This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Shay, Marnee(2017)Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: a research syn-thesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools.Teaching Education, 28(1), pp. 12-26.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/102890/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1210594

1

Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: A research

synthesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools

Marnee Shay

School of Cultural and Professional Learning, Faculty of Education, Queensland University

of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4509 Australia.

Email: ms.shay@qut.edu.au

2

Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: A research

synthesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools

The Indigenous education agenda in Australia remains focused on mainstream

schooling contexts. Although overlooked in Indigenous education discourse, Flexi

schools appear to be engaging with disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous

students and staff. The educative roles of Indigenous peoples in broader Indigenous

education discourse is relatively underexplored. Even less is known about Indigenous

educative roles in flexi schools. This paper presents a literature review on Indigenous

staff roles in mainstream and flexi schools. The literature paints a contrasting picture

between the two schooling approaches. The disparity in Indigenous student and staff

numbers in mainstream and flexi schools offers new ideas to the broader Indigenous

education agenda that may have implications for all education settings.

Keywords: Indigenous education, flexi schools, Indigenous education roles

Introduction

Aboriginal peoples are First Nations peoples of mainland Australia or Indigenous

Australians. Torres Strait Islander peoples are also Indigenous Australians and are the First

Nations peoples of the islands located off Far North Queensland, Australia (Aboriginal &

Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2000; Davis, 2004). A colonised country,

Australia is the youngest nation invaded by the British in the late seventeen hundereds

(Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2000). Colonial legacies of

racism and Indigenous dispossession still permeate ideologically throughout most aspects of

contemporary Australian discourse, including education (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2014).

Much research on Indigenous education to date has positioned Indigenous peoples as being

the object or subject of such inquiries (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). This paper is authored by an

Aboriginal researcher, from an Aboriginal standpoint. I firmly articulate my positionality as

an Aboriginal educator and researcher clearly, as I recognise that my Aboriginality provides a

3

particular lens that influences how I conceptualise research, in particular, Indigenous

research.

Like many First Nations peoples globally, Indigenous Australians experience

unacceptable social, emotional, educational and economic disadvantage (Tuhiwai Smith,

2012). Despite decades of a social and educational policy aimed to redress disadvantage,

progress towards achieving equality has been slow, at best. The representation of Indigenous

peoples in such discussions has been limited to date. Moreover, Indigenous education policy

and practice frameworks have been limited to examining the roles of conventional schools in

delivering outcomes to Indigenous students. This paper aims to bring new ideas to the

broader Indigenous education agenda through discussing the role of flexi schools in providing

educational provision to Indigenous young people who have previously disengaged from

mainstream school settings. In particular, this paper presents a research synthesis that focuses

on the high numbers of Indigenous staff that appear to undertake a variety of roles in flexi

school settings and the contrast to Indigenous staffing in mainstream school settings. The

high numbers of Indigenous staff provide opportunities to explore connections to innovative

educational practices that are so desperately needed to improve educational outcomes for

Indigenous young people more widely.

Flexi schools or alternative schooling is a relatively new focus area of research in an

Australian context. Although there is much diversity in the array of flexi schools, the context

of the discussion about Indigenous staffing and roles in this paper is centred on flexi schools

that define themselves as changing educational provision (te Riele, 2007). The focus on flexi

schools who are changing educational provision to meet the needs of young people rather

than changing the young person to meet the needs of the system is significant in presenting

new discourse to the broader Indigenous education agenda. Hence the implications of this

4

discussion, it will be argued, are potentially further reaching than examining flexi schooling

contexts.

This paper will begin with a summary of the implications history holds in any

discussion about Indigenous education. A research synthesis of literature on Indigenous staff

roles in mainstream and staff roles alternative school settings reveals a distinction that

presents new opportunities for the broader Indigenous education agenda. Finally, this paper

will propose that there is an urgent need for further research in flexi schooling contexts in

Australia, particularly as there appears to disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous

students and staff engaged in this model of education.

Indigenous education and the relevance of history

The effectiveness of any critique or discussion about Indigenous education relies on

the inclusion of acknowledging the role Australian history plays in understanding

contemporary issues (Phillips & Lampert, 2012). Some forget that in the not-too-distant past,

Indigenous Australians were considered intellectually inferior and unable to attain the same

education outcomes as White people (Price, 2012). Indigenous education outcomes and

policy directly correlated with the broader political and social discourse that existed in that

era of time. Strong black activism and the internationalisation of Indigenous rights has

engendered better access to education in the latter half of the twentieth century. Further, a

new political focus on improving education, social and health outcomes.

Over the past four decades, increased numbers of year 12 completions, increased

numbers of university graduates and now over 200 Doctoral graduates has resulted in more

qualified Indigenous teachers, professionals and academic (Australian Government, 2012).

Consequently, this provides opportunities for our people to contribute now to the Indigenous

education agenda. The emphasis on Indigenous learners and focus on finding a mythical

solution for all Indigenous learners is beginning to dissipate to more robust enquiries about

5

the systemic failures of Indigenous young people. Subsequently, the more diverse framing of

inquiries (such as the study attached to this research synthesis) will undoubtedly generate

new knowledge and perspectives on complex issues.

