Achievement and Retention of Māori Students in Science in English Medium Secondary Schools

Achievement of Māori students in Year 11 science in mainstream state schools has been an enduring educational problem in New Zealand when compared with students of other ethnicities. There has been a slight improvement in the National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA) Level 1 results for these students but raising their achievement in science continues to be a policy focus for the Ministry of Education; an aim yet to be realised. My research aimed to investigate which teacher beliefs and practices, and school structures and policies, were helpful in raising Māori students’ achievement in science and retaining Māori students in senior school sciences.

This qualitative research, which took the form of an interpretive case study, was framed around a single case design with two units of analysis. The kaupapa Māori theoretical approach (KMT) and culturally responsive theory (CRT) were used as the theoretical frames. The KMT approach, which underpins the educational philosophy of Māori-medium schools, was used to explore whether some or all the six principles of KMT were evident in schools where Māori students were successful in science. These principles included: tino rangatiratanga (self-determination); taonga tuku iho (cultural aspirations); ako Māori (culturally preferred pedagogy); kia piki ake i nga raruraru o te kainga (socioeconomic mediation); whānau (extended family structure); and kaupapa (collective philosophy). This framework was used in analysis and very few examples of these principles were evident.

School science was taught within the constructivist science curriculum in New Zealand and the data collected were also analysed using the constructivist pedagogical practices.

All schools in the greater Wellington region that had at least 15 percent of their student roll identifying as Māori were approached. After approaching all schools twice, two schools agreed to participate. Other schools offered reasons for turning down the invitation to participate, such as having inexperienced teachers, or the Education Review Office was visiting. The principals of the two participating schools were asked to select a teacher, whose Māori students were successful in science; thus, it was a purposive sample. Data were collected through interviews with senior management, teacher interviews, Year 11 student focus group interviews, classroom observations, a Year 12 student questionnaire, and NCEA Level 1 science results. Data were analysed thematically using KMT and CRT frameworks.

The research found that both schools had enabling structures in place for Māori students to succeed and continue in science. The students were proud to identify as Māori. Teachers had high expectations of student engagement and achievement, and a strong belief that, with support, all students could achieve. In preparing students for assessment, teachers did not see any need for practical work to support students’ understanding of science concepts.

Teachers were aware of the deficit views of Māori students in the school and the community, but they did not believe that Māori students needed to be given special treatment. It was concerning that one experienced teacher did not understand that New Zealand is constitutionally bicultural even if its society is multicultural. It was also disturbing that some students believed their teachers thought they were dumb even when they achieved.

Students did not want to disappoint their parents and acknowledged having a fear of failing. They expressed needing science content to be explained and clarified to help them understand the science ideas underpinning the assessed practical work. The most common reasons Year 12 students gave for continuing in science were: future study; career options; and teacher encouragement. A reassuring finding was that students appeared to be making informed choices in selecting to continue with science.

Findings of concern were that teachers provided guidance on what students needed to write to achieve NCEA credits without developing students’ necessary understanding of science ideas. Consequently, the learning purpose in the assessment preparation lessons observed was reduced to achieving NCEA credits.