Anthony Lucre

17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 1

Since the late 1960s it has been observed that there is a significant deficit in the educational
outcomes for Australian students of indigenous descent when compared to those of their non-
indigenous counterparts. Despite significant research and intervention by government this
difference in educational achievement remains (Jan Gray, 2008) (Herbert, 2012).

This difference is clearly demonstrated when comparing the results of both indigenous and non-
indigenous students in national standardised tests. In 2016 for year 3 reading eighty percent of
indigenous students achieved the minimum standard compared with ninety six percent of non-
indigenous students (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016). Similarly in
numeracy eighty two percent of indigenous students had achieved the minimum national standard
while ninety six percent of non-indigenous students obtained the same standard (Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016).

For the year 9 assessment the difference between indigenous and non-indigenous achievement has
become even more pronounced. For year 9 reading only seventy three percent of indigenous
students had achieved the minimum national standard as compared to ninety four percent on non-
indigenous students (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016). For
numeracy at the year 9 level seventy nine percent of indigenous students achieved the minimum
national standard compared to ninety six percent of non-indigenous students (Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016).

This difference at the year nine level is of particular concern for students in NSW when the new
minimum standards in literacy and numeracy for the higher school certificate (HSC) are taken into
account. These standards require that all students achieve a band 8 at the year 9 naplan standard
before they can be awarded the HSC (NSW Education Standards Authority). When examining the
year 9 naplan results for NSW students it can be seen that less than nineteen percent of indigenous
students have achieved this requirement during year 9. This compares to approximately half of
students from a non-indigenous background (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting
Authority, 2016).

As can be seen from the above comparisons the difference in educational achievement between
indigenous and non-indigenous students becomes more pronounced as students move through the
years of schooling. At the age of 15 the average student of indigenous decent has been shown to
demonstrate an understanding in reading, literacy and mathematics roughly two and a third years
behind the average non indigenous student (Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, 2017).

The long term consequences of this educational difference are a significant and prolonged reduction
in the life chances for indigenous students with implications not only for employment and earnings
but heath, life expectancy, incarceration and crime rates, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness and
ultimately happiness (Walter W. Mcmahon & Moses Oketch, 2013) (Commonwealth of Australia,
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017).
 Anthony Lucre
17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 2

For the purpose of this essay I will be examining this social justice issue through the lens of post
colonialism .

Post colonialism allows us to examine the issue of reduced educational outcomes for student with
indigenous decent by identifying the historical events and their associated attitudes that form the
dominant discourse both now and in the past. By looking at the historical context of indigenous
education in Australia we can understand the origin of the post-colonial identity of indigenous
students at the current time.

In order to understand the educational policies and the related discourses in regard to indigenous
education through time it is necessary to place these discourses in the wider context of the
dominant discourse of indigenous culture within Australia. To do this I will be looking at three
historical time periods which can be described as dispossession, segregation and assimilation (Jan
Gray, 2008) and showing how the dominant discourse has shaped the dominant discourse in the
modern era.

From the time of the founding of the first British colony in 1788 until approximately 1814 the
dominant discourse amongst the European settlers towards the indigenous population was one of
dispossession. This is demonstrated by the use of the term terra nullius (no one’s land) being used as
the legal grounds by which the colonization of Australia was justified. In stating that the land
belonged to no one the implication is that the indigenous population were either beneath notice or
indeed were not to be considered human. Both of these attitudes were present in the early colony
and draw their justification from the concept of naturalism (Mcconaghy, 2000). Naturalism was the
belief that white Europeans were naturally superior to all other races and that as a result any action
taken against those lesser races was justified by this perceived superiority. Naturalism at the time
consisted of two schools of thought. The first monogenesis was the belief that all humans share a
common created origin and that the differences described as race resulted from different degrees of
degradation from the created state (Mcconaghy, 2000). Polygenesis on the other hand drew on
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and specifically his concept of survival of the fittest to state that
different races were in fact different species that were competing for superiority (Mcconaghy, 2000).
While these two branches of naturalism promote contradictory views of the origin of the races and
populations both were used to establish a hierarchy describing different races. In both cases white
western Europeans were held to be the highest or most developed race while aboriginal races were
seen an either the least developed species (polygenesis) or the most degraded or degenerate race
(monogenesis) (Mcconaghy, 2000).

Drawing from this dominant discourse Indigenous education policy at this time consisted of a
twofold attack against indigenous populations. Firstly because of their perceived inferiority
indigenous populations were denied access to the schools being set up for European settlers
(Mcconaghy, 2000). At the same time public opinion was divided about whether the indigenous
population was cable of being educated (Woods, 1998) or to use the language of the time brought
up to the level of white races (Mcconaghy, 2000). Simultaneously the dispossession of indigenous
populations from their land combined with regular and systematic violence against indigenous
 Anthony Lucre
17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 3

groups resulted in a disruption to the practice of indigenous spiritualism which was tightly bound to
the place of habitation and which forms the main method of education of children within indigenous
communities (Woods, 1998).