Flexi schools and Indigenous engagement

This paper focuses on the specific Australian schooling sector termed ‘flexi schools’

or ‘alternative schools’. The term Flexi school describes a model of schooling outside

conventional education addressing the needs of disenfranchised young people (Shay, 2015).

For consistency, flexi schools are the term used throughout this paper. There is an expansive

range of flexi schooling programs in operation in Australia (te Riele, 2007, 2014). It is well

established that there are great numbers of Indigenous young people that are disengaging

from mainstream school settings and that there is a significant disparity in school outcomes

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people (Australian Government, 2015; Gray,

Hunter, & Schwab, 2000; Gunstone, 2012; Lonsdale, 2013). Thus, the high numbers of

Indigenous peoples interacting with flexi schools are not unexpected (Shay, 2015).

A typology developed by te Riele (2007) who describes the mass of programs as

leading to 'confusion and inefficiency', provides a considered framework in New South Wales

to map 'the alternative education landscape' (p. 54) in this State. The mapping produces a

two-dimensional model. The first dimension is labelled by the purpose of the program,

categorising programs based on the aim. This categorisation occurs through identifying if the

program aims at 'changing the young person' or 'changing the provision of the education

provided' (te Riele, 2007, p. 59). The second dimension considers the stability of the

program. Factors influencing this dimension include the duration of the program and

allocation of funding provided. Within these two dimensions, te Riele presents four sections

with further characteristics to describe the alternative school to place the type of program

within this archetype.

6

The typology by te Riele is important in defining the schools discussed in this paper.

The study that this research synthesis is connected to will include stable schools or units that

define themselves as changing the provision of education to meet the needs of young people,

rather than changing the young person to meet the needs of the education system (te Riele,

2007). This point is particularly important about Indigenous education discourse, the broader

context within which this study is situated. This study seeks to bring new knowledge and

opportunities to the Indigenous education agenda. Flexi school models that reproduce factors

of exclusion through trying to change young people who do not meet the needs of the

education system is not offering new opportunities. Rather, flexi schools that are changing

the provision of education to meet the needs of young people are by definition doing things

differently or with innovation; and it is micro aspects of this that this study will explore. In

particular, the roles that large numbers of Indigenous staff are having in flexi schooling

contexts.

There are some examples of small studies exploring the flexi school contexts in

Australia. Though varied in nature, all report similar positive messages about the role flexi

schools are playing in the Australian education setting in supporting young people to remain

engaged in education (Deed, 2008; McGregor & Mills, 2012; Mills & McGregor, 2010; te

Riele, 2012) National and international literature provide thematic patterns used to describe

central features of flexi school environments. The three themes include the centrality of

relationships; emphasis on community and sense of belonging and empowerment of young

people (Shay, 2015). The first theme of relationships features strongly in much of the

literature about flexi schools. An indication that there is an emphasis on relationships with

young people and staff is evident and foregrounds much of the discussion in the literature

(Lohmann, 2009; McGregor & Mills, 2012; Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2014;

Shay, 2016; Wilson, Stemp, & McGinty, 2011). The second theme, sense of community and

7

belonging, emerged as many young people reported in multiple studies that they felt they

were part of community at their school and that there was a sense of belonging to them in

being part of the school community (Lohmann, 2009; McKeown, 2011; Mills & McGregor,

2010; Wilson et al., 2011). The third theme of empowerment of young people was clear as

many young people and staff in multiple studies described the importance placed on ensuring

young people and their needs were a focus in how they experience flexi schools (Mills &

McGregor, 2010; Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2015; Richardson & Griffin, 1994;

Shay, 2016; Wilson et al., 2011).

Flexi schools are providing many young people who had been failed by the

mainstream schooling system the opportunity to re-engage in education (te Riele, 2014). It is

increasingly evident that the way in which flexi schools deliver education is different to

mainstream schooling contexts (Mills & McGregor, 2013). This difference appears to provide

educational opportunities to many young people, in particular, a large cohort of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander young people (Shay & Heck, 2015).

Despite reports throughout the literature of the presence and interactions of

Indigenous young people within flexi schools, there was no substantive published Indigenous

enrolment data that existed before a Masters study in 2013 (Shay & Heck, 2013). The

average number of Indigenous young people enrolled across the eight flexi school sites in that

study was 31.3% (Shay & Heck, 2013). This enrolment data is significantly higher than the

Queensland Indigenous population data, which is an estimated average of 3% (ABS, 2011).

Moreover, it is also considerably higher than the school enrolment data presented by the

Department of Education at 8.7% (Department of Education Training and Employment,

2014) and Queensland Independent Schools at 3.4% (Independent Schools Queensland,

2013). Furthermore, the data on Indigenous staff employed revealed that Indigenous staff

were also disproportionately overrepresented, with the proportion of Indigenous staff to non-

8

Indigenous staff reported at 29.5% (Shay, 2013). As te Riele (2014) has recently identified

that over 70, 000 young people are engaged in flexi schools nationally, considerable caution

is applied in generalising these results. However, the data clearly indicated in this diverse

sample of eight flexi schools in Queensland that there appears to be the high engagement of

both Indigenous young people and staff in flexi schooling contexts. High engagement has

also been supported by Mills and McGregor (2013) who also identified that while a diverse

cohort attend flexi schools, there appear to be high numbers of Indigenous young people

engaged in this model of education.

