2119710

EDUC2420

‘A discussion of Key themes that need to be addressed when designing a

reconciliation module in the classroom and methods that ensure Indigenous
students see themselves in Australian curriculum’
By Kingsley Francis

Education has historically been used as a tool of colonisation and suppression.

Colonisation has meant education systems have acted as fundamental avenues in
spreading colonial agents to support idealised nationalism (Edwards, S. & Hewitson,
K. 2008). This vivid reference reflects what once occupied classroom ideology in
Australia. Today, private organisations and government institutions look to
deconstruct the real effects of colonisation in Australia and incorporate means of
reclaiming knowledge, truth and empowerment of Indigenous perspectives through
culturally considerate practices in education.

Before addressing different measures that must be taken to teach for reconciliation
in the classroom, this essay aims to highlight several key issues. For the readers
benefit, this essay will first seek to distinguish the goals and ideas of reconciliation as
a process in an Australian context. A further goal of this paper is to identify the
effects of colonization - that is how colonization has shaped the relationship between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians of today. The idea in exploring these
elements is to highlight the value, therefore the need, for reconciliation practices
within the classroom. By addressing the intergenerational disadvantage of
Indigenous Australian peoples, teachers can hope to be able to provide culturally
inclusive education, through critical pedagogy that bridges the relationship between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of Australia. The above aims are to be
explored through a comparison of indigenous and non-indigenous sources and
analysis of relevant educational framework and pedagogy. By exploring these
pedagogies it is hoped to assist teachers in catering for and assisting with Indigenous
children’s’ sense of identity and place, within Australian curriculum.

For some, the idea of reconciliation is ambiguous. In an Indigenous Australian

context the idea, need for and goal of reconciliation varies across individuals and
groups. However, it is commonly accepted that the term reconciliation itself implies
to repair or bring something together. Henderson, in particular has stated simply that
reconciliation is a coming together of a diversity of opinion (A. 1995). According to
Worby G. Rigney, L. Tur, S. (2006), the purpose of reconciliation is to act as a site
whereby critical analysis, transformation and reconstruction can and should take
place. Additionally, Mellor (D. 2007) portrays a more skeptical view highlighting that
it is simply a term that has tragically feigned the concept of progress and merely acts
as a glossy diplomatic tool. Upon reflection of these ideas, it can be logically inferred,
considering the limited previous success of the Howard’s governments’ practical

1
 2119710

approach, that the skepticism as portrayed by Mellor is validated. It can also be seen
from the above that the notions of Reconciliation are sometimes abstract.
The question remaining is how to best shift this notion of a glossy facade into
something more meaningful. In addressing this, Worby (et al. 2006) suggests that
truth and reconciliation are tightly entwined. This idea is supported by findings in
South African reconciliation processes (Gibson, J. Claassen, C. 2010). Therefore,
based on this premise, it can be fitting to infer that reconciliation cannot occur if the
truth is not first recognised. It can be ascertained that truth cannot be met with the
interpretation of one-sided perspectives. Furthermore, by seeking to identify the
legacy of the effect of colonization on Indigenous people it can hope to provide
justification for teachers in addressing key themes when planning for reconciliation
practices in the classroom.

Due to limitations, the focus of this paper is not to delve extensively into the detailed
truth behind colonization but rather the affect of the legacy of colonisation on
indigenous peoples and relationships in a contemporary context. Several literature
pieces have highlighted the effect embedded in the geographical context of post-
colonization in Australia (Mellor, D. Bretherton, D. 2006; Mellor, D. Bretherton, D.
Firth, L. 2007). The literature highlights colonisation and the causality of the state of
current relationships between indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Mellor et
al. 2006). It is further expressed that historically, these events are widely
characterized by a century of disadvantage and suppression through violation,
dispossession and displacement of Indigenous peoples (Mellor et al. 2006; Mellor et
al. 2007; Chaney, F. in Henderson, A. 1995). These events were deeply embedded
with racist and inhumane manifestations of justification that stem from White
historical constructions of ‘race’ and even spheres of international law. Ideas of
influential men such as jurist, Emmerich de Vattel and John Locke reflect a gross
perception of a ‘right to settlement’ as a principle of ‘natural law (Parkinson, P. 2004).
This notion of ‘natural law’ shows complete disregard for the Indigenous occupation
of Australia pre-settlement.

