The world’s languages are dying at an astonishing rate.

Linguists estimate that within the next hundred years, nearly

half of the world’s six thousand languages will be extinct. The

majority of the languages that are at risk are spoken by

indigenous minorities and are not languages of government or

power (Hinton, Leanne, 2001, p. 3). Despite this bleak

prediction, there are several cases of successful indigenous

language revitalization programs that serve as optimistic

examples of what is possible. The Maori and Hawaiian language

revitalization programs are the two foremost examples of

successful indigenous language revitalization. These programs,

which began in the 1980’s, have produced a new generation of

native speakers through government funded, formal, total

immersion education programs that begin at the early childhood

level and continue through high school.

The goal of this paper is to investigate the elements that

have contributed to the success of the Maori and Hawaiian

language revitalization programs. The historical backgrounds of

both the Maori and Hawaiian languages will be briefly described

and the following reasons for success will be explored in more

1

detail: Both the Maori and Hawaiian language revitalization

programs achieved government recognition and funding. The

historical and political backgrounds of both the Maori and

Hawaiian languages allowed language activists to employ the

highly successful method of additive early total immersion

education. Both the Maori and the Hawaiians successfully executed

formal additive early total immersion programs in a formal early

childhood through high school setting, despite numerous

challenges.

Both the Maori and the Hawaiian languages share several key

historical similarities. Both languages have rich literary

traditions that stem from orthographies that were developed by

Christian missionaries during the 19th century, and both

languages were banned from schools and eventually fell into

disuse in the home.

Missionaries developed an orthography for the Maori in 1818

and by 1830 literacy rates for the Maori were higher than the

literacy rates for the European population in New Zealand

(Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 53). Prior to 1867, the Maori

language was used as the medium of instruction in Christian

2

schools throughout Maori communities. Conflicts between the

British and the Maori lead to the passing of the Native Schools

Act in 1867. The Native Schools Act instituted English as the

only language of instruction in schools and strictly forbid the

use of Maori on school grounds. Maori remained the language of

the home until World War II. After World War II, Maori increased

migration to urban areas, the desire to blend with the Caucasian

majority, and the prevalence of television helped contributed to

the to erode erosion of th the Maori language in e Maori

language’s the place in the home. Maori became relegated to the

churches and the community centers (Jeannette King, 2001, p.

120).

The Hawaiian language also had exceptionally high rates of

literacy during the 19th century. Christian missionaries

developed the Hawaiian orthography in 1822 and in 1890 nearly

eighty percent of Hawaiians were literate (Kapono, 1994, pp.

124). Like Maori, the Hawaiian language flourished as the

language of instruction in the Christian schools that served the

Hawaiian community. However, as American business interests

gained influence in Hawaii, diverse groups of immigrants flocked

3

to the islands for work on sugar plantations. The ruling American

businessmen felt that English language schools would be the best

way to assimilate these diverse immigrant groups. In 1890 the

ruling business elites passed the Organic Act, which strictly

enforced the sole use of English in all schools and banned the

use of Hawaiian and all other languages. The growing influence of

the English language slowly eroded the Hawaiian language’s

prominence in the home (Kapono, 1994, pp. 125–126).

During the 1970’s Maori and Hawaiian activists responded to

historical and current injustices by launching campaigns against

their respective governments. This persistent and united

grassroots political activism grew out of the culture of human

rights advocacy of the 1960’s and 1970’s (Indigenous Language

Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 13). Along with

pPolitical activism, geographic factors as well as geography

helped to secure government recognition and funding for the Maori

and Hawaiian language revitalization programs. The obtainment of

government recognition and funding has been vital to the success

of both programs.

4

Interest in Maori culture and activism for Maori affairs

boomed during the 1970’s. Young Maori, proud and reaffirmed in

their culture, launched various protests against the government

of New Zealand, regarding economic and land issues (Indigenous

Language Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 13) In

response to these protests, the government of New Zealand created

the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975. The purpose of the Waitangi

Tribunal was to consider Maori grievances against the government

(Harrison, 2005, p. 60).