The second period can be described as a period of segregation. This was the policy that indigenous
populations should be treated differently from the mainstream of society. The start of this period
can be traced to approximately 1814 however the end of this period is more difficult to define as in
can be seen to have coexisted with the later period of assimilation.

In 1814 under Governor Macquarie the first school for indigenous students was established.
Governor Macquarie’s belief was that indigenous people could be trained to be labourers or
domestic servants in order to provide the colony with an exploitable labour force (Woods, 1998).
The school which taught only basic literacy and numeracy instead focused on training students in
manual labour, agriculture or mechanics for males and sewing , knitting, spinning or domestic work
for females (Woods, 1998).

In 1837 this practice of segregation was expanded with the establishment of church missions and
government reserves or compounds in which entire indigenous groups were imprisoned (Woods,
1998). These reserves were generally overcrowded and often were situated next to waste dumps or
sanitation sites (Jan Gray, 2008). Schools within these camps were staffed by people without
teaching qualifications and students were often left to their own initiative (Woods, 1998). As with
the school in 1814 education standards were limited to basic literacy and numeracy and low skilled
work in order that they could be used as a source of cheap labour for the non-indigenous population
(Woods, 1998). In addition to the squalid conditions and overcrowding students were often
subjected to denigration by those given responsibility for educating them. In the guise of education
indigenous students were taught that aboriginal people were the least acceptable form of humanity
in the world and that they were little removed from animals. They were made to believe that the
colour of their skin was evidence of their physical and mental inferiority to all other humans and was
a sign that they would never be acceptable by mainstream Australian society (Woods, 1998). Study
undertaken in the 1960s associated living under such conditions with significant mental illnesses
including apathy, depression and social withdrawal (Jan Gray, 2008). The ongoing and
multigenerational consequences of this period can still be observed with indigenous populations
having significantly higher rates of mental illness, depression, suicide and substance abuse than the
general population (Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
2017).

In the case of indigenous students not required by law to live in missions and reserves education was
similarly limited or unavailable. Public education systems were established in the first half of the
nineteenth century and made compulsory for all students in the 1860s and 70s (Woods, 1998)
however indigenous students were only permitted to attend such schools if approval was gained
from the parents of all non-indigenous students enrolled. This ability to deny enrolment remained in
education policy in NSW until 1972 (Woods, 1998).
 Anthony Lucre
17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 4

From the early part of the twentieth century the policy of segregation gradually transformed into a
policy for the assimilation of indigenous populations into what was commonly called white Australia.
In 1915 the aborigine protection board of NSW was given the legal right to remove indigenous
children from their parents without proof of neglect (Cadzow, 2007). This power was used to remove
(at first) children of mixed decent from their parents and to place them in either a segregated
indigenous schools or with a white family. These removals known as the stolen generations were
described publically as being for the protection of children from neglect however evidence shows
that these students were trained to assimilate into mainstream culture. This training included
punishment for speaking a language other than in English or for not complying with required dress
or activities (Australian Human rights commission, 1997).

In 1940 the policy for segregation was officially abandoned in favour of a policy of assimilation and
integration of indigenous populations into the mainstream Australian population (Jan Gray, 2008).
Under this policy in order to be acceptable to white Australia individuals of indigenous decent were
required to abandon traditional lifestyles and knowledge and to conform to the expectations of the
dominant culture (Jan Gray, 2008). Education played a key role in this policy by creating
environments in which indigenous culture was present only in the most superficial way and was
generally taught in a negative or primitive light (Jan Gray, 2008). The damage to indigenous culture
inherent in this policy did not generally enter in the contemporary discourse and the eventual
destruction of the indigenous culture was seen in a positive light by government (Jan Gray, 2008).

In order to demonstrate the effect that this historical context has on current indigenous educational
achievement I will be examining these past time periods using the concepts of power and privilege
as well as the development of post-colonial identity within the dominant discourse.

In examining the role of power and privilege I will be employing the notion of center-periphery
thinking. This concept envisions that the dominant culture or discourse occupies the centre while
any individual or group seen as different or other is relegated to the periphery. In this model power
(defined as control over your own or other peoples circumstances), influence and privilege are
concentrated towards the centre with the ultimate decision makers at the very middle (Herbert,
2012). When applied to the colonial history of Australia the centrality in this model of the white
culture is made clear through the disempowerment of indigenous populations as to their own
lifestyles. During the period of dispossession this is demonstrated in the systematic episodes of
violence towards indigenous groups. Similarly during the era of segregation indigenous people were
denied the ability to choose where and how they would live through their imprisonment in reserves.
Finally during the period of assimilation indigenous individuals were required to conform to the
ideals of the dominant culture (Jan Gray, 2008).