There is caution in theorising the reasons why disproportionately high representation

of both Indigenous students and staff are engaged in flexi school settings, particularly as there

have been no large-scale studies to investigate this. However, the existing empirical literature

on flexi schooling environments and Indigenous engagement demonstrably support that there

is a connection between flexi schooling contexts and what is known to support the

engagement of Indigenous peoples in education settings. Additionally, my Aboriginal lens

and experience as an educator in multiple flexi school settings assisted in bringing these

multiple factors together to propose possible connections. Figure 2 is a diagrammatical

mapping of how key themes to emerge from the literature on flexi schools and Indigenous

engagement in education settings are connected:

INSERT DIAGRAM

(Shay, 2013)

Relationships are the centre point of the diagram developed. Although I have no

empirical evidence to support this as yet, along with many other Indigenous scholars, I

support that relationality is indeed the most core aspect of Indigenous cultures. Relationships

and relational ways of being, knowing and doing, are fundamental to who we are. Hence, the

9

clear connection emerging thus far from the literature on flexi schools is that relationships

seem to be prioritised within this schooling context.

There is an overabundance of literature and research that offer solutions to the

Indigenous education ''crisis''. There is limited existing research on Indigenous engagement in

a broad range of flexi schooling contexts. However, there is increasing evidence to suggest

that engagement between Indigenous peoples and flexi schools necessitates far more

emphasis in both education policy and research domains. The overlooking of an education

approach that appears to be engaging high numbers of Indigenous young people who had

previously disengaged from mainstream education should be viewed as a matter of urgency.

The implications of such an inquiry could be further reaching and relevant to mainstream

contexts and for teacher education provision.

Indigenous staff and roles in mainstream and flexi schools: a research synthesis of

the literature

The research project that this research synthesis of the literature is connected to is

exploring the roles of Indigenous workers, both teacher qualified and Indigenous workers

employed in other diverse roles in flexi school settings. This section will summarise the

literature on the Indigenous educative workforce in mainstream schools in Australia. Further,

although limited literature exists, a summary of the roles Indigenous staff are undertaking in

flexi schools will be discussed.

There are two distinct teaching-related positions that Indigenous people appear to

have in conventional education settings in Australia. First, Indigenous people are sometimes

employed in roles specifically designated for their Indigenous focus, variously named as

Aboriginal Education Worker; Aboriginal and Islander Education Program Officer;

Community Education Counsellor; Aboriginal and Islander Education Worker and

Indigenous Teacher Aides (Buckskin, Davis, & Hignett, 1994; Gower et al., 2011). Second,

10

others are employed as qualified teachers and principals (Australian Government, 2014a;

MATSITI, 2012).

Indigenous Education Workers

The program that initiated the creation of employment for Indigenous Workers in schools

began in the 1970s as a way of addressing education issues affecting Indigenous people. The

program had an emphasis on schools with very high Indigenous enrolments in remote areas

(Gower et al., 2011). The push came from the Whitlam Government, who acted quickly to

address the enormous educational inequality Indigenous Australians were facing. However,

by the late seventies, the issues that emerged from the appointment of Indigenous Education

Workers, began to surface (Gower et al., 2011). Buckskin et al. (1994) undertook a national

review of the roles Indigenous peoples were undertaking in schools. The report revealed that

Aboriginal Education Workers were at that time, the greatest number of staff in education

who work consistently with Indigenous students. Though the report showed the important

role Indigenous workers were playing in schools, it also exposed some concerns. Some of

these concerns included that salaries were very low, permanent employment opportunities

were inconsistent and turnover of staff was very high. Furthermore, experiences of racism (in

particular institutional racism) were common, and there were concerns about exploitation of

Indigenous workers in the roles.

Buckskin et al. also reported that the roles at that time were quite diverse. Duties of

workers included: family liaison work; counselling Indigenous students and families;

providing in-services to teachers about culture; cultural activities; sitting on committees; in

class support and general consultation work with principals, teachers and Government

agencies. Further, the MCEETYA (2000) Taskforce on Indigenous Education reinforced the

importance of employment of Indigenous peoples in equivalent permanent roles in schools.

11

The Taskforce acknowledged the vital role Indigenous peoples play in supporting Indigenous

young people in sometimes hostile and culturally maligned environments.

More recently, Gower et al. (2011) reviewed the roles of Aboriginal and Islander

Education Officer (AIEO) in the State of Western Australia. The report comes almost two

decades after Buckskin et al. (1994), though there are some similar themes that emerged

regarding concerns. Some of these issues include a lack of career pathways for AIEO's; that

merit-based processes weren't commonly used to appoint Indigenous staff; there were no

systemic efforts to record data about the effectiveness of the work undertaken by AIEOs and

there were reports that AIEOs were concerned that often teachers were unaware of their skills

(Gower et al., 2011). A combination of survey and interviews were used to collect data in

undertaking the review (prepared for the Department of Education in Western Australia). The

authors acknowledge language may be a barrier for some Indigenous participants.