By the late 1970’s Maori was in danger of becoming extinct

as a channel of everyday communication. Only 70,000 Maori out of

the total Maori population of 325,000 people were fluent in the

Maori language, and many of these fluent speakers were elderly

and lived in isolated rural communities. The vast majority of

Maori youth knew little or no Maori. Of the 1,302 Maori school

children sampled in the Auckland suburb of Manukau in 1979, only

28 could communicate competently in Maori (Fleras, 1987, p. 5).

Maori language and culture advocates responded to the

alarming statistics on the imminent death of the Maori language

by establishing a total immersion preschool in 1982. This

5

preschool was called te kohanga reo, the Maori phrase for

language nest (Jeannette King, 2001, p. 121-122) The te kohanga

reo founders modeled the te kohanga reo after the first additive

early total immersion program that started in Quebec, Canada

during the 1960’s (Helen B. Slaughter, 1997, p. 105). The stated

goal of the te kohanga reo is to educate Maori children in a

completely Maori speaking environment that reinforces Maori

cultural values (Jeannette King, 2001, p. 123). The first Maori

te kohanga reo preschools were funded by tuition and had no

financial support from the government (Indigenous Language

Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 32).

In 1985 Maori language activists launched a grievance to the

Waitangi Council regarding the state of the Maori language.

Claimants argued that if the Maori language died, Maori history

and knowledge would also die. These activists asked for Maori to

be used in government bodies including parliament, the courts,

local authorities, and schools (Gallegos, Murray, & Evans, 2010,

p. 94). In response to this claim, the government passed the

Maori Language Act in 1986. This Act granted the Maori language

status as an official language of New Zealand and established the

6

Maori Language Commission as a regulatory body to establish

language policies (Gallegos, Murray, & Evans, 2010b, p. 95). As

an official language Maori is protected and funds must be

provided so that anyone who desires to learn the language can do

so (Indigenous Language Institute Across Borders Project, 2009,

p. 17).

Official status elevated the standing of the te kohanga reo

preschools and paved the way for government funding and the

continuation of higher level Maori total immersion programs.

Government funding required the Maori preschools to modify their

existing curriculum to fit the national early education

curriculum (Gallegos et al., 2010, p. 101). When the first cohort

of te kohanaga reo preschoolers approached graduation, parents

and Maori activists lobbied for government funds to continue

Maori total immersion education at the kindergarten level. This

general pattern held, and parents and activists continued to

lobby for continuing immersion education as children completed

various stages. Eventually a government recognized and funded

Maori immersion preschool through twelfth grade program was

established. The Maori immersion program now consists of te

7

kohanga reo preschools, kura kaupapa elementary schools and

wharekura high schools (Harrison, 2005, pp. 60–61).

Interest in Hawaiian culture helped to elevate the status of

the Hawaiian language. During the 1970’s a renewed general

interest in hula dancing and Hawaiian music incited an interest

in the Hawaiian language among ethnic Hawaiians (Sam L. No’Eau

Warner, 2001, p. 135). Historical abuses against the Hawaiian

language and the Hawaiian language’s unofficial status became a

rallying point among ethnic Hawaiians. Hawaiian activists lobbied

at the state government for official state status for the

Hawaiian language, and in 1978, the state government of Hawaii

amended its constitutional convention to include Hawaiian, as the

second official language of the state of Hawaii. This

constitution protected the right to promote Hawaiian language,

culture, and history (Sam L. No’Eau Warner, 2001, p. 135).

