Social SciencesFreePrintable

Bicultural Integration in Practice

A free social sciences worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Bicultural Integration in Practice

You are advising a fictional public service in Aotearoa New Zealand on how to work in ways that uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and respond to local needs. Use the fictional sources on this sheet. Distinguish what a source says from your own interpretation, and avoid treating Māori or Crown perspectives as uniform.

Case file: Te Awa Community Health Hub

The fictional hub is redesigning its youth wellbeing service. It currently offers individual appointments with registered counsellors, uses a standard intake form and reports outcomes to a central agency. A review found that some rangatahi and whānau found the referral process difficult to navigate. The hub wants to improve access and trust without assuming every person wants the same kind of support. The board has authority over the service budget and procedures. It includes health professionals and community representatives. The board has not yet asked local mana whenua how they wish to be involved.

1.The board wants to move beyond adding Māori terms to its existing forms. Which proposed first step is most likely to support meaningful bicultural integration?

Translate the current form, then keep all decision-making and service rules unchanged.
Invite relevant mana whenua and Māori practitioners to help define the review questions and influence the redesign from the beginning.
Choose a programme used elsewhere and apply it identically, without local discussion.
Ask for feedback once the new service model and budget have been finalised.

Two fictional proposals

Proposal A — Service manager: “A shared intake process and clear clinical referral criteria can help staff identify needs consistently. We should explain privacy limits, record consent and monitor whether people can access appointments. The service needs reliable reporting to account for public funding.” Proposal B — Whānau adviser: “Begin by asking rangatahi and whānau what wellbeing, safety and helpful support mean to them. Offer choices about who is involved, where conversations happen and whether cultural or whānau support is wanted. Whānau knowledge should be able to shape goals, not just be collected after the plan is made.” These are invented classroom sources. Neither represents all health services, Māori people, whānau or advisers.

2.Identify one priority in Proposal A and one in Proposal B. Support each with a specific detail from the source.

3.What assumption might each proposal make about how support should be organised? Give one possible limitation of each assumption.

4.The board controls the budget and the intake rules. Explain how this shapes power in the case. Who can influence the service now, and whose knowledge could be overlooked?

5.A staff member says, “Partnership, participation and protection are the three articles of Te Tiriti.” Is this accurate? Explain the distinction between Treaty articles and these commonly used principles.

Design a response

Use the case and proposals to develop a practical recommendation. A response can combine professional services with approaches shaped by rangatahi, whānau and relevant local Māori guidance. The exact approach should be developed with those concerned, rather than assumed in advance.

6.Choose one design decision for the hub—for example, how appointments are offered, how goals are agreed, or how feedback is gathered. Describe the decision and explain how rangatahi and whānau could meaningfully influence it.

7.State two observable indicators that would help the board check whether integration is happening in practice. Avoid using a vague indicator such as “the service is culturally respectful.”

8.A rangatahi wants counselling but does not want whānau contacted. Name one ethical consideration, one practical response and one reason the service should not assume the same choice applies to every rangatahi.

9.Identify one risk of a poorly designed bicultural initiative and one specific way to reduce it. Explain why your action would help.

10.Write a recommendation to the board (about 120–180 words). Combine at least one professional or evidence-informed support with a locally guided, whānau-aware approach. Include who should help make decisions, how consent and privacy will be handled, one measure of success, and one limitation or next step.