There also appeared to be equal or more weight in the review about what the principal

and teacher felt about the effectiveness of the roles as opposed to Indigenous students, their

families and communities. That is not to reduce the importance of understanding what

(presumably) non-Indigenous principals and teachers think about the role. However, I

question the exclusion of the perspectives of Indigenous (and non-Indigenous students),

Indigenous parents and communities when the study was a review for a State Education

Department. A more balanced analysis would require those voices. Nonetheless, the study

reported that approximately 60% of principals and 75% of teachers believe the employment

of Aboriginal and Islander Education Officers is effective (Gower et al., 2011). These results

clearly indicate that the AIEO program still requires significant consideration from a

principal or teacher's perspective.

In the largest empirical study on Indigenous education thus far, Luke et al. (2013) also

reported findings consistent with previous studies. 'Many Indigenous education workers and

12

teachers report the experiences of marginalisation and disenfranchisement in schools with

reactive job roles and insecure working conditions' (p. 3). This study was part of a large-scale

summative evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project, a national

Federally funded project that aims to improve outcomes for Indigenous students. What

differentiates this study from Gower et al. (2011) is that the research team on this project

specifically empowered the voices of Indigenous staff, students and families. This inclusion

of Indigenous voices led to essential data on the actual experiences of Indigenous staff.

Further, it also revealed more paradoxical findings on Indigenous and non-Indigenous

perceptions. Persistently, the description that 'deficit discourses are part of the status quo in

Indigenous Education ' (p. 90) was commonly reported. This further resulted in Indigenous

Education Workers describing that they are 'overworked' (p. 89) yet at the same time schools

in many cases do not adequately utilise their knowledge and skills. Like previous studies, the

issue of lack of permanent positions and insecurity regularly surfaced. An issue not so

prominent in previous studies was the concern of Indigenous teachers and workers that

funding allocated to Indigenous education is often non-recurrent (Luke et al., 2013).

A current study by Andersen, Gower, and O'Dowd (2015) examined the Aboriginal

Education Workers (AEW) in Tasmania and pathways to becoming qualified teachers

reported similar findings and issues outlined above. Although the study focused on

identifying strategies to improve the numbers of Aboriginal Education Workers becoming

qualified teachers, there were findings that have broader implications for the AEW role.

Some of the key findings include that when an AEW feels valued, this is a motivating factor

for an AEW to enrol in a teaching degree. AEW's feel valued when principals and teachers

are supportive and inclusive of Aboriginal people; further, the authors conclude that this then

makes principals a key factor in influencing the overall culture of the school about

Indigenous discourse. While AEW's advocate that some non-Indigenous teachers need

13

professional development around cultural protocols (particularly communicating), they also

identified that some non-Indigenous teachers who include and value Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander perspectives in their classrooms were having a positive influence on

Aboriginal student identity and success.

An issue with having only Indigenous Education Workers (or equivalent roles) is that

schools are inherently hierarchical structures. In the structure of a standard conventional

school, a principal will hold the highest position, followed by deputy principal, heads of

school, teachers and finally teacher aides and ancillary staff. In the hierarchy of the school

equivalence to a teacher aide, there are issues if the only Indigenous persons on staff are in an

Indigenous Education Worker position. Prominently, the issue is that this may serve to

reinforce the position of Indigenous peoples in broader Australian society. Moreover, it posits

Indigenous staff to be viewed as a minimal priority regarding the work they are undertaking.

Sarra (2011) argues from his Aboriginal standpoint as an educator and past principal that

schools must listen to the Aboriginal staff. He further evaluates that when Aboriginal staff do

have a 'genuine say in strategic and operational matters', positive changes occur (p. 120). This

sentiment is echoed by many Aboriginal scholars who agree that Aboriginal people must be

involved in genuine, meaningful ways. Indigenous staff having authority in decision making

is crucial if there are to be any improvements made to the educational experiences of

Indigenous young people (Buckskin, 2012). However, given the hierarchical nature of

conventional schools, it would be highly dependent on individual school leaders as to the

value of Indigenous education workers hence the issues that arise from the literature

discussed above. The study by Andersen et al. (2015) that concluded that Principals play a

key role in the school climate about Indigenous discourse supports the variance in how the

value of workers is played out through the perceptions of individual principals. While no

14

other equivalent research exists on Flexi School settings, the same concerns may or may not

be held by Indigenous teachers and Indigenous Education Workers.