Bleak statistics on the health of the Hawaiian language and

encounters with Maori te kohanga reo educators led to the

formation of the first Hawaiian total immersion preschool in

1987. During the 1980’s the Hawaiian language was on the brink

of extinction. In 1983, there were only 1,500 fluent speakers of

8

Hawaiian, and the vast majority of them were over the age of

fifty (Takayama, 2008, p. 254). Only forty children younger than

eighteen could speak Hawaiian fluently in 1983 (Wilson, 2003). In

1983, Hawaiian language and culture advocates met with te kohanga

reo advocates and heard first hand of the success of the Maori

total immersion preschools. The Maori story resonated with the

Hawaiian activists. Like the Maori, the Hawaiian language had

reached a critical point of decline and the majority of the youth

could not speak Hawaiian. Inspired by the Maori example, a group

of Hawaiians created a group called Aha Punana Leo. The purpose

of the APL was to advocate for the creation of a Hawaiian

language nest, or punana leo (William H. Wilson & Kauanoe Kamana,

2001, p. 147). Like the Maori te kohanga reo, the punana leo

would provide quality education based on knowledge of the

Hawaiian language and culture (Takayama, 2008, p. 254). In 1987

the first punana leo preschool opened its doors. The first punana

leo did not receive any financial support from the government and

was fundeding by parent tuition, donations, and fundraising

activities (Kapono, 1994, p. 127).

9

In 1987, parents and activists lobbied for state funding for

the punana leo preschools. Given the official status of the

Hawaiian language and the state government’s promise to protect

the Hawaiian language, government funding was granted. In 1988

the Aha Punana Leo (APL) received a five year grant for five

million dollars, under the Native Hawaiian Family Based Education

Act (Kapono, 1994, p. 127). Issuance of federal funds required

that the punana leo adapt to fit the Hawaiian state curriculum

for preschool (Sam L. No’Eau Warner, 2001, p. 136).

As in the Maori case, the Hawaiian total immersion schools

grew as the first cohort of students progressed through school.

Parents wanted their children to continue their Hawaiian

immersion education. Parents, the APL, and other activists joined

together and lobbied for state funds for the continuation of the

immersion program. The As a result, the Hawaiian immersion

program now consists of punana leo preschools, and elementary,

middle and high school programs which are collectively known as

Ka Papahana Kaipuni (Kapono, 1994, pp. 127–128).

The geography of both New Zealand and Hawaii was also

instrumental in securing government recognition and funding for

10

both language revitalization programs. The While persistencethe

persistence of the grassroots activist efforts are were vital

elements that led to the obtainment of government funds,.

However,, the role of geography cannot be overlooked. Both the

Hawaiians and the Maori are the only indigenous groups in their

respective islands. It is much easier for a federal or state

government to accommodate the demands of one indigenous group, as

opposed to accommodating different demands from competing and

different indigenous groups (Indigenous Language Institute Across

Borders Project, 2007, p. 20).

The historical background of both movements allowed them to

employ the highly successful method of total immersion education

in a formal school setting. According to Linguists Lenore

Grenobal and Lindsay Whaley, several factors must be in place for

total immersion to be used in a formal education setting: the

language must still be alive, members of the community must be

dedicated to the cause of total immersion, and government

recognition and funding is a must (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, pp.

11

51–52). Both the Maori and the Hawaiian movements possessed these

key elements.

Although Grenobal and Whaley do not list having a written

language as a necessary factor for the implementation of total

immersion, it is important to acknowledge that the written

histories of both Maori and Hawaiian are huge assets for the

language revitalization programs. The Maori and Hawaiians have

access to a wealth of written materials that span over 150 years.

Access to these types of sources simply does not exist for the

majority of indigenous groups. Also, a less obvious but equally

important factor is the status of literacy in the Maori and

Hawaiian communities. The revitalization programs did not face

the added challenge of having to promote a cultural shift in

regards to literacy, because literacy has been part ofimportant

to both cultures for several generations (Grenoble & Whaley,

2006, p. 53).

