Six Māori words spark a debate over how children learn to read

The Spinoff

a day ago

The removal of a learn-to-read book has infuriated teachers, experts and parents – and may prove a political misstep for National, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin.
Educationalists call book withdrawal an overreaction
The government's decision to remove the learn-to-read book At the Marae from classroom circulation has triggered a storm of criticism from teachers, principals and literacy experts. The book, designed for five-year-olds, includes six Māori words – marae, karanga, wharenui, koro, hongi and karakia – which officials argued sat uneasily within the structured literacy model now mandated in schools. Yet literacy researcher Professor Gail Gillon, who developed the wider Best Start Literacy Programme, told RNZ's John Gerritsen there was 'absolutely no evidence' children found the reader confusing. 'And in fact, our data would suggest the opposite.'
Teachers have been scathing too. Writing in The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Tansy Oliver calls the decision 'insulting to our children, our teachers and our nation', warning it risks deepening the alienation Māori have long felt within the education system.
A political misstep?
The reaction hasn't been confined to classrooms. In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), editor Tracy Watkins argues the government is playing 'culture-war politics with children's learning', positioning itself alongside its more extreme coalition partners rather than the moderate voters who kept John Key in power for nearly a decade – and whom National needs in order to win next year. The removal of six kupu Māori is, Watkins says, a misjudgment that damages National more than it helps. For education minister Erica Stanford – widely seen as one of National's more centrist, liberal-friendly figures and even touted as a future leader – the row looks like an unforced error. Watkins' assessment is cutting: 'It's hard to know which will hurt National most. Being seen as aligning itself with the bigots, or making itself a laughing stock.'
The structured literacy defence
Stanford has been clear that the policy is not an outright ban on te reo, noting that Māori words still appear in other Ready to Read titles and are taught explicitly from Year 2 onwards. But she argues that structured literacy – rolled out nationally from the start of this year – relies on tightly sequenced phonics instruction, and kupu Māori fall outside that progression. As Oliver explains, because words such as karakia or wharenui cannot be decoded (sounded out) at the five-year-old level, they are categorised as 'heart words' that must be memorised. In Stanford's view, limiting their presence in Year 1 decodable readers is consistent with literacy science.
Stanford has also pointed to an apparent parallel, reports Gerritsen: English words do not feature in readers for te reo Māori immersion schools, so it makes sense, she said, to likewise avoid Māori words in English-medium early readers. But Māori educator Rawiri Wright said that's not a fair comparison, since mainstream schools are supposed to be places where all official languages are recognised.
Does te reo even need structured literacy?
Beyond the current row lies another question: whether structured literacy is the right tool for teaching te reo at all. In a Conversation article, education academics Brian Tweed and Pania Te Maro criticise the 'blanket application' of the approach in kura Māori, noting that because Māori spelling is entirely phonetic, children don't face the same decoding challenges as English learners. 'Instead, pushing structured literacy into Māori-medium schools seems to be driven by an ideological commitment to this teaching approach rather than an actual need,' they write.
The pair also point to the Waitangi Tribunal's 1986 declaration that 'te reo Māori is a taonga (treasure) that Māori must have control of. It's for Māori to decide on changes and innovations in the teaching and learning of the language.' That principle underscores why this debate has become so fraught: it is not only about reading pedagogy, but about who has the authority to shape the future of the Māori language.