Qualified teachers and principals

A strategy to counter these concerns that has been acknowledged for some time now, is to

increase the number of qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers (Australian

Government, 2014a; Lampert & Burnett, 2012; Reid, Santoro, Crawford, & Simpson, 2009;

Santoro, Reid, Crawford, & Simpson, 2011). While there are early records of unqualified

Aboriginal teachers on 'mission schools and on stations' (Patton, Lee Hong, Lampert, Burnett,

& Anderson, 2012, p. 13), systemic efforts to develop a significant cohort of Indigenous

teachers did not emerge until the 1980s. At this time, Paul Hughes eminently called for 1000

teachers by 1990 (Lane, 1991). This target was not achieved. However, the agenda was

reborn when the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative was funded

for four years by the Australian Government to increase the numbers of Indigenous teachers

in classrooms (MATSITI, 2012). This multifaceted project is exploring the reasons behind

the low numbers and developing strategies to overcome these concerns.

The value of having more qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers and

principals, such as providing positive role models (Malin, 1994; Shay & Heck, 2013) and

support for Indigenous students (Patton, Lee Hong, Lampert, Burnett, & Anderson, 2012) is

well established. However, the general body of literature on Indigenous participation suggests

that like the data on school completion rates, Indigenous people are significantly under-

represented compared to their non-Indigenous peers. This data means that there are

considerable barriers to overcome in increasing the numbers of Indigenous teachers.

15

A workforce analysis commissioned by MATSITI of Indigenous teachers in Australia

(Australian Government, 2014) revealed that the total Indigenous teacher workforce in

Australian schools in 2014 was 1.2%. In the same period, Indigenous students comprised of

4.9% of the total student population. This data convincingly supports the need for more

Indigenous teachers based on numbers alone. However, just as underrepresented was

Indigenous principals, with only 78 in total at the time of the analysis. Once more, the

substantial differences in data between Indigenous student numbers and Indigenous staff

(including teachers and principals) suggests that there would be significant benefit in not

only having more qualified Indigenous teachers, but more Indigenous educational leaders as

well. Interestingly, the report also revealed that Indigenous teachers are more likely to be

teaching in low SES schools than other teachers' (p. 8). Why this is the case was not

explored.

However, once employed, Indigenous teachers experiences are not always easy.

Santoro et al. (2011) reported results from a study aimed at understanding the reasons behind

low Indigenous teacher numbers, including why Indigenous teachers might leave the teaching

profession. The findings outline that Indigenous teachers described feeling that there were

high expectations placed upon them. An example of this is some Indigenous teachers feeling

like they were being held responsible for all things Indigenous. This unreasonable level of

responsibility included the expectation of being the conduit between community and school

(Santoro et al., 2011). Additionally, there is a large body of 'literature and evidence to suggest

that non-Indigenous teachers in Australia simply do not know enough about how to teach

Indigenous children' (Santoro et al., 2011, p. 65) which may partially explain some of the

unreasonable expectations that are placed on Indigenous teachers.

In sum, the emphases placed on closing the educational gap and other such policies

aimed at improving Indigenous educational outcomes hasn't necessarily resulted in an

16

abundance of research that explores how Indigenous people are implicated in the work being

undertaken to remedy existing disparity in outcomes. While much of the broader Indigenous

education literature does focus on improving outcomes, most of the foci have been concerned

with the predominantly non-Indigenous education workforce finding a silver bullet approach

to using with all Indigenous students. Consequently, the important work of Indigenous staff

and educators has been relatively overlooked and reported in the literature as somewhat

undervalued. This work has been even further overlooked in flexi schools - an education

context that in contrast to mainstream school settings, appears to be engaging with

disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous young people (Shay & Heck, 2015).

Indigenous staff in flexi schools

In the flexi schooling context, there was little known about the Indigenous workforce

because of two reasons. First, flexi schools are relatively new to the education literature in

Australia. Therefore there is still a great deal that is unknown. Second, flexi schools do not

necessarily collect data in the same way that conventional schools do. A Masters research

project (Shay, 2013) was a study of how principals of flexi schools reported they were

supporting Indigenous learners in their schools. Because of the limited knowledge of

Indigenous interactions with flexi schooling contexts, there was a section of the survey that

asked specific demographic data. A total of eight flexi schools in Queensland participated,

and while the data is not generalisable or sizable in comparison to the results of the workforce

analyses above, it does provide some valuable insight. The results of the study showed that

there were significant numbers of Indigenous people employed at the flexi schools surveyed,

with the average numbers of Indigenous staff to non-Indigenous staff 29.5%. There were four

qualified Indigenous teachers employed in total, indicating that like conventional schools,

trained Indigenous teachers are significantly underrepresented. The data also established that

while staffing numbers are high, 61.3% of all Indigenous staff did not hold any formal

17

qualifications. Shay (2013) determined that the schools surveyed report Indigenous staff were

employed in a variety of roles including a chaplain, arts workers and youth workers. It is

unknown through this small research project whether Indigenous staff are undertaking duties

that are consistent with these job titles or if they are called upon because they are Indigenous

to perform duties that are outside of their roles. This gap in knowledge about the roles

Indigenous peoples are undertaking in flexi schools will be addressed through the PhD study

related to this research synthesis.