Furthermore, according to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission, gross violations of human rights have been reported. It described then-
policies of assimilation as attempted genocide. Proceeding years of overt violence
committed against indigenous peoples, Australian government systems promised
protection and help on the premise of assimilation into Western society. Despite this
promise, Indigenous Australians have been disadvantaged through policies of the
Australian Government who have essentially used bureaucracy as a tool to maintain
power and privilege of White people. Mellor argues that the dispossession of land,
children, and oppression, have resulted in social disintegration and the destruction of
a culture and identity (D. 2003 in Mellor et al. 2007). Scholars have previously
recognized ‘structural violence’ as a modern legacy of White colonization in Australia.
Structural violence has been referred to as the constraints and disadvantage placed
on Indigenous Australians caused by economic and political structures (Mellor et al.
2006; Mellor et al. 2007).

2
 2119710

It can also be said that ‘structural violence’ is ingrained in normalized social

inequalities and contributes to the shaping of present day relationships between
indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The purpose in addressing this point is to understand the history behind

contemporary relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. In
understanding the historical perspective of Indigenous and non-Indigenous
relationships it is hoped to achieve a better understanding of Aboriginal and Torres
Straight Islander perspectives and the colonial footprint left behind, by White people.
This understanding is further hoped to reinforce the idea behind the need for
reconciliation and the repairing of a long, suppressed, cultural identity. Moreover, it
is of importance to highlight to the reader that reconciliation can act through both a
practical and a social process. A practical view has been typically characterized by a
focus on housing, health cover and education. A social process of reconciliation aims
to reposition and reconstruct relationships. The official reconciliation program has
focused on the history of relationships between indigenous Australians and
Europeans.

Stokes and Yardi (G., R. 1998) suggest that reconciliation must at least recognize a
less ‘heroic’ side of Australian history. It can be seen that reconciliation can act as a
process that acknowledges the inequality and injustice brought upon Indigenous
people. Several scholars (Stokes et al. 1998; Leigh, A. 2002; Mellor et al. 2007)
further suggest that this is likely to bring about feelings of discomfort. Leigh further
advocates that movement towards reconciliation presents a possibility that feelings
of discomfort may come hand in hand with the process, particularly in non-
Indigenous Australians (A. 2002). If reconciliation is to act as pedagogy of discomfort,
that is to critique pre existing ideals, values, perspectives of Australian history, it must
be accepted that this process will face some adversity through resistance to change.
As a non-Indigenous Australian, I recognise the difficulty in this way of critical
thinking and the personal confrontation it brings, in particular, of known national
ideologies. While it has been recognized that reconciliation can act as pedagogy of
discomfort, contrastingly, it can and should bear expectations of hope. There exists
the hope that expressions of regret and atonement can promote an environment
whereby optimism and good can prevail (Stephens, U. 2007). Diplock (A. Rochester,
A. 2014) stresses that action for reconciliation needs to be symbolic and pragmatic.
Previous attempts at a ‘practical’ approach to reconciliation have been ineffective.
This is particularly applicable in addressing Indigenous perspectives within
Indigenous communities. The question that stems from here concerns who’s interest
a ‘practical approach’ considers.

In considering key themes needed to address reconciliation, several frameworks and

teaching pedagogies and ways of implementation are considered in this paper.
The Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) can be seen as one educational tool that
teachers can use as a framework for reconciliation in the classroom. Through
education, It focuses on three themes of reconciliation; Relationships, respect and
opportunity. Upon inspection of the model, relationships (in the classroom, with the
community and around the school) act as the foundation to this framework. The

3
 2119710

Australian curriculum also presents a framework that teachers can use but ultimately
it is the teacher’s duty, as a life long learner, to explore different curriculum content
in ways that are culturally inclusive and relevant to the learner. Elaborating on the
idea of promoting reconciliation through the strengthening of relationships is the
concept of culturally responsive and inclusive teaching practices. This view of
teaching looks to incorporate a collection of cultural experiences within topic content
and ways of teaching. Konakov suggests that a culturally competent teacher fosters
the idea of engagement and participation with indigenous communities (et al. 2012).
In support of this it has been suggested that teaching practices must adopt culturally
inclusive class environments that explore culturally relevant curriculum if effective
teaching is a goal (Konakov et al. 2012). The objective of this is to incorporate
Indigenous perspectives, culture and history into educational content in order to
bring a better understanding and a sense of value of Indigenous ways of life. A
further outcome of culturally inclusive practice is the development of individual and
cultural identity. Colquhoun (S. Dockery, A. 2012) asserts that the well being of
Indigenous people is suggested to be enhanced when traditional culture is
maintained. If restoring a broken culture and identity is a goal of reconciliation then
teachers must bring about a focus in maintaining cultural identity within the
curriculum content and teaching practices. The AITSL standards further support the
culturally responsive approach to not only building on Indigenous knowledge but
promoting reconciliation. Teaching standard 2.4 is as follows;

