and culture through the education of young children has arisen through a history of assimilative language and education policies in both countries (Belich 2001; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015; Te Puni Kokiri 2018).

Participants in our research in New Zealand and in Canada talked about the devastating outcomes of these policies. Māori parents enrolled their children in Māori Medium Schools out of a desire to ensure that their children would not miss out on learning their Māori language and culture, as their parents had when they were children. Canadian Anishnabeq early childhood educators were concerned that their limited knowledge of Anishnaabemowin was a barrier to children’s learning of the language in their Aboriginal Head Start programs.

When perspectives of whānau are added to conversations about early childhood initiatives, as they were in the New Zealand study, further considerations for enhancing the potential of these initiatives to support language and cultural revitalisation become apparent. Information should be provided about what families can expect from the Indigenous language and cultural revitalisation programs. Additionally, processes to support a sense of connectedness with whānau, including making Indigenous language and cultural learning opportunities available for all family members, should be developed.

Given the parallels in experiences of Māori parents whose children are enrolled in Māori medium schools with those of Indigenous early childhood educators teaching Aboriginal Head Start in Ontario, Canada, we believe that our paper highlights the need to consider local contexts, and at the same time, to share the wealth of knowledge and research that exists around the world. Designing initiatives to revitalise and sustain Indigenous languages should honour local Indigenous languages, dialects and cultures. At the same time, there is value in learning from experiences and initiatives of Indigenous peoples in other countries, as we have learned from each other through comparative research with stakeholders in two early childhood contexts whose goals are Indigenous language and cultural revitalisation.

Acknowledgements

As a settler, living and sharing knowledge while inhabiting ancestral territory of Indigenous peoples, the Canadian author acknowledges and honours the histories, languages, cultures, and spirituality of the Indigenous peoples who have walked on this land for generations. She also wishes to thank the early childhood educators and children who participated in the research study and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, that funded the research through a Partnership Grant.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).