In summary, this literature review has provided the historical context of this research

by discussing how colonial legacies continue to impact on Indigenous Australians and indeed

all Australians. A discussion on the professional roles Indigenous staff are undertaking in

both conventional and flexi schools illustrates that there is a gap in the literature about what is

known about the contribution Indigenous staff are making in flexi school settings. Moreover,

it provides opportunities to consider the paradoxical nature of what has been reported in the

literature about Indigenous student engagement but specifically Indigenous staffing roles in

mainstream and flexi schooling contexts.

Mainstream and flexi school distinctions: innovation beyond the scope of the

current system?

The literature review presents noticeable contradictions and distinctions between the

roles that Indigenous peoples are undertaking in mainstream settings and flexi school

settings. While there have not been extensive studies on the roles of Indigenous staff in

mainstream schools, the research that has been undertaken has revealed that there are

considerable issues that exist for Indigenous staff in all positions in mainstream education

settings. Even less is known about Indigenous roles in flexi schools, although the emerging

literature is beginning to paint a contrasting picture. The distinctions made through the

18

revealed two key differences: Indigenous workforce size and Indigeneity in the title of the

positions held.

It was highlighted through the literature review that the very high levels of

engagement of Indigenous students and staff in flexi schools is increasingly evidenced by

emerging research (Mills & McGregor, 2013; Shay & Heck, 2015). Moreover, Shay and

Heck (2015) outline that while Indigenous staff are under-represented in mainstream settings,

Indigenous staff appear to be largely represented in flexi school settings. The representative

data also applies to Indigenous student numbers. Shay (2013) proposed through figure 1 that

the interaction of high engagement of Indigenous people in flexi schools is not merely due to

the broader disengagement of Indigenous young people in education settings. Through using

the literature about flexi schooling environments and what is known to engage Indigenous

learners, clear connections emerged.

The most relevant connection to the discussion about the Indigenous staff and

innovative educative practices is the presence of Indigenous staff and what this brings to an

education context for Indigenous learners. In my many years as a practitioner in community

services settings and in school settings, I was often called upon by my non-Indigenous

colleagues to offer 'inside insights' into how the organisation or school could better engage

with Indigenous clients. The first thing I would say is that we needed to look at how our

people are present within the organisation (relevant to whether it was a school or another

context). The presence of Indigenous peoples and cultures is a sentiment that has been written

about in scholarship for some time (Buckskin, 2012; Grace & Trudgett, 2012; Rahman, 2010;

Sarra, 2011). However, what is interesting about the data offered about Indigenous

engagement (student and staff) in the literature is that it is commonly acknowledged that

Indigenous students and staff are under-represented in mainstream settings (Mellor &

19

Corrigan, 2004; Reid et al., 2009). In contradiction, Indigenous students and staff appear to

be largely represented in flexi schools.

There are clearly far more unknown factors at play as to why there are considerable

numbers of Indigenous young people and staff in flexi schools when there is a contrasting

picture of engagement in mainstream settings. However, the alignment of high Indigenous

student and staff numbers in flexi schools provides an opportunity to explore what came first,

the chicken or the egg? Are there high Indigenous student numbers because there are high

Indigenous staff numbers? Alternatively, are there high Indigenous staff numbers because

there are high Indigenous student numbers? Irrespective of the answer, the contrast itself of

engagement data promises to proffer innovation beyond the scope of that mainstream schools

have to offer Indigenous peoples broadly.

The under-representation of Indigenous staff across the spectrum in mainstream

settings (principals, teachers and support staff) has been noted as an issue of some concern

for many years, although very little has changed. The literature review outlined some studies

about Indigenous roles across two decades that reported substantial issues yet the practices of

mainstream schools remain the same. The employment of Indigenous staff in mainstream

schools is still predominantly in ''Indigenous Education Worker'' roles. Despite the essential

roles Indigenous workers are undertaking, the racialised position of being the ''Indigenous

worker'' as opposed to being the teacher, teacher aide, chaplain, nurse, for example, who is

also Indigenous, is worthy of considering what impact this may be having on Indigenous

staffing representations in mainstream school settings.

The literature revealed that Indigenous staff in mainstream schools reported many

challenges including isolation, lack of consistency, lack of support from the broader school

community, racism and unstable employment conditions (Buckskin et al., 1994; Gower et al.,

2011). Is it possible that the racialisation of position titles in mainstream schools are the core

20

of the issues outlined above? In contrast to Indigenous staff in flexi schools, Shay (2013)

reported that not only were Indigenous staff over-represented, they were also undertaking

diverse roles including chaplain, teacher, arts worker and youth worker. Notably, most

Indigenous staff were not prefaced with their position title being the Indigenous youth worker

or the Indigenous teacher. Rather, their position titles were characterised by their professional

title as opposed to the racial or cultural identities.

Considerable caution in claiming where the innovation lies in these two key

distinction outlined, particularly as there have been no studies to date that examine this topic.

The PhD study that this literature synthesis is connected with will explore the roles of

Indigenous staff in flexi schools, using Indigenous methodologies that centre Indigenous

experiences and standpoint as essential in developing an understanding of this exploration.