Immersion education is defined as a method of teaching a

language, usually a second language (L2) in which the target

language is used as both curriculum content and medium of

instruction (Pacific Policy Research Center, 2010, p. 1). The

12

Maori and Hawaiian programs utilize a very specific type of

immersion education called additive early total immersion. Almost

all the children in the Maori and Hawaiian immersion programs

speak English with their parents. Thus the home language (or L1)

of the students is English. All instruction is in the target

language (or L2), which is either Maori or Hawaiian (Merrill

Swain & Robert Keith Johnson, 1997, p. 5). The program is

additive because it is meant to compliment the English skills of

the students, rather than to make Maori or Hawaiian stronger than

English (Pacific Policy Research Center, 2010, pp. 3–4). The

students begin the program during preschool, which defines these

programs as early. It is interesting to note that the additive

early total immersion is not bilingual. Additive early total

immersion is monolingual because only the target language is used

as a medium of instruction. However, this method is often

mistakenly categorized as a bilingual education program (Pacific

Policy Research Center, 2010, p. 2).

The first additive early total immersion program began in

Quebec, Canada during the late 1960’s. Enclaves of English

speaking families that had relocated to Quebec from other parts

13

of Canada were largely unable to communicate with the native

French speakers in the province. These families wanted to ensure

that their children would learn to speak French fluently. These

parents teamed with a group of linguists at McGill University and

created a new language learning model that was a radical

departure from the bilingual models of the time. Per this new

model, monolingual English speaking children were instructed only

in French starting the first day of kindergarten. English was

introduced slowly and by grade six6 half the curriculum was

taught in French and half was taught in English (Merrill Swain &

Robert Keith Johnson, 1997, p. 2-3).

The additive early total immersion method is undoubtedly the

best way to learn an indigenous language. This approach maximizes

exposure to the target language and minimizes exposure to

English. The target language needs to be strongly enforced in the

schools because the English influence is so strong outside of the

school (Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson, 1997, p. 15).

Both the Maori and the Hawaiians successfully execute formal

additive early total immersion programs from early childhood

14

through high school, despite numerous challenges. Both programs

strictly enforce the sole use of the target language and

institute a curriculum that is culturally relevant and in line

with the standard government curriculum. The Maori and Hawaiian

programs also involve the parents and the community.

The strict Maori only environment begins in the te kohanga

reos. The te kohanga reos are so strict that even English

speaking visitors are not allowed to speak English on the

premises (Pacific Policy Research Center, 2010, p.13). Linguist

Nancy Hornberger visited several te kohanga reos in 2004 and

noted that she was only allowed to observe at the te kohanga

reos. All English discussions with the Maori teachers took place

after school hours and off the te kohanga reo grounds

(Hornberger, 2006, p. 20). She also reiterated that “Maori only

ideology is of such integral and foundational importance to Maori

immersion that the use of two languages (English and Maori)

suggested by the term bilingual is antithetical to those

dedicated to Maori revitalization” (Hornberger, 2006, p. 21).

The te kohanga reo curriculum adheres to the standards in

the national curriculum and is infused with Maori culture. Core

15

competencies mandated by the standard curriculum are taught using

traditional Maori naturist and hands on approaches. Traditional

Maori stories are used to enforce key concepts and morals.

Children also learn traditional Maori performing arts (Indigenous

Language Institute Project, 2007, p. 50). As visitors from the

Indigenous Language Institute observed, “At each te kohanga reo

we visited we were welcomed by our hosts with chants and songs”

(Indigenous Language Institute Project, 2007, p. 50). Maori

cultural traditions such mixed age groups are also evident in the

te kohanga reos. Children in the te kohanga reos range from ages

birth to 6infants to age 6, and these groups intermingle and care

for each other in accordance with Maori tradition (Jeannette

King, 2001, p. 123).

The te kohanga reo preschools demand the participation of

the parents and the community. Any parent who sends their child

to te kohanga reo must vow to speak some Maori to their child at

home. If parents are not fluent in Maori, they are required to

take free Maori language classes. Parents are also required to

participate in community meetings where school matters are

discussed. Many te kohanga reos have enlisted elderly native

16

speakers to serve as volunteer cultural role models for the

children (“New Zealand,” n.d.) There are many volunteers in the

kohanga reos, and there is a high ratio of adults to children

during sessions (Walker & France, 2007, p. 33).

