Activity 4: Indigenous Knowledge &Cultural responsiveness

Savage, Hindle, Meyer, Hynds, Penetito & Sleeter (2011) suggest in New Zealand disparities exist between the indigenous Māori and New Zealand European as Western practice prevail in our education system. They even suggest that schools that reflect a dominant culture represent invisible cultures that can privilege students who share that same cultural identities whilst simultaneously disadvantaging students who have a different culture.

Having taught in predominantly New Zealand European schools where Western Practices prevail I would reflectively say that the above is so. When I was a young teacher in the early 1980s I never really fully understood what cultural responsiveness meant or even looked like. I have very much valued the readings this week and can relate well to Bishops (2012) comments in regards to building on ākonga prior cultural knowledge and caring for Māori as Māori. I would extend this to caring for the person as the person for this responsive pedagogy is true for all ethnicity.

At teachers college in the early 1980s there was little training in diversity and indigenous culture... it was merely an option. I was influenced by early teacher mentors that represented European New Zealand. Being an immigrant myself to New Zealand I remember changing how I spoke some words so as to sound like my students when I was in teacher training... and remember vividly as a young english girl in class being laughed at by my teacher and peers for speaking "funny". At this time there was little cultural sensitivity.

It is not until I became a teacher at BLENNZ that I really understood and embraced the meaning of cultural responsiveness as a teacher. I have been privileged to visit many schools and have seen both successes and challenges that teachers have faced in developing culturally responsive programmes. I am still not confident or proficient in fully understanding Māori as Māori as this is not really spoken about within our Centre which is part of a National school.

Many of our BLENNZ ākonga have individual plans (IEP) with goals that are regularly updated, discussed and next steps planned for. Input is increasingly from student voice; whānau/families are partners in learning with RTV and class teachers. Each IEP can look very different as each child or young person has quite different needs. 

Immersion courses and curriculum days are regularly held throughout the year. These courses are tailored to individual needs of small groups and are learner centred where ākonga have voice and input. Diversity is encouraged and Resource teacher Vision (RTV) respond to needs and co-ordinate and listen to whānau/family and school.

As a RTV the most successful partnerships formed have been those that value relationships. Sometimes these may be seen in the family home, at school in the staff room, supporting at eye appointments, via phone or emails, joining ākonga in things that are important to them, or just as a sounding board for all.

I never assume how I should communicate within the team but always ask how they would like communication. For each person this too can look and feel quite different. You see, regardless of the predominant school culture everyone is an individual and need to feel respected and valued for who they are.

Our BLENNZ philosophy is to develop life-long learners based upon building long relationships and in supporting ākonga/students in their educational setting of choice. This means that as an RTV we need to be responsive and adapt our approach to those environmental and cultural needs.

At national level BLENNZ is getting better at promoting Māori learners as Māori. This is seen at our lead school in Auckland which has strengthened relationships with local iwi in order to promote success for all Māori, plus to raise the profile of biculturalism across the network (ERO, 2017)

In Christchurch our indigenous responsive pedagogy is evolving but I believe at this local level we could do better. Sure, many of us have done courses in Te Reo, Treaty of Waitangi, and share pepeha, attend powhiri, join in at schools with karakia and waiata and can get support from colleagues if we need help but it is on an individual basis rather than good plan and collaboration within our centre.

I do believe we try the best we can to respond to individual needs but have not got embedded bicultural practice. Individuals have best practice but at leadership levels this has not been utilised as could be. At times we have tried but then drift back to our New Zealand European predominant culture.

Being under the umbrella of a National school with a board of trustees BLENNZ is now working hard to address these gaps. First with a review of existing documentation to be used as a basis for a BLENNZ teacher inquiry into current practice and then results will be used to inform the next steps to aid RTV in developing culturally responsive pedagogy

References
BLENNZ ERO report (2017) http://www.ero.govt.nz/review-reports/blind-and-low-vision-education-network-nz-18-01-2017/

Edtalks.(2012, September 23). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file].Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/49992994

Gay,G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),106-116Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198.
Savage, C, Hindle, R., Meyer L.H, Hynds, A., Penetito, W., Sleeter C., (2011) Culturally responsive pedagogies within the classroom: indigenous student experience across the curriculum.

Unitec. (n.d). Learning and Teaching at Unitec Institute of Technology: Unitec Poutama Tool. http://www.unitec.ac.nz/ahimura/publications/Poutama%20for%20Distribution%20and%20Publication.pdf

Activity 3:Broader Professional Context

90% of digital data in the world today was created in the last two years.
The above statement triggered me into thinking about my priority learners who are blind, low vision and deaf/blind who face barriers to learning on a daily basis due to limited accessibility to class materials. I was forced to ponder over statements which I have heard recently from different people:

"They turned me down from the course because it wasn't accessible".

"He's decided to come back to school because the course he wanted to do wasn't accessible."