In regards to education a similar disempowerment is demonstrated through colonial history. The

initial denial of schooling to indigenous children by the dominant group and the later limiting of
education (both availability and standard) both indicate that education is seen at these times as
something which is done to indigenous students rather than a process in which they are involved.
Similarly in the period of assimilation education was viewed as a tool by which the dominant culture
 Anthony Lucre
17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 5

was imposed on indigenous students (Jan Gray, 2008). This disempowerment has profound
consequences for student engagement. Under Glasser’s control theory power is one of four
psychological requirements for student learning. Denial of any of these basic requirements is likely
to result student disengagement (William Glasser & Pauline B.Gough, 1987). This can be
demonstrated in the current time through higher levels of absenteeism and lower retention rates for
indigenous students over their non-indigenous peers (Commonwealth of Australia, Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017).

When regarding the post-colonial identity of indigenous populations it is clear that the dominant
discourse in regards to indigenous ability has been one of deficit that is to say that the indigenous
person is seen to be less (in every way) than the member of the dominant group . In both the eras of
dispossession and segregation the dominant discourse held was that indigenous people were
unsuited for anything more than unskilled labour. In terms of education it was considered that
anything more than basic literacy and numeracy combined with vocational studies was unnecessary
and indeed a waste of educators time (Woods, 1998). This negative understanding of indigenous
ability was in turn imposed on indigenous students both explicitly through the denigration they
received as education (Woods, 1998) and implicitly through the attitudes of dominant culture. The
resulting reduction is self-efficacy by students has profound and long term implecations for
educational outcomes (PISA, 2016)

This negative identity in regard to indigenous ability was made obvious by the government funded
survey in 1985 in which the dominant discourse was demonstrated as stereotyping of indigenous
communities as lazy, alcoholics or noble savages (Jan Gray, 2008). It is disturbing that non
indigenous educators at the time were generally shown to share this attitude towards the
indigenous students in their class (Jan Gray, 2008). The result of these dominant attitudes for
education is reduced teacher expectations. Research has shown that teacher expectations are one of
the most powerful predictors of student performance (PISA, 2016).

Unfortunately the attitudes and beliefs described here can be observed in modern teaching
contexts. Indigenous students are often disengaged due to a feeling of disempowerment and a belief
that they are not capable of succeeding (self- efficacy). In addition teachers have been shown to
have lower expectations of indigenous students ability to succeed (Sarra, March 2007) and will
rationalise indigenous failure as being the fault of the student themselves (Jan Gray, 2008).

In order to address the long term and multigenerational deficit in educational outcomes for
indigenous students it is necessary to begin not with the curriculum or educational programs but
rather with the attitudes of educators (Sarra, March 2007). Teachers must first challenge their own
beliefs concerning the ability of indigenous students and in doing so challenge the belief of their
students in their own self efficacy. Only with a change of the dominant discourse can this deficit be
addressed and equity in education outcomes be achieved (Sarra, March 2007).
 Anthony Lucre
17124573
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning
Assignment 1
Page 6

Bibliography
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). National Assessment Program,
Literacy and Numeracy National report for 2016.

Australian Human rights commission. (1997). Bringing them home Report 1997. Australian Human
rights commission.

Cadzow, D. A. (2007). A NSW Aboriginal education Timeline 1788-2007. Retrieved 8 7, 2017, from
NSW Education Standards Authority: https://ab-ed.nesa.nsw.edu.au/files/timeline1788-
2007.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). Closing the Gap
- Prime Minister's Report 2017. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet.

Herbert, J. (2012). Ceaselessly circling the centre: Historical contextualization of indigenous

education within Australia. History of Education Review, 91-103.

Jan Gray, Q. B. (2008, August). A Formidable Challenge: Australia's quest for equity in Indigenous
education. Australian Journal of Education, 197.

Mcconaghy, C. (2000). Rethinking Indigenous Education: Culturalism, colonialism and the politics of
knowing.

NSW Education Standards Authority. (n.d.). Minimum HSC Standard. Retrieved 08 8, 2017, from NSW
Education Standards Authority:
http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/about/initiatives/stronger-hsc-
standards/minimum-standard

PISA. (2016, Feburary 10). Low Performing students: why they fall behind and how to help them
succeed. Retrieved 08 09, 2017, from OECD iLibrary:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1787/9789264250246-en

Sarra, C. (March 2007). Stronger, Smarter, Sarra. Teacher: The national Education Magazine, 32-34,
36-38, 40-41.

Walter W. Mcmahon & Moses Oketch. (2013, 02 20). Education's Effects on Individual Life Chances
and On Development: An Overview. British Journal of Educational Studies, pp. 79-107.

William Glasser & Pauline B.Gough. (1987). The Key to Improving Schools: An Interview with William
Glasser. Phi Delta Kappa International, 656-662.

Woods, D. (1998). Racism, Reconciliation, Rights -- The 3 Rs of Indigenous Education in Australia

Today. Australian Educational Researcher.