Maori medium education at higher levels shares the same

basic core elements of the te kohanga reo. The language

environment is strictly Maori only, the curriculum follows the

national standard, but is molded to fit Maori culture, and

parents and the community are involved. One of the key features

of higher level Maori medium education is the introduction of

English. English is usually introduced in either grade 4 or 5,

and often for only one or two hours per week. Other schools

introduce English as late as seventh or eighth grade for an hour

or two hours per week. Limited attention is given to teaching

English since the influence of English is so strong outside of

the schools (May & Hill, 2005, p. 399).

Maori medium education at the high school or wharekura level

presents unique challenges, such asmost significantly the

development of materials and the recruitment of teachers. Whereas

creating books for younger children can be a relatively easy task

17

for volunteer parents, creating books suitable for high schools

students is complicated as it requires more time for translation

and a firm command in the language. Dedicated community

volunteers have paired with the Maori studies program at Auckland

University to create a substantial library of materials for the

high school students. The Maori Studies program at the University

of Auckland offers a teacher training program specifically to

prepare Maori undergraduates to teach at the immersion schools

(“Bachelor of Education Teaching Huarahi Maori,” 2012). However,

recruiting enough teachers, especially for more advanced

subjects, such as high school science is a challenge (Pacific

Policy Research Center, 2010, p. 13). The Ministry of Education

created the Resource Teachers of Maori Service to help address

the challenge of teacher recruitment and training. This

organization provides resources and professional assistance to

Maori educators, scholarships for people who want to become Maori

medium teachers, and assistance for Maori medium educators who

are repaying student loans (Gallegos et al., 2010, p. 95).

The strict Hawaiian language only environment begins in the

punana leo preschools. From the very first day a child enters the

18

punana leo, only Hawaiian is used. The teachers help the children

move through the daily routine, and the routine provides a

context for quick understanding. Children typically become fluent

in Hawaiian within three to four months (William H. Wilson &

Kauanoe Kamana, 2001, p. 152). While English can be spoken on

punana leo school grounds, although it cannot be spoken directly

to the children. If English speaking visitors come to the punana

leo, they can speak to the children through an interpreter

(Stiles, 1197, p. 258).

Hawaiian punana leos conform to the Hawaiian state

curriculum, but make substantial modifications to ensure that

everything is taught using a Hawaiian cultural framework. Core

competencies are taught using Hawaiian approaches, stories and

concepts (William H. Wilson & Kauanoe Kamana, 2001, p. 151). The

appreciation of nature is an important part of Hawaiian culture,

and classes are often held outdoors for part of the day. Many of

the schools have gardens, which the students tend to in order to

learn about native plants. Children are also taught Hawaiian

songs and dances and perform them regularly. In accordance with

Hawaiian tradition, all visitors to the punana leo are greeted

19

with leis and welcome chants. The team of observers from the

Indigenous Language Program commented on the warm, cultural

welcome they received at each punana leo they visited (Indigenous

Language Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 71-72). Like

the Maori, the Hawaiian culture emphasizes the importance of

children teaching and caring for each other, regardless of age.

In the punana leos children ages 2 to 5 interact together and are

not separated in age- specific groups (William H. Wilson &

Kauanoe Kamana, 2001, p. 151).

The Hawaiian preschools demand the involvement of the

parents and the community. All parents must commit to weekly

Hawaiian language classes to support their children’s language

learning (Wyels, 2012, p. 37). Parents are also involved in

school related decision making. Parents of students in the

immersion preschools usually volunteer in the preschools,

although some parents have cited their lack of competency and

confidence in the Hawaiian language as a self-imposed barrier to

substantial volunteer work. Many elders who are fluent in the

language also volunteer as cultural role models in the preschools

(Yamauchi, Lau-Smith, & Luning, 2008, p. 42).

20

Hawaiian medium education at the kula kaiapani level adheres

to the same basic core elements of the punana leo. Only the

Hawaiian language is spoken, the curriculum follows the Hawaiian

state standard curriculum, but is molded to fit Hawaiian culture,

and parental and community involvement is required. One of the

key features of the kula kaiapani is the introduction of English.

