There is an abundance of evidence documenting the underachievement of Mäori in English medium educational settings. A report of the proceedings from a wänanga held to discuss issues related to building the research capacity within Mäori communities identified the need for research to 'illuminate' Mäori achievement rather than focussing on and overemphasising underachievement. (Tapine and Waiti 2000). This principle also needs to underpin any research undertaken in relation to Mäori medium programmes.

Kura Kaupapa Mäori, (Mäori language immersion schools) in particular are somewhat wary about research taking place on their sites and of researchers in general. This stems from past experiences where much research has been conducted in these settings with little direct or indirect benefit to the participating schools or immersion education in general. In most instances, research is initiated and conducted by outside parties rather than by the school itself. Allowing external researchers to gather information about the school or its students places them in a vulnerable position. Ethical and cultural frameworks and research protocols for a variety of contexts are now well documented, providing direction about who should conduct Kaupapa Mäori research, for whom, how and why. (Bishop and Glynn 1999: Henry 1999: Cunningham 1998: Durie 1998: Royal 1998: Bevan-Brown 1998: Chapple, Jeffries and Walker 1997: Mead, 1996: Irwin 1994: Smith 1992:

To date, little research has been conducted that is centred on the systematic collection and analysis of data charting children's progress and achievement in the medium of Mäori. (Hollings, 1992: Report of the Literacy Taskforce, 1999, Berryman, Rau and Glynn 2001).

Descriptions of achievement in literacy for cohort groups being instructed in Mäori are being developed under such Ministry funded initiatives as National Education Monitoring Project (N.E.M.P.) and Te Reo Proficiency Test. These reflect the former Government's provision for achieving the goal "by 2005, every child turning nine will be able to read, write and do maths for success" (Report of the Literacy Taskforce, 1999). On a national scale, such information about children receiving instruction in Mäori in their formative years of compulsory education is nonexistent. This presents the incongruous situation in Mäori medium education where decisions about what 'success' looks like at (or after) nine years of age, are being made before we have even begun to formally develop a definition of success for children in preceding years.

It is acknowledged that compared with English medium education, Mäori medium is still in its infancy (Rau and Berryman 1999: Education Review Office, 2001: Bishop, Berryman and Richardson 2001). Despite this, approaches tend to favour a dual concurrent development as the most expedient and efficient way to support Mäori medium programmes, and no doubt to alleviate the teacher workload associated with these settings. As a result, educational priorities determined for English medium tend to drive those for Mäori medium. Many recent educational initiatives reflect this approach. These include the provision of Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour, the development of Literacy and Numeracy Instruments for Students in Year 5 and Year 7 and Aromatawai Urunga Ä Kura, School Entry Assessment. There is obvious fiscal advantage to be gained from this type of approach as well as increased opportunities for the sharing of knowledge and information and cultural and linguistic interchange. However this approach is still based on the assumption that this is what Mäori medium education needs most at this time.

Consistent with this is the pressure being exerted from various quarters to emulate practices developed for English medium in the development of an assessment framework in literacy for Mäori medium. Information collected during Ngä Kete Körero research (1993 - 1995) for example, revealed the diverse ways schools were choosing to organise material into increasing levels of difficulty and as a basis for measuring progress in Mäori. These included the adoption by some schools of the colour wheel, (the method by which text level is represented in junior reading material in English) and the assigning of English medium reading ages, to these levels. This is done quite arbitrarily, which seriously compromises the integrity, the reliability and the validity of such measures and assumes pedagogical and cultural compatibility. It would appear that aspirations for pedagogical and epistemological self-determination in Mäori medium education are being compromised by internal and external pressures to both mirror and 'catch up' with English medium education.

The Literacy Taskforce (1999) in dealing with the notion of 'success in literacy' stated that 'the expectations of all children should be the same regardless of the language of instruction or their ethnicity'. It further acknowledged that 'procedures and approaches for achieving success (at nine) for children in Mäori medium may well be different from those in English-medium education' (Literacy Taskforce Report, 1999, p7). What the report did not articulate clearly however, was that 'success' may not necessarily be defined nor measured in the same way by or for Mäori medium education.