Several strategic influencers or drivers were identified as shaping the different stages that TEOs were at in their approaches. These factors either facilitated the development of professional development, or were factors identified as explaining why professional development was underdeveloped or just developing. They included: TEC / government priorities focused on and Pasifika learners Māori investment, impetus and importance given to professional development by and management TEO’s governance organisation accountability and reporting structures (e.g. clear strategic requirements; external stakeholder advisory group) dedicated internal staff appointed to identify professional development needs and to oversee development and implementation bi-cultural organisation focus a priority over a multi-cultural one organisation mergers / restructures. A consistent theme across the interviews was that it was essential for organisations’ leadership to value the importance of professional development for and for Māori Pasifika. It was important for leadership to actively demonstrate the TEOs’ importance of this professional development and to drive its implementation and embed it through effective policies and practices. is costly but an important investment. It needs to be driven and expected by “It governance and management who need to create an understanding of why it is important. You need to have a philosophy, commitment and dedicated (PTE) resources.” 2.2 More established for Māori? Overall, professional development specifically focused on enhancing responsiveness to seemed to be at a more advanced stage than for Pasifika. For some TEOs, Māori professional development focused on Pasifika learners was at a very developmental phase, or comprised only a very small amount of current or intended activity. Factors contributing to this focus included organisations having much larger numbers of learners than Pasifika or the capability to provide internal professional Māori development relating to but not Pasifika really have a Pasifika Māori – “we don’t (ITP). academic community here” For example, one organisation with a high number of learners and less than 10 Māori percent Pasifika, identified that professional development targeted to engaging Māori was established, but professional development needs were not assessed by Pasifika identity. Some participants also observed that teaching qualifications (e.g. the National Certificate in Adult Literacy and Numeracy Education) while incorporating a Māori cultural component, have no equivalent in relation to Pasifika.
Several strategic influencers or drivers were identified as shaping the different stages that TEOs were at in their approaches. These factors either facilitated the development of professional development, or were factors identified as explaining why professional development was underdeveloped or just developing. They included: TEC / government priorities focused on Māori and Pasifika learners investment, impetus and importance given to professional development by TEO’s governance and management organisation accountability and reporting structures (e.g. clear strategic requirements; external stakeholder advisory group) dedicated internal staff appointed to identify professional development needs and to oversee development and implementation bi-cultural organisation focus a priority over a multi-cultural one organisation mergers / restructures. A consistent theme across the interviews was that it was essential for organisations’ leadership to value the importance of professional development for Māori and for Pasifika. It was important for TEOs’ leadership to actively demonstrate the importance of this professional development and to drive its implementation and embed it through effective policies and practices. “It is costly but an important investment. It needs to be driven and expected by governance and management who need to create an understanding of why it is important. You need to have a philosophy, commitment and dedicated resources.” (PTE) 2.2 More established for Māori? Overall, professional development specifically focused on enhancing responsiveness to Māori seemed to be at a more advanced stage than for Pasifika. For some TEOs, professional development focused on Pasifika learners was at a very developmental phase, or comprised only a very small amount of current or intended activity. Factors contributing to this focus included organisations having much larger numbers of Māori learners than Pasifika or the capability to provide internal professional development relating to Māori but not Pasifika – “we don’t really have a Pasifika academic community here” (ITP). For example, one organisation with a high number of Māori learners and less than 10 percent Pasifika, identified that professional development targeted to engaging Māori was established, but professional development needs were not assessed by Pasifika identity. Some participants also observed that teaching qualifications (e.g. the National Certificate in Adult Literacy and Numeracy Education) while incorporating a Māori cultural component, have no equivalent in relation to Pasifika.
Professional-development-practices-and-needs-to-enhance-responsiveness-to-Maori-and-Pasifika-learners-in-tertiary-settings.docx