English is introduced in the fifth grade for one hour a day.

Limited focus is placed on teaching English on account of the

dominant role of English outside of the immersion classrooms

(Takayama, 2008, p. 255).

Like Maori education at the wharekura levels, Hawaiian

medium education at the high school level of the kula kaiapani

presents the same challenges regarding the development of

materials and the recruitment of teachers. The development of

materials in Hawaiian has been one of the foremost challenges.

The Hawaiian Studies program at the University of Hilo is the

most developed academic indigenous language program in the world.

This program has been instrumental in the development of

materials for the immersion program, especially at the higher

levels. However, despite the huge help from the University of

21

Hilo, materials are still in short supply (Kapono, 1994, p. 132).

The Hawaiian Studies program at the University of Hilo offers a

teacher training program specifically to prepare Hawaiian

undergraduates to teach at the immersion schools (“Kualano,”

2012). However, recruiting enough teachers, especially for

positions in high school science is a challenge (Yamauchi, Ceppi,

& Lau-Smith, 2000, p. 4).

In comparing the Maori and Hawaiian language

revitalizations, it is helpful to examine the total number of

schools housing immersion programs, the total number of students

that have participated in immersion, and the percentage of the

Maori and Hawaiian populations currently enrolled in the total

immersion programs. Since both the Maori and Hawaiian immersion

programs are recognized and funded by their respective

governments, the majority of the Maori and Hawaiian immersion

programs are housed within mainstream public schools as separate,

stand alone programs. As of July 1, 2009, there were 84 schools

in New Zealand housing Maori immersion programs (rachael, n.d.,

p. 11.6). As of 2006, there were 22 Hawaiian immersion schools or

programs within schools; including two stand alone immersion

22

schools, 15 schools within a mainstream school, and 5 Hawaiian

immersion charter schools (Takayama, 2008, p. 255). Data

regarding the number of students that have participated in

immersion is particularly difficult to obtain. In 2003, about two

thousand children had been educated in the Hawaiian immersion

schools at some level and thirty thousand children had been

educated in the Maori immersion schools at some level (Williams,

2003).

However, it is unfair to compare the number of students

educated in immersion, since the Maori constitute a much larger

percentage of the overall population of New Zealand than native

Hawaiians do in the state of Hawaii. Comparing the total

percentages of Maori and Hawaiian school aged children that are

enrolled in the immersion programs is a much better basis

forprovides a more accurate comparison. Less than three percent

of all native Hawaiian children of preschool age are enrolled in

total immersion punana leos. Less than three percent of school

aged students from kindergarten through grade 12 are enrolled in

Hawaiian medium schools (Wilson, 2006, p. 174). According to

statistics gathered from the New Zealand Auditor and Controller

23

General, only about 3.8% of all Maori school aged children

receive a portion of their education at a Maori medium school

(rachael, n.d., p. 11.8).

As demonstrated earlier in the paper, the similarities

between the Maori and the Hawaiian language revitalizations are

numerous. The use of English is the main difference between the

two revitalization programs. At the preschool level, the Maori

are extremely strict about the use of English and forbid it on

school grounds. In contrast, English can be spoken on punana leo

grounds, just not directly the children. At the high school

level, the Maori introduce English in either grade 4 or 5, but

sometimes as late as grade 7 or 8, and only for one or two hours

per week. English is introduced at the kula kaiapani at grade 5

for one hour each day.

The Maori and Hawaiian language revitalization programs have

achieved astounding success as far as indigenous language

revitalizations are concerned. The relatively low enrollment of

Maori and Hawaiian students in the immersion programs when

compared with the overall school aged populations of both groups

may seem to indicate that these programs have not been

24

successful. However, given that completely new total immersion

education systems were developed in both Maori and Hawaiian at a

time when the languages were dying is an incredible feat. These

total immersion programs are also directly responsible for

reversing the decline of the Maori and Hawaiian languages. These

languages are now growing instead of dying.