‘Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote
reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians’
(AITSL, 2014)

Further affirmation of the importance of this approach to Indigenous education

exists in ACARA cross-curriculum goals:

“The Australian Curriculum must be both relevant to the lives of students and address
the contemporary issues they face’… ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures will allow all young Australians the opportunity to gain a deeper
understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and
cultures, their significance for Australia and the impact these have had, and continue
to have, on our world.” (ACARA, 2012)

In reflection of the content of this paper, several key themes are evident in
addressing reconciliation in the classroom in a manner that ensures Indigenous
student’s see themselves in the Australian Curriculum. The above guidelines act as a
framework for pedagogy but what is of primary importance is how teachers
incorporate themes such as relationships, respect and opportunity in the classroom.
Based on the literature reviewed, this paper maintains the view that the root of
these themes is the provision of culturally inclusive teaching practice. A critical
consideration of how and what content teachers explore underpins the goal of
ensuring the Australian education system provides an environment that fosters
cultural identity and works towards the ultimate goal of reconciliation. Furthermore,
must be emphasized that critical pedagogy is vital in this process. If education

4
 2119710

practices are culturally ignorant of Indigenous values, knowledge and ways of

learning then it remains, albeit covert, a continued colonial footprint and a modern
day form of cultural destruction and loss of Indigenous identity.

References

AITSL (2014). Standards: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-
teachers/standards/list?s=2

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Cross Curricular

Capabilities. Retrieved from:
http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/cross_curriculum_priorities.html

Australian Human Rights Commission (2014). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice. [Retrieved from: www.humanrights.gov.au/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-
islander-social-justice

Colquhoun, S. and Dockery, M. (2012). The link between Indigenous culture and
wellbeing. Perth: Centre for Labour Market Research.

Edwards, S. and Hewitson, K. (2008) Indigenous Epistemologies in tertiary education,

Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, Sydney, Australia. 37, [supplement] 96-
102, [Retrieved from:
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/fullText;dn=171537;res=AEIPT ]

Gibson, J. and Claassen, C. (2010), Racial Reconciliation in South Africa: Interracial

Contact and Changes over Time, Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 255 – 272,

Henderson, A. (1995). Australia's Aborigines going forward-Review of submission by

the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Going Forward: Social Justice for the First
Australians. Commercial Issues (Sydney Institute), 21, 6-7. [Retrieved from:
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=95080
7572;res=IELAPA]

Henderson, L. (2014). Week 2: Learning theories. [Cognitive theories about

development and learning]. Retrieved from Flinders University EDUC2320, Moodle
site

5
 2119710

Konakov, Svetlana; Robertson, John and Beckett, Cynthia A. (2012). More meaningful
ways through culturally responsive approaches, Every Child, 18(1), 36-37.
[Retrieved from:
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/fullText;dn=504887231417197
;res=IELAPA]

Leigh, A. (2002). Leadership and Aboriginal reconciliation. Australian Journal of Social

Issues, 37(2), 131–152

Mellor, D. and Bretherton, D. (2006) Reconciliation between Aboriginal and Other

Australians: The Stolen Generations, Journal of Social Issues, 62(1), 81-98

Mellor, D., Bretherton, D. and Firth, L. (2007). Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

Australia: The Dilemma of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation. Peace and
conflict, 13(1), 11-36.

Parkinson, P. 2004. Tradition and change in Australian Law, 3rd ed., Sydney, Thomson
Legal & Regulatory Limited

Reconciliation.org.au, (2014). Narragunnawali Reconciliation in Schools | RAPs.

[Retrieved from: http://www.reconciliation.org.au/schools/raps/

Rochester, A. Diplock, A. (2014). Week 7: Reconciliation Pedagogy and Inclusive

Practises. Retrieved from Flinders University EDUC2420, Moodle site

Stephens, U. (2007) Why Is It So Hard to Say Sorry? Eureka Street, 17(10), 2

Stokes, G. and Yardi, R. (1998). Foundations for Reconciliation in Social Science: The
Political Thought of C.D. Rowley. Melbourne Journal of Politics, 25(1), 45. Retrieved
from: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA54495237&v=2.1&u=flinders&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w&asid=aa8a6493d7182df86
968ada35d2c7a2f

Worby, G., Rigney, L. and Tur, S. (2006), Where salt and fresh waters meet:
reconciliation and change in education, in G. Worby & L. (eds), Sharing spaces:
Indigenous and non-Indigenous response to story, country and rights, API Network,
Perth, 418-447