Moreover, undertaking research by an Aboriginal researcher will assist in theorising the

micro factors at play that centre Indigenous epistemological and ontological positions in flexi

schools that may have considerable implications for all education settings. Despite this

developing and emerging knowledge, existing research on flexi schools and what engages

Indigenous learners (figure 1) demonstrably in interconnected. The connections support the

need for more focus on flexi schools about the broader discourse in Indigenous education.

Conclusion

The implications of this research synthesis of the literature are two-fold. First, there appears

to be a clear distinction between mainstream and flexi schools in relation to Indigenous staff .

Second, flexi schools have been relatively absent from the broader discourse about

Indigenous education. Although limited by the research undertaken thus far, flexi schools

appear to be engaging with higher numbers of students and staff. The implications of this are

that it would seem that flexi schooling contexts are much more appealing for a large cohort of

21

both Indigenous students and staff. Therefore, it is a considerable omission to ignore a

context of schooling that may offer examples of innovative practices that may be relevant for

all schools. Deeper cultural analysis is needed to explore at the micro and macro levels if

flexi schools may be able to offer broader education settings improved strategies for

increasing engagement in mainstream settings. Such analysis is particularly relevant to

current Indigenous education policy that is focused on ''closing the education gap''.

The absence of flexi schools in the broader Indigenous education agenda suggests that

approaches to Indigenous engagement in mainstream settings are dominating practice and

policy frameworks, despite evidence that there is very slow progress on outcomes (Australian

Government, 2013, 2014b, 2015). It is cautiously optimistic to presume that there is some

level of innovation in flexi schools in relation to Indigenous education, by engaging with

relatively high numbers of Indigenous students and staff and avoiding the racialisation of

position titles. I conclude by advocating the critical need for a range of evaluative and

exploratory research to investigate the role of flexi schools and Indigenous peoples, utilising

research approaches that respect and honour Indigenous peoples and input.

22

References

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. (2000). Social Justice Report. NSW.

ABS. (2011). Population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders, 30 June 2011. http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/briefs/pop-atsi-qld-2011/pop-atsi-qld-2011.pdf: Queensland Treasury and Trade.

Andersen, C., Gower, L., & O'Dowd, M. (2015). Aboriginal education workers in Tasmania becoming teachers. retreieved from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/UTAS-MATSITI-AEW-Report-July-2015.pdf.

Australian Government. (2012). Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Final Report. Retrieved from: Retrieved from http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/heaccessandoutcomesforaboriginalandtorresstraitislanderfinalreport.pdf

Australian Government. (2013). Closing the gap: Prime Minister's report 2013. Canberra: Retrieved from retrieved, November, 2014 from http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2013/00313-ctg-report_fa1.pdf.

Australian Government. (2014a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Analysis More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative retrieved November 2014 from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MATSITI-Data-Analysis-Report-2014.pdf.

Australian Government. (2014b). Closing the Gap Prime Ministers Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/docs/closing_the_gap_2014.pdf.

Australian Government. (2015). Closing the Gap Prime Minister's Report 2015. Retrieved February 2016 from https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Closing_the_Gap_2015_Report.pdf.

Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Carlson, B. (2014). The legacy of racism and Indigenous Australian identity within education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2014.969224

Buckskin, P. (2012). Engaging Indigenous students: the important relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their teachers. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education: an introduction for the teaching profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buckskin, P., Davis, C., & Hignett, B. (1994). Ar̲a kuwaritjakutu project : towards a new way stages 1 & 2 : a research project into the working conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workers, report February 1994. Canberra: Dept of Employment Education and Training.

Davis, R. (2004). Woven Histories : Torres Strait Islander identity, culture and history Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=272059

Deed, C. G. (2008). Bending the school rules to re-engage students: implications for improving teaching practice. Improving Schools, 11(3), 205-212. doi: 10.1177/1365480208097001

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2014). Educational statistics and information. retrieved November 2014 from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/enrolments.html.

Gower, G., Partington, G., Byme, M., Galloway, A., Weissofner, N., Ferguson, N., & Kirov, E. (2011). Review of the Aboriginal and Islander Education Officer Program.

23

retrieved, November, 2014 from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/aboriginaleducation/detcms/aboriginal-education/aboriginal-education/docs/aieo-review.en?cat-id=8092822: Department of Education Western Australia.

Grace, R., & Trudgett, M. (2012). It's not rocket science : the perspectives of Indigenous early childhood workers on supporting the engagement of Indigenous families in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 10-18.

Gray, M. C., Hunter, B., & Schwab, R. G. (2000). Trends in Indigenous educational participation and attainment, 1986-96. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 101-117.

Gunstone, A. (2012). Indigenous education 1991-2000: Documents, outcomes and governments. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The, 41(2), 75-84.

Independent Schools Queensland. (2013). Snapshot: 2013 State Non-Government School Census Queensland Independent School Enrolments. Retrieved from: http://www.isq.qld.edu.au/files/file/About%20Us/sector_statistics/snapshot/Snapshot2013FebEnrolmentsFinal.pdf

Lampert, J., & Burnett, B. (2012). Retention and graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in initial teacher education : a review of the literature. Paper presented at the Australian Teacher Education Association Annual Conference, Stamford Grand Hotel, Adelaide, SA. retrieved, November, 2014 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/58067/

Lane, J. (1991). South Australia's Contribution to 1000 Teachers by 1990 - New Targets for the Year 2000? Aboriginal Child at School, 19(1), 21-26.