However, itIt is important to note that the dialogue

surrounding indigenous language revitalization almost always

emphasizes the positive and fails to critically assess these

programs and acknowledge the seemingly insurmountable odds

against long term success (Hornberger, 2006, p. 6). In order to

fully explore the Maori and Hawaiian language revitalizations it

is imperative to examine some of the challenges and criticisms of

these programs such as domain the and the delayed and limited use

of academic English.

In order for a language to be truly revived, it must be

spoken in domains inside and outside of the home (Sam L. No’Eau

Warner, 2001, p. 141). Both the Maori and Hawaiian languages are

primarily spoken in academic contexts, in the immersion programs.

25

Both languages have made little headway in the home, despite the

fact that language classes are required for all parents who

enroll their children in the immersion programs. However, it is

much easier to suggest learning a new language rather thanthan it

is it is to actually learn one to a point of fluency. Many adult

speakers find it difficult to learn a second language, let alone

change their primary language of communication with their

children in their homes (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 101).

Given the dominance and necessity of the English language in

both New Zealand and Hawaii it seems inevitable that English will

be the dominant language outside of the immersion programs.

However, even within the immersion schools, Maori and Hawaiian

struggle for dominance. For example, Maori children often switch

to English when socializing. The Indigenous Rights team visited

several immersion schools and observed that many students only

speak Maori when the teachers are within earshot (Indigenous

Language Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 35). English

also dominates on the playgrounds at Hawaiian immersion schools

(Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 101).

26

Data show that the majority of Maori and Hawaiian parents do

not choose to enroll their children in the immersion schools.

Despite the cultural advantages of the immersion schools, many

parents elect to send their children to mainstream schools,

because they feel that the use of English and better trained

teachers will help prepare their children for success (Helen B.

Slaughter, 1997, p. 111). These parents’ views make sense. The

immersion programs are young and cannot academically compete with

the mainstream schools. Both the Maori and Hawaiian programs

essentially started from scratch less than 35 years ago and built

their own curricula, adapted this curricula to fit state

guidelines, developed their own materials, and worked to energize

and mobilize parents and the greater communities. In addition to

a lack of developed resources development, the immersion programs

also have a less experienced teacher base.

There is very little tangible information on the academic

quality of the Maori and Hawaiian immersion programs. New Zealand

based eEducation scholars, Richard Hill and Stephen May state

that substantial evaluation needs to be done regarding pedagogy,

practice, and English language outcomes in the Maori immersion

27

schools (May & Hill, 2005, p. 379). There is a lack of literature

regarding evaluation that has been done or should be done in the

Hawaiian immersion schools.

The Maori and Hawaiian immersion programs’ extreme focus on

the target languages and the delayed and limited use of academic

English may be counterproductive to the students’ educational

interests. In both the Maori and Hawaiian language immersion

programs, English is not introduced until at least grade 4 or 5.

English is given little attention because it is believed that

students will acquire academic English skills due to the

dominance of English in the greater society. Linguist Jim Cummins

refutes this idea and states that

Academic language proficiency in any language, even one’s L1, never automatically occurs. The particular and additional complexities of classroom-based academic discourse, including itsmore de-contextualized nature, its more complex grammar, and its subject specific vocabulary have to be specifically taught (May &Hill, 2005, p. 399)

Given the importance of English for success in the greater

society, it seems that an earlier introduction and a more

rigorous focus on academic English will be advantageous to

students. However, this is where “the wider aims of the language

28

revitalization and the need to ‘ring-fence’ the target language

from English within the educational system may well run counter

to the best educational interests of the students” (May & Hill,

2005, p. 399).