You would think by now if digital data was being produced and updated at a fast rate then accessibility would be well and truly embedded at the design stage of production. Alas, in many cases this is still not the case and impact of this is evident for our priority learners.

Stoop (2012) states successful schools focused on adapting systems, programmes and resources to meet the needs of priority learners, but didn't go on to say "how" they did this. What if those resources could be produced without needing much adaptation? This could mean time saved and teacher focus more on teaching and learning rather than hunting and adapting.

With the advent of technology use in BYOD classes I believe discussions need to be had about accessibility and the positive impact such could have on priority learners. Learning experiences could be easier for all with an increased ability for individual access to many resources so that true inclusiveness can happen in learning.

Enabling technology can still be a myth for many priority learners due to lack of accessibility. Web accessibility refers to the inclusive practice of removing barriers that prevent interaction with, or access to websites, by people with disabilities. These disabilities may include: vision, hearing, dyslexia, motor disorders, developmental delay and so on. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, all users have equal access to information.

Eight years ago when I first started supporting a low vision learner I remember being told off by the class teacher. I was whispering what was on the whiteboard. "Who is that talking?" she exclaimed as she turned from the board...(I laugh now).

At this time, and really it wasn't that long ago, access to whiteboards was limited and either required peer/teacher support and/or expensive technology. Laptops were often slow and cumbersome and the learner was usually the only one in class with an assistive device which was mostly used as a replacement for pen and paper. Oh how things have changed.

Most students have devices now. The internet has a huge potential to revolutionise how people with disability work and have access to information but if we are not careful we can be placing more obstacles in front of these learners. These obstacles can lead to disengagement and labelling as lazy or unmotivated.

Often web sites/digital documents are not made accessible. That is, they cannot be used, for example by screen reader users or for enabling large print. At leadership and teacher level we may not know or understand what accessibility really means or looks like for some priority learners and thus have never considered this when making or purchasing resources. At BLENNZ school we are still trying to get our heads around this too.

Many schools who are unaware of web and document accessibility and who promote certain "one size fits all" devices and programmes for ease of management may without realising it be making school less inclusive for some priority learners. 

• Why isn't all data being made accessible at the design stage? 
• Why aren't new laptops being made with built in default settings?

I wonder will I be asking the same questions in two years?

if you would like to find out how to make and check accessible documents follow the link

Activity 2 : Current issues in my professional context

                                                                                

Werner (2015) states every school has its own personality, has its own feel. Something that is very apparent the moment you walk through the door. She challenges us to think: How does it feel?

As a Resource Teacher Vision (RTV) working for BLENNZ, a National school supporting learners that are blind, low vision or deaf/blind, I go into many schools as an itinerant. I sense the feeling of these schools I go into.There is an incredible array of differences, whether mainstream, high or low decile, in special units attached to a school, private and/or special character schools. The underlying factor of the students I see and work with in these schools is not defined by their families socioeconomic status (SES) but by their ability to see.

BLENNZ RTV support is not governed by SES but based upon the rating which the student is given as defined by the Ministry of Education guidelines or BLENNZ moderate rating for their visual needs. There is currently no data that has been collated defining what SES families fit or how our BLENNZ students as a group succeed academically against their sighted peers or those of similar SES. This would be interesting as it may give insight into what added value an RTV support, which works in partnership with whānau, educators and community may give these learners to reach their potential growth. My hunch, when partnerships work well, is that if materials are accessible and students are given enough time to complete work results would be more favourable than being left without support.

Our BLENNZ vision is: Equity through access: opening doors so all may learn. Our key value is to strive for an inclusive society by the removal of barriers (BLENNZ Charter, 2015). These barriers may look different for each individual learner and whānau.
In my professional environment BLENNZ to me represents a culture of support. Sometimes I think we may even be too supportive and giving. There is a fine line between empowering and disempowering learners, whānau  and educators; a tightrope we walk. I do believe that the key value of striving for inclusiveness through accessibility and removing barriers is in fact a right for all learners and needs to be built into all resources at the design level.

Stoll (1998) places the importance of understanding school culture as a starting point for leading change. Hongboontri and Keawkhong (2014) show that school culture impacts on teacher beliefs and instructional practices. Dunkelblau (2015) believes that a climate and culture of a place is made up of the people in it, he says; " students cycle through but staff remain", so the culture comes from the teachers and from history. Trushiem (2015) adding that it can sometimes happen by default. Lets make that positive climate and culture happen for all.

Going into different schools as an RTV I am faced with differing paradigms and these can impact how partnerships form with whanau, educators and learners. So my big question as I reflect about climate and culture is: what type of climate and culture am I presenting when I enter into a school or classroom?

Feedback please?
How do you feel as a teacher when an itinerant comes into your class? 

Supported or threatened?

What approach works best for you?

What doesn't work?