Lohmann, J. S. (2009). Public alternative school practice: Creating spaces for reengagement and reconnection. (3385027 Ed.D.), Harvard University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304893322?accountid=13380 ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database.

Lonsdale, M. (2013). Making a difference : improving outcomes for indigenous learners. Retrieved 3 September, 2013, from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=indigenous_education

Luke, A., Cazden, C., Coopes, R., Klenowski, V., Ladwig, J., Lester, J., . . . Woods, A. (2013). A Summative Evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project : Vol 1 and Vol 2. Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane, QLD.

Malin, M. (1994). Why is Life So Hard for Aboriginal Students in Urban Classrooms? Aboriginal Child at School, 22(2), 141-154.

MATSITI. (2012). More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative. Retrieved 12 August, 2013, from http://matsiti.edu.au/

MCEETYA. (2000). Report of MCEETYA taskforce of Indigenous education. retrieved November 2014 from http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Publications/Cultural%20inclusion%20and%20ATSI/Report%20of%20the%20MCEETYA%20Taskforce%20on%20Indigenous%20Education%20%282000%29.pdf Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.

McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2012). Alternative education sites and marginalised young people: ‘I wish there were more schools like this one’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 843-862. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2010.529467

McKeown, A. (2011). Young people speak: Experiences of alternative education. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(29), 68-75.

24

Mellor, S., & Corrigan, M. (2004). The Case for Change : A review of contemporary research in Indigenous education outcomes Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=242607

Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2010). Re-Engaging Students in Education Success Factors in Alternative Schools: Youth Affairs Network QLD.

Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2013). Re-engaging Young People in Education : Learning from alternative schools Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1582678

Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2014). The art of holding complexity: a contextual influence on educator identity and development in practice in a system of alternative ‘flexi’ schools. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 579-591. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2014.900020

Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2015). Relational ways of being an educator: trauma-informed practice supporting disenfranchised young

people. International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1035344 Patton, W., Lee Hong, A., Lampert, J., Burnett, B., & Anderson, J. (2012). Report into the

retention and graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in initial teacher education. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57901.

Phillips, J., & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous Studies in Education (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson.

Price, K. (2012). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in the classroom. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education : an introduction for the teaching profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rahman, K. (2010). Addressing the Foundations for Improved Indigenous Secondary Student Outcomes: A South Australian Qualitative Study. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The, 39(1), 65-76.

Reid, J.-A., Santoro, N., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2009). Talking teacher education : factors impacting on teacher education for Indigenous people. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38, 42-54.

Richardson, M. D., & Griffin, B. L. (1994). Alternative Schools: Research Implications For Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 78(566), 105-111. doi: 10.1177/019263659407856614

Santoro, N., Reid, J., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2011). Teaching Indigenous Children: Listening To and Learning from Indigenous Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2011v36n10.2

Sarra, C. (2011). Strong and Smart – Towards a Pedagogy for Emancipation: Education for first peoples. Oxon: Routledge

Shay, M. (2013). Practices of alternative schools in Queensland in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people to remain engaged in education. (Master of Education), University of the Sunshine Coast, retrieved, January, 2015 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/71023/.

Shay, M. (2015). The perceptions that shape us: strengthening Indigenous young people's cultural identity. In T. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz, C. & Ullman, J. (Ed.), Understanding sociological theory and pedagogical practices (pp. 93-105). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Shay, M. (2016). Re-imagining Indigenous Education Through Flexi Schooling. In D. Bland (Ed.), Imagination for Inclusion (pp. 116-127). Oxon: Routledge.

Shay, M., & Heck, D. (2013). Developing shared practice to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student retention in teacher education. Journal of Indigenous Australian Issues, 16(4), 42-57.

25

Shay, M., & Heck, D. (2015). Alternative Education Engaging Indigenous Young People: Flexi Schooling in Queensland. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, FirstView, 1-11. doi: doi:10.1017/jie.2015.8

te Riele, K. (2007). Educational alternatives for marginalised youth. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(3), 53-68. doi: 10.1007/BF03216865

te Riele, K. (2012). Learning Choices: A map for the future. Retrieved, April, 2013, from http://www.ntyan.com.au/images/uploads/news_docs/20120427_LearningChoices_Map-for-the-Future_final.pdf: Dusseldorp Skills Forum.

te Riele, K. (2014). Putting the Jigsaw Together: Flexible Learning Programs in Australian Final Report. retrieved, October, 2014 from http://dusseldorp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Victoria-Institue-1-7-MB2.pdf: The Victoria Institute.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2 ed.). London: Zed Books.

Wilson, K., Stemp, K., & McGinty, S. (2011). Re-engaging young people with education and training: What are the alternatives? Youth Studies Australia, 30(4), 32-39.