Both the Maori and Hawaiians do not fare well in the

mainstream school systems. Measure of participation including

retention, early leaving exemptions, suspensions, expulsions, and

truancy suggest that higher proportion of Maori disengage from

secondary education than learners from other backgrounds. Nearly

40% of Maori leave school before turning 17, compared with the

national average of 30 percent (“Most Maori leave school without

NCEA level 2,” 2009). Ethnic Hawaiians have the highest dropout

rate of any ethnic group in Hawaii. Only 5% of all high schoolers

that graduate are Hawaiian (Tharp et al., 2007, p. 273).

Maori and Hawaiian students in immersion programs do not score

substantially differently than their Maori and Hawaiian

counterparts in the mainstream schools on standardized

assessments. According to federally mandated assessments, the

proportion of immersion school candidates that meet literacy in

29

English and numeracy has consistently been very similar to the

proportion of Maori in mainstream schools who meet both

requirements (Murray, 2007, p. 9). Likewise, the proportion of

Hawaiians in the immersion schools who meet proficiency in

literacy and numeracy is on par with the proportion of Hawaiian

students in mainstream schools who meet proficiency (Takayama,

2008, p. 275).

However, graduation rates for Maori and Hawaiian students in

immersion programs are higher than graduation rates for Maori and

Hawaiians in mainstream schools. Almost all students in Maori

immersion schools achieve the national certificate of educational

achievement certificate (NCEA) that is required for high school

graduation (Murray, 2007, p. 4). The graduation rate for the

Hawaiian immersion high schools is nearly 100% (Indigenous

Language Institute Across Borders Project, 2009, p. 72).

These high graduation rates in the immersion programs have

been contributed to numerous factors including parental and

community involvement and the cultural relevance of the

education. Maori and Hawaiian parents have traditionally been

isolated from their children’s education experiences at

30

mainstream public schools. The immersion schools integrate

parents and the community into a culturally relevant framework.

Parental engagement sparks enthusiasm in the children, and the

children are empowered and motivated to learn (Takayama, 2008, p.

255). New Zealand’s Associate Education Minister, Pita Sharples

stated the following regarding Maori medium education, "When the

community takes ownership and are encouraged to invest in their

children's learning, they are able to place high expectations on

their children, and to support them to achieve the highest

standards” (“Most Maori leave school without NCEA level 2,”

2009).

Many Maori and Hawaiians who are involved in the immersion

programs attribute the increased graduation rates to the cultural

relevance of the immersion programs. As one Maori activist

stated, “The outcomes of the achievement from reaffirming

yourself in your own cultural framework has been amazing….We have

so many successful Maori people from these schools…..The children

now know that it can be done. (“New Zealand,” n.d.). A Hawaiian

teacher reinforced the importance of the immersion program for

the Hawaiian people,

31

“All of the ills that we as Hawaiian people are named for, drop outs, filling up prisons, all those kinds of things, I think in some way.....this school indirectly addresses things like that. Because you can look at cost, it would be way cheaper to fund a program like this and help individuals understand who they are so they can deal with real life situations and do the right thing. If we are looking to break the cycle this is the program that we can really do it with…..It’s not a band aid program, it’s a lifelong program”(Yamauchi et al., 2000, p. 4).

The Maori and Hawaiian immersion education models are relevant

for all marginalized groups that struggle for success within the

confines of the mainstream education system. It is possible that

elements of the Maori and Hawaiian models such as high parental

engagement, community involvement, and a culturally relevant

curriculum can be adopted by other marginalized groups in order

to achieve academic success. In this sense, the Maori and

Hawaiian language immersion programs should be examined by all

marginalized groups that struggle with education, not just

indigenous groups that seek to revitalize a dying language.

32

The Maori and Hawaiian language revitalization programs have

achieved tremendous success. Both programs have produced a new

generation of native speakers through formal total immersion

programs that span from early childhood through high school.

Government recognition and funding and the successful

implementation of additive early total immersion methodology led

to the success of both programs. In addition to helping revive

languages, there programs have helped to empower students to

succeed in school. The Maori and Hawaiian language immersion

programs are examples not just for indigenous groups who hope to

revitalize their language, but for all marginalized groups who

struggle for academic success within the mainstream.

33