Aboriginal Education and Policy: Failure to Self-Determination

“Education Fails Indigenous Kids” identifies the historical inequalities of indigenous educational outcomes, using NAPLAN and My School data and averages as an academic benchmark.  “150 schools with the lowest NAPLAN results are remote and very remote schools attended mainly by indigenous students. There are few non-indigenous school in this group of 150, and few indigenous schools outside it” (Helen and Mark Hughes, 2010, Education fails indigenous kids).

NAPLAN allows policy makers to indicate the consistency of knowledge across the spectrum, regarding literacy and numeracy. Despite NAPLAN’s usefulness providing transparency and a comparative study for educational researchers, it is evident that the test narrows the curriculum and does nothing to incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander culture. There have been no distinctions for indigenous students. “NAPLAN and My School have identified where Australian education is working and where it is in crisis” (Helen and Mark Hughes, 2010).  NAPLAN tells us where the gaps exist, but does nothing to alleviate why.

Educational disadvantage is entrenched within our system. Ford (2013) argues the historical perpetuation of indigenous inequalities, defined as ‘lock-in inequalities’. Given that education is the most accessible means for social mobility, it is further insult to injury that those communities that need to break the deadlock are static and unable to access the resources to empower individuals and their communities.

From the Protection Era government policies of the mid-1800s to 1930s, to the Assimilation policy of the 20^th century, one prevalent theme is maintained: paternalism. Aboriginal communities have endured decades of government interventionist and centralization policies, from both parties. Today, Federal and State Departments denote a fiscal policy – however, the paternalism and ‘chief protector’ mentality continues. Despite policy after policy, budget after budget, the entrenchment of Indigenous disadvantage is maintained.

Warren Mundine, the chief Indigenous advisor for the Federal Government, and will chair Tony Abbot’s Indigenous Advisory Council, in the article “WM flags radical overhaul of Indigenous regulatory body,” explicitly states that Federal Government funding has not reached the grassroots level.  In a fiscal era of government, Mundine has challenged the belief that funding alone can annul education, health and incarceration inequalities. Despite fiscal spending in Aboriginal communities, “historical underachievement” is perpetuated regardless of Canberra’s pledge (Ford, 2013, p. 99). Spending alone will not ‘close the gap’. Mundine further supports this claim, stating, “money has disappeared” (Michelmore, Flags Radical Overhaul, 2013).

Therefore, we know ‘the gap’ continues; we know the historical locked-in inequality in Aboriginal communities festers; we know the prevalence of Government interventionist policies; and lastly, we know that Government fiscal policies do not even reach the communities and frontline workers where it’s needed most. Then what kind of policy could fix this?

How can Aboriginal students maximize their own chances of success in what is a highly competitive educational system? Furthermore, how can Aboriginal students ‘close the gap’ that has been deepening for decades?

On Q & A, Warren Mundine states that there is a common misconception to perceive Aboriginals as one people: “Aboriginal people are not one group – but a number of cultures, with varying degrees of the colonial experience and Invasion. We need to recognize Aboriginal students on a regional-to-regional basis” (Q & A, 2013).

Q & A on Indigenous Intervention and Self-Determination

The concept of self-determination has often been used in Indigenous discourses around the world: from native North and Southern Americans, to the Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Like those political rhetoric’s, they are generally used to appease Indigenous communities. But what kind of policy could the Federal Government implement to actually encourage self-determination?

Would a ‘micro self-determination’ be possible? Empowering Aboriginal communities and cultures, rather than a top-down approach. What would educational policies that implement micro and culture-based curriculums look like?

I believe a focus to empower Aboriginals, begins in a shift in trust and investment into Aboriginal community themselves, empowering Aboriginal communities. Policy reforms to encourage self-determination, ending Canberra’s assimilation strategies and consequent community welfare dependency. Looking at NAPLAN, we see the gaps – they are clear. But instead of dealing with the symptoms of educational inequalities, we must deal with the causes. To shift trust and confidence to leaders and frontline workers can cultivate community autonomy, and consequently, positive educational outcomes, ending disadvantage and ‘closing the gap’. The era of ‘trickle down’ Indigenous policy must end.

References

Ford, M. (2013) “Achievement Gaps in Australia: What NAPLAN Reveals about Education Inequality in Australia”. Race Ethnicity and Education. 16:1, pp. 80 – 102.

Hughes, H. and Hughes, M. (29 April, 2010). “Education Fails Indigenous Kids”. The Australian. Retrieved from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/education-fails-indigenous-kids/story-e6frg6zo-1225859601205

McEvoy, P. (Executive Producer). (14 October, 2013). Q & A. Sydney: ABC.  Retrieved from: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/43502

Michelmore, K. (14 October, 2013). “Warren Mundine flags radical overhaul of Indigenous regulatory body ORIC, says ‘money has disappeared.” ABC News. Retrieved from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-14/warren-mundine-flags-radical-overhaul-of-indigenous-regulator/5019356